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

Modifying Helios 44-2 for extra bokeh?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu Mar 31, 2011 11:52 pm    Post subject: Modifying Helios 44-2 for extra bokeh? Reply with quote
Hello folks

I now have three identical Helios 44-2s, all in good nick, all work great.

I was reading about removing the rear element group to make it a mild telephoto:

http://www.novacon.com.br/techhel.htm











Long and short of it is you unscrew and remove the back group of 3 elements leaving the front 3 which makes it a 116mm lens. You need to use a 25mm entension tube to obtain the correct register distance.

Now, I'm wondering if this will have an effect on the rendering of the lens so that it has more blurry and creamy bokeh, perhaps similar to the Helios-40?

Has anyone ever tried this? Could it be a cheap alternative to a Helios-40 perhaps?


PostPosted: Thu Mar 31, 2011 11:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hmm, well that modification took about 5 seconds, the rear block just unscrews and all I did was stick small flat head screwdriver in one of the slots, push anticlockwise and it came unscrewed with almost no effort. I screwed a 25mm tube on the back and now I have a 116mm lens. I'll take it out and take some shots tomorrow, fingers crossed it works good!


PostPosted: Fri Apr 01, 2011 2:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Hmm, well that modification took about 5 seconds, the rear block just unscrews and all I did was stick small flat head screwdriver in one of the slots, push anticlockwise and it came unscrewed with almost no effort. I screwed a 25mm tube on the back and now I have a 116mm lens. I'll take it out and take some shots tomorrow, fingers crossed it works good!


Wow. Cool. A lens maker in the making..... post pics of the new lens and how you did it. I am tempted to take apart one of my lenses but don't know if the whole thing will fall apart and not come back together. Are the aperture diaphragm-leaflets one unit. Post pics!! Thanks.


PostPosted: Fri Apr 01, 2011 2:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I will do man, it's 3.28AM here and just about to hit the sack but rest assured pics tomorrow.

The aperture is at the back of the front group so is still in place and working as it should.

It's an incredibly simple mod, like I said, took a mere few seconds.


PostPosted: Fri Apr 01, 2011 3:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Sounds exciting. Will be looking forward to see photos taken with the lens and also the lens itself.


PostPosted: Fri Apr 01, 2011 5:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
It will be a 116/4 so you won't have more bokeh (I mean here : "quantity" of blur) Wink


PostPosted: Fri Apr 01, 2011 6:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Can't wait to see the results! My vote is NOT swirly bokeh, just terrible edge definition, but then I'm a pessimist Smile Full marks for the attempt though!


PostPosted: Fri Apr 01, 2011 6:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
CarbonR wrote:
It will be a 116/4 so you won't have more bokeh (I mean here : "quantity" of blur) Wink

For a while I was getting excited about having a cheap 116mm F2 lens until I realised that speed would be lost. I didn't realise it would be so much though.

I have done things a little differently and removed the front element and replaced with a +8 closeup filter.


PostPosted: Fri Apr 01, 2011 11:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks for the feedback guys, this modification is non-destructive to the lens and can be reversed to restore the lens to original condition by just screwing the back element back in.

I had a 25cm tube that was the same diameter as the back of the lens so it looks quite good I think despite not being painted like the lens.

Took these shots with an unmodified 44-2 from the same factory (same logo, my other 44-2 has a different prism logo) with the flash just sat on my desk so not great but they are just to show you how it looks.

Yet another dull grey day here today so I probablu won't get any good shots in today but I'll have a go.

Martin, thats what I was going to do with another 44-2 - change the front element, I have five nice add-on lenses with 39mm 0.75mm pitch threads, I hoped to remove the frot of a 44-2 to be able to mount these for strange effects.

However, now I have seen that my two unmodified 44-2s are from different factories with different logo I think I'll leave them unmolested so I can build up a set of all the different manufacturer's versions. I'll keep my eye out for another 44-2 with a scratch or fungus in the front elements so I don't feel bad about modifying it.






PostPosted: Fri Apr 01, 2011 1:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Good luck with your collection! You might like to read THIS before you start, to give you some idea of the task!


PostPosted: Fri Apr 01, 2011 2:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
martyn_bannister wrote:
Good luck with your collection! You might like to read THIS before you start, to give you some idea of the task!


Oh I'm well aware of the size of the task ahead!

So far apart from this one I just modified I have:

Helios 44-2 KMZ logo
Helios 44-2 ? logo (need to check the list to work out where it was made but it's identical to the KMZ one)
Jupiter-11A M42
Tair-3C (just arrived, OMG, what a beast, I knew it was big and heavy but goddam! I need a new tripod, it will crush my ancient one!)

I have a shortlist of the ones I want to pick up soon:

Helios 40 (doesn't everyone want one? Might have to buy a Cyklop instead)
Jupiter 9 (for portraits)
Tair-11 (cos everyone says it's better than the J-11A)
Industar 61 L/Z (for macro work)
Volna-9 (for more macro work)
Jupiter-21M (I need a good 200)
Jupiter 3 (I need a fast 50)
Mir-1b (both my 35mms are crap so want one of these)
Zenitar-16 (everyone should have a fisheye!)

That's just off the top of my head but those are the ones I 'must have' I will pick up things like the Industar-50, Jupiter-8 and other variants of the Helios 44 like the M and -7 when I see em cheap.

Really, I'd like a collection of the Zeiss originals but that ain't happening unless I win the lottery so I want all the Russian versions instead and I really like the industrial/military grade build quality of the J11A and Taiir-3C, they will last me a very long time, I already dropped the J11A and it wasn't bothered in the slightest.


PostPosted: Fri Apr 01, 2011 2:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Aren't you going to take some pictures with the modified lens? I think that's what everyone is waiting for. *drum-roll*


PostPosted: Fri Apr 01, 2011 2:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Cistron wrote:
Aren't you going to take some pictures with the modified lens? I think that's what everyone is waiting for. *drum-roll*


Yup, just waiting or the sun to come out, been very dull and grey here today. Just snapped these of the identical unmodified Helios I have.

These are wide open, first thing I notice is the minimum focusing ditance has been doubled from 50-55cm to 1-1.1m.

It also seems the dof has been halved, it is now extremely shallow when wide open.

Right, I'm off out to take some outdoor test shots, they might lack some contrast due to the lack of sunshine but should give a decent impression of how the modified lens renders.




PostPosted: Fri Apr 01, 2011 3:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
It will be a 116/4


Why should the luminosity halve? It is not that you double the focal lenght by adding a teleconverter.
If you meant the formula for calculating the aperture it is not said the diameter of the tightest hole will be still the same, could be this becomes grater.


PostPosted: Fri Apr 01, 2011 4:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Eugen Mezei wrote:
Quote:
It will be a 116/4


Why should the luminosity halve? It is not that you double the focal lenght by adding a teleconverter.
If you meant the formula for calculating the aperture it is not said the diameter of the tightest hole will be still the same, could be this becomes grater.


I don't know the formulas Eugen but I immediately noticed it wasn't as bright in the viewfinder as the unmodified lens so it may well be an f4.

It's a very dull gray day today, hard for photography and the modified lens struggled, I had to PP all the shots so that also makes me think it may now be an f4.

Right, here's some shots with the modified lens, I look forward to everyone's comments!

Plastic flowers on windowsill, lens wide open, on-camera flash as fill-in because so little sunlight was coming in through the window:













PostPosted: Fri Apr 01, 2011 4:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Like I said, it's so dull here today so the lens struggled and I had to PP everything. Some outdoor shots:

Wide open:



f8:



f22:



f8:



f22:



Wide open:



Wide open:



Wide open, fill-in flash:



f8, fill-in flash:



PostPosted: Fri Apr 01, 2011 5:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Well, I was wrong about the swirls!!! Look at #7 Smile Looks like focus is an issue with this lens now.


PostPosted: Fri Apr 01, 2011 5:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
martyn_bannister wrote:
Well, I was wrong about the swirls!!! Look at #7 Smile Looks like focus is an issue with this lens now.


Yes, I was surprised about that shot, it's the only one that shows the swirls to that degree.

The lens is totally impractical to use, the focusing scale on the barrel is now meaningless and you can't focus on anything more than 2-3m away and I could only really seem to get it anywhere close to focussed when set at infinty then I had to move the camera back and forth till I hit the focus .

This is what it looks like at infinity pointed at a landscape:



And at infinity pointed at a telegraph pole approx 5m away:



My dad rode past on his bike and I snapped this when he was about 4m away, so sad it's so out of focus, would have been a wonderful portrait:



I removed the extension tube and tried it mounted on the body directly, wow, in the vf it had such a swirly look it looked like a fisheye effect. Sadly no amount of fiddling with the focus settings would bring the image into focus, sad because it looked sharp and wonderful in the vf.



So there is some swirly hiding in there but it's so hard to use I think I might put the rear element back in.


PostPosted: Fri Apr 01, 2011 6:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:

The lens is totally impractical to use, the focusing scale on the barrel is now meaningless and you can't focus on anything more than 2-3m away and I could only really seem to get it anywhere close to focussed when set at infinty then I had to move the camera back and forth till I hit the focus .


I don't really understand why you move the camera. You still focus the lens as you did before the modification, isn't it?
I think your tube is simply too long (25 cm as you wrote?). Try a 2 cm M42 macro tube. Or better any tube as near as possible to 17,2 mm.


PostPosted: Fri Apr 01, 2011 6:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Eugen Mezei wrote:
Quote:
It will be a 116/4


Why should the luminosity halve? It is not that you double the focal lenght by adding a teleconverter.
If you meant the formula for calculating the aperture it is not said the diameter of the tightest hole will be still the same, could be this becomes grater.


It is a 116mm (as said in the fiorst post, and that seems to be plausible : lens design is symetrical, so we can assume each groupe has a 116mm focal lenght (positive for front groupe, negative for rear group). As the diameter is not changed, but focal is doubled, you loose brightness, as when you use a TC Wink


PostPosted: Fri Apr 01, 2011 6:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Mount the lens by itself firmly on something, pointing out of a window at a landscape. Draw the curtains around the lens, focus it on infinity and put a piece of white card behind it. Move the white card until an image forms that is in focus. Measure where the card is in relation to the back of the lens. Subtract the register distance of your chosen camera body and that will result in the length of tube you need to achieve perfect infinity focus.

Job done Smile


PostPosted: Fri Apr 01, 2011 6:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
You can't focus past 2-3m because, SURPRISE! You have too much extension on the lens. Try a shorter tube. If necessary, you can possible kludge something together using M39 or M42 adapters, and PVC plumbing pipe, and contact cement or even white glue. Good luck!


PostPosted: Fri Apr 01, 2011 6:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Martyn: Why so complicated. The exact lenght of the new register is clearly indicated in the schematics the OP posted. He needs to screw an extension tube of 17,2 mm between the lens and the camera body.


PostPosted: Fri Apr 01, 2011 8:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Eugen Mezei wrote:
Martyn: Why so complicated. The exact lenght of the new register is clearly indicated in the schematics the OP posted. He needs to screw an extension tube of 17,2 mm between the lens and the camera body.


Thankyou Eugen, and thankyou everyone for your helpful replies, without your help I'd not be getting anywhere very fast with this little project!

I misread the schematic and thought 25mm was the correct length. I measured the tube I was using and it's actually 28mm so I'm not surprised now that I had such dificulty attaining focus.

Now to measure my collection of M42 tubes! Bet ya I don't have one of 17.2mm! that would be typical of my luck!

BTW, the Helios 44-2 is a double Gauss design so as someone said, the two groups of elements are symmetrical with each having a 116mm focal length.

This picture has given me the motivation to perfect this lens modification though, if I get the register distance correct I could be able to achieve some Helios-40 like shots for a fraction of the cost of one of those lenses. (I still want a Helios-40 eventually though!)



Last edited by iangreenhalgh1 on Fri Apr 01, 2011 8:21 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Fri Apr 01, 2011 8:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Well, I'm lucky, I have a Prinzgalazy M42 tube that is 18mm. I shall give it a try tomorrow.

I might have to grind it down by a mm or so to get the register spot on but it should work eventualy with some trial and error.

How should I test it? I'm guessing point it at something more than 50m away, set the focus to infinity and take a shot and see if it's in focus?

One other thing occurred to me. What would be the effect of mounting the rear group I removed in the extension tube so that all I have done is move the two groups further apart?

Oh, one final thing, I have an M42-EOS adapter I am mounting this with, do I need to factor in the thickness of that adapter when calculating the tube length? If the adapter is 1mm thick doesn that mean the tube should actually be 16.2mm rather than 17.2mm?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2