Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Helios 40-2 vs Helios 40
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Mon Dec 01, 2008 3:04 pm    Post subject: Helios 40-2 vs Helios 40 Reply with quote
Hello everyone I always wanted a Helios 85mm lens in my line up and wanted to know if there are any real differences between the 40 and the 40-2 is the bokah more conventional on the latter lens?


PostPosted: Mon Dec 01, 2008 3:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
In optical quality in my opinion no difference, they have difference in finish, filter diameter, tripod mount, coating. Personally I kept Helios-40-1 instead of 2 I had several copies from both.


PostPosted: Mon Dec 01, 2008 5:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The bokeh on the original 40 is certainly...unique (click for larger images):





The diaphragm on my copy changes between somewhat circular at f2-2.8, to a weird multi-point star shape between f2.8-f5.6-ish to something more circular from there down to f22. The top image was around f4, and the bottom was wide open. The results can vary from eye-poppingly unique to downright unusable, but that's the price you pay for uniqueness. I've never had the opportunity to shoot with a 40-2, and as the last one I bid for on eBay went for over $400 I doubt I ever will, until the collector's market decides to start worshiping some other lens. I love my 40, but I can't really say it's $400 worth of love, especially since you could get a Jupiter 9 and a Tair 11-A for that much, both of which are as unique in their own way.

Out of curiosity, did the shape of the diaphragm change at all over the years? My copy is from '61 from looking at the serial number. I'd be curious to see what the shape looks like on later models.

BTW, if you're looking at the one on eBay being sold by Sovjak, don't worry about his lack of PayPal. I bought my 40 from him at about the same price, and he was really easy to work with.


PostPosted: Mon Dec 01, 2008 5:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Optical design is identical - later version should have slightly higher resolution (36/17 vs. 32/16), but practically you won't see any difference...


PostPosted: Mon Dec 01, 2008 6:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
My favourite lens.

Helios 40-2 is really amazing (in my point of view).

You have some pictures I took with it in the gallery. Smile


PostPosted: Mon Dec 01, 2008 7:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
We need to make a FAQ for this, I answered this same question three times in the last month or so.

Differences in short:

- tripod collar: in the 40 is not rotateable. This can cause impossibility to mount lens on some cameras, in that cse you need to remove the collar. And even if you can mount, it will end up not aligned with the bottom of the camera. In the 40-2 collar is rotateable so no problem.

- filter thread: in the 40 the filter thread is 66mm, this means you will not find a standard generic lens hood. In the 40-2 the filter thread is 67mm which is a standard size. With both lenses, the lens hood is necessary to control flare.

- Mount: in the 40 the mount is M39 (39mm), and will miss infinity focus by a little when mounted on M42 cameras. In the 40-2 the mount is M42 and no problem with infinity focus.


PostPosted: Mon Dec 01, 2008 11:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Im sorry for posing the same question and I thank everyone for your help. When looking at the price difference it's easy to understand why this topic keeps popping up. I was leaning toward the 40-2, but now im not so sure. McCroskey42 thank you for the pic it shows me more than a thousand words could say Very Happy


PostPosted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 1:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
The coating on the 40-2 is better than the older one in terms of color balance and durability (the coating technology has evolved since the original 40). Aesthetically, black lenses age better. In my opinion, the 40-2 is worth the price differential of $100-150 over the original 40. I would hesitate paying more than about $300-ish for an excellent copy of 40-2, though.


PostPosted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 4:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I sadly think those days of buying the 40-2 under $300 are over Sad


PostPosted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 7:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yep, word has gotten out and the prices have risen.

I've never been a fan of the Swirlios. It seems more of a `photographer's' lens anyway.


PostPosted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 10:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:


- tripod collar: in the 40 is not rotateable. This can cause impossibility to mount lens on some cameras, in that cse you need to remove the collar. And even if you can mount, it will end up not aligned with the bottom of the camera. In the 40-2 collar is rotateable so no problem.



Just want to add my two cents. There are two different versions of the original silver 40. The second one has a rotateable tripod collar.


PostPosted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 5:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks Orio... You put all the issues in one post. I will add my views here only.. I have 40 (Silver)...


Orio wrote:
tripod collar: in the 40 is not rotateable. This can cause impossibility to mount lens on some cameras, in that cse you need to remove the collar. And even if you can mount, it will end up not aligned with the bottom of the camera. In the 40-2 collar is rotateable so no problem.


Its a big problem. I will not try this heavy lens on camera without support to lens. Tripod collar is use less. and lens-camera combo should not be used without tripod.

Orio wrote:
- filter thread: in the 40 the filter thread is 66mm, this means you will not find a standard generic lens hood. In the 40-2 the filter thread is 67mm which is a standard size. With both lenses, the lens hood is necessary to control flare.


Flares badly. I dont have issue with sharpness, but lens is almost useless in sun. I have stopped taking lens during day time... (yes, people can jump and show their results... but I will never use this lens during day time.. I dont want to take lens outside and getting flare in most of the pics... When I buy lens, except missing focus, I want the consistent results... I heard flare issues with both version.. but with 40, even hood is not an option...

But on the other side, I have not seen lens working that great in low light/tungsten light situation. Its worth buying for indoor shots (long focal length is an issue here) and for monochrome shots... Even in shades (like in woods), its a gem

Orio wrote:
- Mount: in the 40 the mount is M39 (39mm), and will miss infinity focus by a little when mounted on M42 cameras. In the 40-2 the mount is M42 and no problem with infinity focus.


Yes, 40 is M39 mount. But mine is converted to M42 mount, so no issue to infinity (but personal experiences can not be generalized). Fact is, M39 register distance was different from M42 mount.
M39 for early Zenit - Registration 45.2 mm
M42 for later Zenit - Registration 45.5 mm

To keep the same design, M39 lenses has very small protruded ring like part on the mount.

You can still get infinity focus by filing the EOS-M42 mount... Just file the internal thread side (top 1 mm and increase the internal diameter so that protruded ring can go inside the adapter).. I did this for mine M39 mount Mir 37mm lens...


PostPosted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
My Helios is home-made combination of optical block from 40-2, mechanical block from 40 and M39-M42 ring. Infinity focus is exact, but I have no idea, if the previous owner adjusted anything on the lens to achieve this.


PostPosted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Ballu wrote:

Orio wrote:
tripod collar: in the 40 is not rotateable. This can cause impossibility to mount lens on some cameras, in that cse you need to remove the collar. And even if you can mount, it will end up not aligned with the bottom of the camera. In the 40-2 collar is rotateable so no problem.


Its a big problem. I will not try this heavy lens on camera without support to lens. Tripod collar is use less. and lens-camera combo should not be used without tripod.


I have used this lens on my 350D most of the time without a tripod and even the Jupiter-6 2.8/180, which weighs about 600g more, and the camera body has shown no indications of strain. With the Helios I haven't been the least bit worried, with the Jupiter I've taken some care, no sudden movements.

The Helios isn't a very heavy lens (except for a 85mm one), there are 135mm lenses which weigh almost as much, e.g. the second version of Leitz Elmarit-R 2.8/135 weighs 730g and doesn't even have a tripod mount. CZJ Sonnar 2.8/200 weighs about 400g more than Helios-40 and is also used without a tripod. No problem!

Veijo


PostPosted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
vilva wrote:
Ballu wrote:

Orio wrote:
tripod collar: in the 40 is not rotateable. This can cause impossibility to mount lens on some cameras, in that cse you need to remove the collar. And even if you can mount, it will end up not aligned with the bottom of the camera. In the 40-2 collar is rotateable so no problem.


Its a big problem. I will not try this heavy lens on camera without support to lens. Tripod collar is use less. and lens-camera combo should not be used without tripod.


I have used this lens on my 350D most of the time without a tripod and even the Jupiter-6 2.8/180, which weighs about 600g more, and the camera body has shown no indications of strain. With the Helios I haven't been the least bit worried, with the Jupiter I've taken some care, no sudden movements.

The Helios isn't a very heavy lens (except for a 85mm one), there are 135mm lenses which weigh almost as much, e.g. the second version of Leitz Elmarit-R 2.8/135 weighs 730g and doesn't even have a tripod mount. CZJ Sonnar 2.8/200 weighs about 400g more than Helios-40 and is also used without a tripod. No problem!

Veijo


Veijo... Its my mistake... I missed the words.... I was thinking of writing.. "Use without tripod only... with tripod, its risky without tripod collar"..


PostPosted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 7:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Ballu wrote:

Veijo... Its my mistake... I missed the words.... I was thinking of writing.. "Use without tripod only... with tripod, its risky without tripod collar"..


I've used CZJ Sonnar 2.8/200 with the camera body tripod mounted. One has just to take some care to avoid twisting the lens, the weight per se is no serious problem.

Veijo


PostPosted: Wed Dec 03, 2008 9:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have 40 and don't complain

F2.0, grip, no tripod


PostPosted: Wed Dec 03, 2008 7:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Very beautiful shot Voytek


PostPosted: Wed Dec 03, 2008 7:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Helios-40 Yeah! Great sample!


PostPosted: Mon Dec 15, 2008 12:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Ballu wrote:
Thanks Orio... You put all the issues in one post. I will add my views here only.. I have 40 (Silver)...


[Yes, 40 is M39 mount. But mine is converted to M42 mount, so no issue to infinity (but personal experiences can not be generalized). Fact is, M39 register distance was different from M42 mount.
M39 for early Zenit - Registration 45.2 mm
M42 for later Zenit - Registration 45.5 mm


Actually they are exactly the same (45.46mm) but add the film thickness and you get 45.5mm for M42.


PostPosted: Mon Dec 15, 2008 12:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
DSG wrote:
Ballu wrote:
Thanks Orio... You put all the issues in one post. I will add my views here only.. I have 40 (Silver)...


[Yes, 40 is M39 mount. But mine is converted to M42 mount, so no issue to infinity (but personal experiences can not be generalized). Fact is, M39 register distance was different from M42 mount.
M39 for early Zenit - Registration 45.2 mm
M42 for later Zenit - Registration 45.5 mm


Actually they are exactly the same (45.46mm) but add the film thickness and you get 45.5mm for M42.


In that case the manufacturers KMZ (Zenit) got it wrong when they printed these numbers in their manuals.

For a recent discussion, see

http://forum.mflenses.com/camera-mounts-and-register-distances-t13170

which gives a link to the Zenit site.


PostPosted: Mon Dec 15, 2008 9:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
DSG wrote:
Ballu wrote:
Thanks Orio... You put all the issues in one post. I will add my views here only.. I have 40 (Silver)...


[Yes, 40 is M39 mount. But mine is converted to M42 mount, so no issue to infinity (but personal experiences can not be generalized). Fact is, M39 register distance was different from M42 mount.
M39 for early Zenit - Registration 45.2 mm
M42 for later Zenit - Registration 45.5 mm


Actually they are exactly the same (45.46mm) but add the film thickness and you get 45.5mm for M42.


May be... then mount is different. I have used few M39 mounts and I can say, almost all silver M39 mounts has little protruded ring like structure at the mount which stops the base touching the camera body or adapter). By filing the the adapter, that ring can go inside the adapter, and you can focus to infinity.

I think, M39 camera mount used to have spacing for that ring like structure...
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1