 |
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Orio
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 29950
Location: West Emilia
Expire: 2012-12-04
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2012 2:30 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Arkku wrote: | | Orio wrote: | A good copy of Helios 2/58 remains today still the best bargain one can make.
The problem is to find a good copy. |
+1
Although, I don't think finding a usable copy is much of problem. |
No, but there is a huge difference between useable and very good.
I have had a dozen different Helios-44, in the various incarnations. But only one of them could perform like this:
Whole:
100% crop:
_________________
Orio, Administrator
T*
Support the Ornano film chemicals company and help them survive!
http://forum.mflenses.com/ornano-chemical-products-t55525.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
harry tibi
Joined: 11 Nov 2011
Posts: 35
Location: nl
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2012 4:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hey all, if someone wants a 55-60 mm, you can't give the advice to buy a 50/whatsoever!  Far too easy! Something in the range of 55-60 mm. I think 58 is spot on, but my Tamron 60 wasn't too bad either. I know it's an autofocus lens, but it's fast, it's damn good, and you can focus by hand.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011
Posts: 9139
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2012 5:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Okay, if it has to be 55-60, there are two other than the Helios that can be had cheap and are stunning.
1. Petri CC Auto 1.8/55. Cost me 99p:
2. Topcon RE Auto 1.8/58. Cost me less than 30ukp:
_________________
'The question I would really consider (especially if an amateur and on a budget) is whether or not anyone (including yourself, of course) can tell the difference in any situation for which you will use the lens...and if they can, why are they burying their noses in your prints hard enough to tell the difference instead of responding to the prints emotionally and thinking about what they might mean?' - 2F/2F on apug.org
Digital: Sony NEX-3, Samsung NX100, Canon EOS 450d
35mm SLR: Konica FT-1, Konica FC-1, Konica Autoreflex T, Carena SRH760, Exakta RTL1000, Canon EOS 10qd
35mm VF: Olympus Stylus, Konica C35, Konica A4, Konica MG, Konica MT-9, Ricoh FF-9, Ricoh AF-80
35mm RF: Zorki 6, Kiev II, Kiev IV, Contax IIIa, CZJ Werra III,
Medium format: Franka Rolfix, Mess Ikonta 524/16, Voigtlander Bessa with Skopar 3.5/105, Voigtlander Bessa with Voigtar 3.5/105, Kiev 6C, Century Graphic 23, Ensign Selfix 820, Kershaw 450
MF lenses: Schneider Angulon 6.5/68, Componon-S 5.6/100, C-Claron 4.5/135, Xenar 3.5/105, Mamiya C 2.8/45, Mamiya 2.8/80, CZJ Flektogon 4/50, Biometar 2.8/80, Zodiac 3.5/30, Tominon 4.5/135, Pullin Pulnar 2.8/100
Large Format: Ernemann HEAG Series VII version II 9x12 with Kodak Anastigmat 6.3/170
Konica Hexanons 4/21, 2.8/24, 3.5/28, 2.8/35, 1.8/40, 1.4/50, 1.7/50, 1.8/50, 3.2/135, 3.5/135, 3.5/200, 4.5/300, 3.5-4.5/35-70, 4-4.6/28-135, 3.5/35-70, UC 3.5/45-100, 4/70-150, 4/65-135, UC 4/80-200. Hexars 3.5/28, 3.5/135, Konishiroku 2.8/35
Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 2.8/35, Skoparex 3.4/35, Tessar 2.8/50, Sonnar 1.5/50, Biotar 2/58, Pancolar 1.8/50, Cardinar 4/100, Zeiss-Opton Biogon 2.8/35
Meyer/Pentacons 2.8/28, Primagon 4.5/35, Trioplan 2.9/50, 1.8/50, 2.4/50, Primotar 3.5/50, Primotar 3.5/135
Topcon RE Auto Topcors 1.8/58, 3.5/135, 5.6/200
Russians: OKC1-18-1 2.8/18, OKC1-28-1 2.8/28, Jupiter-12 2.8/35, Jupiter-8 2/50, Industar-50 3.5/50, Industar-26M 2.8/50, Industar-22 3.5/50, Zenitar M2S 2/50, Helios-44-2, Jupiter-9 2/85, Jupiter-11 4/135, Tair-3C 4.5/300
Tokina 3.5/17, Nikon Auto Nikkor-N 2.8/24, Nikon Micro-Nikkor-P 3.5/55, Ross Xpress 3.5/4in, Ross Xpress 4/5in, Ross Xpress 4.5/8.5in, Wollensak APO-Raptar 10/541
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
plasticmotif
Joined: 17 Feb 2010
Posts: 54
Location: Tennessee
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2012 6:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
is there that much variation between the biotars?
if not, which one should I get?
_________________
-Mac |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
heartcat
Joined: 31 Dec 2009
Posts: 382
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2012 8:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ditto the Helio 58/2. Great little lens.
Also, dittoing the SMC Takumar 55mm 1.8. I only have a couple using this lens uploaded to flickr and they aren't the best, but will give an idea. Shot at high ISO so excuse the grain (which I actually like for the second shot).
_________________
Canon 50D; CZJ Sonnar 135mm 3.5; SMC Takumar 55mm 1.8; Helios 44-2 58mm 2; Jupiter 37-A 135mm 3.5; Jupiter 11A 135mm 4; Pentacon 135mm 2.8; Nikkor-P 105mm 2.5;(Tokina) Vivitar 35mm 2.8; Tokina RMC 28mm 2.8; Vivitar 19mm 3.8; RMC Tokina 80-200mm 4.5; RMC Tokina 35-70mm 3.5; Panagor 90mm 2.8; Asahi Pentax extension tubes; 2xAuto Prinz teleconverter M42 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
plasticmotif
Joined: 17 Feb 2010
Posts: 54
Location: Tennessee
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2012 11:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| plasticmotif wrote: | is there that much variation between the biotars?
if not, which one should I get? |
anyone?
_________________
-Mac |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Orio
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 29950
Location: West Emilia
Expire: 2012-12-04
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2012 11:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| plasticmotif wrote: | | plasticmotif wrote: | is there that much variation between the biotars?
if not, which one should I get? |
anyone? |
I only have had one Biotar 2/58, so my experience is not as wide as for the Helios-44
My Biotar is very good, slightly different and better in bokeh than the Helios-44
My best copy of Helios-44 is perhaps infinitesimally sharper than the Biotar though.
All in all not huge differences.
If you pick a very good Helios-44, it is going to be like a Biotar or even a bit sharper
If you pick a bad copy of Helios-44, it is going to be much worse (flaring, soft, etc.)
I think overall Biotar may be a safer buy - but Helios-44 certainly a much smaller expense.
_________________
Orio, Administrator
T*
Support the Ornano film chemicals company and help them survive!
http://forum.mflenses.com/ornano-chemical-products-t55525.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DSG
Joined: 04 Mar 2007
Posts: 533
Location: London, UK.
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2012 12:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| std wrote: | | You may consider Rokkor 1.4/58 and Canon FL 1.2/55 - but they are comparatively large and not that stellar. . |
Huh? The Canon FL 55mm f1.2 is one of the most stellar lenses I own! The only reason its very cheap to buy is because optical FL/FD-EF adapters are'nt very popular (because they reduce image quality) and FL/FD lenses cant be adapted to Nikon mount DSLR's.
But converted to other mounts without additional optics in between, like I have done with mine, and its simply awesome. The NEX can also use FL/FD lenses via an FD-E mount adapter that does'nt need to contain any additional optics either, which is a bonus for the OP.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ForenSeil
Joined: 15 Apr 2011
Posts: 1927
Location: Kiel, Germany.
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2012 12:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| plasticmotif wrote: | is there that much variation between the biotars?
if not, which one should I get? |
They all have the about same character due the same design. But the original Carl Zeiss lenses should be in most cases superior to the Helios lenses due better quality control. It's always a safer buy. But it also reaches up to 10x of the Helios prices for that. I didn't heard anything about iQ between Carl Zeiss Biotars. If it's possible get one with a red T or red T* (T is coated, T* is very coated, I don't know if they exist though).
There are also many version of the Helios 44, some are multi-coated and some not and some have different casing but you should not care much about that. The differences between single copys of the same version are often bigger as between the different versions and theres no satisfying rule how to determine which are better without testing..
I got a very good Helios 44-2 together with Zenit M42 body for 9€ about one year ago.
Later I also got a much more expensive Helios 44-M7 which was told me be a to be the sharpest Helios 44 but the truth was that it was only sharper in the center and softer in the corners. Some say Helios 44-3 is the best but I also heard of 44-3 lemons. It's always a little gambling... I more important to get one cheap and in good condition, no matter which version.
_________________
Cameras in active use: IR/UV modified NEX-5N+EVF, NEX-C3, Pentax Q, Minolta XG9, Moskva 5 6x6 Rangefinder
Lenses in active use:
MF
Samyang 8/2.8 E-Mount, Docter-Optics Olympus 100x 1.25 finite macro lens, Tevidon 16/1.8, Tominon 17/4 (10x Macro), CZJ Tevidon 25/1.4, Novoflex Macro-Noflexar 35/3.5, Minolta MD 50/1.4, Noritsu 50.7/9.5, Samyang 85/1.4, Rodagon 105/5.6, Nikon ED 180/2.8, Novoflex 400/5.6, Celestron 500mm F3.6, Novoflex 600/8
AF:
Sigma 19mm F2.8 E-Mount, Sony SEL50F18
My Blog: http://picturechemistry.own-blog.com/
(German language) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011
Posts: 9139
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2012 2:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
There is no T* Biotar, just T.
One caveat with Biotars, they had soft coatings and were easily damaged and scratched, many you see for sale have been damaged (by people cleaning them with their shirt tie or other careless treatment) and this spoils contrast and sharpness.
That outstanding Helios-44 Orio showed performs like a Biotar, so it is possible to find a Helios-44 that is as good.
So I think it is best to say the Biotar is better but condition can remove that margin and many Biotars are not in top condition.
Here is a classic example of a scratched Biotar:
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/360441959368?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1438.l2649#ht_2642wt_1396
_________________
'The question I would really consider (especially if an amateur and on a budget) is whether or not anyone (including yourself, of course) can tell the difference in any situation for which you will use the lens...and if they can, why are they burying their noses in your prints hard enough to tell the difference instead of responding to the prints emotionally and thinking about what they might mean?' - 2F/2F on apug.org
Digital: Sony NEX-3, Samsung NX100, Canon EOS 450d
35mm SLR: Konica FT-1, Konica FC-1, Konica Autoreflex T, Carena SRH760, Exakta RTL1000, Canon EOS 10qd
35mm VF: Olympus Stylus, Konica C35, Konica A4, Konica MG, Konica MT-9, Ricoh FF-9, Ricoh AF-80
35mm RF: Zorki 6, Kiev II, Kiev IV, Contax IIIa, CZJ Werra III,
Medium format: Franka Rolfix, Mess Ikonta 524/16, Voigtlander Bessa with Skopar 3.5/105, Voigtlander Bessa with Voigtar 3.5/105, Kiev 6C, Century Graphic 23, Ensign Selfix 820, Kershaw 450
MF lenses: Schneider Angulon 6.5/68, Componon-S 5.6/100, C-Claron 4.5/135, Xenar 3.5/105, Mamiya C 2.8/45, Mamiya 2.8/80, CZJ Flektogon 4/50, Biometar 2.8/80, Zodiac 3.5/30, Tominon 4.5/135, Pullin Pulnar 2.8/100
Large Format: Ernemann HEAG Series VII version II 9x12 with Kodak Anastigmat 6.3/170
Konica Hexanons 4/21, 2.8/24, 3.5/28, 2.8/35, 1.8/40, 1.4/50, 1.7/50, 1.8/50, 3.2/135, 3.5/135, 3.5/200, 4.5/300, 3.5-4.5/35-70, 4-4.6/28-135, 3.5/35-70, UC 3.5/45-100, 4/70-150, 4/65-135, UC 4/80-200. Hexars 3.5/28, 3.5/135, Konishiroku 2.8/35
Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 2.8/35, Skoparex 3.4/35, Tessar 2.8/50, Sonnar 1.5/50, Biotar 2/58, Pancolar 1.8/50, Cardinar 4/100, Zeiss-Opton Biogon 2.8/35
Meyer/Pentacons 2.8/28, Primagon 4.5/35, Trioplan 2.9/50, 1.8/50, 2.4/50, Primotar 3.5/50, Primotar 3.5/135
Topcon RE Auto Topcors 1.8/58, 3.5/135, 5.6/200
Russians: OKC1-18-1 2.8/18, OKC1-28-1 2.8/28, Jupiter-12 2.8/35, Jupiter-8 2/50, Industar-50 3.5/50, Industar-26M 2.8/50, Industar-22 3.5/50, Zenitar M2S 2/50, Helios-44-2, Jupiter-9 2/85, Jupiter-11 4/135, Tair-3C 4.5/300
Tokina 3.5/17, Nikon Auto Nikkor-N 2.8/24, Nikon Micro-Nikkor-P 3.5/55, Ross Xpress 3.5/4in, Ross Xpress 4/5in, Ross Xpress 4.5/8.5in, Wollensak APO-Raptar 10/541
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
std
Joined: 09 Feb 2010
Posts: 1476
Location: Bulgaria
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2012 7:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
I had 2 different 2/58 Biotars - both were good lenses.
The first one in alu finish, preset, fat one from late 60-ies with T coating - this one was better in terms of flare resistance and sharpness.
And the one i still have is one of the first generation ones - small one, black, T coating, with bubbles in the glass. This one has very different character, it glows a bit wide open and it is sharper in the center. Flares a bit and makes more dreamy looking images.
i would generally recommend Biotar over Helios, maybe they will be similar to image quality but for sure Biotars are much better in build quality and will not have much copy variation issues.
About the Canon FL 1.2/55 - it has limitations and generally speaking the Contax G Planar is far better lens.
_________________
Stefan
My lens list:
SLR FD: Canon FL 1.2/55 MD: Rokkor 1,7/50; Rokkor PF 1.4/58 Exakta: Kilfitt-Makro-Kilar E 3.5/4cm; CZJ 2/50 Pancolar; CZJ 2/5,8cm T Biotar black; Meyer 1.9/58 Primoplan alu; E.Ludwig Meritar 2.9/50; Meyer 2.8/100 Trioplan; CZJ 4/135 Sonnar alu; CZJ 4/135 Triotar alu M42: CZJ 2.8/50 Tessar; Mir-1B 2.8/37; Tokina RMC 2/28 T-mount: Tamron 5.9/200; Tamron 6.9/300; Tamron 7.5/400 C-mount: Cosmicar 1.8/50 Schneider-Kreuznach Variogon 1:2/18-90 Y/S: Sun 3.5/38-90, Sun 4/70-210
RF Contax RF: Jipiter-12 2,8/3,5cm; Sonnar 1.5/5cm; Jupiter-8 2/50; Jupiter-9 2/8,5cm; Jupiter-11 4/135 Contax G: CZ 2,8/28 Biogon T; CZ 2/35 Planar T; CZ 2,8/90 Sonnar T Pentax A110: 2.8/18; 2.8/24; 2.8/50; 2.8/70 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DSG
Joined: 04 Mar 2007
Posts: 533
Location: London, UK.
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2012 2:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| std wrote: | I had 2 different 2/58 Biotars - both were good lenses.
The first one in alu finish, preset, fat one from late 60-ies with T coating - this one was better in terms of flare resistance and sharpness.
And the one i still have is one of the first generation ones - small one, black, T coating, with bubbles in the glass. This one has very different character, it glows a bit wide open and it is sharper in the center. Flares a bit and makes more dreamy looking images.
i would generally recommend Biotar over Helios, maybe they will be similar to image quality but for sure Biotars are much better in build quality and will not have much copy variation issues.
About the Canon FL 1.2/55 - it has limitations and generally speaking the Contax G Planar is far better lens. |
The Contax Carl Zeiss 45/2 G Planar may be a better lens, but its a whole lot rarer than the FL and a whole lot more expensive too! The OP may only have a limited budget, which would rule out exotic rarities like the G planar. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tedat
Joined: 08 Nov 2011
Posts: 131
Location: Berlin/Germany
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2012 12:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| plasticmotif wrote: |
I've got the CV 15, Contax G 28, 45 and 90.
|
there is no need to talk about the Contax Carl Zeiss 45/2 G Planar, the OP already has one and is looking for something longer then 55mm.
I also have no idea how a 2/45 can be better then a 1.2/55.. those are completly different lenses.. you can't shoot the Planar wit F1.2 and it never will be longer then 45mm
_________________
Regards,
Jan
Sony Alpha A900 / Sony NEX-5N / Konica FT-1 + FS-1 + T3
Rollei QBM: Color Skoparex 2.8/35, Planar 1.4/50, Planar 2.8/85
Konica Hexanon AR: UC 2.8/15, UC 1.8/28, 2/35, 1.2/57, UC 4/80-200
Contax T*: Distagon 2/28, Sonnar 2.8/135, Sonnar 2.8/180
Schneider-Kreuznach: Xenar 2.8/50, Xenon 1.9/50, Tele-Xenar 4/135, Tele-Xenar 4.8/200
Other: Tokina 3.5/17, Tokina AT-X 2.5/90, Voigtländer Nokton 1.4/40, Leica Hektor 4.5/135, Industar 61 L/D 2.8/55 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
plasticmotif
Joined: 17 Feb 2010
Posts: 54
Location: Tennessee
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2012 1:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
My Contax G 45 is pretty great too.
I think I've decided on a Biotar 58.
I don't know whether or not to get the biotar or a 21-24 (fast) lens first.
_________________
-Mac |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011
Posts: 9139
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2012 1:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The Biotar is a sensible choice.
Also, if you see the Topcon RE Auto Topcor 1.8/58 for a good price, that one is a stunning lens, I really love mine, sharpness, contrast, colour, it's superb in all three.
_________________
'The question I would really consider (especially if an amateur and on a budget) is whether or not anyone (including yourself, of course) can tell the difference in any situation for which you will use the lens...and if they can, why are they burying their noses in your prints hard enough to tell the difference instead of responding to the prints emotionally and thinking about what they might mean?' - 2F/2F on apug.org
Digital: Sony NEX-3, Samsung NX100, Canon EOS 450d
35mm SLR: Konica FT-1, Konica FC-1, Konica Autoreflex T, Carena SRH760, Exakta RTL1000, Canon EOS 10qd
35mm VF: Olympus Stylus, Konica C35, Konica A4, Konica MG, Konica MT-9, Ricoh FF-9, Ricoh AF-80
35mm RF: Zorki 6, Kiev II, Kiev IV, Contax IIIa, CZJ Werra III,
Medium format: Franka Rolfix, Mess Ikonta 524/16, Voigtlander Bessa with Skopar 3.5/105, Voigtlander Bessa with Voigtar 3.5/105, Kiev 6C, Century Graphic 23, Ensign Selfix 820, Kershaw 450
MF lenses: Schneider Angulon 6.5/68, Componon-S 5.6/100, C-Claron 4.5/135, Xenar 3.5/105, Mamiya C 2.8/45, Mamiya 2.8/80, CZJ Flektogon 4/50, Biometar 2.8/80, Zodiac 3.5/30, Tominon 4.5/135, Pullin Pulnar 2.8/100
Large Format: Ernemann HEAG Series VII version II 9x12 with Kodak Anastigmat 6.3/170
Konica Hexanons 4/21, 2.8/24, 3.5/28, 2.8/35, 1.8/40, 1.4/50, 1.7/50, 1.8/50, 3.2/135, 3.5/135, 3.5/200, 4.5/300, 3.5-4.5/35-70, 4-4.6/28-135, 3.5/35-70, UC 3.5/45-100, 4/70-150, 4/65-135, UC 4/80-200. Hexars 3.5/28, 3.5/135, Konishiroku 2.8/35
Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 2.8/35, Skoparex 3.4/35, Tessar 2.8/50, Sonnar 1.5/50, Biotar 2/58, Pancolar 1.8/50, Cardinar 4/100, Zeiss-Opton Biogon 2.8/35
Meyer/Pentacons 2.8/28, Primagon 4.5/35, Trioplan 2.9/50, 1.8/50, 2.4/50, Primotar 3.5/50, Primotar 3.5/135
Topcon RE Auto Topcors 1.8/58, 3.5/135, 5.6/200
Russians: OKC1-18-1 2.8/18, OKC1-28-1 2.8/28, Jupiter-12 2.8/35, Jupiter-8 2/50, Industar-50 3.5/50, Industar-26M 2.8/50, Industar-22 3.5/50, Zenitar M2S 2/50, Helios-44-2, Jupiter-9 2/85, Jupiter-11 4/135, Tair-3C 4.5/300
Tokina 3.5/17, Nikon Auto Nikkor-N 2.8/24, Nikon Micro-Nikkor-P 3.5/55, Ross Xpress 3.5/4in, Ross Xpress 4/5in, Ross Xpress 4.5/8.5in, Wollensak APO-Raptar 10/541
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Rss feed
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
