Andy Collins Posted October 9, 2007 Share Posted October 9, 2007 What are the differences between these two makes of lenses? To me the Heligonseems sharper, but I'm not sure if that's really the case or if it's more amatter of the particular copies that I have, but it seems to elicit a moreenthusiastic response from those who are in the know. I noticed that on evilbaya Retina IIa with the S-K lens sold for somewhere in the neighborhood of $30,while the same camera with the Heligon sold for $152. Is there a measurabledifference in performance or is this a lot of hype? I've wondered the same thingwhen looking at Agfas with either S-K lenses or Solagons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellis_davison Posted October 10, 2007 Share Posted October 10, 2007 See the post about six down from yours - some actual photos from a reflex with a Heligon. Can't tell sharpness from small image files, but some mighty nice-looking photos. It is likely that the big difference in price is rarity - nothing much wrong with the Schneiders either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan flanders Posted October 10, 2007 Share Posted October 10, 2007 I have Retinas with both lenses and frankly can't consistently tell one from the other by comparing images. Sometimes I think one is sharper wide open or perhaps has better contrast and then later it might be the other way around. In the US the Heligon is not as frequently encountered and that evokes an imaginary 'enhancement' that may or may not really apply. Either way you go you will get good images if you do everything else right! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_earussi1 Posted October 10, 2007 Share Posted October 10, 2007 I think the Heligon's popularity may have resulted from a Darkroom Techniques article some years ago which measured the Heligon as sharper than the Xenon and peaking out at f4 around 100LPM whereas the Xenon peaked at f5.6 around 90LPM. And, as mentioned above, it is also rarer in the U.S. as it was only sold in Europe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sg_adams Posted October 10, 2007 Share Posted October 10, 2007 I don't know which Schneider lens you are comparing the Heligon too, but in my medium format kit I have the 80mm Heligon, and the Schneider Xenotar of Rolleiflex fame. Similar in design I beleive (based on the Planar), and both f~2.8, and while I have used both quite a bit now, I believe the Rodenstock Heligon has an edge over the Schneider lens in sharpness. It makes a crisper image, esspecially noticeable with color transparencies. But in medium format the Xenotar is more famous; just look at some of the prices on Rolleiflex cameras. They do make nice B&W's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canfred Posted October 10, 2007 Share Posted October 10, 2007 Hi Andy , the Heligon is a six element double gauss . The closest Schneider lens is the Xenon .I think both lenses are good designs , if you compare old lenses such as these many other factors come in. The Schneider Xenotar is a five element design I think a little better at larger apertures and closer range. Cheers Manfred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_m Posted October 11, 2007 Share Posted October 11, 2007 I can guarantee that given two sets of negatives, one taken with each lens, you would not be able to tell which was which. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patric_dahl_n Posted October 11, 2007 Share Posted October 11, 2007 I have both the Retina IIc with 2,8 Xenon and Heligon, and I strongly prefer the Heligon. It's sharper. I've had a IIIc with 2,0 Heligon and that lens wasn't better than the Xenon at all. It's strange but I find the Schneider Xenar sharper than the Xenon too. Not sure if I have been unlucky with my Xenons... If you want a Retina with Heligon, choose a IIc and buy it from Germany. It will be marked in meters, if you can live with that. The Xenotar on a Rollei should be excellent. I've had a Rolleiflex E3 with the six element 3,5 Xenotar. Contrastier than the six element 3,5 Planar, but I'm not sure if it's sharper since I didn't compare them. The 3,5 Planar on my 3,5F is the sharpest Rollei lens I have at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_hahn Posted October 11, 2007 Share Posted October 11, 2007 while my xenon has some very pleasing attributes, sharpness is not its strong point (not to say it's bad, just not biting sharp). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Rance Posted October 11, 2007 Share Posted October 11, 2007 Helo Andy, Well, comparing my prints from both types last night (both f2's) I noted that the Heligon is just a tiny bit better on fine detail, but I then remembered that my photos are at the mercy of the photo lab, and that their skills (or lack of) will make a difference too. Now the 35mm and 80mm auxillary lenses are a different story - I found the Heligon versions much better, pobably due to the special mask used on the back of the rear element which cuts out any stray light (this is being adopted on some modern lenses as well I note). The Schneider versions can be quite soft (especially the 80mm) but the Rodenstock 80mm holds out well until the far corners. Ian, UK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now