Re: [Leica] Heliar 4,5/15mm versus Super-Elmar-R 3,5/15mm

["Henning J. Wulff" <henningw@archiphoto.com>]

>It seem hard to believe that the BAS test laboratory found exactly the
>same results
>with both the Voigtlander (Cosina) Heliar 4,5/15mm and Leica (Zeiss)
>Super-Elmar-R 3,5/15mm.
>
>9,4/10 for the Heliar and 94/100 for the Super-Elmar regarding the
>optical performance.
>
>(9,6/10 versus 98/100 for the mechanical quality)
>
>For your information, the hereafter are the optical results
>BAS gave to some other Leica R lenses.
>
>19/2,8 = 98/100
>24/2,8 = 94/100
>28/2,8 = 96/100
>35/1,4 = 94/100
>35/2 = 94/100
>35/2,8 = 96/100
>
>No comment !
>
>I look forward to see if this is corroborated by other sources.
>
>Luggers, what are your experiences with that lens?
>
>
>Lucien

The numbers that BAS picked at the end may be the same, but the method
whereby they got there were likely quite different.

I don't have the 15 Elmar, so can't comment on its performance, but since
it is essentially the same design as the 15 Contax lens, which I have used,
I'll base my comments on that, and on the 15 Nikkor, with which I'm most
familiar, having had it for almost 20 years.

The Heliar and the Contax are very dissimilar lenses. The Contax is
strongly retrofocus, while the Heliar is only retrofocus enough to enable
metering. As a result the Contax has good eveness of illumination, the same
as my 15 Nikkor. The Heliar has fairly strong light falloff in the corners,
which some people will find excessive. I have not made densitrometric tests
on this, but I would suspect that the light falloff is about 2 stops at f/8
and smaller in the very corners. This compares to the 21 Elmarit ASPH,
which has probably just over 1 stop falloff. The Heliar also has a
different color cast than the other Leica lenses, being a bit cooler.
Ektachrome 100SW seems to be a good film with the Heliar, both through its
color rendition and the not as extreme contrast. Velvia does not do very
well, because it accentuates the corner falloff and the naturally greater
contrast range that wideangle lenses usually encompass.

After that the news gets better. The Heliar renders detail, both medium and
fine much better, and at higher contrast levels than either the Contax or
Nikkor. At the center the Contax and Nikkor are quite good, but still
nowhere near the level of the Heliar. Contrast is never as high, anywhere
in the field. This is understandable when you see the amount of glass that
the latter two have. Similarly, the flare levels of the Heliar are
significantly lower. Distortion is also lower in the Heliar, but both the
Contax and Nikkor lenses are quite good in this regard. The Contax seems to
have somewhat better flare control than the Nikkor, but not by a big margin.

As I mentioned in a previous post, the Canon 14/2.8, which I have also
tried, is a lot poorer than the Nikkor in almost every way. I also had a
quick look at the new Tamron 14, and it too has distortion levels which
make the lens completely uninteresting for me. I don't know how it does
w.r.t. resolution, contrast or flare.

In any case, the Heliar is definitely a competitive design. Whether you get
it or a Super Elmar depends on (besides which system you have) whether you
favour eveness of illumination over contrast and flare control and size.
Giving one number as a qualitative value for either of these lenses does
justice to neither and is almost silly. Almost like looking for the highest
rated lens, and buying a 180 Summicron as you first lens based on that
alone.

As an additional comment, I would like to point out that the 21 ASPH
betters the Heliar in every respect except size, price, and angle of view.
But then, if you want a 110 degree angle of view, the 21 just isn't an
option.

   *            Henning J. Wulff
  /|\      Wulff Photography & Design
 /###\   mailto:henningw@archiphoto.com
 |[ ]|     http://www.archiphoto.com