| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ludoo
Joined: 18 Sep 2009
Posts: 1397
Location: Milan, Italy
Expire: 2011-12-05
|
 Posted: Tue Mar 09, 2010 9:24 am Post subject: |
 |
|
ludoo wrote:
| torbod wrote: |
| Thanx for the reply. Shall I start attacking the lens from the front or back to unscrew the optical group? I have only taken Takumars apart so far, so I'm a rookie on this one. |
Just grab the whole front of the lens with one hand, and the back screw mount with the other, and twist the front anti-clockwise. The whole optical assembly should unscrew from the focusing mount.
This contains pictures of the process. Don't apply too much force, I mean a bit of force might be necessary at first, but if it's stuck it might be that your lens has a different design, though it's a bit unlikely.
Once you have unscrewed the optical group, check the focusing assembly for shims. If there are none, there's another thing you could check: the back group is held in place with the screw that transmits aperture movement (no. 5 in the above pdf). If you remove the screw, you should be able to turn the back group so that it screws deeper towards the front. That in turn will make the whole optical group sit a bit further back when you reassemble the lens, and might well correct your problem.
Take pictures, go slowly. You will also find a lot of grease inside if the lens has not been cleaned during its life. It will probably smear the lenses, so be prepared to have to clean them afterwards, the best product I've found for this is pure acetone, available in most paint stores. Blow away dust with compressed air or an air blower, then dip a q-tip in it and pass it quickly on the lens, the acetone will dissolve the grease and evaporate instantly leaving no traces. Just be careful with acetone next the rim of the lens, as it will tend to dissolve black paint and plastic. And open your windows, keep the bottle closed at all times, and don't smoke near it or you'll go up in flames. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
torbod
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
Posts: 379
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 09, 2010 2:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
torbod wrote:
´Very good illustrations, I´ll just have to invent some smart gizmo to hold the filter ring while unscrewing.
_________________
For Sale or Trade: Pick from the list below.
Manual Lenses: CV 15 4.5 | MIR-20H 20 3.5 | Elmarit-R 28 2.8 | Flektogon MC 35 2.4 | S-M-C Tak 50 1.4 | Rollei 50 1.8 HFT | Helios 44-3 MC 58 2 | MC ROKKOR-X 58 1.2 | MacroPlanar 60 2.8 | Vega-12b 90 2.8 | Tamron 52B 90 2.5 | CZJ 135 3.5 | Jupiter-21A 200 4 | Tair-3s 300 4.5 | KOHBEPTEP K-1 | Takumar x2 |
Camera: Sony Nex 5N |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ludoo
Joined: 18 Sep 2009
Posts: 1397
Location: Milan, Italy
Expire: 2011-12-05
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 09, 2010 2:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ludoo wrote:
| torbod wrote: |
| ´Very good illustrations, I´ll just have to invent some smart gizmo to hold the filter ring while unscrewing. |
Your hands work very well, I found any gizmo unnecessary with both my Helios 44M and Jupiter 9. 
Edit: I just grabbed the preset ring, and turned anti-clockwise. If the lens is stuck it might not be a wise move, but if it's not the preset ring is sturdy enough (there are largish screws inside that act as stops for a metal ring) to act as a grip. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
torbod
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
Posts: 379
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 8:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
torbod wrote:
I tried and...
..... it didn't break into a zillion peaces....
...........it worked
There was only one shim. I removed it and unfortunately, the aperture ring gets stuck when no spacer is mounted. I'll have to make a thinner shim. So I'm halfway to a perfect lens, thanx again.
_________________
For Sale or Trade: Pick from the list below.
Manual Lenses: CV 15 4.5 | MIR-20H 20 3.5 | Elmarit-R 28 2.8 | Flektogon MC 35 2.4 | S-M-C Tak 50 1.4 | Rollei 50 1.8 HFT | Helios 44-3 MC 58 2 | MC ROKKOR-X 58 1.2 | MacroPlanar 60 2.8 | Vega-12b 90 2.8 | Tamron 52B 90 2.5 | CZJ 135 3.5 | Jupiter-21A 200 4 | Tair-3s 300 4.5 | KOHBEPTEP K-1 | Takumar x2 |
Camera: Sony Nex 5N |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ludoo
Joined: 18 Sep 2009
Posts: 1397
Location: Milan, Italy
Expire: 2011-12-05
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
ludoo wrote:
| torbod wrote: |
I tried and...
..... it didn't break into a zillion peaces....
...........it worked |
Great!
| Quote: |
| There was only one shim. I removed it and unfortunately, the aperture ring gets stuck when no spacer is mounted. I'll have to make a thinner shim. So I'm halfway to a perfect lens, thanx again. |
Ok, then what I guess happened is that your lens was serviced at some time in the past to clean the aperture blades, and when reassembling it the collar that moves the aperture was not screwed in fully.
You could try removing the small screw that transmits rotation to the aperture, and screwing the collar a half turn or more (until it does not protrude from the back) towards the front of the lens. This will eliminate friction, and allow you to a) focus to infinity and b) keep the shim.
Edit: in the repair pdf mentioned above, the screw you should remove is the one in picture 5, then unscrew the back element so that the collar does not protrude from the back, then put the screw back in and test. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ludoo
Joined: 18 Sep 2009
Posts: 1397
Location: Milan, Italy
Expire: 2011-12-05
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 2:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ludoo wrote:
I'll explain myself a bit better, with the help of an image taken from the repair guide linked above.
What you see is the optical group you unscrewed from the focusing barrel. How it works is that when you change aperture, you are in fact turning A, which presses against the screw marked with the white arrow, thus modifying aperture. The screw connects to the aperture ring and blades, which are inside B. Thus A turns, B stays fixed (it's the part that screws on the focusing barrel), and the screw follows the movement of A.
If, after removing the shim, you cannot turn the aperture, it means that A is protruding towards the back (towards the top in the picture), and drags against the inside back of the focusing barrel. Which means that B should be unscrewed a tiny bit (B moves towards the top in the picture), so that A is not protruding anymore. To unscrew B, remove the aperture screw (white arrow), unscrew B until the pin where the aperture screw mounts is visible in the next slot of A, then screw it again. This might as well fix your focusing errors. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
torbod
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
Posts: 379
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 4:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
torbod wrote:
Thanx again, superb illustration and guidance.
I followed your description as I could see that A protrudes just in line with B, which is reasonable to be the problem. (Although I also had to remove screw 6 in the PDF to be able to unscrew B).
However, this didn't solve the problem. First I thought the problem was that screw 6 protrudes too far and scratches against the bottom when mounted in the house. The screw is somewhat damaged and protrudes 0.5mm when screwed in as far as possible. There are scratch marks from the screw head in the bottom that shall not be there. So either I have to invent a thinner shim, or get a new screw nr 6 to get clearance.
The strange thing is however that I adjusted B according to your description, then I removed screw 6 fully and mounted the glass assembly in the bottom house. And still the aperture close down ring gets jammed, so there are several problems here that are combined, I guess. Perhaps it is the DOF ring that protrudes too far forward and touches the bottom part of the aperture ring.
I don´t have a proper depth meter. Otherwise I could have measured all parts and concluded on where to put the effort.
I hope that this is not regarded as off topic, perhaps someone else is interested!?
_________________
For Sale or Trade: Pick from the list below.
Manual Lenses: CV 15 4.5 | MIR-20H 20 3.5 | Elmarit-R 28 2.8 | Flektogon MC 35 2.4 | S-M-C Tak 50 1.4 | Rollei 50 1.8 HFT | Helios 44-3 MC 58 2 | MC ROKKOR-X 58 1.2 | MacroPlanar 60 2.8 | Vega-12b 90 2.8 | Tamron 52B 90 2.5 | CZJ 135 3.5 | Jupiter-21A 200 4 | Tair-3s 300 4.5 | KOHBEPTEP K-1 | Takumar x2 |
Camera: Sony Nex 5N |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
woodrim
Joined: 14 Jan 2010
Posts: 4060
Location: Charleston
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 28, 2010 2:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
woodrim wrote:
The Helios 44-2 that I have is definitely a very sharp lens. However, I don't use it very much just because I don't like the pre-set arrangement. I know other people like it, but for me I keep getting mixed up between focusing and stopping down because of being used to other lens arrangements. I also find myself always turning the stop down ring the wrong way first each time. I guess I learn slowly. Anyway, although I must admit I haven't read all of the nine pages of this post, I saw on page one that no-x reported the 44M-7 as possibly being the sharpest of the bunch. I like a sharp lens until I hear there is one sharper. Also, the 44M-7 has the traditional aperture ring I'm more used to, even though there is no A/M switch. I have just purchased a 44M-7 and look forward to making some comparisons with the 44-2. I'll probably be selling the 44-2, so if anyone is interested, just offer a fair price. Here is the lens I have purchased:
_________________
Regards,
Woodrim |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
woodrim
Joined: 14 Jan 2010
Posts: 4060
Location: Charleston
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 29, 2010 1:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
woodrim wrote:
Okay, now I've read through all the pages of this thread and don't see much said about the 44M-7. Is there a reason you folks don't use it? Did I make a mistake?
_________________
Regards,
Woodrim |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dimitrygo
Joined: 01 Apr 2009
Posts: 561
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 29, 2010 5:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
dimitrygo wrote:
| woodrim wrote: |
| Okay, now I've read through all the pages of this thread and don't see much said about the 44M-7. Is there a reason you folks don't use it? Did I make a mistake? |
This is the sharpest modification of all Helios 44 family. I mean you can probably find similarly sharp lenses among Helios 44M-4 MC - the last model before the maker has started to differentiate his lenses according to their sharpness. But 44M-7 is guaranteed to be the sharpest.
On the other hand people claim a bokeh produced by Helios 44M-4/5/6/7 MC lenses is harsher than that produced by previous models. I personally didn't find many differences but there are a lot of sample variations among these lenses. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
estudleon
Joined: 15 May 2008
Posts: 3754
Location: Argentina
|
| Posted: Sat May 01, 2010 12:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
estudleon wrote:
I had the 44 M7 and found that the pancolar 1,8/50 and the S-M-C 1,4 were sharper than the Helios, so I sold it.
I have the 44-3 but as it's 1986 version, not focus the infinite. (Not more than 5 m). But to flowers, plants, etc, goes OK. I like it particular Bokeh to certain subjects. Very distracting bokeh to others subjects in my taste.
No-X, thanks for sharing your job. It's excelent.
Rino.
_________________
Konica 2,8/100
CZJ: 4/20, 2,4/35, 1,8/50 aus jena, 3,5/135MC, Pentacon 1,8/50
Pentax S-M-C-1,4/50
Helios 44-3
Mamiya 2,8/135
Misc. : jupiter 9
Stuff used:
A) SRL
Alpa 10 D - kern macro Switar 1,9/50 -black, Kilffit apochromat 2/100.
Asahi pentax spotmatic super takumar 1,4/50
Contaflex super B tessar 2,8/50 Pro-tessar 115
Leica R3 electronic summicron 2/50 elmarit 2,8/35
Konica Autoreflex 3 (2 black and chrome one), TC, T4. 2,8/24, 3,5/28 not MC and MC, 1,8/40, 1,4/50, 1,7/50 MC and not MC, 1,8/85, 3,2/135, 3,5/135, 4/200
Minolta XG9 2,8/35, 2/45, 3,5/135
Nikkormat FTn 1,4/50, 2,8/135
Fujica ST 801, 605, 705n. 3,5/19, 1,4/50, 1,8/55, 4/85, 3,5/135.
Praktica MTL 5 and a lot of M42 lenses.
Voigtlander. Bessamatic m, bessamatix de luxe, bessamatic cs, ultramatic and ultramatic cs.
Skoparex 3,5/35, skopagon 2/40, skopar 2,8/50, skopar X 2,8/50, super lanthar (out of catalogue) 2,8/50, dinarex 3,4/90, dinarex 4,8/100, super dinarex 4/135, super dinarex 4/200, zoomar 2,8/36-83, portrait lens 0, 1 and 2. Curtagon 4/28 and 2,8/35
Canon AV1, 1,8/50
Rolleiflex SL35 and SL35 E. 2,8/35 angulon, 2,8/35 distagon, 1,4/55 rolleinar, 1,8/50 planar, 4/135 tessar, 2,8/135 rolleinar, x2 rollei, M42 to rollei adap.
Etc.
RF
Yashica Minister III
Voightlander Vito, vitomatic I, Vito C, etc.
Leica M. M2, M3 (d.s.) and M4. Schenider 3,4/21, 2/35 summaron 2,8/35 (with eyes). Summicron 2/35 (8 elements with eyes), 2/35 chrome, 2/35 black, 1,4/35 pre asph and aspheric - old -, 2/40 summicron, 2,8/50 elmar, 2/50 7 elements, 2/50 DR, 2/50 - minolta version, 1,4/50 summilux 1966 version, 1,4/75 summilux, 2/90 large version, 2/90 reduced version of 1987, 2,8/90 elmarit large version, 4/135 elmar. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
woodrim
Joined: 14 Jan 2010
Posts: 4060
Location: Charleston
|
| Posted: Sat May 01, 2010 3:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
woodrim wrote:
I've had the 44-2 for quite some time, but didn't give it much use just because of the funky aperture arrangement. I took it out recently to include in a series of test shots with a 50mm f/1.7 Minolta AF lens and my Mamiya 55mm f/1.4. The only thing that was clear to me was that the Minolta was beat by the other two. I haven't been able to determine which of the Helios and Mamiya was better. I lean toward the Mamiya for ease of use, speed, and build quality. As for sharpness, it depended on where in the frame I looked, leading me to believe the difference was due to very slight differences in my focusing. I find it difficult, especially at wide open where depth is limited, to focus multiple times at precisely the same point. However, I am certain that the Mamiya has better contrast. The color from the Mamiya and Helios were very close, but the Minolta was much different; warmer with more yellow/red.
I'm interested in adding this 44M-7 to see if it is truly any sharper. I will conduct the series of tests again, this time with four lenses, and try to come up with a better way of ensuring same focus.
I am turned on most by sharpness. Bokeh is a good thing, but my tastes are broad with what I like in that regard. However, I do realize at some point the sharpness of the lenses becomes so close that it can only be differentiated when directly compared. When looking at individual pictures at times it's hard to imagine anything sharper. This cropped Mamiya shot provides all the sharpness I really need:
_________________
Regards,
Woodrim |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dimitrygo
Joined: 01 Apr 2009
Posts: 561
|
| Posted: Sun May 02, 2010 1:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
dimitrygo wrote:
| woodrim wrote: |
I am turned on most by sharpness. Bokeh is a good thing, but my tastes are broad with what I like in that regard. However, I do realize at some point the sharpness of the lenses becomes so close that it can only be differentiated when directly compared. When looking at individual pictures at times it's hard to imagine anything sharper. This cropped Mamiya shot provides all the sharpness I really need:
|
This is already off topic but this is really a very nice shot. Do you remember the aperture used?
I think if you like the bokeh of both Helios and Mamiya at the same time you are a very lucky man  Or you just didn't try the Helios on a very busy backgrounds. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
woodrim
Joined: 14 Jan 2010
Posts: 4060
Location: Charleston
|
| Posted: Sun May 02, 2010 3:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
woodrim wrote:
dimitrygo: Ha ha hahahaha. Actually I was testing... thought someone might catch me by now. That is a manufactured shot - at least the bokeh is. The original was shot probably between f/5.6 and f/11, probably f/8 or f/11. The Mamiya has a pretty close focus, but the picture was also cropped 33.3%. I altered the bokeh in Photoshop. The shot before my bokeh alteration looked like this:
The following picture, from the same day, was probably taken at or near full aperture and has not been altered:
_________________
Regards,
Woodrim |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dimitrygo
Joined: 01 Apr 2009
Posts: 561
|
| Posted: Sun May 02, 2010 4:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
dimitrygo wrote:
| woodrim wrote: |
| That is a manufactured shot - at least the bokeh is. ... I altered the bokeh in Photoshop. |
I see, this way you will like bokeh of all lenses for sure
The picture does look a bit unnatural and this caused me to ask about the aperture. But I think with a proper background you could probably get the same effect.
Last edited by dimitrygo on Mon May 03, 2010 4:07 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
woodrim
Joined: 14 Jan 2010
Posts: 4060
Location: Charleston
|
| Posted: Mon May 03, 2010 2:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
woodrim wrote:
I gave my 44-2 another chance yesterday, just taking some pictures around the yard. I still can't warm up to this lens. It's sharp enough if I get the focus right, but not as good as my Flek close up. I was taking the usual boring flower pictures when an anol showed up with his girlfriend. He gave me a brief display of his scary throat thing just to let me know he's bad and I shouldn't mess with him.
1
2
3
4
5
_________________
Regards,
Woodrim |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blende8
Joined: 29 Sep 2007
Posts: 260
Location: Bremen, Germany
|
| Posted: Wed May 05, 2010 10:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
blende8 wrote:
Great images, woodrim!
I have a question regarding the Helios 40.
On this site, there is a lens element diagram and a cut lens model. The cut model shows 7 elements, the diagram only 6.
_________________
Best wishes, Wieland
K-1, K-5IIs
Pentax, mysterium quod absconditum fuit ... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sichko
Joined: 20 Jun 2008
Posts: 2475
Location: South West UK
|
| Posted: Wed May 05, 2010 11:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
sichko wrote:
Very nice shots of the anols.
_________________
John |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blende8
Joined: 29 Sep 2007
Posts: 260
Location: Bremen, Germany
|
| Posted: Wed May 05, 2010 1:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
blende8 wrote:
...
_________________
Best wishes, Wieland
K-1, K-5IIs
Pentax, mysterium quod absconditum fuit ...
Last edited by blende8 on Wed May 05, 2010 2:07 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dimitrygo
Joined: 01 Apr 2009
Posts: 561
|
| Posted: Wed May 05, 2010 1:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
dimitrygo wrote:
| blende8 wrote: |
Great images, woodrim!
I have a question regarding the Helios 40.
On this site, there is a lens element diagram and a cut lens model. The cut model shows 7 elements, the diagram only 6. |
Learn Russian There is a comment under the cut lens model that a filter was included by mistake |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blende8
Joined: 29 Sep 2007
Posts: 260
Location: Bremen, Germany
|
| Posted: Wed May 05, 2010 2:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
blende8 wrote:
Ha, ha, ha! 
Ok 
_________________
Best wishes, Wieland
K-1, K-5IIs
Pentax, mysterium quod absconditum fuit ... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
karabud
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Posts: 843
Location: Lodz
|
| Posted: Thu May 20, 2010 6:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
karabud wrote:
Has got anyone helios 44-3M ? I bought one and i`m waitning for delivery it seems to be very rare
_________________
http://www.flickr.com/photos/atheist_lenses/
old
http://www.flickr.com/photos/piotr_p/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JohnBee
Joined: 11 Mar 2010
Posts: 179
|
| Posted: Thu May 20, 2010 6:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
JohnBee wrote:
| karabud wrote: |
| Has got anyone helios 44-3M ? I bought one and i`m waitning for delivery it seems to be very rare |
I have two of them, an older and the newer model(full body). I don't think I payed much for them(30'ish) and they were not hard to find when I picked them up(might have changed though).
Funny thing about those HELIOS lenses, out of all the ones I've tried, my absolute favorite is the 13 blade Silver 44 version. Which seems to outperform even the 44-7 in terms of color vividness and bokeh. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
karabud
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Posts: 843
Location: Lodz
|
| Posted: Thu May 20, 2010 6:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
karabud wrote:
| JohnBee wrote: |
| karabud wrote: |
| Has got anyone helios 44-3M ? I bought one and i`m waitning for delivery it seems to be very rare |
I have two of them, an older and the newer model(full body). I don't think I payed much for them(30'ish) and they were not hard to find when I picked them up(might have changed though).
Funny thing about those HELIOS lenses, out of all the ones I've tried, my absolute favorite is the 13 blade Silver 44 version. Which seems to outperform even the 44-7 in terms of color vividness and bokeh. |
Hmm 44-3M it seems to be macro model - can you tell me what magnification is this lens ? It`s 1.5:1 ? (source http://www.ussrphoto.com/wiki/default.asp?WikiCatID=27&ParentID=2&ContentID=642)
_________________
http://www.flickr.com/photos/atheist_lenses/
old
http://www.flickr.com/photos/piotr_p/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
verdurina
Joined: 16 May 2010
Posts: 58
Location: Italy
|
| Posted: Sun May 23, 2010 4:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
verdurina wrote:
Hello everyone!
I bought a helios 44-2 for 1.2 €
it is true that some helios, mounted on Canon, when take a pic touch the mirror ruining the camera?
I have a Canon EOS 450D is dangerous for me?
_________________
if you like photography, maybe you should visit my site!
MY FLICKR
Canon EOS 450D / Digital Rebel XSi
M42 lenses: Pentacon 200mm f4 / Helios 44-2 / Helios 44m-4 MC / Helios 44m-7 / Zeiss Aus Jena DDR Tessar / Marep 135mm f3.5/ MC Zenitar 50mm f1.9 / Jupiter 37AM 135mm f3.5/ Mir-1b 37mm f2.8 / |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
