View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
blackrubystudio
Joined: 26 May 2010 Posts: 12
|
Posted: Wed May 26, 2010 2:35 pm Post subject: Helios 44m - strange "bubbles" |
|
|
blackrubystudio wrote:
Hello everyone,
This is my first post as today I received my first ticket to the m42 wonderworld: a Helios 44M 58mm f/2 lens, that I'm going to try on my 7d as soon as the m42-eos adapter hits my mailbox.
Since I could still not shoot with it, this morning I played with it a bit, and examined it thoroughly. There seems not to be fungi or serious scratches - just some barely visible wear signs - but there are two or three "spots". I don't know how to describe them.. they seem as microscopic "bubbles" in the glass. Has this ever happened to anyone?
This evening, as soon as I get home from my office, I'm going to post some photos of the lens wide open, so that the "bubbles" are clearly visible.
thanks in advance for your advice and experience... _________________ - Black Ruby -
_____________
Canon EOS 300D, Canon EOS 7D
Canon EF-S 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 IS, Canon EF-S 55-250mm f4-5.6 IS, Canon EF 50mm f1.8 II, Canon EF-S 15-85 IS USM
Helios 44M 58mm f2, Revuenon Special 135mm f2.8 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
calvin83
Joined: 12 Apr 2009 Posts: 7547 Location: Hong Kong
|
Posted: Wed May 26, 2010 3:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
calvin83 wrote:
Glass bubbles are common in old russian lens. Some people think this is a sign quality glass. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
exaklaus
Joined: 11 Aug 2009 Posts: 1633 Location: Niederrhein, Germany
Expire: 2011-12-02
|
Posted: Wed May 26, 2010 4:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
exaklaus wrote:
Nothing serious, pretty common in early quality glass.
Klaus _________________ my Ebay auctions
Canon 5D II,
Fuji GW690III, Fuji G617, Fujifilm X-E1
Bessaflex TM
Tachihara 4"x5"
Summilux-R 1:1,4/50
Canon FD 85mm 1:1,2
Color-Heliar 75mm F2.5 SL
www.autoselbstfotografie.de
www.classic-cameras-and-lenses.de |
|
Back to top |
|
|
blackrubystudio
Joined: 26 May 2010 Posts: 12
|
Posted: Wed May 26, 2010 5:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
blackrubystudio wrote:
Whew! that's a relief.
Anyway, i'm posting three shots of the little beast.
back, against the window so you can spot the bubbles.
side:
front - you can see the bubbles here, too
Then, I decided I cannot wait for the adapter, so I went for the cheapest adapter in the world: my left hand, holding the lens in front of the bare sensor - talk about handshaking! no IS here...
It seems bubbles aren't an issue here... QC Passed! What do you think? _________________ - Black Ruby -
_____________
Canon EOS 300D, Canon EOS 7D
Canon EF-S 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 IS, Canon EF-S 55-250mm f4-5.6 IS, Canon EF 50mm f1.8 II, Canon EF-S 15-85 IS USM
Helios 44M 58mm f2, Revuenon Special 135mm f2.8 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Seele
Joined: 17 Apr 2009 Posts: 741 Location: Sydney Australia
|
Posted: Wed May 26, 2010 6:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Seele wrote:
As long as the lens' polished surface does not cut through a bubble, then it's fine; in fact you can use having bubbles in your lens as something to boast about! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
martinsmith99
Joined: 31 Aug 2008 Posts: 6943 Location: S Glos, UK
Expire: 2013-11-18
|
Posted: Wed May 26, 2010 6:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
martinsmith99 wrote:
I think you should use the lens outside at F2. You'll get the swirly bokeh that many of us like and some detest. _________________ Casual attendance these days |
|
Back to top |
|
|
woodrim
Joined: 14 Jan 2010 Posts: 4060 Location: Charleston
|
Posted: Wed May 26, 2010 6:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
woodrim wrote:
blackrubystudio: Your results will improve. _________________ Regards,
Woodrim |
|
Back to top |
|
|
blackrubystudio
Joined: 26 May 2010 Posts: 12
|
Posted: Thu May 27, 2010 9:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
blackrubystudio wrote:
Seele wrote: |
in fact you can use having bubbles in your lens as something to boast about! |
I will! thanks for the tip _________________ - Black Ruby -
_____________
Canon EOS 300D, Canon EOS 7D
Canon EF-S 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 IS, Canon EF-S 55-250mm f4-5.6 IS, Canon EF 50mm f1.8 II, Canon EF-S 15-85 IS USM
Helios 44M 58mm f2, Revuenon Special 135mm f2.8 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Scheimpflug
Joined: 06 Feb 2010 Posts: 1888 Location: New Zealand / USA
Expire: 2011-11-18
|
Posted: Thu May 27, 2010 10:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
Scheimpflug wrote:
calvin83 wrote: |
Glass bubbles are common in old russian lens. Some people think this is a sign quality glass. |
exaklaus wrote: |
Nothing serious, pretty common in early quality glass. |
What is it that would make bubbles be a sign of quality glass?
I would have thought the opposite.... _________________ Sigma DP1, Nikon D40 (hers ), Polaroid x530, Pentax P30t, Pentax P50, (P30t/P50 K-A to Nikon F body mount conversion)
Nikon: 18-55/3.5-5.6 "G ED II DX" (F) Soligor: 28/2.8 (FL->F converted), 135/3.5 (F), 3x TC (F, modified) Kalimar: 28-85/3.5 (F)
Vivitar: 70-210/2.8-4.0 Version 3 (F), Tele 500/6.3 Preset (F), 19/3.8 (F) Minolta: 300/5.6 (SR/MC/MD pending F conversion)
Tamron: 28/2.8 (Adaptall) Panagor: 28/2.5 (FD) Aetna: 300/5.6 (F) Osawa: MC 28/2.8 (F)
Vintage Lenses: Dallmeyer: 1940s A.M. 14in 356mm f4 (ULF->M42) 1930s Adon Telephoto Taylor, Taylor & Hobson: 1880s Rapid Rectilinear 8 1/2 x 6 1/2 11.31in f/8 (LF->?)
Parts Lenses: Nikon 35-135/3.5-4.5 (F), Sigma 70-210/4.5 (F), Nikon 50/1.8 Series E (F) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Seele
Joined: 17 Apr 2009 Posts: 741 Location: Sydney Australia
|
Posted: Thu May 27, 2010 1:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Seele wrote:
Scheimpflug wrote: |
What is it that would make bubbles be a sign of quality glass?
I would have thought the opposite.... |
Optical glass blanks need to cool at the right rates depending on the composition, some taking months to ensure the absence of internal stresses and complete eveness. This annealing process would not allow bubbles formed inside to escape.
Some decades ago the Japanese perfected the method of making blanks without bubbles, and the advent of techniques of molding lenses certainly make lens elements to be free from bubbles: better presentation indeed! But if you have bubbles, it means the optical glass was produced in the old-fashioned, all "kosher" way. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Scheimpflug
Joined: 06 Feb 2010 Posts: 1888 Location: New Zealand / USA
Expire: 2011-11-18
|
Posted: Thu May 27, 2010 1:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Scheimpflug wrote:
Interesting! Thanks for the detailed explanation!
That brings up another question though- I'm assuming that the manufacturers noticed the bubbles... Did high-end lens manufacturers reject blanks that had bubbles? Or were they so common that this wasn't practical? _________________ Sigma DP1, Nikon D40 (hers ), Polaroid x530, Pentax P30t, Pentax P50, (P30t/P50 K-A to Nikon F body mount conversion)
Nikon: 18-55/3.5-5.6 "G ED II DX" (F) Soligor: 28/2.8 (FL->F converted), 135/3.5 (F), 3x TC (F, modified) Kalimar: 28-85/3.5 (F)
Vivitar: 70-210/2.8-4.0 Version 3 (F), Tele 500/6.3 Preset (F), 19/3.8 (F) Minolta: 300/5.6 (SR/MC/MD pending F conversion)
Tamron: 28/2.8 (Adaptall) Panagor: 28/2.5 (FD) Aetna: 300/5.6 (F) Osawa: MC 28/2.8 (F)
Vintage Lenses: Dallmeyer: 1940s A.M. 14in 356mm f4 (ULF->M42) 1930s Adon Telephoto Taylor, Taylor & Hobson: 1880s Rapid Rectilinear 8 1/2 x 6 1/2 11.31in f/8 (LF->?)
Parts Lenses: Nikon 35-135/3.5-4.5 (F), Sigma 70-210/4.5 (F), Nikon 50/1.8 Series E (F) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Seele
Joined: 17 Apr 2009 Posts: 741 Location: Sydney Australia
|
Posted: Thu May 27, 2010 1:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Seele wrote:
High-end manufacturers did not mind a few bubbles in a complete lens; if the quantities of bubbles would indeed have any measurable, or visible impact on the image quality, then the lens would not have been allowed to leave the front gate anyway. In fact, if the quantites of bubbles can have any impact on the image a lens produces, you would think you are looking through a glass of Perrier when looking through the lens!
At the optical glass factory, the molten glass is poured into a huge tray, and then it is put into an oven, where its temperature is lowered at an appropriate rate. When it has been cooled, it is taken out, and the quality inspector would look at the slab of glass, marking out the portions which are of sufficient quality to be used, while the other portions rejected. Less than a handful of lens manufacturers produce their own optical glass, but rely on specialist glass makers like Schott and Hoya, who would not dream of shipping out glass blanks which can be sub-standard in the first place.
In fact many high-end lenses I have had in my possession over the years got bubbles, and that never bothered me at all. These days, product presentation has to be perfect, and the salesmen cannot be entrusted to explain to the customers why bubbles should not matter. Along with the techniques to eliminate bubbles, the customers would not even know that they exist, so they would be surprised and alarmed to actually see them. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
estudleon
Joined: 15 May 2008 Posts: 3754 Location: Argentina
|
Posted: Thu May 27, 2010 2:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
estudleon wrote:
The Takumar glass were hoya made? _________________ 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 |
|
|
voytek
Joined: 24 Nov 2009 Posts: 891
|
Posted: Thu May 27, 2010 2:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
voytek wrote:
Bubbles in glass like this gives hope that to make this lens used old stock good quality glass elements. However chance is small, this Helios was made probably in 70/80. The best performance of Helios we have in aluminum lenses in M39 - in my opinion. I was always searching - older it means better. And regarding Russian optic - SN suppose to start with two zeros. _________________ Cheers, Voytek |
|
Back to top |
|
|
blackrubystudio
Joined: 26 May 2010 Posts: 12
|
Posted: Sat May 29, 2010 12:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
blackrubystudio wrote:
I finally received the adapter!
here are three quick shots - minimal sharpening and color correction in PP.
All taken at f/2.
I think I can be quite satisfied with this lens.
Thanks everybody for your contribution to this thread! _________________ - Black Ruby -
_____________
Canon EOS 300D, Canon EOS 7D
Canon EF-S 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 IS, Canon EF-S 55-250mm f4-5.6 IS, Canon EF 50mm f1.8 II, Canon EF-S 15-85 IS USM
Helios 44M 58mm f2, Revuenon Special 135mm f2.8 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
egidio
Joined: 02 Sep 2009 Posts: 222 Location: slovenia
|
Posted: Sat May 29, 2010 6:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
egidio wrote:
nice samples! No problems with bubbles in glass, dirty sensor could be worse that that. _________________ I use: Flektogon 2.8/20, Flektogon 2.8/35, planar 50mm/1.4, Takumar 1.4/50mm, Takumar 1.9/85, MIR 24H, Mir1v, Industar-50-2, Helios-44-2, Pentacon 2.8/135, cyclop 85 1.5 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|