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 44m 4 2/58 vs 50mm prime lens
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu Sep 19, 2013 12:14 pm    Post subject: Helios 44m 4 2/58 vs 50mm prime lens Reply with quote

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 . Confused


PostPosted: Thu Sep 19, 2013 12:31 pm    Post subject: Re: Helios 44m 4 2/58 vs 50mm prime lens Reply with quote

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 . Confused


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.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 19, 2013 1:51 pm    Post subject: Re: Helios 44m 4 2/58 vs 50mm prime lens Reply with quote

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 . Confused


Have any comparison photos to share? I'm assuming you have your reasons for saying one is 'better'...


PostPosted: Thu Sep 19, 2013 2:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 19, 2013 2:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 19, 2013 3:51 pm    Post subject: SMC Takumar 55mm Reply with quote

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 .


PostPosted: Thu Sep 19, 2013 5:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

With the money you are making in the Foo Fighters, I wouldn't worry about the cost Dave. Wink


ps: I really like your drumming, could you do a bit more of that and a little less singing? Very Happy


PostPosted: Thu Sep 19, 2013 5:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 19, 2013 7:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's the uncorrected spherical aberration that gives it the glow and swirly bokeh.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 19, 2013 7:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes its the swirly bokeh that kind of makes it unique and a nice lens to own.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 19, 2013 10:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 19, 2013 10:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 19, 2013 10:37 pm    Post subject: Re: SMC Takumar 55mm Reply with quote

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.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 19, 2013 11:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.


PostPosted: Fri Sep 20, 2013 12:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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 Confused


PostPosted: Fri Sep 20, 2013 12:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.


PostPosted: Fri Sep 20, 2013 12:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.


PostPosted: Fri Sep 20, 2013 12:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.


PostPosted: Fri Sep 20, 2013 4:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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!


PostPosted: Fri Sep 20, 2013 1:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.


PostPosted: Fri Sep 20, 2013 4:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.


PostPosted: Fri Sep 20, 2013 7:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.


PostPosted: Sat Sep 21, 2013 3:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.