CV 75mm Heliar

I bought a Voigtlander 75 Color Heliar a few weeks ago, thinking that

it would be similar to the 35mm 2.5. The 35, while not stunningly

sharp, has excellent bokeh and handles color nicely. However, the 75

has geniunely horribly bokeh in most circumstances -- on par with the

worst of my Nikkors. I'm keeping it, because it's handy to have a

short telephoto that's small enough to fit in a pocket, but it's been

disappointing. It was a surprise, too, because I'd read several

reviews praising the bokeh. In general, it's a good performer --

excellent at 5.6 -- but now that I've got it, I almost wish I'd gone

for an old screwmount 90 f/4 Elmar. I really value the "look" of a

photograph more than critical sharpness; I don't enlarge past 12x18

from 35mm anyway, and most of my stuff ends up at or around 8x10.

 

Anyone else regret buying this lens? Anyone have it and love it?

Anyone besides me notice the bokeh?

<div></div>

I bought one, and soon will be giving it to a friend who has SM Leica equipment. The lens is quite good, but too close in focal length to my 90mm Tele-Elmarit. Also, I find that it performs much better in b&w than in color. I would certainly buy another CV lens, but just not this focal length. I've not noticed anything unusual about the bokeh, but will go back and look over the few shots I've taken with the lens.

What's wrong w/the bokeh in the picture you posted, Andrew?

Andrew, do you see bad bokeh in the shot you posted? I see one spot, to the right, where there seems to be a double blur. Otherwise, for the most part, the blur circles look pretty kosher.

I had one once. I sold it, but not because of the bokeh. Bokeh is a very subjective thing, it seems - I can't see what's so terrible about it in your photo, but I guess you don't like it. If that's so, sell it. Given its price, you can't lose much.

Why not just smear some Vaseline on it, then it'll look just like a 90 Elmar.

Here's another example from the heliar.<div></div>

And here's an example of what I consider good -- the Zeiss Sonnar 50mm f/2, as copied by the Russians.<div></div>

Believe me, "the worst of Nikkors" are certainly lots worse than the posted example.

 

Under different conditions, the same lens can have good, okay or bad bokeh. In my experience, the type of background (e.g. tree branches, highlights in foliage, and wire fences are difficult to deal with), the location of the OOF highlight in the frame, how far away and how bright and big they are, the focused distance, the aperture used...all of these contribute to theresulting bokeh.

Andrew,

 

I have the 75 Heliar, and I have to say that I really like it. In fact, I think the price/performance of this lens makes it a must have for a short-tele.

 

Your examples, in my opinion, are fantastic. Nothing about the OOF areas of your images are what I would call harsh, or unpleasing.

 

I have had many people comment on the nice OOF areas of images I have made with my Heliar.

 

Just my 2 cents.

 

Erik.

Regarding Jay's remark...he seems to add very little of a constructive

nature to this forum. A pity because I'm inclined to think he's a

knowledgeable fellow.

Andrew:

 

I do not own the Heliar, but I think the bokeh on your photo is not that bad. Quite reasonable in fact.

 

I think someone once posted a picture taken with a either a 35mm F1.7 or a 50 Norton and the bokeh was horrid. That dissuaded me from purchasing that lens. I don't see anything similar from your photos that are that bad. Maybe you can furnish more examples?

That bokeh looks good to me. The worst I've ever seen was one of the new Hassy H1 lenses, which had truly appalling double images in the OOF areas. Look up the PN review!

George, anyone who regrets not having an old screwmount 90 Elmar over a C/V 75 because of some esthetic preference for the blurred areas of the shot vs the sharp areas of the subject just totally misses the whole point of photography and I doubt there's much point in trying to explain that no lens is designed with "good bokeh" in mind, "good bokeh" is simply a consequence proportional to the designers' inability to resolve aberrations.

I have to agree with the other posters -- if that's not good bokeh I don't know what is. Those are very nice looking images -- very sharp and yet very smooth. I can't imagine what you don't like.

This is a good post because it just confirms how subjective something like bokeh is. People blindly say, "Brand X has good bokeh, while brand Y always shows bad bokeh", yet this "thing" can't even be agreed on.

 

FWIW... I like the blur effect in the first image. If you had posted it and said it was made with some Leica lens, you would have got many "great shot!" posts in response. To me, it looks very "Summicron-esk"... what ever that means.

Jay, what's wrong with valuing some aesthetic quality over sharpness?

 

I like the look I get from my 35 Color Skopar, as well as my Jupiter-8. They're not the sharpest lenses in the world, but I don't need them to be. They're very, very smooth -- tree branches and the like are never a problem. It could be that I have unrealistic expectations for the Heliar because of my experience with these lenses. Or it could be that I favor a Zeiss look over Leica. . . actually, that seems unlikely, because I also have 50 3.5 Elmar clone that's pretty great. At any rate, everyone else seems to think the bokeh's all right, so I'll not worry about it -- I guess my conclusion is that I've just been conditioned by using better-than-average lenses.

 

It's easier for a slightly soft lens to look good at small print sizes, I think. Since I shoot medium format as well as 35, I don't need negs that print well at 16x20. But it is pretty nice to not have to think twice about putting complex details in the background, knowing that a lens can handle it.

I guess it is all in the eye of the beholder.

 

I did have the 75/2.5 lens and I found the performance to be very acceptable, I got some portraits w/ Fuji Reala that I was very pleased with. I ended up getting rid of it only because I got a 90 lens and I had a hard time with the framing with the 75. But I would probably pick that lens up again.

 

You can't beat it at that price point.

bokeh schmokeh

Here's the really <a href="http://www.photo.net/equipment/hasselblad/h1/fig3-h1-model.jpg">evil</a> bokeh.

Damn, that is evil. I had a Nikkor 50 1.4 that would do that under some circumstances, but it only cost $70.

To my eye the out of focus areas were pretty neat, but what really seems to stand out in those pictures in this thread taken with Heliars and with Heliars in general is the 'openness' - the sense of space. I love this signature character of the Heliars. Does anybody else see this, or do I imagine?

Re evil bokeh: like I said, highlights in/through foliage are particular difficult for ANY lens. But with Nikkors, you probably get "worse than evil" for the same type of background. :)

You guys need to get some lives. You notice the background in a picture of a woman that looks that good?!!!?