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

what is a good year for Helios 40-2
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri Sep 26, 2014 4:07 am    Post subject: what is a good year for Helios 40-2 Reply with quote

after playing with my 44-2 (and 44M-4) i've got a big itch for the Helios 40-2.
i've read the H40 M42 version started in 1979 (perhaps much earlier) and went on through to the very early 1990's then in 2012 production begins again.
I see a lens on the ebay with an N75xxxx serial...it's from 1975 so I guess 1979 is out.
i've read here that the new ones (2012+) have nearly 80% chance of defect(de-centered mainly). Is this a myth?
I want a 40-2 (M42 mount).
The newer lenses do not come with a tri-pod collar?
I'm under the impression I should prefer a lens form 1979 through to just before 1990's?
The new Meyer Optik Somnium (much more $$$) should have less chance of defects?
Thanks,
Paul


PostPosted: Fri Sep 26, 2014 4:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Buy from a reputable seller (with hassle-free returns).


PostPosted: Fri Sep 26, 2014 5:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The 40-2 started from 69/70, like most of the "XX-2".
About the 2012+ production, I can't say, but I don't think the date is that important. There is many more important factor that can turn a lens to a lemon (bad use, badly disassembled/reassembled, etc...). As said Calvin, better choose a lens from the right seller.


PostPosted: Fri Sep 26, 2014 5:44 am    Post subject: Re: what is a good year for Helios 40-2 Reply with quote

Paul A wrote:
...The new Meyer Optik Somnium (much more $$$) should have less chance of defects?
...


At least that is what they promissed when I talked to the one how had this new Meyer Görlitz idea.
It seems the tested new Helios 40 lenses, and in case I remember correctly only 1 out of 6 was good.
When they ship ~99% good lenses and have a good service in case of problems, this could be an argument for the price.

My old chrome Helios 40 has a mechnaical problem, don´t know how it compares optical with a Somnium - this would be an interesting test :.-)


PostPosted: Fri Sep 26, 2014 8:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Somnium: http://www.ephotozine.com/article/meyer-optik-gorlitz-lenses-relaunched-at-photokina-2014--26255
But it is not April Fools' Day? It certainly feels like it.


PostPosted: Fri Sep 26, 2014 1:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I had high hopes for the new Helios 40-2s but it sounds like they've been a let down. Contrast and flare protection have never been its strongest qualities so I was excited to see what advancements they would offer in terms of the coating. I have yet to see an actual "MC" version, despite all the packaging saying it. A Helios from 2013 looks like it has the same coating from 1970. Kinda stupid.

The limited pictures for the Somnium don't look like they improved anything in that department either. Granted it's a prototype but that should have been a serious consideration. I still don't really understand this lens. Are they making the glass? Are they ordering the glass from KMZ and cementing the 2 pairs? That article says improved mechanics. HUH? It's a Helios 40-2 top and the chrome focus ring off of a Helios 40. That's gotta be a joke.

I guess if KMZ is doing a piss-poor job cementing elements, that'll throw off the centering. I find it hard to believe THAT many are bad. KMZ is an experienced optical manufacturer. Where is that info coming from? From someone trying to sell you a different lens?

I've had 2 Helios 40s and 4 old Helios 40-2s from various years. I never saw any distinct pattern between quality vs. year of production. They all were quite good. I don't think you'll have a problem going for one from the 70s or 80s.


PostPosted: Fri Sep 26, 2014 4:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

themoleman342 wrote:
I had high hopes for the new Helios 40-2s but it sounds like they've been a let down. Contrast and flare protection have never been its strongest qualities so I was excited to see what advancements they would offer in terms of the coating. I have yet to see an actual "MC" version, despite all the packaging saying it. A Helios from 2013 looks like it has the same coating from 1970. Kinda stupid.

The limited pictures for the Somnium don't look like they improved anything in that department either. Granted it's a prototype but that should have been a serious consideration. I still don't really understand this lens. Are they making the glass? Are they ordering the glass from KMZ and cementing the 2 pairs? That article says improved mechanics. HUH? It's a Helios 40-2 top and the chrome focus ring off of a Helios 40. That's gotta be a joke.

I guess if KMZ is doing a piss-poor job cementing elements, that'll throw off the centering. I find it hard to believe THAT many are bad. KMZ is an experienced optical manufacturer. Where is that info coming from? From someone trying to sell you a different lens?
I've had 2 Helios 40s and 4 old Helios 40-2s from various years. I never saw any distinct pattern between quality vs. year of production. They all were quite good. I don't think you'll have a problem going for one from the 70s or 80s.

-nobody is 'trying' to sell me a lens just yet as I haven't inquired about purchasing to anybody. it's been a whirlwind past 3-4 weeks of reading about German/East Europian lenses. I did read a thread here at mf lenses that the new 2012+ 40-2s have ~80% chance of defect.
-i truely have no idea as to the validity of that claim.
there are a couple nice (looking) copies on the ebay and one seller (moscowphoto, 99.3%) has responded to two questions about the lens.
Seller stated the lens was perfect working condition (new unused) and has no defects. So I asked if the lens was CLA and if/how it was tested for defects.
seller replied the lens was CLAd and tested on a Zenit 122 and Canon mk2.
i'm going to take a stab at the lens it an '81XXXX.
Paul
THANKS TO ALL FOR YOUR TIME AND HELP AND ADVICE.


PostPosted: Fri Sep 26, 2014 5:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Best of luck! I think that's a good choice.

Quote:
I did read a thread here at mf lenses that the new 2012+ 40-2s have ~80% chance of defect.


I see where you read that. From my understanding that claim is made by the people trying to market the Somnium. I haven't run across any actual users who have been unhappy with their new Helios 40-2. I would expect if the defect level was that high there'd be a bunch of posts about it.


PostPosted: Fri Sep 26, 2014 8:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

themoleman342 wrote:
Best of luck! I think that's a good choice.

Quote:
I did read a thread here at mf lenses that the new 2012+ 40-2s have ~80% chance of defect.


I see where you read that. From my understanding that claim is made by the people trying to market the Somnium. I haven't run across any actual users who have been unhappy with their new Helios 40-2. I would expect if the defect level was that high there'd be a bunch of posts about it.

YEP!!! i was surprised to read both of the threads (one claiming 1 in 6 was bad (from Somnium) and the other clainimg 80% chances of bad copy (from a member here[i can't remember whom] whom i don't recall seeing any affiliation)

anyhoo...have you ever ebayed from Russia?
i'm just wondering what to expect as far as extra fees (i'm rarely buying from web and rare from ebay) like "extra" brokerage and/or customs/shippings.
all the info i can find simply states there "may be" extra fees pertaining to those criteria.
just wondering what my chances are that $50-$75 s/h may "bump" up to realms of ridiculous.
Paul


PostPosted: Fri Sep 26, 2014 8:35 pm    Post subject: Re: what is a good year for Helios 40-2 Reply with quote

ZoneV wrote:
Paul A wrote:
...The new Meyer Optik Somnium (much more $$$) should have less chance of defects?
...


At least that is what they promissed when I talked to the one how had this new Meyer Görlitz idea.
It seems the tested new Helios 40 lenses, and in case I remember correctly only 1 out of 6 was good.
When they ship ~99% good lenses and have a good service in case of problems, this could be an argument for the price.

My old chrome Helios 40 has a mechnaical problem, don´t know how it compares optical with a Somnium - this would be an interesting test :.-)

i emailed Somnium makers too with that question. no reply as of yet.
Paul


PostPosted: Fri Sep 26, 2014 9:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have an older 40-2 laying around somewhere, has a bit of play, but nice one otherwise. Just so darn heavy. Need to dig it out and give it a spin....


PostPosted: Fri Sep 26, 2014 10:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kds315* wrote:
I have an older 40-2 laying around somewhere, has a bit of play, but nice one otherwise. Just so darn heavy. Need to dig it out and give it a spin....

i'd prefer to buy/support a member here than ebay.
what's "a bit of play"?
i've got very little history from web sales but i did sell an AR57 1.2 to a fella in Germany and I just recently bought an FD300 f/4 L from Fred Miranda himself.
if your lens is good and you want to sell do let me know. i use PayPal and do not request seller(s) to list item as lesser value gift(s).
hurry though...i am really getting itchy and i want a 40-2 in hand before the end of November.
BTW I'm in Canada.
Paul


PostPosted: Sat Sep 27, 2014 1:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I bought a 40 that had a CLA, it arrived with one element backwards and the center of the element was touching the element next to it, the coating was damaged on both elements, so I sent it back, haven't had the guts to order another.


PostPosted: Sat Sep 27, 2014 8:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lightshow wrote:
I bought a 40 that had a CLA, it arrived with one element backwards and the center of the element was touching the element next to it, the coating was damaged on both elements, so I sent it back, haven't had the guts to order another.

i had read 'taking apart' these old russian lenses was reall simple....
i had read that CLA (by non-qualified technician) was a major cause of dud lenses.
i guess putting them back together is not quite as simple
sorry for your luck but thanks for posting a heads up.
BTW where (other than Vintage cameras [i've looked through his inventory] do you find you glass..here and ebay or somewhere local too?
Paul


PostPosted: Sat Sep 27, 2014 12:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A good majority are from eBay, FredMiranda's buy&sell, here, KEH...
The main thing to look for is a good return policy, good pictures(eBay), that the glass is stated that it's clean with no issues, and that they have good feedback.
I bought an X-Fujinar 50/1.6, it had fungus, the seller apologized, acquired another and sent it, and told me to keep the other one for my troubles.

The 40 shouldn't be all that hard to service, you just have to pay attention to what you are doing.


PostPosted: Sat Sep 27, 2014 5:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

themoleman342 wrote:
...
Quote:
I did read a thread here at mf lenses that the new 2012+ 40-2s have ~80% chance of defect.


I see where you read that. From my understanding that claim is made by the people trying to market the Somnium. I haven't run across any actual users who have been unhappy with their new Helios 40-2. I would expect if the defect level was that high there'd be a bunch of posts about it.


I wrote here what the New Meyer Görlitz guy told me about their tests. Where is the thread with the 80% chance of defect?
I don´t think New Meyer Görlitz people have much knowledge about old lenses, so I don´t think they are a member here Smile
One of them wrote about the new lenses before Photokina, I think they first tried not to tell people what lenses they optimize.
I saw one of the frist images made with, and wrote looks like Helios 40...


PostPosted: Sun Sep 28, 2014 4:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ZoneV wrote:
themoleman342 wrote:
...
Quote:
I did read a thread here at mf lenses that the new 2012+ 40-2s have ~80% chance of defect.


I see where you read that. From my understanding that claim is made by the people trying to market the Somnium. I haven't run across any actual users who have been unhappy with their new Helios 40-2. I would expect if the defect level was that high there'd be a bunch of posts about it.


I wrote here what the New Meyer Görlitz guy told me about their tests. Where is the thread with the 80% chance of defect?
I don´t think New Meyer Görlitz people have much knowledge about old lenses, so I don´t think they are a member here Smile
One of them wrote about the new lenses before Photokina, I think they first tried not to tell people what lenses they optimize.
I saw one of the frist images made with, and wrote looks like Helios 40...

I just googled it and...You wrote it on September 22 2014 http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic.php?t=67745&start=45
"I have no idea how bad the quality deviation of the new producted Helios 40-2 is. They claim it is very bad, I think 20% good, 80% bad - this would be a very good reason for a optimized version.
But the lens name and "Made in Germany" feels wrong for me. "
Same thread basically I guess so not a separate confirming thread.


PostPosted: Sun Sep 28, 2014 8:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ah, yes. So this are only the New Meyer Görlitz statments, nothing from our users of the new Helios 40 production.
Do several MFlenses users have the new producted Helios 40?


PostPosted: Fri Oct 03, 2014 2:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

80% defected - that's just BS, pardon my French.

I have a 1972 (black) version in mint condition which I bought on ebay.

The black version got a slightly improved resolution, and it will definitely fit your camera trough an M42-> whatever adapter, without any focusing problems.

So get yourself a good Helios.

Caxa2002 on ebay is not cheap, but it's quite a reliable and serious seller, with a very impressive stock of lenses!