keytarjunkie
no longer addicted
Does anyone have the 50/3.5 Heliar and the 50/2.5 Color-Skopar? I have an idea how each of these lenses renders, but I'm curious to hear which you may prefer. I'm interested in these lenses in Nikon S-mount, but I believe they are just about the same in LTM/M mount...
Not many of either made in Nikon S-mount I think, might be a little hard to find. I have both in Leica thread mount. The Skopar got off to a bad start, as someone spread the word that it was "soft", not particularly sharp, and this was repeated far and wide by those who didn't have one. So it had a poor reputation early-on. I took a chance on a used one at about half-price and didn't find it "soft" or have anything else to complain about... except a small amount of pincushion distortion. Erik van Straten uses one in Nikon mount I believe, likes it a lot and doesn't see any distortion in his.
The f/3.5 Heliar came along later, and I have to say the non-collapsing Nikon mount version is pretty strange looking. But, having the same optics as the Leica screw-mount version it should be an equal gem in use. And, not collapsible, it might well have better ergonomics.
I am not particularly sensitive to the differences in rendering of various lenses, though I have to admit there are some that just seem to have something undefinably extra. This f/3.5 Heliar is one of them I think. It's a traditional Heliar 5-element design, while the Skopar has 7, surprising for such a modest aperture. IMO the Skopar is an excellent lens too.
The f/3.5 Heliar came along later, and I have to say the non-collapsing Nikon mount version is pretty strange looking. But, having the same optics as the Leica screw-mount version it should be an equal gem in use. And, not collapsible, it might well have better ergonomics.
I am not particularly sensitive to the differences in rendering of various lenses, though I have to admit there are some that just seem to have something undefinably extra. This f/3.5 Heliar is one of them I think. It's a traditional Heliar 5-element design, while the Skopar has 7, surprising for such a modest aperture. IMO the Skopar is an excellent lens too.
Erik van Straten
Mentor
I do not have the Heliar 50/3.5, but I have the 50/2.5 Color Skopar LTM and the S Skopar 50/2.5. These lenses are not the same, but both are amongst the best 50mm lenses I've ever used.
The Color Skopar 50/2.5 is very close in performance to the Summicron rigid 50mm f/2. The Summicron is sharper in the middle of the picture but certainly not in the outer regions. Also the mechanical quality is first class. I've been using mine a lot for 18 years but she is still going strong. No problems whatsoever.
The S Skopar is a superlative lens, even better than the Color Skopar, extremely sharp. I think it is a recalculated version of the Color Skopar. By far the best 50mm lens for the Nikon rangefinders. See for yourself:
Color Skopar:
S Skopar:
keytarjunkie
no longer addicted
Thanks both of you. Erik, I know you speak very highly of the S Skopar every chance you get! The Heliar looks strange and the aperture seems finicky, but something about the rendering seems so nice and almost indescribable. On the other hand, the S Skopar is more compact and handles the same as the other Voigtlanders. I haven’t made up my mind, but I’m definitely gonna get at least one of them!
Timmyjoe
Mentor
Never used the two lenses Erik discusses, but I do have the 50/3.5 Heliar in Nikon S mount. It does look pretty funky, but I'm very happy with the way it renders. I mostly use it with my Nikon Z6, but occasionally also on my Nikon S2. It's obviously slower at f3.5 than your Summiluxes or Summicrons, and also the S Skopar and Color Skopar Erik discusses above, but if you can live with that maximum aperture, I think you'll like the rendering.
Best,
-Tim
Best,
-Tim
Ricochetrider
Member
I'm pretty well sold by now on the 50/f3.5, conical-shape Heliar lens. Been doing a bunch of research- poring over reviews etc. Seems like a nice fit for my R3m. Clearly it's a bit quirky- and I'm OK with that, as by all (or most) accounts its rendering, sharpness, and bokeh is above & beyond almost all others others.
Of course, it "seems" like I'll also *need* to get a more modern 50mm lens, for, ah... well, um.....
so I'll probably end up with the 50/f1.2 Aspherical lens- later, rather than sooner. ;-)
Cheers!
Of course, it "seems" like I'll also *need* to get a more modern 50mm lens, for, ah... well, um.....
so I'll probably end up with the 50/f1.2 Aspherical lens- later, rather than sooner. ;-)
Cheers!
Chrisrw
photomonkey
I have both of those lenses. The 50/3.5 is the nickel plated ltm. I use both on my Fuji XT-1. I love them both but haven't really scrutinized their differences as far has the images they produce. I generally use the 50/2.5 for travelling because it's small and convenient. I just mounted the 50/3.5 Heliar again and have posted shots on flickr if you want to check out and compare the images. It is quirky to use, but so much fun and renders beautiful images. earthmonkey is my Flick name if out want to check out some samples. They are my two favorite CV lenses.
