From his most recent review:

"For most applications both lenses would appear to be equal. But optically speaking the Heliar has the edge and delivers on all counts the better image quality, not by much, but it is there."

Click here for more

He, too, dreams of an M-mount version of the 0-series Anastigmat.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), May 20, 2002

Answers

Popular Photography magazine, in their March 2002 issue reviewed this lens. They listed it as one of their "Three greatest prime lenses we've ever tested" (for what ever that is worth).

The color coded chart lists "A" quality enlargements to 16 X 20 inches from f/3.5 to f/16, and "B+" quality enlargements to 20 x 24 inches at the same apertures. The worst rating was a diffraction induced "C+" 20 x 24 inch enlargement at f/22.

In the narrative of their conclusion, they state: "It's doubtful that any commercially made lens will produce superior results."

... On the other hand, this is the same magazine that trashed the 50mm and 75mm Summiluxs for their wide-open performance (April 1994).

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), May 20, 2002.

uh-oh, Glenn [Travis] won't be happy with this report...

that was a joke, Glenn. ;-)

-- Dexter Legaspi (dalegaspi@hotmail.com), May 20, 2002.

What I infer from these reviews and glowing comments about the 50/3.5 Heliar is that it's not that hard (in relative terms) to make a world- class 50mm lens if you limit the maximum aperture to f/3.5. As the maximum aperture increases, I understand that the abberrations increase four-fold (isn't that right?); therefore the overall performance suffers as the lens designer tries to balance acceptable wide-open performance with superior middle-aperture performance.

Practically, I hope that this situation translates into superior performance for the new CV 50/2.5 Skopar.

(I'm not an engineer, please don't flame me for these apparantly simple-minded comments.)

-- Skip Williams (skipwilliams@pobox.com), May 20, 2002.

My old 55mm f3.5 Micron Nikkor P out-resolves my current Suimmicron ON A RESOLUTION CHART. I'm not saying its a better lens overall,but it sure does seperate the little lines on a flat chart great.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), May 20, 2002.

a word about pop photog's "greatest prime" claim. they appear to have changed their measuring standards this year, so i'm not sure if it's possible to make a direct comparison of their q charts with past charts. i must say, however, that the heliar is an amazing achievment considering that it's in a collapsible mount.

-- roger michel (michel@tcn.org), May 20, 2002.

It appears that the Nikon 45/2.8 received similar, if not better, grades...according to Pop Photo that is.

-- Jim Tardio (jimtardio@earthlink.net), May 20, 2002.

Right Jim. That 45mm f/2.8 Nikkor was in the same issue (Mar 2002) and was one of the "three greatest" along with the Cosina 50mm f/3.5 and a limited edition Pentax 31mm f/1.8.

The color coded graphs for both lenses were very similar.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), May 20, 2002.

Since I've choosen to shot with only a Leitz M6 and Elmar-M 50mm 1:2.8, I did read EP's remarks. And you know what, EP only proves my point. How is EP testing lenses. With the Air Force test charts? Will that's all find and good, if all you're shooting are targets with only black lines on a white background. That's not what I shot. I shot real world photos with large tonal valves and large latitudes. To me, most of this lens testing is silly. Hey, if you want to be able to say, "Well, Edwin tested this lens, and it sucks when compared to this other lens." Well, that's fine and that's your approach. By the same token, I have a Voigtlander Nokton 50mm/f1.5, which Edwin ranks higher than the Summilux-M 50mm. In fact the Nokton walks all over the 'lux-M 50mm /f1.4. And I use the Nokton on a Bessa- R, and it is a great lens.

-- Glenn Travis (leciaddict@hotmail.com), May 20, 2002.

This is surprising and very interesting. Did Mr. Erwin Puts say how well the 50mm Heliar lens was likely to work on a Konica Hexar RF camera? I am thinking about buyinhg a Hexar RF and wonder if the combination would be awesome?

-- Keith Davis (leica4ever@yahoo.com), May 20, 2002.

Andy. The problem is the same as for the 50/3.5 Anastigmat which is only found on the Null Series. The 50/3.5 Heliar is bundled with the 101 Bessa commemorative, so as far as I am aware, good as it may be, you can't get it cheaply.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), May 20, 2002.

Actually Keith, I think it was E. Puts who started the whole "Hexar RF incompatability" imbroglio a year or so ago - or at least AMPLIFIED it on the Leica User's Group.

So I think HE would consider it a bad idea to try and use the Heliar on the Hexar - but thousands would not agree, and I might be wrong.

Eliot: Good point. but I expect Voigtlander to eventually make the Heliar available separately if a) sales are good or b) sales of the commemorative combo are so weak that they have lenses left begging. We may HOPE (as EP does) that Leica makes the anastigmat available in a separate mount as well, once the 0-series have finally sold out.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), May 20, 2002.

Andy. I would like to see the 50/3.5 Anastigmat in an M mount (or even SM) but I'm not holding my breath. If the 0-Series camera hasn't sold out by now, it never will. Its been around long enough for this type of an offering.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), May 20, 2002.

Hi all,

Knowing a collapsible lens first function was to permit the use of an ever-ready bag, I’d whish to know who is actually using such an equipment nowadays ?

Knowing one of the main advantage of an SFRF camera is to be able to focus properly and actually focus a very fast lens at its maximum aperture could someone explain to me the advantage of a 50 mm f/3.5 lens when this lens has no actual superiority to say a hardly cumbersome f/2 lens at used at an equivalent aperture ?

So what is that craze about those lenses (be them V-länder or Leica) which actually have no particular practical advantages, but nostalgia or fashion?

Please explain…

Friendly.

François P. WEILL

-- François P. WEILL (frpawe@wanadoo.fr), May 21, 2002.

If Erwin compliments another brand other than Leica it must be pretty good. But in the same respect since all other reviews compliment this lens he couldnt really discredit it, especially with all the recent disputes of his Leica bias. Maybe from now on I never have to hear that wild blanket claim "all Leica lenses are better then every other brand". I can laugh at phils posts but that one always hits a nerve with me. As far as left overs of the Bessa T101 that they may sell the lenses seperately, this wont happen as a second batch of these commemorative models had to be made to fill all the orders that were placed, much to the disgust of those who bought the first batch as a limited model!

-- Joel Matherson (joel_2000@hotmail.com), May 22, 2002.

"all Leica lenses are better then every other brand"

Erwin has certainly never made any such claim.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), May 22, 2002.

"So what is that craze about those lenses (be them V-länder or Leica) which actually have no particular practical advantages, but nostalgia or fashion?

Please explain… "

Nostalgia/fashion.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), May 22, 2002.