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
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Mon Nov 05, 2018 10:28 am    Post subject: Helios 44M Reply with quote

This is the third Helios 44 I've owned - the first was in 1971 on a Zenit B - however I don't seem to remember images as good as I'm getting now so that's down to the camera.

Schlumbergera by Andrew R, on Flickr

And another couple:-

Liquid Amber_Helios 44M @f2 by Andrew R, on Flickr

Lone Penstemon by Andrew R, on Flickr


PostPosted: Sat Apr 16, 2022 3:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Before I got a copy of Helios-44M (The KMZ, not the Valday one), I thought all the Helioses make the same swirl on FF. To my suprise, I don't see much of it, as compared to the most widespread Helios 44-2.

In a broader sense, the 44M seems another lens as for colour rendering and bokeh. Colours are a bit muted in 44M, while 44-2 tends to jolly green and blue cast. And the 44M bokeh has a consistency and slight harshness, almost squarish OOF spots, while 44-2 gives an airy OOF. My first test shots let me think that aestetically 44M is a kind of longer version of Mir-1.

I did not find a systematic comparison of 44-2 and 44M and wonder if someone made a consistent observation of differences between the two lenses.


PostPosted: Wed Apr 27, 2022 8:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

As far as I know, the 2/58mm HELIOS (originally Zeiss BIOTAR) lens, is an world champion of its production, with more than 12 million pieces!

This is my version of this lens!





The two images are made with another 2/58mm Helios, with an reversed front lens!


PostPosted: Sat Apr 30, 2022 12:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

alex ph wrote:
Before I got a copy of Helios-44M (The KMZ, not the Valday one), I thought all the Helioses make the same swirl on FF. To my suprise, I don't see much of it, as compared to the most widespread Helios 44-2.

In a broader sense, the 44M seems another lens as for colour rendering and bokeh. Colours are a bit muted in 44M, while 44-2 tends to jolly green and blue cast. And the 44M bokeh has a consistency and slight harshness, almost squarish OOF spots, while 44-2 gives an airy OOF. My first test shots let me think that aestetically 44M is a kind of longer version of Mir-1.

I did not find a systematic comparison of 44-2 and 44M and wonder if someone made a consistent observation of differences between the two lenses.


Is your 44-2 made in KMZ?

So you mean 44-2 bokeh is swirlier than that of 44m?

Sample variation makes results confusing.

It seems that early 44-2s were better regarding colors and sharpness as well.


PostPosted: Sat Apr 30, 2022 12:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've found two near mint 44m from KMZ but I have a 44-3.

Some say it is one of the best lenses in helios 44 line.

Should I buy a 44m or it is waste of money while having a 44-3?🤔


PostPosted: Sat Apr 30, 2022 4:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mojtabaa wrote:
I've found two near mint 44m from KMZ but I have a 44-3.

Some say it is one of the best lenses in helios 44 line.

Should I buy a 44m or it is waste of money while having a 44-3?🤔


In my opinion, there is more propaganda about soviet lenses than Pravda ever published. It comes down to handling: do you prefer a preset aperture or clicked aperture. Then it comes down to condition. Was the lens taken apart by an amateur or abused. Then it comes down to luck as there is some sample variation, but the sample variation is largely exaggerated. I have 3 Helios lens. One a very early pre-series Helios 44-2 made by KMZ with a double 00 serial number. The other one which is a hand me down from my father with a 777 serial number made in Valdai. Then another Valdai made Helios from the 80's. The 00 serial number is a good performer but my father's Helios is the best optically. However, we are talking about splitting hairs here.

I personally love the rendering of the Helios so if it's cheap enough and it brings you joy then pick it up. If you are looking for drastic improvements in performance, then it's most likely not going to happen.


PostPosted: Sat Apr 30, 2022 9:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

cbass wrote:
Mojtabaa wrote:
I've found two near mint 44m from KMZ but I have a 44-3.

Some say it is one of the best lenses in helios 44 line.

Should I buy a 44m or it is waste of money while having a 44-3?🤔


In my opinion, there is more propaganda about soviet lenses than Pravda ever published. It comes down to handling: do you prefer a preset aperture or clicked aperture. Then it comes down to condition. Was the lens taken apart by an amateur or abused. Then it comes down to luck as there is some sample variation, but the sample variation is largely exaggerated. I have 3 Helios lens. One a very early pre-series Helios 44-2 made by KMZ with a double 00 serial number. The other one which is a hand me down from my father with a 777 serial number made in Valdai. Then another Valdai made Helios from the 80's. The 00 serial number is a good performer but my father's Helios is the best optically. However, we are talking about splitting hairs here.

I personally love the rendering of the Helios so if it's cheap enough and it brings you joy then pick it up. If you are looking for drastic improvements in performance, then it's most likely not going to happen.

Yes,thanks. I agree with you👍


PostPosted: Sat Apr 30, 2022 9:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

OPAL wrote:
As far as I know, the 2/58mm HELIOS (originally Zeiss BIOTAR) lens, is an world champion of its production, with more than 12 million pieces!

This is my version of this lens!





The two images are made with another 2/58mm Helios, with an reversed front lens!


That's quite hilarious - they have replaced the original name ring with a modern one that is covered in nonsense. The T* is totally spurious - it doesn't have that Zeiss coating and the Biotar-Krasnogorsk is pretty funny too as it's a Helios and was never labelled as anything other than a Helios until someone changed the name ring to try to give it more prestige.

It's just a run of the mill normal Helios with a bogus name ring, which makes it a fairly interesting curiosity.


PostPosted: Sun May 01, 2022 7:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
OPAL wrote:
As far as I know, the 2/58mm HELIOS (originally Zeiss BIOTAR) lens, is an world champion of its production, with more than 12 million pieces!

This is my version of this lens!





The two images are made with another 2/58mm Helios, with an reversed front lens!




That's quite hilarious - they have replaced the original name ring with a modern one that is covered in nonsense. The T* is totally spurious - it doesn't have that Zeiss coating and the Biotar-Krasnogorsk is pretty funny too as it's a Helios and was never labelled as anything other than a Helios until someone changed the name ring to try to give it more prestige.

It's just a run of the mill normal Helios with a bogus name ring, which makes it a fairly interesting curiosity.






Sony A6500 with the adapted "BIOTAR T* 2,0/58mm" (Helios!) = 87mm with an heliocoid adaptor + flash f/8 - 1/160s.

Someone said, that the image is not sharp!
Rolling Eyes


Last edited by OPAL on Sun May 08, 2022 7:38 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sun May 01, 2022 12:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

OPAL wrote:
As far as I know, the 2/58mm HELIOS lens, is an world champion of its production, with more than 12 million pieces!

That's not really a good thing.


PostPosted: Sun May 01, 2022 1:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It has resulted in an entire sub-culture of Helios 44 variant obsessed people all looking for the ultimate Helios 44 that puts all others to shame, when in fact they are all pretty similar.


PostPosted: Sun May 01, 2022 1:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

D1N0 wrote:
It has resulted in an entire sub-culture of Helios 44 variant obsessed people all looking for the ultimate Helios 44 that puts all others to shame, when in fact they are all pretty similar.

Which by itself is a result of them cranking out the same stolen design for 50 years while the rest of the world built bigger and better things.


PostPosted: Sun May 01, 2022 3:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gardener wrote:
Which by itself is a result of them cranking out the same stolen design for 50 years while the rest of the world built bigger and better things.


I wouldn't call this design to be stolen since all German patents expired at the end of WWII because Germany surrendered unconditionally. It was cheap mass production lens in the USSR and it is the most built lens in the world...


PostPosted: Sun May 01, 2022 3:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Max78 wrote:
Gardener wrote:
Which by itself is a result of them cranking out the same stolen design for 50 years while the rest of the world built bigger and better things.


I wouldn't call this design to be stolen since all German patents expired at the end of WWII ...


Well - after having won, you can order that all patents expire. Then "stealing" isn't possible any more, of course ...
It's a tricky issue.

Certainly the Biotar design is not of Russian origin. That may be a less controversial way to describe what was going on Wink

S


PostPosted: Sun May 01, 2022 3:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

stevemark wrote:

Well - after having won, you can order that all patents expire. Then "stealing" isn't possible any more, of course ...
It's a tricky issue.

Certainly the Biotar design is not of Russian origin. That may be a less controversial way to describe what was going on Wink

S


Yes, the origin is not of Russian. Large part of the russian optical industry is built using German technology. Other winner countries made the same, e.g. rockets and USA.

There many other lenses with the 6/4 optical schemes. Original Planar from Rudolph was the first one. Other companies also intensively used 6/4 designs in the past. Some examples are Schneider Xenon 50/1.8, Steinheil Quinon 55/1.9, Schacht Travelon 50/1.8, ...


PostPosted: Sun May 01, 2022 6:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Max78 wrote:

Yes, the origin is not of Russian. Large part of the russian optical industry is built using German technology. Other winner countries made the same, e.g. rockets and USA.

Well, we certainly agree on that. However the Biotar 2/58 scheme of soviet lenses remained essentially the same for 50 years. Look at what the US did with the A4 rockets they captured ... roughly 20 years later there was the Saturn V ...

Max78 wrote:
There many other lenses with the 6/4 optical schemes. Original Planar from Rudolph was the first one. Other companies also intensively used 6/4 designs in the past. Some examples are Schneider Xenon 50/1.8, Steinheil Quinon 55/1.9, Schacht Travelon 50/1.8, ...

Yes, but they quite soon hav a vastly improved performance due to using different glass, and rather different computations - curiostity, creativity and ingenuity instead of ... well ...

S


PostPosted: Sun May 01, 2022 6:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

stevemark wrote:

Well, we certainly agree on that. However the Biotar 2/58 scheme of soviet lenses remained essentially the same for 50 years. Look at what the US did with the A4 rockets they captured ... roughly 20 years later there was the Saturn V ...


OK Smile The optical plants (KMZ and others) were strongly involved into the military production and the soviet planned economy was not so oriented to the consumer. The lens was initially quite good optically and it was enough for typical Zenit cameras and film applications. Jupiters are also old German designs and like Helios 44 were built up to 90-ties. The country had different priorities and Zenit, Kiev or Zorkij cameras were the ones available to the normal USSR citizens. So these cameras and the lenses were bought by the people with no other alternative because the market was closed. So typical amateurs dreamed mostly about GDR cameras and Zeiss Jena lenses... Japan or West German optical products were almost unavailable.

There was a small evolution, mainly mechanically (number of blades, preset or automatic, design). Optically similar construction was evolved into Helios 77 and other similar russian lenses.

stevemark wrote:

Yes, but they quite soon hav a vastly improved performance due to using different glass, and rather different computations - curiostity, creativity and ingenuity instead of ... well ...


The lens performance may be different, but mostly these standard lenses are good to very good. I think that all optical companies needed to have a standard lens and looked what others are doing. This is quite a standard approach in the development and the main task is to make some changes in the design and construction to avoid commercial fights.

There are also China Biotar clones and people say that some of these may have some lantanium elements.


PostPosted: Sun May 01, 2022 7:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

My understanding is that those optical formulas were part of war reparations and not stolen. Furthermore, at the time the Japanese were also essentially using German optical formulas for their lenses. Did the Japanese also steal them?


PostPosted: Sun May 01, 2022 7:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

stevemark wrote:

Well, we certainly agree on that. However the Biotar 2/58 scheme of soviet lenses remained essentially the same for 50 years. Look at what the US did with the A4 rockets they captured ... roughly 20 years later there was the Saturn V ...
S


So? You know Leica also had many lenses where the optical formula did not change for pretty much the same time period.

Also when you change the optical formula then typically you also change the lens name. The soviets produced many other 50s that could be considered an evolution such as the Zenitar 50 1.7, 1.9, 2.0, Helios 77, Helios 81, etc. Probably a dozen 50s. They even made the Rekord-4 52mm f/0.9 lens which had very little competition at the time.


PostPosted: Sun May 01, 2022 8:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Biotar isn't based on Rudolph's Planar, it is based on the Lee Opic. Lee introduced the Opic in 1920 and it became the state of the art in fast lenses for small format. Tronnier produced the very similar Xenon for Schneider in 1925 and Zeiss introduced the Biotar designed by Merte in 1927. The Xenon is a better lens than the Biotar, better corrected, so sold in far greater numbers in the 1930s.

As for who stole what, no-one stole anything, all German intellectual property was null and void after the war, so the Russians, the Japanese and anyone else were free to copy whatever they liked.


PostPosted: Sun May 01, 2022 9:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
The Biotar isn't based on Rudolph's Planar, it is based on the Lee Opic ...


... which in turn is based on the Planar, of course.

Interesting article on the Planar - Opic - Biotar history here:
https://zeissikonveb.de/start/objektive/normalobjektive/biotar.html

S


PostPosted: Sun May 01, 2022 10:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I forgot how pedantic you Swiss are.

It's not an endearing character trait....


PostPosted: Mon May 02, 2022 12:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Despite having the same optical scheme, why mfd of helios 44m is 55mm instead of 50mm like other models of helios 44 line?🤔


PostPosted: Mon May 02, 2022 5:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
The Xenon is a better lens than the Biotar, better corrected, so sold in far greater numbers in the 1930s.


It is worth to note, that the "Kleinbild-Xenon" had also 6/5 construction in 1935 and it switched back to 6/4 after WWII: https://casualphotophile.com/2019/03/10/xenon-lens-history/


PostPosted: Mon May 02, 2022 7:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Max78 wrote:
stevemark wrote:

Well - after having won, you can order that all patents expire. Then "stealing" isn't possible any more, of course ...
It's a tricky issue.

Certainly the Biotar design is not of Russian origin. That may be a less controversial way to describe what was going on Wink

S


Yes, the origin is not of Russian. Large part of the russian optical industry is built using German technology. Other winner countries made the same, e.g. rockets and USA.

There many other lenses with the 6/4 optical schemes. Original Planar from Rudolph was the first one. Other companies also intensively used 6/4 designs in the past. Some examples are Schneider Xenon 50/1.8, Steinheil Quinon 55/1.9, Schacht Travelon 50/1.8, ...


The Carl Zeiss BIOTAR 2/58mm was originally born in October 19, 1936, and was copied after WWII from the UDSSR as HELIOS lens in an very large production!