VOIGTLANDER HELIAR 105mm f/3.5 coverage

[piotr_stanislawski]

<p>Hi,<br>

I owned Heliar 10,5 cm f/3.5 single coated lens dated from 1958 (it is from Bergheil 6x9 camera) and want to use it with Graflex Century. Do someone knows if this f/3.5 lens version has much more coverage than f/4.5 version? Someone suggested so (I know it was Dynar lens design and was superior to the f/4.5 Heliar in all aspects but astigmatism). I could not find any data info about Heliars f/3.5 lenses.<br>

regards.</p>

[Troll]

<p>It's a beautiful lens, which should nicely cover 2.25x3.25 on your Century Graphic. It was considered a premium lens for the Voigtlander Bessa II.</p>

[piotr_stanislawski]

<p>Do you think it gives more movements than Heliar f/4.5 version?</p>

<p> </p>

[john_liberty]

<p>I had the same trouble researching this lens. Not much in the way of sample photos either. After experimenting w/ the 75mm version I finally broke down and bought a Bessa II w/ a 105 Color Heliar. It's amazing. I think you'll be very happy w/ yours on a 2x3 Graflex.</p>

[Troll]

<p>If you want a lot of coverage the Heliar is not your best choice. But on a Cenury Graphic there is very little movement possible, anyhow. There probably isn't significant difference between the 3.5 and the 4.5 versions.</p>

[piotr_stanislawski]

<p>Thank you for the answers.<br>

Just last question. Has it any practical importance (for making pictures) that f/4.5 Heliar lens is 58 deegre angle but f/3.5 version is 50 deegre angle?</p>

<p> </p>

[brian berry]

<p>This may shed some light: my f3.7 105mm Kodak Ektar, widely said to be a Heliar formula, covers 6x9 beautifully on my 2x3 Graphic. Sharp and evenly illuminated right to the corners, even at f 5.6. But when I move it, definition goes sharply downhill in just a few millimeters rise or shift. This is not cutoff from the mount, but a question of definition. I put the lens on a 4x5 once and shot a chrome on a distant subject, just to see. The good image circle appeared to me to be 110 millimeters. The circle of relatively even illumination was approximately 125 millimeters. More to the point, neither circle changed appreciably in size or definition when I stopped way down.</p>

[piotr_stanislawski]

<p>Thank you.</p>

[james_jacocks]

<p>My Ektar 105/3.7 is a better than decent performer by today's standards. Not bad for this 60 year old lens. My 105/3.5 Heliar (on Bessa II) is a decent lens as well but has an entirely different look to it's images. The Kodak lens makes images which might pass for Tessar or Skopar creations, whereas the Bessa II Heliar lens is not much like my Skopar 105mm (on another Bessa II). It is amazingly sharp, but you had better look closely because at first glance it looks almost unsharp! It just has much less contrast than the 4 element Tessar and Skopar lenses. It is at least as sharp but captures a lot of "air" with each image. It is a wonderful effect for landscape and environmental portraits. Not a good thing for contemporary product look. I think that there is a lot of confusion about Heliar design lenses and much of that is due to commercial fog of resellers.</p>