View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
DAVEG
Joined: 08 Sep 2013 Posts: 110
|
Posted: Thu Sep 19, 2013 12:14 pm Post subject: Helios 44m 4 2/58 vs 50mm prime lens |
|
|
DAVEG wrote:
I have just bought a HELIOS 44M / 2 58MM but what makes this lens better than my current 50mm ZUIKO f 1.8 PRIME LENS . |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Aanything
Joined: 27 Aug 2011 Posts: 2201 Location: Piacenza, Italy
Expire: 2014-05-30
|
Posted: Thu Sep 19, 2013 12:31 pm Post subject: Re: Helios 44m 4 2/58 vs 50mm prime lens |
|
|
Aanything wrote:
DAVEG wrote: |
I have just bought a HELIOS 44M / 2 58MM but what makes this lens better than my current 50mm ZUIKO f 1.8 PRIME LENS . |
Better I don't know. It has different character, for sure. It's (i guess) a much older optical formula, with weaker coatings, and some uncorrected aberrations. This gives the characteristics "swirly" bokeh of the helios 44, I expect it to be less contrasty than the zuiko, and a bit more prone to flare. Nonetheless it can be a very sharp lens, and you can use its characteristics to produce different images from what you'd get from the zuiko. For example, I think I'd like the helios better for portraits. _________________ C&C and editing of my pics are always welcome
Samples from my lenses
My gear
My Flickr |
|
Back to top |
|
|
visualopsins
Joined: 05 Mar 2009 Posts: 10543 Location: California
Expire: 2025-04-11
|
Posted: Thu Sep 19, 2013 1:51 pm Post subject: Re: Helios 44m 4 2/58 vs 50mm prime lens |
|
|
visualopsins wrote:
DAVEG wrote: |
I have just bought a HELIOS 44M / 2 58MM but what makes this lens better than my current 50mm ZUIKO f 1.8 PRIME LENS . |
Have any comparison photos to share? I'm assuming you have your reasons for saying one is 'better'... _________________ ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮ like attracts like! ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮
Cameras: Sony ILCE-7RM2, Spotmatics II, F, and ESII, Nikon P4
Lenses:
M42 Asahi Optical Co., Takumar 1:4 f=35mm, 1:2 f=58mm (Sonnar), 1:2.4 f=58mm (Heliar), 1:2.2 f=55mm (Gaussian), 1:2.8 f=105mm (Model I), 1:2.8/105 (Model II), 1:5.6/200, Tele-Takumar 1:5.6/200, 1:6.3/300, Macro-Takumar 1:4/50, Auto-Takumar 1:2.3 f=35, 1:1.8 f=55mm, 1:2.2 f=55mm, Super-TAKUMAR 1:3.5/28 (fat), 1:2/35 (Fat), 1:1.4/50 (8-element), Super-Multi-Coated Fisheye-TAKUMAR 1:4/17, Super-Multi-Coated TAKUMAR 1:4.5/20, 1:3.5/24, 1:3.5/28, 1:2/35, 1:3.5/35, 1:1.8/85, 1:1.9/85 1:2.8/105, 1:3.5/135, 1:2.5/135 (II), 1:4/150, 1:4/200, 1:4/300, 1:4.5/500, Super-Multi-Coated Macro-TAKUMAR 1:4/50, 1:4/100, Super-Multi-Coated Bellows-TAKUMAR 1:4/100, SMC TAKUMAR 1:1.4/50, 1:1.8/55
M42 Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 2.4/35
Contax Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 28-70mm F3.5-4.5
Pentax K-mount SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:3.5 35~105mm, SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:4 45~125mm
Nikon Micro-NIKKOR-P-C Auto 1:3.5 f=55mm, NIKKOR-P Auto 105mm f/2.5 Pre-AI (Sonnar), Micro-NIKKOR 105mm 1:4 AI, NIKKOR AI-S 35-135mm f/3,5-4,5
Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51B), Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51BB), SP 500mm f/8 (55BB), SP 70-210mm f/3.5 (19AH)
Vivitar 100mm 1:2.8 MC 1:1 Macro Telephoto (Kiron)
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
DAVEG
Joined: 08 Sep 2013 Posts: 110
|
Posted: Thu Sep 19, 2013 2:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
DAVEG wrote:
No pictures to compare as yet, I just assumed that the HELIOS and its reputation would be better but I know from my own experience of the ZUIKO that is a superb lens with good contrast and sharpness . But so many seem to like the HELIOS , so I kind of assuming it would be better but its probably older and of lesser spec , and maybe not better but just different but still good in its own right. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Aanything
Joined: 27 Aug 2011 Posts: 2201 Location: Piacenza, Italy
Expire: 2014-05-30
|
Posted: Thu Sep 19, 2013 2:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Aanything wrote:
DAVEG wrote: |
and maybe not better but just different but still good in its own right. |
That's it. By standard parameters it would not look better, probably. But if you like its look (and if you got a good copy) you'll love it for sure.
All the praises you read about the helios 44 are made keeping in mind that it's a lens that can be had for almost nothing, often cheaper than unknown japanese lenses, and still it is a solid performer. _________________ C&C and editing of my pics are always welcome
Samples from my lenses
My gear
My Flickr |
|
Back to top |
|
|
DAVEG
Joined: 08 Sep 2013 Posts: 110
|
Posted: Thu Sep 19, 2013 3:51 pm Post subject: SMC Takumar 55mm |
|
|
DAVEG wrote:
I have spotted a PENTAX M42 SMC TAKUMAR f 1.2 55MM lens in mint condition. I have heard good things about this lens is it woth buying at £40 or is it too much money for this particular lens it's supposed to be a very good lens .ADVICE NEEDED PLEASE . |
|
Back to top |
|
|
skida
Joined: 02 Mar 2012 Posts: 1826 Location: North East England
|
Posted: Thu Sep 19, 2013 5:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
skida wrote:
With the money you are making in the Foo Fighters, I wouldn't worry about the cost Dave.
ps: I really like your drumming, could you do a bit more of that and a little less singing? _________________ Lots of 35mm Film Cameras
Lots of Lenses
New Vlog on Youtube called "The Olduns Shot"
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCBHCOHaIrcYr7s3is1EcqxQ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
skida
Joined: 02 Mar 2012 Posts: 1826 Location: North East England
|
Posted: Thu Sep 19, 2013 5:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
skida wrote:
I think compared to name-brand Japanese lenses the Helios has some imperfections and it is the imperfections which make it a stand-out lens. _________________ Lots of 35mm Film Cameras
Lots of Lenses
New Vlog on Youtube called "The Olduns Shot"
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCBHCOHaIrcYr7s3is1EcqxQ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 Posts: 15685
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
Posted: Thu Sep 19, 2013 7:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
It's the uncorrected spherical aberration that gives it the glow and swirly bokeh. _________________ I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
DAVEG
Joined: 08 Sep 2013 Posts: 110
|
Posted: Thu Sep 19, 2013 7:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
DAVEG wrote:
Yes its the swirly bokeh that kind of makes it unique and a nice lens to own. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Laurentiu Cristofor
Joined: 23 Oct 2010 Posts: 524 Location: WA, USA
|
Posted: Thu Sep 19, 2013 10:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Laurentiu Cristofor wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote: |
It's the uncorrected spherical aberration that gives it the glow and swirly bokeh. |
I don't think so. My Helios 44 is very sharp wide open in low light - there is no glow and microcontrast is excellent. In stronger light it can exhibit what looks like faint glow - I think that is caused by the lack of multicoating combined with internal reflections. I see the same weakness in other old uncoated lenses. _________________ http://www.ipernity.com/home/2419272
https://laurphoto.blogspot.com/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Laurentiu Cristofor
Joined: 23 Oct 2010 Posts: 524 Location: WA, USA
|
Posted: Thu Sep 19, 2013 10:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Laurentiu Cristofor wrote:
skida wrote: |
I think compared to name-brand Japanese lenses the Helios has some imperfections and it is the imperfections which make it a stand-out lens. |
I found more imperfections in Japanese lenses - chromatic aberrations and less microcontrast when used wide open. Carl Zeiss lenses and Russian lenses behave much better in these areas. _________________ http://www.ipernity.com/home/2419272
https://laurphoto.blogspot.com/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Laurentiu Cristofor
Joined: 23 Oct 2010 Posts: 524 Location: WA, USA
|
Posted: Thu Sep 19, 2013 10:37 pm Post subject: Re: SMC Takumar 55mm |
|
|
Laurentiu Cristofor wrote:
DAVEG wrote: |
I have spotted a PENTAX M42 SMC TAKUMAR f 1.2 55MM lens in mint condition. I have heard good things about this lens is it woth buying at £40 or is it too much money for this particular lens it's supposed to be a very good lens .ADVICE NEEDED PLEASE . |
It's a good lens and that is a decent price - not a bargain, not an inflated price. The f/2 lenses go for less than the f/1.8 lenses, although they are supposed to be the same optical design. They are radioactive too, although less than the Takumar 50/1.4. Great build, great optical quality, but I'd pick the Helios over it any day - I just like the results I get with it. _________________ http://www.ipernity.com/home/2419272
https://laurphoto.blogspot.com/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 Posts: 15685
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
Posted: Thu Sep 19, 2013 11:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Laurentiu Cristofor wrote: |
iangreenhalgh1 wrote: |
It's the uncorrected spherical aberration that gives it the glow and swirly bokeh. |
I don't think so. My Helios 44 is very sharp wide open in low light - there is no glow and microcontrast is excellent. In stronger light it can exhibit what looks like faint glow - I think that is caused by the lack of multicoating combined with internal reflections. I see the same weakness in other old uncoated lenses. |
Well you think wrong. The Biotar design has uncorrected spherical aberration and that is why it has glow and swirly bokeh. The Pancolar design that replaced it was more highly corrected and that is why it doesn't have the glow and swirl. _________________ I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
DAVEG
Joined: 08 Sep 2013 Posts: 110
|
Posted: Fri Sep 20, 2013 12:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
DAVEG wrote:
So whats the deal with radioactive lenses and what effect will it have on my photos and will I need a filter to correct it .As the Pentax is supposed to be radioactive |
|
Back to top |
|
|
BurstMox
Joined: 04 Dec 2011 Posts: 1998 Location: France
Expire: 2016-08-02
|
Posted: Fri Sep 20, 2013 12:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
BurstMox wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote: |
Laurentiu Cristofor wrote: |
iangreenhalgh1 wrote: |
It's the uncorrected spherical aberration that gives it the glow and swirly bokeh. |
I don't think so. My Helios 44 is very sharp wide open in low light - there is no glow and microcontrast is excellent. In stronger light it can exhibit what looks like faint glow - I think that is caused by the lack of multicoating combined with internal reflections. I see the same weakness in other old uncoated lenses. |
Well you think wrong. The Biotar design has uncorrected spherical aberration and that is why it has glow and swirly bokeh. The Pancolar design that replaced it was more highly corrected and that is why it doesn't have the glow and swirl. |
Talking about spherical abberation, here is a test I made some days ago, with Helios 40 (biotar design) on 5D
We can see this sphere, I guess it is due to this spherical aberation. _________________ Pierre
sovietlenses.fr
Soviet lenses Facebook group |
|
Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 Posts: 15685
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
Posted: Fri Sep 20, 2013 12:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Spherical aberration and coma, that's why it renders like that. Triplets also render like that, and the Sonnar is, after all, derived from the triplet. _________________ I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Lightshow
Joined: 04 Nov 2011 Posts: 3669 Location: Calgary
|
Posted: Fri Sep 20, 2013 12:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Lightshow wrote:
One thing you learn from having a lens collection, is that all lenses have different personalities, as some traits are stronger than others, the lens you use will effect the feel of the final image. _________________ A Manual Focus Junky...
One photographers junk lens is an artists favorite tool.
My lens list
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lightshow-photography/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Laurentiu Cristofor
Joined: 23 Oct 2010 Posts: 524 Location: WA, USA
|
Posted: Fri Sep 20, 2013 4:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
Laurentiu Cristofor wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote: |
Well you think wrong. The Biotar design has uncorrected spherical aberration and that is why it has glow and swirly bokeh. The Pancolar design that replaced it was more highly corrected and that is why it doesn't have the glow and swirl. |
Well, I am attaching a 100% crop from my Helios, used wide open in normal daylight. Whatever spherical aberration is there, it is not excessive compared to other lenses used wide open - I wouldn't call it glow and if it would be the only condition for swirly bokeh, there would be more lenses with swirly bokeh around.
There might be an explanation tying the Biotar with swirly bokeh but I doubt it is based on spherical aberration alone.
BurstMox wrote: |
We can see this sphere, I guess it is due to this spherical aberation. |
LOL. That's the connection for sure! _________________ http://www.ipernity.com/home/2419272
https://laurphoto.blogspot.com/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 Posts: 15685
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
Posted: Fri Sep 20, 2013 1:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
It's not worth arguing about, it is simple fact that the Biotar design has uncorrected spherical aberration which gives it glow, the swirly bokeh is due to both spherical aberration and coma, it is the coma that causes highlights in oof areas to be rendered as ovals.
The glow is apparent on bright areas and highlights so your example is a bad one to illustrate this property. _________________ I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Laurentiu Cristofor
Joined: 23 Oct 2010 Posts: 524 Location: WA, USA
|
Posted: Fri Sep 20, 2013 4:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Laurentiu Cristofor wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote: |
It's not worth arguing about, it is simple fact that the Biotar design has uncorrected spherical aberration which gives it glow, the swirly bokeh is due to both spherical aberration and coma, it is the coma that causes highlights in oof areas to be rendered as ovals. |
Coma is probably the reason for the swirly bokeh. This correlates with what I've seen in other fast lenses when used wide open and it makes sense given how coma changes across the image. The spherical aberration may impact the bokeh, but will not make it swirly.
iangreenhalgh1 wrote: |
The glow is apparent on bright areas and highlights so your example is a bad one to illustrate this property. |
Then it's a different glow than what I have in mind. And it's probably not caused by spherical aberration - that should impact everything, not just bright areas and highlights. _________________ http://www.ipernity.com/home/2419272
https://laurphoto.blogspot.com/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 Posts: 15685
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
Posted: Fri Sep 20, 2013 7:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
You need to go and read some books on optics. Spherical aberration is a major contributory factory in swirly bokeh, triplets have swirly bokeh and it is due to spherical aberration and to a lesser extent, coma. The Biotar also has it, so do several other designs, it is because they are not fully corrected. Rudolph Kingslake covers this in his excellent book, that would be a good starting point.
Glow is caused by spherical aberration, if the glass isn't clean, then that can also cause glow. _________________ I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Laurentiu Cristofor
Joined: 23 Oct 2010 Posts: 524 Location: WA, USA
|
Posted: Sat Sep 21, 2013 3:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
Laurentiu Cristofor wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote: |
You need to go and read some books on optics. Spherical aberration is a major contributory factory in swirly bokeh, triplets have swirly bokeh and it is due to spherical aberration and to a lesser extent, coma. The Biotar also has it, so do several other designs, it is because they are not fully corrected. Rudolph Kingslake covers this in his excellent book, that would be a good starting point.
Glow is caused by spherical aberration, if the glass isn't clean, then that can also cause glow. |
I understand your statements, but I don't see the arguments behind them. Coma changes across the frame, so I can see how it can produce a varying effect in bokeh. On the other hand, I am not aware of spherical aberration changing similarly to produce such effect.
Thanks for the Kingslake reference, but which of his books were you referring to exactly? I could find three different ones on amazon. _________________ http://www.ipernity.com/home/2419272
https://laurphoto.blogspot.com/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|