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 f/2
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue Jul 07, 2015 7:12 pm    Post subject: Helios-44M-4 58mm f/2 Reply with quote

I have a Helios-44M-4 58mm f/2 which I usually use at f/5.6 to achieve sharpness across the entire field of view. Does any of the newer (or older) versions of this lens perform better at full aperture?


PostPosted: Tue Jul 07, 2015 7:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The search for "Helios 44" gives you more than 1.000 hits. A lot to read about in this forum.


PostPosted: Tue Jul 07, 2015 8:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Not sure what you mean by perform better...however, the later the Helios, the sharper it is. 44-m7 is very sharp, whilst 44-2 only has center sharpness stopped down. My 44m-4-m is quite noticeably sharper than my 44-2. There are plenty of references and comparisons out there, but I kept my 44-2 for bokeh and 44m-4-m for sharpness. Both great lenses for price.


PostPosted: Tue Jul 07, 2015 10:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've used the 44M, and 44-2, on Sony NEX5, A6000 and Pentax K10, and it should be looking sharp even wide open, certainly at 2.8. The aperture is only affecting depth of field, the sharpness of the lens should be constant.


PostPosted: Tue Jul 07, 2015 10:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think it's unusual for the sharpness of a lens to be constant irrespective of aperture . . . none of my current ones have that property and, I have to say, certainly not my Helios 58/2 Crying or Very sad


PostPosted: Wed Jul 08, 2015 12:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yeah, but the main effect of changing aperture is the depth of field, and the perception of increased sharpness. If it's sharp wide open, it should stay sharp stopped down - and the opposite way. It's a big generalisation I know, but a lens that's sharp mid way open should retain most of its sharpness as its opened up, just less of it.


PostPosted: Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

You should not have to stop down to 5.6 to achieve sharpness. Perhaps you have a bad copy...I would wait and see how it compares with new one.


PostPosted: Wed Jul 08, 2015 7:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

scsambrook wrote:
I think it's unusual for the sharpness of a lens to be constant irrespective of aperture . . . none of my current ones have that property and, I have to say, certainly not my Helios 58/2 Crying or Very sad


I am fully on your side, Stephen. There is also something called "diffraction" which is causing the loss of sharpness at smaller apertures too:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/diffraction.htm

As a general rule you can say that a typical "normal" lens is sharpest at F5.6.

Just my 2 cents.


PostPosted: Wed Jul 08, 2015 7:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I guess part of it depends on how much sharpness is acceptable to you. Aperture primarily controls depth of field, obviously, but it does also cut down issues like spherical aberration as it cuts out those fringe light rays entering and causing what is perceived as softness or ghosting. Look at the old Meyer Trioplan lens for a good example of this. Soft and ghostly when wide open, but at f4 and down, perceived sharpness and contrast (and thus colour rendition) improves noticeably. Technically the glass isn't any sharper of course, but sharpness is also a set of perceptions based on multiple factors.


PostPosted: Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I would totally agree, there are very few lenses that are super sharp wide open, except for maybe at the center. A lens that would be evenly tack sharp at all apertures would be quite a feat, and veery expensive.


PostPosted: Thu Jul 09, 2015 12:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

StillSanj wrote:
I would totally agree, there are very few lenses that are super sharp wide open, except for maybe at the center. A lens that would be evenly tack sharp at all apertures would be quite a feat, and veery expensive.


And would no doubt have other problems. As we know, there's no perfect lens Smile Lens design is about compromises.


PostPosted: Thu Aug 20, 2015 1:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Helios-44M-4 I have is from Valdai. Could an (older?) Helios-44M from KMZ be any better?


PostPosted: Thu Aug 20, 2015 2:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kyrcy wrote:
The Helios-44M-4 I have is from Valdai. Could an (older?) Helios-44M from KMZ be any better?


There were lots made over the decades. I'm no expert, but as far as I know, the newer Helios 44 lenses simply have better multi-coatings and perform better in terms of contrast. There are always sample variations, even on a lens by lens basis, but I doubt there'd be too much deviation in terms of optical performance even between factories. The older Helios lenses (44 and 44-2) tended to have swirlier out of focus areas from the samples I've seen and discussions I've read, but they're also more prone to flare and loss of contrast, so it all depends on what look you want. Noen of them are dramatically different from each other basically.


PostPosted: Thu Aug 20, 2015 2:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kyrcy wrote:
The Helios-44M-4 I have is from Valdai. Could an (older?) Helios-44M from KMZ be any better?


The variation between lenses in Soviet and East German production is so great that the next number up from Valdai could be twice as good as yours...or twice as bad. The number of variables is staggering. Was the lens built for local use or for export? Was there pressure to increase production when produced or to improve quality? Was it a good lot of glass or just good enough? Was the technician assembling the lens sober, a many year skilled veteran, a new hire or a drone on a sinecure position?

That's all before the lens leaves the factory. Then you can think about the use or abuse the lens sustained since it was produced.

The fact is that you can't expect any old lens to be in like new condition regardless where it was produced or by whom. Hard treatment, improper maintenance or just ageing/outgassing of lubricants can all degrade performance. Yes, you can get lucky and then again you can get screwed.

Welcome to the wonderful world of legacy lenses. Laughing

P.S. I just received a 1992 production Helios 44m-7 a week ago. It is in beautiful shape, not a mark on it. Clean glass. Undamaged coating. Takes nice, sharp images. It just doesn't focus to infinity. Since the lens goes 20 meters>infinity that kind of limits its utility to me. I'll play with it a bit when I have the time. It could be the adapter I was using. From what I have seen so far there isn't anything special to this lens that I don't get from other 50mm lenses so likely it will end up back on Ebay.


PostPosted: Thu Aug 20, 2015 2:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just buy many of them and a few will surely be good enough. Keep one 44-2 for swirl bokeh and one 44M-4 to 7 for sharpness. Problem solved. Smile


PostPosted: Thu Aug 20, 2015 3:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I had a look in eBay and prices seem to vary a lot. If there is not much difference between the different versions which should I look for (apart from the one I already have) and for how much?


PostPosted: Thu Aug 20, 2015 3:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

newst wrote:

The variation between lenses in Soviet and East German production is so great that the next number up from Valdai could be twice as good as yours...or twice as bad. The number of variables is staggering. Was the lens built for local use or for export? Was there pressure to increase production when produced or to improve quality? Was it a good lot of glass or just good enough? Was the technician assembling the lens sober, a many year skilled veteran, a new hire or a drone on a sinecure position?


Although you are certainly right, be rather careful here with such statements about GDR lenses..... Wink

Some folks here are very sensible on that. Luckily you avoided the Z* word. Laughing


PostPosted: Thu Aug 20, 2015 3:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

miran wrote:
Just buy many of them and a few will surely be good enough. Keep one 44-2 for swirl bokeh and one 44M-4 to 7 for sharpness. Problem solved. Smile


Or look even for an Zenitar 50/1.7. The best choice for sharpness and still available for reasonable prices as well.


PostPosted: Thu Aug 20, 2015 3:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If you're happy with your particular copy of the 44M-4, then you should look for an earlier model like the 44-2. There is a very big difference between the earlier models (original 44 and 44-2) and the later ones that are marked as 44x-n, where x is either K or M (for mount type) and n is a number between 2 and 7 which supposedly corresponds to resolution (the bigger the number the sharper the lens) but I'm not totally sure about that. The earlier ones have very strong swirly bokeh and the later ones don't (or at least much less). If you're not happy with your copy, then also look for a 44M-6 or 44M-7 which is supposedly the sharpest but I think also the rarest. Honest prices should be I think between about 10 and 30€ for most models.

Personally I don't care for the later ones because they don't really stand out that much and there are many other good cheap ~50s out there but the old 44-2 with its rendering and bokeh is one of my favourite lenses. I'm talking about this one:

Helios-44-2 58mm/2.0 by Miran Amon, on Flickr

And my flickr album: https://www.flickr.com/gp/8800601@N04/4H5u0c


PostPosted: Thu Aug 20, 2015 10:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

newst wrote:
The variation between lenses in Soviet and East German production is so great that the next number up from Valdai could be twice as good as yours...or twice as bad. The number of variables is staggering. Was the lens built for local use or for export? Was there pressure to increase production when produced or to improve quality? Was it a good lot of glass or just good enough? Was the technician assembling the lens sober, a many year skilled veteran, a new hire or a drone on a sinecure position?

That's all before the lens leaves the factory. Then you can think about the use or abuse the lens sustained since it was produced.

The fact is that you can't expect any old lens to be in like new condition regardless where it was produced or by whom. Hard treatment, improper maintenance or just ageing/outgassing of lubricants can all degrade performance. Yes, you can get lucky and then again you can get screwed.

Welcome to the wonderful world of legacy lenses. Laughing

P.S. I just received a 1992 production Helios 44m-7 a week ago. It is in beautiful shape, not a mark on it. Clean glass. Undamaged coating. Takes nice, sharp images. It just doesn't focus to infinity. Since the lens goes 20 meters>infinity that kind of limits its utility to me. I'll play with it a bit when I have the time. It could be the adapter I was using. From what I have seen so far there isn't anything special to this lens that I don't get from other 50mm lenses so likely it will end up back on Ebay.


If you decide to sell it just send me PM with the price... Looking for good copy.


PostPosted: Fri Aug 21, 2015 1:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hey!
I think Helios 44-3 is a good middle,sharp as 44m-7 but easier to swirl....