|
|
Post by wupdigoj on May 21, 2008 8:57:59 GMT -5
Hi. I own a bessa 66, with an uncoated heliar and compur rapid. The lens is not as sharp as the one in my iskra, it is just O.K. but the bokeh is much nicer. After several rolls, I have found I can not take sharp pictures consistently, due to camera shake. The shutter lever is on the left, not in the camera top, but in the lens' door. It has a frame counter and a double exposition prevention, so at the same time the lever trips the shutter, moves some mechanism as well.
I have noted that, when you press the shutter release, you feel some resistance, but this suddenly drops when the shutter is tripped, and it is very difficult not to move the camera. Result: approx. 50 % of my frames are blurred.
I want this camera for handheld only, so using a tripod is not a solution for me (if I have to carry a tripod, I could carry a bigger camera as well!).I would like to know if this is a common issue with this camera, and if there is some way to prevent it. I would be happy to disconnect the frame counter if this could help. TIA.
Javier
|
|
|
|
Post by wupdigoj on May 22, 2008 4:21:56 GMT -5
Hello Javier and welcome i am curious at what shutter speeds you are experiancing this? another idea, not as good as not needing to use anything at all, but better than having to carry around a tripod is what they used to do in the old days and have a length of small chain attached to a thread that screws into the tripod socket. one end screws into the tripod socket the other end you place under your foot and apply resistance upwards. it provides some extra stability. i dont have a bessa 66 to see, but i was unaware that the counter and exposure prevention placed any extra resistance on the shutter, this type of thing doesn't seem to affect other cameras with this system but i dont have one to look at. i have 6x9 bessa's which have the same type of shutter release and i do feel some resistance but it has not caused me any concern but it does take some getting used to as it is different to other cameras...i quite like it though. so far i find the heliar sharp in terms of resolution compared to the scoper (which is the type (or solinar)of lens the iskra is said to be based on-) but depth of field is critical to keeping what you want in focus and once the aperature opened up then the subject in the center. the heliar has a wonderful effect and is great for portraiture i find but i have seen some outstanding street and landscape results with it as well. i think the key to these overall sharp images is using the lens at its optimal setting, perhaps f8? but the way it renders the things outside DOF (as you mention its bokeh) is what makes this lens sought after. Andrew Thank you Andrew. I use 1/50 to 1/250 aprox. I don't keep records of the speed, but I have the impression I get blurred negatives at any speed. I am quite good at handholding: for example, I have got consistently sharp pictures at 1/15 with my Iskra or a TLR I also own. I will try the chain trick. I don't really know if the movement is due to the extra resistance of the counter mechanism, it was just an idea. In any case, the movement is quite evident (I can really see the camera moves thru the viewfinder). I am afraid I can not say the heliar in my camera is a great lens. Sharpness is just O.K. not better than a good triplet (it is just a bit less sharp than a kodak anastigmat in a kodak duo 620). It is miles from the industar in the iskra!!. The belar (another tessar clone) sharpness in a flexaeret is also much better than the heliar. But the bokeh is just beautiful, as you say. Thank you again. |
|
|
|
Post by wupdigoj on May 22, 2008 6:31:41 GMT -5
Hi Javier, well at 1/50 some people may experiance camera shake but in the higher speeds it obviously shouldn't be a problem so it seems you have unusual problem that without the camera in hand is difficult for me to say of course (whether the linkages and shutter are smoothly operating). the second part to your query is whether the lens is performing as it should. So it is possible to test the possibility of whether the lack of sharpness due to camera shake. this could be done using the self timer (it does have that i think doesn't it?) or cable release with the camera sitting on something firm or a tripod. If they are sharp then of course it is camera movement alone, but if the results are still not sharp then it would suggest as you say your lens is not performing as it should. and the camera shake is an additional problem to look at. sometimes when people discuss their lens performance in comparison to others. people are often overly critical but you seem to be stating that the difference between your lenses and the heliar is quite noticable [in a negative way]. whereas you really should be getting quite sharp images if everything is as it should be, if anything the difference should easily be noticable in favour of the heliar (a 5 element lens against a 3 element or 4 in 3 groups as you iskra is). you really can get tack sharp images out of them on the right settings, even an uncoated lens using transparancy film with brilliant saturated colour results. so if after the test it still fails to be sharp then i would suggest that something else is wrong...one can only guess but it could be anything from lens to film plane misallignment to the lens incorrected calibrated at infinity...a problem to be sure!- i wish i could be more helpful Thank you again, Andrew. The linkage has certainly some play, and it is not what I should say smooth. I am pretty sure most of the blurness is due to camera shake: I have checked with a flash (it does have a X sync), so the movement is not an issue. I am quite sure the lens is correctly collimated and mounted. In fact is the only folder I have owned which was spot on to begin with. The lens in the iskra is supposed to be one of the best tessars ever made, and my experience confirm this. My heliar, on the other hand is, as said, O.K. but is much softer than the one of the iskra and certainly softer than the belar (a tessar clone made in the former Chekoslovack republic). Nevertheless chromes from this lens (heliar) although not critically sharp are really beautiful. Somebody suggested that my heliar was nor really a heliar, but perhaps a voigtar with the rim changed. I have checked the reflections from the elements, and it is really a 2 cemented pars between a divergent: a true heliar. My guest is that even between these highly praised lens are bad exemplars. Perhaps a Q.C. issue. Regards Javier |
|
PeterW
Lifetime Member
Member has Passed
Posts: 3,804
|
Post by PeterW on May 22, 2008 20:15:05 GMT -5
Hi Javier,
I've followed this thread with some interest as your Bessa 66 comes in my favourite collecting area of German cameras from about 1920 to about 1950.
Having said that, I haven't got a Bessa 66 but I have a number of other Voigtländers including two 6x9 Bessas, though none of them has a Heliar lens so I can't comment on that from first hand. I have, however, seen some very sharp pictures from Heliars although the pre-war uncoated versions were low on contrast which often makes them seem less sharp when compared to a later coated Tessar type lens using later glass incorporating 'rare earth' minerals.
Sad to say that Voigtländers have never been my favourite German camera. In my fairly limited experience of them, but backed up by other collectors, the quality control on the body build was patchy.
As for the shutter release via a small lever on the opening front, I shall never understand why Voigtländer stayed with that on folders as long as they did. If they'd put the viewfinder on the other side of the camera so that the release was right-handed it might not have been too bad, but on the left of the camera it's one of the most awkward releases I've come across.
Added to that it's got a notorious reputation for getting stiff and jerky over the years. Mainly this is because of the sliding plate on the drop-down front. This plate is attached directly to the release trigger, and is held to the inside of the front by two rivets. It's also got the added complication that the release trigger folds into the camera when you close the front. After some years this sliding plate can become stiff and jerky.
Here are Neill Wright's comments in his Lens Collectors Vade Mecum. He's talking about Voigtar lenses, but his comment on the release mechanism applies whatever lens is fitted:
"The faster ones such as f3.5 on the Bessa 66 may have been less sharp (from considerable user experience
in the 1950's) but the real problem there may have been shake, as the side release on the Bessa 66 was not
as ideal as it looked, with too many linkages for perfection and a tendency to add shake rather than avoid it!"
It is possible to get the release linkage reasonably smooth, at least on the 6x9 folders. I've done a couple of them, and I'm halfway through freeing another one. I'll take a couple of pictures in a few days and post them here.
There's another point which sometimes makes the release jerky, and sometimes accounts for a lot of free play in the action. It can apply not just to Voigtländers but to quite a few folding cameras with body releases. That's the angle at which the finger on the release bar meets the trigger on the Compur, and the gap betwen the two.
I've come across several where the finger is slightly twisted so that it doesn't meet the trigger on the Compur squarely, and I've found others where the gap between the finger and the trigger is so wide that the release has too much free play before the shutter fires. If the release mechanism is at all stiff either lack of squareness or too much free play can give a very jerky action.
The position of the shutter is usually locked by a small screw which fits in a slot or hole on the mounting plate, so the only way of adjusting the action of the trigger is by judicious bending.
Here you have to be very careful. Giving the finger a slight twist with pliers to make it meet the trigger squarely isn't too bad, though it's best to use two pairs of pliers, one low down on the finger and one higher up to apply the twist.
The part which requires a lot of care is bending the finger to take up the free play. If you bend it too much you might find, when you open the camera, that the finger finds itself on the wrong side of the shutter trigger. You'll also notice that the finger has a slight 'lead-in' to try to avoid this. It's a question of trial and error - not too little but not too much. Again, I'll take a picture, probably some time next week, and post it to show what I mean.
As I said, I haven't got as Bessa 6x6, but one point you mention puzzles me a little. If I read you correctly, the release mechanism also operates the film counter (?). If that's so, it's another Voigtländer peculiarity. Why didn't they link the film counter to the film wind-on??
BTW, as well as being able to date most Compur shutters by the serial number, most Voigtländer lenses (but not all Voigtars) also carried a serial number. I have a list of these serial numbers and the dates, also courtesy of Neill Wright, and if anyone would like it I'll post it so they can copy it and print it out.
PeterW
|
|
Andrew
Lifetime Member
Posts: 243
|
Post by Andrew on May 25, 2008 23:22:50 GMT -5
Hi Peter,
i always enjoy your posts and appreciate your perpective on the various camera's, maybe because we seem to collect or enjoy cameras of the same era. your experiance and thoughts often differ from my own so i find it interesting to look at these camera's through 'someones else eyes' and sometimes re-evaluate, change or re-affirm my own impression. or at least it gives me a wider view on what other peoples experiances are or what can be problems with a particular camera.
i wish i had a bessa 66 to handle to see what differences there may be with the linkages, i can only think that considering it had the auto frame counter etc and possibly because of its shorter focal length it 'may' differ to the bessa 6x9's in some way.
anyway for the past couple of days i have been playing around with my bessa's anew to see if 'I' had any negative concerns with the shutter release and comparing them to other cameras.however at this stage i honestly cant find any negatives with my shutter release on the RF or Bessa II, infact the more i used them and compared i would have to say that they feel amost hair trigger easy (disclaimer below) and i could not get them to shake at all and in no way more difficult than any other camera.
the shutter being on the left i guess is a matter of personal preferance. if i didn't like this then it would count out a number of other camera makers eek! but for me it is quite easy, comfortable and convienient to use and i have found i dont give it a second thought unless i have been using something just prior with shutter button on the right (e.g.super ikonta). i have found that my index finger easily finds the shutter release without conciously thinking while the next two fingers curl to the first knuckle against the open front door and my pinky rests under the front door to provide suport and of course thumb behind the camera below the rangefinda wheel, for me holding it this way gives very comfortable firm support.
as for question of the quality of voigtlandas it was my impression they were highly regarded more particulay the bessa II which is often discribed as the creme' de la creme' of 6x9 folders. i dont know firrst hand of course but i have heard it said that Ziess didn't produce the bessa II after they took over because of its high build complexity and quality v economics. not that zeiss are low quality i think they could be considered a bench mark
but of course as with all camera's if they havn't been looked after particularly well or well worn then they show some faults. i have three bessa RF, the first one i purchased....i digress here but actully it was the second! the first was a minty beautifull bessa RF with scoper/yellow filter/mask that i got on ebay for 90-$100..a bargin to be sure! but the guy never sent it!!! i think he didnt want to let it go so cheaply. and after months of emailing getting the run around, he sent me another (i just wanted a refund) that i didnt want or ask for, although i ended up getting it for free in the end after he refunded my money and said to keep the camera he sent anyway as it wasn't worth the postages costs back to him!
so from this camera i have learned (and was almost put off bessa RF altogether thinking how frail, rubbishly and bent they felt, with this example!) a number of things. one of them; that it is important to take note of the chrome struts on the right when looking at them from the front. if they are not perfectly next to each other move on to a different camera, even when the seller says everything works good! they sometimes (many) have a gap between them (where one or both struts have bowed) which indicates that something has had undue pressure on the front and this causes the front to misallighn in some way, and may be as bad as the door not closing squarely-to misalighned with the film plane or possibly causes the shutter button/linkages not to work smoothly.
the next b/RF i got cheaply was very sturdy and fine except the seller had incorrectly replaced the lens with a front scale voigtar but the shutter on this is hair trigger like. so i will some time change the lens from the first (which lucky for me is a nice condition heliar and c/rapid shutter and yellow filter) and then sell it to ofset the cost of my 'third time lucky' bessa RF aquistion, a mint w/heliar and original morrocan leather (most often they had leatherette)..they do look impresive when they are all shiny and new looking!
with the bessa 1 they did change to shuter button on the top right hand side which is fine, and if that is important then its an improvement to be sure but comparing it against the others it doesn't seem any better just different IMO. if to be critical it seems to require more pressure to fire the trigger with some chance of shake--its in mint condition as well so i think i am comparing apples to apples. tho i must say that i dont particulary like the feel of this camera..compared to a bessa II it feels cheap and not as nice, tho i may be over cricticle atm
the bessa 66 i tend to think of as a pre-perkeo (post war pekeo that is) seeing how i dont think they offered it once the perkeo's were. with the perkeo they changed the trigger to button on top-right with viewfimda on the left. what i like about these is they are sooo compact! easy to use with auto wind on stop and available with synchro compur and scoper lens which is a fine lens as well. some people say they have problems with the auto film stop mechanism but i havnt had that experiance--so far it appears to me that one must simply not force something if it doesn't want to work and they need to be familar with which is the correct way to use it as there is no clear marking on the camera for which position the lever that operates it should be in and is easy to get forget and become frustrated and force it, thus causing a problem.
it will be interesting to see your photos of what you are explaining re the linkages. and if you could post your viogtlanda serial numbers that would be good to.
i have the compur shutter list--written in the back of one of my books by my own hand..not sure where i got it from...let me know if it matches with your own or how it may differ
1920-- 450 000
1922-- 500 000
1925-- 600 000
1926-- 750 000
1927-- 850 000
1928-- 950 000
1929--1000 000
1930--1150 000
1931--1500 000
1932--1800 000
1933--2250 000
1934--2700 000
1935--3200 000
1939--5400 000
cheers
Andrew
|
|
|
|
Post by wupdigoj on May 26, 2008 2:58:25 GMT -5
Thank you again for your kind answers. Mickey: I have checked (almost) all the issues you quote. The camera is indeed mechanically and optically in a very good condition, except for some play in the shutter linkage. The collimation has been carefully checked, and I use an auxiliary rangefinder to focus. In sort, I think the problem is not related to camera condition.
Finally, this weekend I took apart the top cover to see if I could do something. The shutter release actually moves the frame counter (a numbered wheel), along with some levers and pieces inside, against springs, and so on. Indeed there is a lot of force to be done to move all this mechanism. I think this is an awkward design, because normally in other cameras, the counter is moved by the film feed, not the shutter release.
My first intention was to disengage only the frame counter and retain the double exposure prevention, but I think this can not be done without permanently damaging the camera, so I only disconnected the mechanism in a way that can be undone.
Now there is no frame counter, no double exp. prevention, but the shutter release is as soft and effortless as in any camera I have tried. Now when I press the shutter lever the camera does not "jump".
I have loaded the camera with my favorite film and have shot some frames. Will this improve the sharpness?. I don't know, but I guess it will. When I develop the film I will let you know. Regards.
Javier
|
|
PeterW
Lifetime Member
Member has Passed
Posts: 3,804
|
Post by PeterW on May 26, 2008 6:17:12 GMT -5
Hi Andrew,
Our collecting interests do seem very similar. Thanks for posting your views on Voigtländer folders. I don't have any argument with left-hand shutter releases in general, provided they are on the front of the camera or on the top plate. I'm quite at home with the Exaktas for example. The Voigtländer release I find awkward to use is the one on the earlier 6x9 folders where it was a trigger on the front drop-down door. It doesn't "fall naturally to hand" to use a phrase beloved by some camera reviewers, at least for me it doesn't.
I haven't finished taking the pics of shutter releases on folders. I find, looking through some of the folders I have, that there are quite a few variations, each of which has its own peculiarities, but I hope to finish the pics sometime this week. As you're probably aware, I enjoy rescuing and restoring sadly neglected examples. I find it quite a challenge sometimes, but at least it keeps me out of mischief!
The list of Compur serial dates is the same as the one I have. It's a help in dating cameras, but you have to remember that makers often held stocks of Compurs, and lenses, in hand and, particularly on lower volume production, the shutter or lens date may be a couple of years earlier than the camera's manufacture date.
Here's the list of Voigtländer lems serial numbers which I got from Neill Wright. I'm posting it infull, complete with his notes. It's quite long, so aplogies to those for whom it doesn't have much interest.
I suggest if anyone wants it they copy it and print it before it disappears off the bottom of the thread.
"This section is based on the lens section of the Voigtländer Verein's "Checklist of Voigtländer Cameras
and Equipment" with thanks, and especial acknowledgment to their Secretary Dr C. Haupt for permission to
quote from his Table of Lens serial number dates, which extend the official ones in the Gravierungs Buchen.
The original Checklist was produced about 1975, and has been successively extended, especially after a very
valuable visit to Carl Zeiss, Oberkochen in 1977, to whom thanks are due. Since then almost uniquely, a
second listing of Voigtländer lenses has appeared in Udo Afalter's excellently illustrated book, "Voigtländer
Kameras und Objektive" publ. Lindemanns Verlag, 1998, ISBN 3-89506-137-9 so that a comparison is
possible of what seem to be independant studies. The information on the serial numbers has been extended
with data supplied to the Voigtländer Verein by Mr J. Halfweg, with information on an intermediate period
partly from Verein experience and partly from dating using Compur shutter numbers to date lenses. This last
is obviously less definite than the other data, although there were some key figures in the original registers
held in Oberkochen.
Voigtländer SERIAL NUMBERS
This data is based on the "Objektiv Gravierungs Buchen" in the archive at Carl Zeiss Oberkochen, for 1885 to
1929. Some additional notes are included, and those in italics are from other sources of unknown validity.
Eder gives a useful list of the introduction dates of new big sizes in Voigtländer Petzvals. Note that while the
metal camera began with low serial numbers, the very early part of the engraved number series is uncertain
and the lenses sold separately may possibly not be in sequence with those sold fixed to the "metal camera".
The numbers subsequently are in one series with few exceptions, and initially represent lenses made as
singles or in very small groups of items, and were listed virtually day by day.
Year Lens serial no. Notes
05/1840 First Petzval Portrait produced. In the first lenses it was accepted
practice to unscrew the front cell, fit a stop and replace the cell (Eder). Later
loose or curtain stops were used.
184? 1796 Marked "Voigtländer & Sohn in Wien"
1849 A request was made to Braunschweig for permission to open a factory, and
purchase of a site, and permission granted in 02/09/1852. This was initiated
by P.W.Voigtländer. The management there was by his son, Friedrich
Voigtländer. The optical trade in Vienna began to shrink from then on.
1852/1853 Production of lenses at Braunschweig begins. It has been suggested that at
No 4,000 production switched to Braunschweig and ended at Vienna.
(1852) (4033)
1854 4 - 5000 From about 1852-62 they are engraved "aus Wien und Braunschweig"
1856 Introduction of the 5in dia. Portrait lens at 450 talers. (Dietzler, competitor,
offered a 6in version).
1859 All portrait lenses are now fitted with the Waterhouse type stops.(Eder)
1860 Introduction of two versions of a 6in portrait lens, differing as long and
short focal lengths.(14.3kg weight, 420 talers.)(Eder)
1861 Eder gives 22/02/1862 as the day of a special holiday to celebrate the
10,000th lens being produced, at Brunswick. Eder gives production as roughly 2,000 per year to then.
1862 10,000 Now "aus Braunschweig" but still mainly Petzvals.To here, they made some
10,000/22years=454 lenses in an average year. Actually the engraving
"Wien/ Braunswcheig" continued at least up to No30,46x, and it was the "und" which was omitted.
This was the occasion for P.W.Voigtländer being knighted.(Eder gives 1866)
1864 Introduction of an 8in dia. portrait lens in answer to a lens of 7in by Busch
of Rathenow. Anton Friedrich was manager of the Vienna branch and it was
sold (normal price 1,000 talers) to Ludwig Angerer, but used for display on a
Voigtländer stand in Berlin in 1865. It was Serial No16,000.
1868 Death of the head (?Friedrich?) of the old factory in Vienna, after 120 years
production. Production there ends.Note also the timing of the Waldstein glass plant history.
1876 Voigtländer dies and Friedrich R. von Voigtländer takes over.
1878 Sale of an improved Petzval design (Frerk). This may be the f2.3.
1884 27449 Portrait, landscape, Euryscope and Wide Angle
1885 30,000 Note that 29,000/45years= only some 645 lenses in an average year.
1886 31,000 Eder reports the first nameless Euryscop was brought to him in Vienna then.
1887 32,000 Now the major production was of the Euryscope
33,704 Marked "Voigtländer & Sohn Braunschweig" so Wien finally is
omitted at about Serial Number 30-33,000
1888 34,000 Also Daguerre (Petzval?) and Landscape, Jena glass introduced.
1889 36,000 Note that "Victorias" were separately numbered - ?Possibly these
were especially large items e.g. for 10x12in plates as some very large Pertvals have been reported.
One account mentions one at a serial number below 1,000 from Braunschweig rather than Vienna.
1890 38,000 - 39496 In the 1880's production seems to be about 1,750 lenses per year. B. Coe lists a
Voigtländer 4-blade shutter from that year.
1891 40,000 Dr. Rudolph of Zeiss calculated the Anastigmat, and Voigtländer were
licencees for the new designs.
1892 41,911
1893 43,685 Collinear design patented
1894 45,431 Production now includes Collinear and Anastigmat
1895 46,454 (Anastigmat production will end here)
1896 47,771 There was now major Collinear production
1897 49,084
1898 54,168 New items were the TeleObjektiv and Cooke triplet
It was in 1898 that F.W.Voigtländer concluded that as he had no direct successor (he had 4 daughters), he
must turn the sole-owner concern into a limited liability company under the name Voigtländer & Sohn AG
with himself as Managing Director and Dr Kaempher and Dr Miethe as Directors. Dr Miethe left in 1899 to
work in Berlin, leaving Dr Hans Harting to lead the firm until he retired in 1909. He lead the firm to new
products such as microscopes, binoculars, and telescopes as well as rifle and gun sights.
1899 54,896 Collinear sort lens ("omitted 55-61,000") [Some of the omitted lenses in fact
occur in the Voigtländer Collection, so possibly this block was reserved for prototypes. But it does include
the Triple Anastigmat below and just could be used for these lenses made under license. Others seem to
occur from Voigtländer New York as explained above.]
About 1900 the business became a limited company.
1900 65,691 Triple Anastigmat (Cooke ??) Heliar lens produced.
1901 68,193
1902 70,682
1903 72,638 Lenses now include the Heliar and Apo Collinear
1904 75,479 Lenses now include the Dynar By now the employees numbered some 300 workers
+35 seniors and sales staff.1905 79,288 The manufacture of popular cameras was begun here.1906 83,477 The firm now moved to Campestrasse to a new 4 storey building.
1907 88,057 (The list omits 90,000 - 95,000)
1908 97,999 100,000 is a Heliar. This was held in the museum at Brunswick for many
years, and was later offered for sale in the UK.
"Cameras" listed inc. Karpf, Kodak, Koilos, Delta, Compound, and Polyscop.
1909 101,649 Retirement of Dr Harting.
1910 105,778 Heliar/ Unicum also Radiar, Collinear, Stereo
1911 110,347
1912 113,569 Inc. Helomar
1913 118,634 - 125,975 (Numbers 122,001 - 123,000 were for America in 1913.
1914 126,001
1915 132,726 The firm now moved production to a new site and buildings at Braunschweig-
Gliesmarode, the offices staying at Campestrasse. The plant was very busy during the War and employees
increased to 1,000 + 150 office staff.1916 137,682
1917 139,108
1918 142,853
1919 144,419
1920 154,426
1921 160,008 (It is interesting that No166,57x was fitted in a 1918 dialset Compur No337,26x.)1922 172,136
1923 194,086 The employees had decreased to 600 + 100 by now and business
was very difficult, and the firms finances in a poor state.1924 216,948
1925 227,929 f3.5 Heliar,Trinastigmat, Avus, Triare, Fokars, Vorsatz Linsen These were ssued
over the years 1923- Death of F.R. von Voigtländer, aged 79. He had no male heir, and was the last of 4
generations of Voigtländers in the firm. Two sons predeceased him. He made a great reputation soon after
he took over with the launch of the more rapid Euryscope lenses and later the Kollinears. In 1925 he sold the
firm to Schering and in 1925 they ended all production of non-photographic items. By 01/01/1927, Schering
had obtained 99% of the shares, and they amalgamated the interests they had in Wubben (albums, of Berlin)
and Dresdener Trockenplattefabfrik Richard Jahr AG to produce Voigtländer & Sohn AG. There was a
steady switch to mass production of all items to assist film sales with cheap cameras.
1926 248,505 Skopar, Voigtar, TeleDynar, Heliostigmat
1927 279,710
1928 365,562 Perkeo 6x9cm with Voigtar
1929 537,338 Photar (A Heliar No520,91x was noted in a Compur No475,01x of1922.)
1930 Bessa camera produced.
1933 A Skopar No671174 was noted in a rimset Compur No2,125,57x, of 1933.
1934 Skopars Nos 803,22x and 815,37x were noted in rimset Compurs No2,538,55x and2,565,42x. (c.1934)
1934 A Heliar No88047x was noted in a Rimset Compur No2,659,34x.
1935 A Heliar No1,026,69x was noted in a rimset Compur No3,038,80x (c.1935)
Voigtländer formed a joint company with Gevaert of Antwerp to deal in their
products, especially films. This was to last to 1945.
1934 1,000,000 included. Note a Heliar No1,052,264 was noted in a Compur Rapid No 5,107,90x, which should be a 1938 shutter number which suggests some lenses were held in stock for a while.
There is evidence that there are missing numbers about here as the maker caught up with unnumbered
lenses made earlier. The gap is thought to be at about No1.15-2.03million, corresponding to some 900,000
lens numbers. It seems to be well established as a feature among Voigtländer collectors.1937 2,000,000 included
1939-1940 It seems that No2,500,000 was probably made about the beginning of WW2.
1942 A Heliar No2,718,53x was noted in a rimset Compur No3,038,80x
There seem to be missing numbers here, possibly used on Baby Bessa cameras or wartime productions, at
about 2,600,000. It is assumed that postwar production recommenced at about No2,700,000.
1945 2,700,000
1947 3,000,000 included. Collecting experience suggests that either No3,000,000 was made later, possibly
about 1949, or that old numbers were retained and made up then.1949 Color Skopar produced.
1950 Ultron and Nokton produced. Ultrons are from about No3,16x,xxx for Prominent. Lenses from
June 1951 will be in SynchroCompur shutters. From 1952, most of these will lack serial numbers on the
outside of the shutters.
An Ultron No3,465,25x was noted on a Vitessa at shutter No7,524,xxx c1952, but another at
No3,311,24x was in a Compur Rapid with a much older number, nominally from 1940. There do seem to be
anomalies.1951(Jun)3,220,000
1952(Jan)3,300,500
1953(Jan)3,461,400
1954(Jan)3,600,000
1955(Jan)3,731,000
1956(Jan)4,001,000 Lens No4,000,000 was a Nokton and the parts were made in late 1955, but the lens
was assembled and officially numbered in 06/01/1956 to celebrate the 200th year of the foundation of the firm
in Vienna.
1956 4,000,000 included. It was in 1956 that Schering sold their interest in Voigtländer to Carl Zeiss Oberkochen.
1957(Jan)4,303,000
1958(Jan)4,514,000 Bessamatic produced and in 1959, the Zoomar lens.
1959(Jan)4,802,000
1960(Jan)5,033,000
1960 5,000,000 included
1961(Jan)5,473,000
1962(Jan)5,900,000
1963(jan)6,219,000
1964(Jan)6,423,000
1965(Jan)6,664,222.
1971 9,999,999-10,000,150 These were a special batch of Heliar lenses made in Summer 1971.
Initially production was of very small batches or singles. This changed in the early 20th century and by 1927,
batches of 2,000 Skopars or Voigtars were normal - or 1,000 Stereflektoscops. This is one of the few
occasions when camera names occur in the lens register. Much of the data for the years 1945-1965 was
supplied to the V.V. by Mr J. Halfweg."
Hope you find it useful.
PeterW
|
|
Andrew
Lifetime Member
Posts: 243
|
Post by Andrew on May 26, 2008 19:16:51 GMT -5
thank you Peter for posting the list..its the big space between 1934-and 39 that looks harder to tell precisely when a lens was produced and the war period is murky as well.....it all adds to the mystery and allure i guess!
Javier, its disappointing i am sure that you had to disconnect the functions but at least you have something you can hopefully use now!
it can be difficult to fairly compare the two different lenses considering one is coated and the other not, depending on the light and the direction it enters the lens can make all the difference to your end result. not to mention that one is a tessar design the other a heliar. the tessar is said to be one of the best vintage designs for contrast. it performs well uncoated in black and white and the coating simply makes it more contrasty.
i think Ansel Adams and some other bloke whom i forget at the moment, initialy (i read it in a book) saw the coating of lenses as a negative--they said they were not impressed losing the detail from the shadows and it was necessary to change the way they processed the film/print to overcome it...or at least to get back some of the detail.
seems like nothing has changed much! we all still have to overcome the things that change e.g.-film-chemicals-digital etc
I look forward to seeing your pictures. all things being well i expect you to have pleasing results. the tessar are contrasty i am not sure at the moment if the heliar is 'as' contrasty i will have to look myself but the heliar is very sharp in ideal conditions, and i beleive most consider it is sharper than tessar design. it may be easier for me to discribe the comparison of the uncoated heliar v coated heliar and from that will give some indication.
obviously they are the same lens so their is little if any difference in rendition or overall sharpness. In real life this means that you would be hard pressed to see the difference when shooting something like landscapes with the sun to your back (pretty old basic rule that is). In other lighting conditions the uncoated Heliar can have a lower contrast. With B&W it is easy to compensate and to print it out on a bit harder paper/filter.
With colour film it results in slightly de-saturated colours (the wider the aperature the more de-saturated) and give a very pleasing effect. In fact i think uncoated lenses in general give results that actually look sharper when using color film than in B&W. As with all un-coated lenses they can flare if you shoot into the light so I generally avoid doing that and using a hood helps with contrast and reduces the chance of flare. What I especially like about shooting with uncoated glass is the way bright highlights are rendered. There’s a different feeling to it. It’s hard to explain but it feels more natural. This effect is especially pronounced when using colour film.
if you want consistant, no fuss, acurate results using colour film most of the time then the coated tessar (industar) will likely be your preferance...but if you dont mind a slower thought evoking method of photography and composing your shots with the risk of/or intentional de-saturated colour shots then the uncoated heliar is better than great. when you get that 'certain' picture to work it is very rewarding-they can turn out super sharp and briliant colour saturation with great detail in the highlights----in this case it can provide at least a freindly argument among freinds that an uncoated lens is better than coated!
cheers
Andrew
|
|
|
|
Post by wupdigoj on May 27, 2008 2:42:10 GMT -5
I have finally developed the film, and the results are two fold. In the first place, no frames blurred (at least at 1/50), so I am now sure it was due to the camera shake. In the second place, the pictures are not as sharp as everybody say an heliar should be. As I stated previously they are fully acceptable, but lacking fine detail rendition. It is not only low contrast (which, by the way I love, specially in color), but plain lack of detail. The portraits at 5.6 are nevertheless very pleasant with a very nice out of focus areas. I don't shoot a lot of color, but I think I will keep this camera for this. For me it is more acceptable a bit of softness in color than in B&W, as Andrew said. I have noted nevertheless, that the sharpness/softness is much more uniform in this lens than in tessars: i.e. the lens is almost equally sharp (soft) at f11 than at f5.6. The tessar, on the other hand, are tack sharp at f.16 to f.8, a bit soft at 5.6 and much softer at f4. I don't know if this is a characteristic of heliars?.
By the way, the lens S.N is 2717xxx, and the compur rapid 5930xxx, so I suppose it is an early post war model. It is worth noting that the scale is in feet (an export model?) and It has no filter hinged as previous models had.
Thank you very much to all.
Javier
|
|
. 