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 58mm f2 versus Meyer Optik Primoplan 58mm f1.9
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu May 15, 2014 4:50 pm    Post subject: Helios 44M-4 58mm f2 versus Meyer Optik Primoplan 58mm f1.9 Reply with quote

Hello,

What are the differences between these 2 lens?
Helios 44M-4 58mm f2 versus Meyer Optik Primoplan 58mm f1.9

Best bokeh?
Best sharpness?

Knowing that one costs 10 times more than the other ...

This is it worth it ?


PostPosted: Thu May 15, 2014 7:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi,

I guess the Meyer Primoplan is technically inferior (has more aberrations) to the Helios 44M-4. The Primoplan appears to be an enhanced (faster) version of the Cooke triplet, where the front element was replaced by a complex combination of three elements:



figure extracted from http://www.taunusreiter.de/Cameras/Biotar_en.html

When Meyer diluted into VEB Pentacon, the manufacturing of the Primoplan was dropped and the fast standard lenses manufactured by Pentacon and Zeiss Jena were based on the double Gauss design, like the Helios 44M-4, which is a clone of the Zeiss Biotar.

Why is the Primoplan so more expensive than the Helios? Probably because the Primoplan is relatively rare and has become a collector's item. If a person is interested only in the photographic result, the Helios 44M-4 is a much better choice, I think.


PostPosted: Thu May 15, 2014 8:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Primoplan is supposed to have more interesting defects and bokeh than the double Gauss type lenses.
And I guess that some of the bokeh artifacts like swirling, etc. are more intense indeed.
Hence it is in demand for artistic purposes, particularly in Asia.
Much like the Trioplan 100/2.8

I had one and sold it a few years ago. Bokeh-centric photography seems to be something I just can't do. Its harder than it looks.


PostPosted: Thu May 15, 2014 8:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

that really enjoys is the bokeh shaped bubble

but the swirling bokeh of helios 44M-4 has not much to envy compared to 58mm f1.9 primoplan

but I think the bubbles are really more pronounced with trioplan


PostPosted: Fri May 16, 2014 6:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Primoplan is a better lens in every aspect: build quality, materials, tolerances, it has better oof rendering, and wide open more smooth and interesting bokeh.
Helioses were mass produced in million copies and tend to have poor quality very often due to lousy quality control.
Still If you are not obsessed with the lenses you use, and you do not want to spend a lot of money the Helios can do a similar job for you for a fraction of the price.


PostPosted: Fri May 16, 2014 9:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

std wrote:
Primoplan is a better lens in every aspect: build quality, materials, tolerances, it has better oof rendering, and wide open more smooth and interesting bokeh.
Helioses were mass produced in million copies and tend to have poor quality very often due to lousy quality control.
Still If you are not obsessed with the lenses you use, and you do not want to spend a lot of money the Helios can do a similar job for you for a fraction of the price.


I can't agree with that. Every Helios I have was solid like a rock. My collegue almost unscrew it from his Canon EOS-M when he tried to change aperture. And I love them because they are sharp like a razor. Take a look at some examples bellow.





f/8


PostPosted: Fri May 16, 2014 10:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Between the model and primoplan 58mm f1.9 and the trioplan 100mm f2.8
someone have a preference ?
why ?

in fact I already have a helios 44M-4 and I'd like to know if it will give me something to acquire a primoplan 58mm or better it I take a trioplan?


PostPosted: Fri May 16, 2014 11:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Primoplan, though being a wonderful lens, has only a very small portion of center really sharp wide open (even on APS-C) The corners are really terrible. You'd be better off woth the Biotar or Helios, I think.


PostPosted: Fri May 16, 2014 11:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't really have much nice to say about the primoplan. Objectively - it is worse than the Helios in every quantifiable measure. It's not even a contest. There's a lot of reasons Meyer dropped it and went to a double gauss type. Subjectively, the rendering it delivers, especially wide open is amongst the ugliest out there. I frankly don't get the hype over the way it draws, wide open it is worse than even the worst triplets I've encountered. Shocked

The trioplan is another over-hyped lens, but at least it gives nice results. It's not really much different from other Meyer lenses, it sort of typifies the "Meyer look" actually. The Oreston and Domiplan give the same sort of sparkly bokeh, they just unfortunately do not have the number of diaphragm blades to deliver it at apertures other than wide open.


PostPosted: Fri May 16, 2014 11:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

My opinion is based on my personal experience with the Primoplan and several Helios'es i have owned.
I'm not saying that Helios is not good or not sharp, it's just not my lens. I don't like the busy background , the flare, the colors, the build quality.

If i had to choose again i will get Primoplan or an early Biotar, but that's just me - i like old lenses better Smile
It's not about the sharpness it's the way it makes pictures, the colors the clarity the rendering.


PostPosted: Fri May 16, 2014 12:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I still don't understand that thing about build quality cause my opinion is that you need a higly skilled demoliton expert to hurt soviet lenses Very Happy

Or maybe a blonde because if you give her two iron balls she will break one an lose another Very Happy


PostPosted: Fri May 16, 2014 12:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mos6502 wrote:
I don't really have much nice to say about the primoplan. Objectively - it is worse than the Helios in every quantifiable measure. It's not even a contest. There's a lot of reasons Meyer dropped it and went to a double gauss type.


After WWII, when the Russians decided which lens they would produce by millions, they chose Biotar, which was cloned as Helios 44. Russians knew what they were doing! Biotar was Zeiss, Primoplan was Meyer, the German Sigma of the time. Even Pentacon, former Meyer, abandoned the Primoplan and started producing normal 50mm lenses based on the Biotar.

Interestingly, many people are starting to appreciate what was considered obsolete 50 years ago. This is the case of Primoplan and Triotar, lenses from obscure Japanese brands, Petzval lenses, etc. There would be no problem with that if people already had these lenses, or if they were cheap. However, many people are willing to pay for them as much as costs a Sigma Art. This is crazy!


PostPosted: Fri May 16, 2014 1:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Primoplan, Trioplan, Petzval or other rare lens from Europe are collectible fashions in Easter Asia. Sharpness may not be the main concern here but the bokeh/color/flare etc do.


PostPosted: Fri May 16, 2014 2:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

For me, I think it is worth buying a lens m42/m39/exakta ... if the price remains low.

These lens possible to have a different bokeh and make different shots, or acquire such a 135mm at a price 10 times lower.

But it will tell me what is the point of buying an old lens if the price is the same as a new lens that will be adapted to dslr and has AF (unless it is a collector) ...


PostPosted: Fri May 16, 2014 4:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I did a little comparison between: Biotar, Pancolar, Oreston, Primoplan and Helios v6 v7 on full frame a while ago:
http://forum.mflenses.com/6x-shootout-biotar-pancolar-oreston-primoplan-helios-v6-v7-t31237.html


PostPosted: Fri May 16, 2014 4:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mos6502 wrote:

Interestingly, many people are starting to appreciate what was considered obsolete 50 years ago. This is the case of Primoplan and Triotar, lenses from obscure Japanese brands, Petzval lenses, etc. There would be no problem with that if people already had these lenses, or if they were cheap. However, many people are willing to pay for them as much as costs a Sigma Art. This is crazy!


Quality and popularity aren't necessarily the same thing. People buy things for all sorts of reasons, in many case for emotional reasons. Also, price doesn't necessarily have any relationship with quality either. Some people simply don't know better while others want it simply because it is rare.


PostPosted: Fri May 16, 2014 6:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

People will buy lenses for many reasons, sharpness, color, rendering, AF performance, feel, look, reputation, etc...
I'm trying to get a sample of everything, a difficult task for sure, but it is nice to have a choice of looks/rendering/sharpness to choose from to match what you want to do.