[rollei_list] Re: Heliar, Sonnar, Planar [WAS Re: off topic rants]

  • From: Laurence Segil <ljsegil@xxxxxxx>
  • To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 11:02:09 -0600

This could be fun!  I would actually give up my Planars before parting with
either a Heliar or Sonnar.  Stopped down, I think either can achieve a
sharpness comparable (though probably not quite equal) to the Planar, but at
large apertures they do things that most Planars cannot touch.  I think the
Heliar gives most of its special character to the OOF and transitional
regions of an image, while imparting a special glow to highlights
throughout.  I think it can impart a special character to any type of image,
not just portraiture.  To me, the Sonnar doesn't have the Heliar glow, but
can produce (when the stars are properly aligned) for the subject of an
image a wonderful melding of sharpness and a smoothing (I think through
reduced microcontrast perhaps?) that can give a portrait a most flattering
but still accurate depiction of its subject.  I cannot say whether I prefer
the Bokeh of the Sonnar or Heliar, both are wonderful and depending on the
situation may or may not differ very much, I think the Sonnar's Bokeh is
usually a little smoother.  Though I think the OOF transition of the Heliar
may be a bit more pleasing to my eye, but a tendency to exaggerate
highlights in the OOF area can, on the other hand, be a distraction from the
primary subject, depending of course on the nature of the image.  To me, the
Sonnar's special qualities are best revealed in portraiture and close work,
I think the Heliar retains its special characteristics in most any situation
and may be the more versatile optic of the two if character is sought in any
image, while the Sonnar can better produce a pinpoint sharp image when
required (light permitting smaller apertures, of course).
I may be wildly off track in my assessments, of course.  My impressions are
based on my personal use of a range of lenses and formats:  The Zeiss ZM
Sonnar 1.5/50, Rollei Sonnar 40/2.8, VC Heliar 50/3.5, Nikon rangefinder
50/1.4 (another Sonnar), the classic Zeiss 1.5/50 for the Contax II/IIIa,
and the Zeiss ZF 2.0/100 Makro-Planar (amazing Bokeh!) in 35mm use. For
medium format, the full range of Rollei/Zeiss Planar and Sonnar lenses for
the  Rollei SL66 as well as a Bessa Rangefinder 120 Folder with a
Voigtlander Heliar 80/3.5, and for large format a 210/4.5 and 300/4.5
Voigtlander Heliar lenses   (perhaps should include a 150/4.5 Voigtlander
Apo-Lanthar which is a six element derivative of the Heliar).  Probably more
important in forming my impressions is the opportunity to enjoy the work of
other, more talented, photographers on various web forums and sites, and of
course books (when the lens/shooting information is provided, which I wish
it always were for all published images, as tends to be more the rule on the
net.  Public/published work is a wonderful way to learn, but incomplete
information can diminish the benefit garnered by the reader/observer).
So, if I had to choose only one type of lens to carry with me from now to my
grave, I would be happy with any of the three (happy with any lens over
none), but would probably ultimately probably carry the Sonnar for its
excellence in most any situation (though if I had an extra pocket, and
wouldn't get caught cheating, I would cram a Heliar in there for those
specially lit scenes where its rendering of the highlights of an image
cannot be equaled (except by a few specialized large format portrait lenses
which are not part of this discussion)).  That said, I've already changed my
mind about my choice about five times since entering that penultimate
period.  How could a photographer be unhappy with any?
Let the games begin!,
Larry

On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 9:38 PM, Sanders McNew <sanders@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Okay so to pick up on Peter's query, let me expand it into territory
> not exactly on-topic, but nonetheless near and dear to the hearts
> of many assembled here.  We all love our Planars.  I am also
> smitten with the Heliar in my Medalist, and the Sonnars in my
> Teles are to die for.  (The Sonnars in the Nikkor and Zeiss LTMs
> are pretty spiffy too.)
>
> Which is best?  <Insert evil grin here.>  Which do you prefer and
> what do you see as the strengths of each?
>
>
>
> On Dec 3, 2009, at 1:07 AM, FreeLists Mailing List Manager wrote:
>
>
>
> Peter K. wrote:
>
> Here, here. And why Zeiss Planars are better than Schneiders Xenoslobs.
>
> On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 4:34 PM, <stephen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Enough, already!
> >
> > Lets get back to talking about the 'T' meter and other stuff that really
> > matters...
> >
> >
>
>
> =

Other related posts: