I like to call this lens "The Best of the Unknown". It's overlooked in the typical 35/50/90 RF kit and if someone is just going for one lens they're more likely to pick a "normal" 35 or 50mm, not even considering the 75mm focal length as it is kind of in-between "normal" and "telephoto" in the available rangefinder lineup. But this doesn't make it a bad lens. Quite to the contrary, as I've discovered in the couple of years I've been using mine. Oh, yeah. And here's the disclaimer for those who prefer to base their opinions on MTF numbers and test shots done in controlled conditions: This review isn't for you. Don't even continue reading it. Go back to Putts and analyzing graphs. I have actually used this lens for some time and have seen the results from negative to enlargement using my normal films and development processes. This review is the result of that usage, period. I don't want to read on another forum somewhere that I don't know what I'm saying because the MTF numbers or in-lab photos blown up 10,000x show something different. Or that some phenomena, like increasing diffraction at smaller apertures, makes my statements about the sharpness of a lens invalid. I report the results I get, and one should expect to get, using the materials I use and at the enlargement sizes I normally make. If I made Costco-sized prints I would notice softness at smaller apertures. Honestly, if you are making enlargements larger then 12x16 from 35mm you really need to get re-think your chosen format. If I'm going tp print big I break out my Bronica. Simply put, my "lab" is mother nature. Heck, even if I could afford a testing lab I'd rather spend the money on rolls of bulk Tri-X, and a freezer to store them in.
 Tri-X 400 in HC-110 (H) for 14m @ 20C/Bessa R2a+CV 75/2.5 Heliar @f5.6. Why?
I had a my favorite "normal" focal length at the time: 35mm (it's currently 28mm). I had the super-wide 15/4.5 Heliar that came as part of the used Bessa R2 kit I bought off Kimo (Yahoo auctions, China). Now it was time to get something longer. At the time I wasn't very experienced with rangefinders and so I put a lot of trust in the Internet scuttlebutt on sites like APUG and the RFF. Basically, the word was don't trust an R2 with a 90mm lens. Something about the short RF baselength it had. Of course, I hadn't the slightest clue what that meant in practical terms, but who am I to contradict Saint Internet? Plus, after comparing the physical size of the Heliar versus the Lanthar on my R2, I decided that the 75/2.5 Heliar was the better choice for me.  HP5+ 400 in HC-110 (B) for 5m @ 20C/Bessa R2a+CV 75/2.5 Heliar @f5.6. Out of the Box
Purchasing this lens was actually more of a happy accident then a long-planned choice. I had gone to my local favorite RF eye-candy shop in Taipei (JS Photo) with the cash and intent to buy a used CV 28/1.9 Ultron that they had listed on their website along with a trigger winder, but upon arriving discovered that a) the Ultron had been "reserved" by someone else and b) they didn't sell the trigger winder (and no one in the area did). However, they did have used 50/1.5 Nokton, 75/2.5 Heliar, and 90/3.5 Lanthar lenses on hand...and I could pick 2 of them for less then what I had planned to spend. The 28mm Ultron would have to wait...more then a year as it turned out. I picked the Nokton and the Heliar and grabbed a taxi home. Cool. The first thing that struck me as odd about the 75mm Heliar was its size. It was thinner and lighter then the 50mm Nokton that I had bought alongside it. The Heliar was a little longer, especially with the hood attached, but not by much. This isn't to say that the Heliar is as "pocketable" as the Skopar series of lenses, but it is compact enough to fit comfortably in a coat pocket or messenger bag compartment. Handling
Yes, it's a tele. Yes, Bessas aren't the best when it comes to teles. But honestly, I haven't found this lens that much more difficult to focus then the Nokton... probably because the focal length/framelines aren't that different. The only thing that is slightly annoying here is the long-ish 1 meter minimum focusing distance. This has only bothered me a couple of times so far, most recently when trying to photograph the shoulder to elbow tattoo of a Mother Care sales associate. Because of the maximum aperture of f2.5, it isn't exactly a smoke-filled-dimly-lit bar type of lens...but 75mm probably isn't the best focal length for that environment , either. Anyway, it's more then adequate to get something hand-holdable in your average, evenly lit indoor room using 400 speed film. As with my other Cosina-Voigtlander lenses, the focusing ring had a good level of drag and the aperture ring had solid, tactile "stops" and wasn't loose. The 50/1.5 was a different story, but we're saving that for a different review.  HP5+ 400 in HC-110 (B) for 5m @ 20C/Bessa R2a+CV 75/2.5 Heliar @f5.6. Rendering
As with other CV lenses with the "Heliar" moniker, this lens isn't exactly blazingly sharp, especially when comparing it to the lenses that border it: the Nokton and Lanthar. However, it did hold its own in 8x10 enlargements with no apparent lack of sharpness. My 10x12 enlargements were adequate. I rarely print anything larger from 35mm, If I want larger prints I use a larger film format. Contrast was a little above neutral, which is okay, although I know that many B&W shooters like more "snappy" negs. If you shoot color or digital, where contrast is generally more important than tonality, this may not suit your taste. I'm a black & white tonality guy more then a contrast guy. The Heliar renders tones well enough to make me happy and have contrast neutral enough not to annoy me. Everything else is film & processing.  Classic Pan 400 (contrastiest film I know, just short of microfilm) in HC-110 (H) for 15m @ 20C/Bessa R2a+CV 75/2.5 Heliar wide open. What's the Better CV Telephoto Lens?
Cosina makes two telephoto lenses for rangefinders under the Voigtlander banner: the 75/2.5 Heliar and the 90/3.5 Lanthar. The focal length difference between then is 15mm, but remember that the difference in angle of view decreases as focal length increases. In other words, you'll see a greater difference in the 7mm between a 28mm lens and 35mm lens then the 15mm difference between these two. They may be close in angle of view, but their focal length combined with their minimum focusing distance of 1 meter makes the Lanthar a better "headshot" lens while the Heliar is really more of a "torso-up" lens. Obviously, the 75/2.5 is almost a full stop faster then the 90/3.5, but the f2.5 maximum aperture of it still isn't really quick enough to make it suitable as a low/ambient light lens. The Lanthar is a bit sharper then the Heliar, especially outside of the f5.6-f8 range, but the 75mm does render a creamier tonal range, So which is the better choice? Based on size, speed, usability, and my personal preferences with regard to image rendering, the 75/2.5 is the clear winner. The 90 goes with me only when I think that I'll specifically need it.  Classic Pan 400 in HC-110 (H) for 15m @ 20C/Bessa R2a+CV 75/2.5 Heliar @f5.6. Conclusion: the Good, the Bad, & the Ugly
Good: Decent contrast/tonality balance. Very compact for its focal length, being noticeably shorter then the 90 Lanthar and more narrow then the 50 Nokton. Bad: A maximum aperture of 2.5 is a little slow for a fixed focal length lens, but it's not too bad. Not quite as sharp as the Lanthar. Ugly: I really couldn't find anything to put here. Suggestions anyone?
|
Reviews 
