Fred Miranda wrote:
As a curiosity, I compared the CV 50/1.5 Heliar @f/2 vs Leica 50/2 Summicron Rigid v2 wide open and to my surprise, the background rendering is very similar.
So, the Heliar has the 'classic' rendering at f/2 and a very unique and glowy character wide open.
Around the center area, the Rigid is sharper than the Heliar though but one has to inspect it close to notice a difference. Both weight exactly the same at 257 grams and although the Rigid is slightly longer, it blocks less of the frame-line because it's thinner at the end of the barrel. One advantage of the Heliar is that it focuses down to 0.5m while the Rigid's MFD is 1m.
The Rigid is also narrower than 50mm. My copy shows 51.9mm.
Here are a few side-by-side crops at 50% magnification comparing their rendering a various distances.
Grenache wrote:
Those are essentially identical. Did Voigt patent bust the Leica?
The similarity in rendering between the two lenses is intriguing, but even when both lenses are used at f/2, the Leica 50/2 Rigid remains significantly sharper than the CV 50/1.5 Heliar.
Do the Heliar 1.5 and the Speed Panchro II occupy the same space? Are their objectives not the same?
It would seem the advantage would go to the CV for being smaller, faster and cheaper.
The Heliar is what it is. There are so many examples on the internet. From f1.5 is EXTREMELY soft. To the point some people hate it. The Panchro isn’t that way.
The Heliar starts to look more normal at f4 and beyond. It’s a very niche lens whereas the Panchro is more like a vintage cinematic lens.
The Panchro seems very soft wide open too. It seems like a very niche lens too. Both sharpen up and look normal at f4 and beyond.
In my experience Heliar 50/1.5 is not too soft at very close distances wide open (esp. at 0.5m MFD) but it gets softer at further distances. I really like it wide open for close distance shots and even a bit further. I've taken tons of photos with my copy. At f5.6 it's pretty sharp corner-to-corner.
I only use it adapted on my Sony A7C and Sigma fp as I have no Leica cameras.
I don't have the Panchro so can't compare to that one personally.
Desmolicious wrote:
Do the Heliar 1.5 and the Speed Panchro II occupy the same space? Are their objectives not the same?
It would seem the advantage would go to the CV for being smaller, faster and cheaper.
I would love to see a comparison between the LLL 50/2 Panchro and 50/1.5 Heliar @f/2!
Just looking at the samples in this thread versus what I’ve seen with my SP II, it looks very similar at f/2. I’d say for general stills photography, the Heliar is a closer-focusing f/1.5 version of the SP II. I think the SA of the SP II is more consistent with regard to distance, though. The Heliar mimics the Steel Rim, which both show increased SA with focused distance, and the SP II mimics the 35 Lux Pre-ASPH that had similar SA at any distance (at least with my copy that had been CLAed).
Where I imagine these lenses further differ would be rendering on video that involves panning where the flare moves across the frame. I can’t see the Heliar having as much flare, but I could be wrong.
I have a silver SL2 coming to me in the next week or so, depending on when Leica Miami receives and processes my M6 trade-in. When I get that, I’ll post some SP II samples at close focus distance using a macro adapter to see if it can come closer to the Heliar rendering wide open than it does at 0.7m. I feel like the Heliar at 0.5m at f/1.5 is much more dramatic than what I’ve seen with the SP II at f/2 and 0.7m.
highdesertmesa wrote..
I have a silver SL2 coming to me in the next week or so, depending on when Leica Miami receives and processes my M6 trade-in. ...
You already unloaded your 2022 M6? Film not your thing?
-> Sad face emoticon
Desmolicious wrote:
You already unloaded your 2022 M6? Film not your thing?
-> Sad face emoticon
At some point, I'll replace it with a black paint MP. The finish on the new M6 just doesn't appeal to me – it feels much closer to the Leica anodized camera finishes than it does to black chrome. Supposedly the M6 uses the same black paint as the M11, but the application of it to the M6 is very, very smooth, slippery almost. Leica needs to refine the application of this paint for both the M11 (too textured) and the M6 (too smooth). They need to split the difference so that the end result is closer to the feel of black chrome. Personally, I'd have been happy if they had used the Q-P soft, matte black paint on both M11 and M6. That was truly a wonderful finish.
Also yes, "film" is still an issue for me. It's frustrating to pay pro lab prices and get back prints and scans that are lesser than what I used to get from 1-hour prints from the grocery store and scans burned to CD back in the day. Modern chemicals either aren't kept fresh enough, and/or the chemicals themselves are compromised/lesser than they used to be. I have even started to wonder if the film itself is not the same. Portra for example is nowhere near what it used to be. Putting all that aside, even if the output was perfect compared to my expectations, the scans to digitize this stuff just adds back in digital noise that completely ruins the character of the film grain. I prefer taking digital images and putting film grain on it in C1, which looks more like real film grain than I get from scans of film.
highdesertmesa wrote:
At some point, I'll replace it with a black paint MP. The finish on the new M6 just doesn't appeal to me – it feels much closer to the Leica anodized camera finishes than it does to black chrome. Supposedly the M6 uses the same black paint as the M11, but the application of it to the M6 is very, very smooth, slippery almost. Leica needs to refine the application of this paint for both the M11 (too textured) and the M6 (too smooth). They need to split the difference so that the end result is closer to the feel of black chrome. Personally, I'd have been happy if they had used the Q-P soft, matte black paint on both M11 and M6. That was truly a wonderful finish.
Also yes, "film" is still an issue for me. It's frustrating to pay pro lab prices and get back prints and scans that are lesser than what I used to get from 1-hour prints from the grocery store and scans burned to CD back in the day. Modern chemicals either aren't kept fresh enough, and/or the chemicals themselves are compromised/lesser than they used to be. I have even started to wonder if the film itself is not the same. Portra for example is nowhere near what it used to be. Putting all that aside, even if the output was perfect compared to my expectations, the scans to digitize this stuff just adds back in digital noise that completely ruins the character of the film grain. I prefer taking digital images and putting film grain on it in C1, which looks more like real film grain than I get from scans of film....Show more →
Fred Miranda wrote:
Could images from the 50/1.5 Heliar from this morning:
Nice! The Heliar is appealing more and more to me, especially after I’ve read reports that the SpeedPancroII has a central blue haze flare from f8 down.
Heliar is artsy wide open, and becomes ‘normal’ stopped down.
Desmolicious wrote:
Nice! The Heliar is appealing more and more to me, especially after I’ve read reports that the SpeedPancroII has a central blue haze flare from f8 down.
Heliar is artsy wide open, and becomes ‘normal’ stopped down.
Definitely! Wide open the rendering is reminiscent of the 351.4 Lux 'pre-asph' with a nice glow, especially at mid distance. However, the aperture click moves straight to f/2 where most of the magic is gone and the lens becomes more contrasty and better corrected. Sometimes I like using it at f/1.7 (in between the 2 clicks) but there is no indentation there. I thought about adding an indentation there. At close distance outlining is very high but I do enjoy this type of rendering.
