| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
NothingMan
Joined: 02 Mar 2011
Posts: 98
Location: Bosnia Herzegovina
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2011 9:39 am Post subject: |
 |
|
NothingMan wrote:
| uhoh7 wrote: |
I'm gonna see those eyes in my dreams...yow
good focusing skills, that's for sure. |
Thanks, Im getting pretty good with mf. So much I almost gave up on focusing screen  . Besides no one around here will install those 
_________________
Canon Gear: 5DII | 40D | 50 1.8 | 85 1.8 | 17-40 L |
MF Lenses: S-M-C Tak 50 1.4 | S-M-C Tak 135 3.5 | S-M-C Tak 28 3.5 | Helios 44-3/44-2/44m-4/44-4 | Yashica ML 50 1.4 | CZJ Pancolar 50/1.8 | Jupiter 37A | Zuiko 55 1.2 | Zuiko 24 2.8 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
martinsmith99
Joined: 31 Aug 2008
Posts: 6943
Location: S Glos, UK
Expire: 2013-11-18
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2011 7:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
martinsmith99 wrote:
I would get one but some have protruding parts at the back which prevent them being used on my DSLR. They're more pricey than the other 44s, so I've stayed away.
_________________
Casual attendance these days |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NothingMan
Joined: 02 Mar 2011
Posts: 98
Location: Bosnia Herzegovina
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2011 3:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
NothingMan wrote:
| martinsmith99 wrote: |
| I would get one but some have protruding parts at the back which prevent them being used on my DSLR. They're more pricey than the other 44s, so I've stayed away. |
Yeah, Ive read about that problem, however the version I have doesnt have that problem. As for price, I think they are worth it 
_________________
Canon Gear: 5DII | 40D | 50 1.8 | 85 1.8 | 17-40 L |
MF Lenses: S-M-C Tak 50 1.4 | S-M-C Tak 135 3.5 | S-M-C Tak 28 3.5 | Helios 44-3/44-2/44m-4/44-4 | Yashica ML 50 1.4 | CZJ Pancolar 50/1.8 | Jupiter 37A | Zuiko 55 1.2 | Zuiko 24 2.8 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
torbod
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
Posts: 379
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2011 7:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
torbod wrote:
I got so tempted that I got one from the Bay (Alexander photo in Ukraine). Serial number starting with 92, so quite modern.
I asked if the focusing ring was behind the mounting flange or not ( and even sent him an illustrative image) and the answer was not. So I grabbed it, and of course he was wrong
I don't think he lied on purpose, rather a misunderstanding. However, I didn't feel like posting it back, so I had a look at it and had a go at removing the focusing ring. It was just to unscrew the three small screws and take it off, very simple. First, I sanded away 0.2mm by hand (very simple, but hard work), and it worked great on the DSLR-adapter alone. But when mounted to the camera the "bayonet stop rod" on the SONY hit the focusing ring, so I decided to take away more. So I took it to my job and machined away 0.5 mm from the bottom. Now it works great.
So, don't be afraid to buy the wrong version, it is very simple to fix without any risk of damaging the lens. At least my version where the focusing ring overlap was only a few 10th of a millimeter.
I'll be back with image results when I have caught something nice. First impressions are very contrasty, great sharpness (but I don't know if it beats the central sharpness of the 44M4 yet, but it looks promising at least stopped down to 2.8 ), smooth focusing, compact, beautiful design and great operation with pre set aperture
/T
_________________
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 |
|
|
estudleon
Joined: 15 May 2008
Posts: 3754
Location: Argentina
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 24, 2011 4:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
estudleon wrote:
I had the 44-3 of 1986 version. My helios was not so good like yours.
The 44M-7 was really better, but not than the SMC 1,4/50.
The 44-3 had the particular rendering of the 44 series (not M ones).
The portraits posted here are very nice. Very neutral colors.
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 |
|
|
NothingMan
Joined: 02 Mar 2011
Posts: 98
Location: Bosnia Herzegovina
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
NothingMan wrote:
The bokeh can be 'busy' and not so pleasing at times, but nevertheless Its a sharp lens...
100% CROP
[/img]
_________________
Canon Gear: 5DII | 40D | 50 1.8 | 85 1.8 | 17-40 L |
MF Lenses: S-M-C Tak 50 1.4 | S-M-C Tak 135 3.5 | S-M-C Tak 28 3.5 | Helios 44-3/44-2/44m-4/44-4 | Yashica ML 50 1.4 | CZJ Pancolar 50/1.8 | Jupiter 37A | Zuiko 55 1.2 | Zuiko 24 2.8 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
newton
Joined: 10 Mar 2011
Posts: 343
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2011 1:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
newton wrote:
It is an okay lens. I am not fully convinced though. I would love to see some more and un-touched images.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
themoleman342
Joined: 21 Oct 2007
Posts: 2190
Location: East Coast (CT), U.S.A.
Expire: 2013-01-24
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
newton
Joined: 10 Mar 2011
Posts: 343
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2011 6:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
newton wrote:
Thanks! I would like to see the gold standard for sharpness. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NothingMan
Joined: 02 Mar 2011
Posts: 98
Location: Bosnia Herzegovina
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2011 6:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
NothingMan wrote:
| newton wrote: |
| It is an okay lens. I am not fully convinced though. I would love to see some more and un-touched images. |
No probs, Ill send some straight out of camera shots with crops bit later
Here they are:
All photos shot under AWB, exported from RAW to JPG no sharpening whatsover. Resized to 700 px high in ps. All shots @ f2
_________________
Canon Gear: 5DII | 40D | 50 1.8 | 85 1.8 | 17-40 L |
MF Lenses: S-M-C Tak 50 1.4 | S-M-C Tak 135 3.5 | S-M-C Tak 28 3.5 | Helios 44-3/44-2/44m-4/44-4 | Yashica ML 50 1.4 | CZJ Pancolar 50/1.8 | Jupiter 37A | Zuiko 55 1.2 | Zuiko 24 2.8 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nordentro
Joined: 24 Jun 2010
Posts: 4710
Location: Lillehammer, Norway
Expire: 2015-01-29
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2011 9:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nordentro wrote:
Looks good to me, it doesn't really need to be any sharper IMO.
Thx for sharing
_________________
Lars | Manuellfokus.no |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Misha_M
Joined: 08 Oct 2012
Posts: 178
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 4:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Misha_M wrote:
great shots!
_________________
Tair 11 133 f/2.8 1958
Jupiter 9 85 f/2 1959
Helios 44M 58 f/2 1978
Helios 44-2 58 f/2 1977
Helios 44 (13 blades) 1959
Helios 77M4 50 f/1.8
Zenitar-M 50 f/1.7 1986
Industar-61 L\Z 50 f/2.8
Helios 40-2, 85 f/1.5 1974 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mayapop
Joined: 18 Oct 2012
Posts: 21
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2012 12:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
mayapop wrote:
Great, good lens
could you tell me, The aperture is 2 when you Photography ...  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Orio
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 29545
Location: West Emilia
Expire: 2012-12-04
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2012 1:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Orio wrote:
These lens performances have a lot more to do with the condition of the single copies than with a difference in the production.
As far as I know, the lens has stayed the same design.
So the reason why one finds the 44-3 sharper, another finds the 44-7 sharper, another finds the 44-2 sharper... it's simply
because of the condition of their particular copy of the lens. Not because 3 is sharper than 7 or 4 is sharper than 2 etc...
_________________
Orio, Administrator
T*
NE CEDE MALIS AUDENTIOR ITO
Ferrania film is reborn! http://www.filmferrania.it/
Support the Ornano film chemicals company and help them survive!
http://forum.mflenses.com/ornano-chemical-products-t55525.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aanything
Joined: 27 Aug 2011
Posts: 2187
Location: Piacenza, Italy
Expire: 2014-05-30
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2012 1:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Aanything wrote:
| Orio wrote: |
These lens performances have a lot more to do with the condition of the single copies than with a difference in the production.
As far as I know, the lens has stayed the same design.
So the reason why one finds the 44-3 sharper, another finds the 44-7 sharper, another finds the 44-2 sharper... it's simply
because of the condition of their particular copy of the lens. Not because 3 is sharper than 7 or 4 is sharper than 2 etc... |
That's exactly what I experienced: i had many copy of many versions of helios 44: the sharpest of all is a 44-2 I got at a flea market in berlin, while the only 44m7 i've had was really worse than that under most aspects (just a little more flare resistant): I kept only the best performing, and now I have a 44-2, 44m, and a 44m4 .
_________________
C&C and editing of my pics are always welcome
Samples from my lenses
My gear
My Flickr |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Smoli4
Joined: 01 Jul 2011
Posts: 606
Location: Haifa, Israel
Expire: 2013-06-07
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2012 6:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Smoli4 wrote:
| Orio wrote: |
These lens performances have a lot more to do with the condition of the single copies than with a difference in the production.
As far as I know, the lens has stayed the same design.
So the reason why one finds the 44-3 sharper, another finds the 44-7 sharper, another finds the 44-2 sharper... it's simply
because of the condition of their particular copy of the lens. Not because 3 is sharper than 7 or 4 is sharper than 2 etc... |
+1 this was my conclusion also! totally agree.
Sample variance can be measured when the two lenses are in the same exact condition (lets say "mint") and there you can find (maybe) the difference when looking at 200% crops or what not, and even then the difference in sharpness or whatever, is So Small that it doesnt matter.
lets just say i have x4 copies of helios 44-3. and the three that are mint condition perform better then the beaten one. and funny but non-MC version is sharper then all others (when you look at 400% crops LOL.) so really it doesnt matter. oh and most 44-2 perform exactly as a 44-3...
oh and i had x2 copies of MC 44m-7, same happend here, the mint copy was sharper then the well used one. but just by how much you can ask? well only enough to notice when comparing (once again) non realistic crop's and looking at center sharpness etc.. this whole thing is really silly tbh.
its really an old rumor about these russion made lenses, that they have great copy variance etc... in real life even when you test them it doesnt matter. the problem is with people who buy a beaten\well used\tempered with copy of helios lens for 5$ then test it and say its crap, and there are 10 others that agree.
_________________
Canon 6D + Mir 24, SMC Tak 50 f1.4, 135 f2.5 V2, Tamron SP 90mm f2.5 52B, mcMTO 500 8, Canon IS USM 75-300 4.5-5.6, zeiss ikon talon 85 f2.8 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011
Posts: 15679
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2012 6:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
I agree, out of over 20 Russian lenses I've not had a less than good one yet.
I haven't had a beaten up one, all have been at least good condition and all have been at least good performers.
_________________
I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
skida
Joined: 02 Mar 2012
Posts: 1826
Location: North East England
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2012 8:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
skida wrote:
I have been really happy with each of the five Helios lenses I have owned. Very nice sharpness and colour rendition from them. Your shots are great and show the lens' qualities perfectly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
