Can anyone advise how the optical quality of these lenses compares to, say, a Minolta f1.7 50mm? And does anyone know how the 44-4 differs from the 44-2?
I need a fast lens to use on my A100 and the Helios seems cheap and ok - at least so far as I can tell from googling.
Any unbiased advice woiuld be gratefuly received.
Thanks
Jeff
The quality of these lenses was always thought to be quite good. The 44-2 I believe is of the Pre-set type, where you set the aperture, wind a ring so that the lens is wide open, focus, then wind the ring in the opposite direction to stop the lens down to its pre-set aperture to take the shot. The 44-4 has an automatic diaphragm when used on M42-fit cameras, but when used with an adapter on another type of mount, the automatic diaphragm will not work, as it is operated by a push-pin on the lens being pushed by a plate inside the lens throat. As other mounts do not have this plate, there is no way that the lens can be stopped down automatically.
The best type of M42 lens to get is one with an Auto/Manual switch, so that the diaphragm can be stopped down manually. Most adapters do not have the facility to stop down the lens on non-auto/manual lenses, though there are some about, but they are difficult to find.
http://www.wikihow.com/Use-M42-Lense...Canon-EOS-DSLR for more information, albeit as regards Canon cameras
They are excellent but the Minolta 1.7 is way beyond that
By 1960s/1970s standards. I suspect that the lack of modern multicoating will turn out to be an issue if you use them with a DSLR; the difference here is that the sensor surface is shiny, unlike film, and reflections between the sensor & the lens elements can be a serious problem.The quality of these lenses was always thought to be quite good.
Russian lenses of the 1960/1970 era tended to be sharp but lacking in contrast, when used with film. Rather like good examples of uncoated lenses of a still earlier vintage.
If you're not living on the edge, you're wasting space
Indeed. It's basically a direct copy of the Zeiss Biotar, and it's a nice enough lens, but I would use it for it's softness wide open and low contrast when I wanted that effect, rather than choosing it for it's optical excellence. A better, but still dirt-cheap M42 lens is the 50mm f1.8 MC Pentacon - it's as good as just about any 50mm lens out there, and can generally be picked up for around a tenner.
Another really good lens that costs next to nothing is the 50mm f2.2 Fujinon. Pin sharp, good contrast and I can't complain about chromatic aberrations either.
...actually the Fujinon is 55mm, but close enough
From my experiences the best Helios lenses are those made in the 1960's with the bright blue coating. Later lenses with the brownish coating are not that good. Also build quality appears to have fallen off especially when they started using plastic lens barrels.
In view of earlier posts I sold both on Ebay. The 44-2 went for more than twice as much as the 44-4 even though the 44-4 was attached to a Praktica MTL50.From my experiences the best Helios lenses are those made in the 1960's with the bright blue coating. Later lenses with the brownish coating are not that good. Also build quality appears to have fallen off especially when they started using plastic lens barrels.
The Helios F2 58mm is a copy of the pre-war F2 58mm Zeis Biotar which could be found on the early Praktica models 4 and 4b etc etc. Also some Pentacon models, the Contax reflex and the Praktina as well but these were rare beasts on that camera. The external appearance of both lenses was remarkably similar.
Not to good wide open but better from 5.6 upwards. This was the Biotar, so I don't know about the Helios. Having heard about the standards of Russian quality control I imagine that some Helios models were brilliant and other crap!
I don't think it was a copy in the true sense of the word - meaning no backward engineering was involved. The Zeiss factory was in the Soviet Zone at the end of WWII. This resulted in large parts of the German camera industry including factory workers, engineers, designers, equipment etc.. being taken back to Russia as spoils of war. Some of the very early examples found on Soviet cameras may even have been manufactured by Zeiss?The Helios F2 58mm is a copy of the pre-war F2 58mm Zeis Biotar which could be found on the early Praktica models 4 and 4b etc etc. Also some Pentacon models, the Contax reflex and the Praktina as well but these were rare beasts on that camera. The external appearance of both lenses was remarkably similar.
Not to good wide open but better from 5.6 upwards. This was the Biotar, so I don't know about the Helios. Having heard about the standards of Russian quality control I imagine that some Helios models were brilliant and other crap!
No, agreed about the 'copy' aspect but just badge engineering to change the name but not the design.I don't think it was a copy in the true sense of the word - meaning no backward engineering was involved. The Zeiss factory was in the Soviet Zone at the end of WWII. This resulted in large parts of the German camera industry including factory workers, engineers, designers, equipment etc.. being taken back to Russia as spoils of war. Some of the very early examples found on Soviet cameras may even have been manufactured by Zeiss?The Helios F2 58mm is a copy of the pre-war F2 58mm Zeis Biotar which could be found on the early Praktica models 4 and 4b etc etc. Also some Pentacon models, the Contax reflex and the Praktina as well but these were rare beasts on that camera. The external appearance of both lenses was remarkably similar.
Not to good wide open but better from 5.6 upwards. This was the Biotar, so I don't know about the Helios. Having heard about the standards of Russian quality control I imagine that some Helios models were brilliant and other crap!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
