Can you explain how it's clearly deficient? I agree with the photographer that it lacks shadow detail which may well be a processing problem. On the other hand it handles contrast well at what appears to be a wide aperture in uncompromising lighting conditions, especially skin tone. It certainly doesn't look like a cheap lens image.
Originally Posted by philosomatographer
The shots taken on your lens are not 'street' images and there would need to be a direct like-for-like comparison to make a definitive statement about which is 'best'. It's not a criticism of the Heliar which I'm sure is a superlative lens given its heritage and price and I have no vested interest in the outcome, being primarily an SLR user of manual focus Canon and Nikon glass, but I believe the eye is seduced by various issues that it takes for sharpness.
As case in point many years ago I proof printed a shot taken on a 50mm Zuiko lens with 50 ASA film on Agfa Portriga at 5 x 4". A photography tutor disbelieved me that it wasn't a large format contact or at least a medium format image because at that enlargement it was to all intents grain free. The reason he did so was because the intensely textured sea wall contrasted with a white shirted man in intense sunlight gave no visual cue to interpret the film format. It was a good lens, better than good but it handled detail extraordinarily well from f8.
Apologies for banging on but I do believe quality prime lenses of similar focal length are quite hard to tell apart and almost impossible over the internet.