Voigtlander Heliar Classic 50mm f1.5

Bingley said:
I like those portraits of your wife, Raid (and nice to one where she’s smiling). I also found it hard to focus this lens precisely in dim light at 1.5.
Click to expand...

Thanks. With such images I do not really insist on sharpness. I want to catch the mood.
 
Bingley said:
I like those portraits of your wife, Raid (and nice to one where she’s smiling). I also found it hard to focus this lens precisely in dim light at 1.5.
Click to expand...

I need some lights or lines or posts in the image to help my eyes to focus such lenses wide open.
 
Maybe you need a viewing (diopter) lens on the ocular of your camera. I have one too, greatly improves focusing.

gelatin silver print (heliar 50mm f1.5) leica mp

Erik.


52204039995_450f0373f6_b.jpg
 
Erik van Straten said:
Maybe you need a viewing (diopter) lens on the ocular of your camera. I have one too, greatly improves focusing.

gelatin silver print (heliar 50mm f1.5) leica mp

Erik.
Click to expand...

Another fine image by you, Erik.
Adding a diopter may not be what I want to use.
 
I get sharper images with lenses used wide open on any of my m 4/3 cameras that have 10x focus assist and IS. I can see very clearly then where to focus and the resulting images can be tack sharp. The M RF experience is different. There is no IS or AF or focus assist built in. Then again, such shortcomings can be worked around.
 
raid said:
I get sharper images with lenses used wide open on any of my m 4/3 cameras that have 10x focus assist and IS. I can see very clearly then where to focus and the resulting images can be tack sharp. The M RF experience is different. There is no IS or AF or focus assist built in. Then again, such shortcomings can be worked around.
Click to expand...

I wonder how, if you don't want to use a diopter. Forgive me my curiosity.

Erik.
 
I do not insist on complete sharpness with portraits, Erik. Do you always aim to get your portraits very sharp?
By the way, I may have a diopter somewhere at home.

I have been using the ultra fast lenses by focusing on "anything" in the image that helps me focus, and then try to make this point the point of interest. Sometimes it works well and at other times maybe not. Using a diopter may make more sense!
The VF works with LiveView, but I don't like to get such a VF.
 
raid said:
I do not insist on complete sharpness with portraits, Erik. Do you always aim to get your portraits very sharp?
By the way, I may have a diopter somewhere at home.

I have been using the ultra fast lenses by focusing on "anything" in the image that helps me focus, and then try to make this point the point of interest. Sometimes it works well and at other times maybe not. Using a diopter may make more sense!
The VF works with LiveView, but I don't like to get such a VF.
Click to expand...

My portraits don't necessarily have to be very sharp, but I do find it important that the maximum sharpness is set on one of both eyes, usually on the eye closest to the camera. However, I often find it undesirable to have a portrait very sharp, so for portraits I often use a large aperture to achieve a shallow depth of field. Some lenses are better for portraits than others.

Erik.
 
I have been using for many years lenses wide open or maybe at 2.8~4 for portraits. I also focus on the eyes.
 
Bingley said:
I’m not seeing any purple fringing. What are you referring to?
Click to expand...

sorry i wrote wrong expression - i meant chromatic aberration - its all over this photo... reminds me on first version of 7artisans 35/1.2
 

Attachments

  • photo116843.jpg
    photo116843.jpg
    66.6 KB · Views: 3
  • photo116844.jpg
    photo116844.jpg
    141.3 KB · Views: 3
  • photo116845.jpg
    photo116845.jpg
    87.9 KB · Views: 3
nzeeman said:
sorry i wrote wrong expression - i meant chromatic aberration - its all over this photo... reminds me on first version of 7artisans 35/1.2
Click to expand...

Now I think you may have a point here. The photo you’re referencing was shot at a wide aperture (although maybe not f1.5) in bright sun and the colors are definitely desaturated. This may in part be a designed-in feature of this lens when shot at wide apertures. It’s being marketed as a “soft focus” lens, after all, and with lens imperfections combined with modern coating. It could also be a result of the light and angle of the sun; other wide open photos I took that day don’t display the same washed-out colors. Robert Blu’s photo above, taken in what looks to be more controlled light, doesn’t display the same desaturation as the photo of mine you’ve referenced, but it does have a unique look to the colors. It’s a funky lens. I will need to live with mine a lot more to get a handle on how it performs at different aperatures.

For comparison purposes, here is an early bw photo I took with the Heliar Classic not long after getting the lens. It was taken at f1.5. When I look at how the lens rendered tones wide open, I wonder whether the results would be similar to the Santa Cruz Boardwalk photo had I taken the coffee shop photo in color. EE409357-58CB-4EC0-A131-D6BEFCEAC52F.jpg
 
This scene inside the fish market was taken wide open.

HeliarClassic-0--7-4K.jpg


Frank Patti is shown in the center on the left.
 
I remember some of the early comments about this lens were that it was basically getting a cheap Lomo lens lol.

But in the age where we're pushing against digital perfection (hence film), this lens looks fun. I wonder if the appeal will wear off though. It's most certainly a "my 3rd or 4th 50mm" type lens and not necessarily your daily driver.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top