need a Soviet/Russian lens conniseur to help me choose.

[Tariq0101]

over the last year I collected around 20 vintage lenses and most of them are soviet, but I'm not using most of them and I need some money right now and I want to sell some of them.
there are 3 50mm lenses which are very similar,
Helios 44-2 58mm f2
Helios 44M-4 58mm f2
Zenitar-M2s 50mm f2
the Helios 44M-4 is the sharpest but I'm not really looking for sharpness in these novelty lenses (I have a 50mm f1.8 fuji which is very sharp)
I only want to keep one of them, so which one should I keep? afaik all of them create swirly bokeh, I haven't tried getting that swirly bokeh yet because I don't shoot a lot of portraits.

[Pancolart]

Well such assessment (without actual testing) would be hard even with new lenses due to quality variance. Now after decades it is quite impossible - lens condition comes into play. These aren't expensive lenses and selling won't make you big profit. Keep the ones you like/use and sell others.

[Dejan]

Zenitar 50mm is rarer than the other two (but it's not a rare lens, or a very popular one, or special in any particular way), 44m-4 is the most common (but 44-2 is very, very common as well). Zenitar is actually the sharpest of the bunch (or is supposed to be, there can always be a bad copy), at least when you aren't only considering the center of the image. The only logical thing to do, at least in my opinion, would be to choose what you prefer to use the most. If it's a Helios, they are pretty similar and it's more about copy variation than the model. 44m-4 tend to be a tad sharper, but 44-2's got 8 aperture blades for smoother bokeh stopped down. See what matters to you the most. If you can't choose, then you can always offer them all for sale and keep the one that's left after you sell two of them.

[Lightshow]

Shoot with them all and choose the one you enjoy the most.

[D1N0]

Out of those I would keep the 44-2 but it also depends on condition of the lens and how smooth it operates. I don't really like the build quality of the newer ones very much and the fact they don't have an A/M switch like the 44m, (yeah I know there is are are 44m4 that does have one). I would only pick up the Zenitar when I find it very cheap. Ugly plastic looking thing.

[cbass]

Sell blood, plasma or sperm, Keep the lenses.

[kypfer]

The Zenitar "looks cool" … I'd probably be more tempted to keep it if it was the K-mount version … other than that I'd keep the 44-2, just 'cos I've used one since they were new, I'm used to the pre-set aperture and I prefer the rounded aperture if I'm not using it wide open.

[Tariq0101]

[Tariq0101]

[Tariq0101]

[Tariq0101]

[Tariq0101]

[Tariq0101]

[Indigo82]

Out of these lenses I have:
44-2
44m-4
Zenitar 50 1.7 but not f2

It seems that Zenitar 50 f2 is also a special one since it can be modified to produce very interesting and special bokeh. One of the elements needs to be rotated. Check this out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1YrVzrsmac

Besides this modification, Zenitar is a lens without special effect. My 50 1.7 is extremely sharp lens, the sharpest wide open lens that I have. It is sharper wide open than a Pentax 50 1.7 by quite some.

Similar modification can be done with 44-2, just reverse the front element (this also may depend on the factory where 44-2 was produced, some samples can't do this), but this lens is also special without modification.

44m-4 has less swirl than 44-2 and is sharper of course when going towards the edges, less swirl means more clarity towards the edges.

So if I were you I would keep 44-2. 44-2 is a small version of giant 40-2. Basically it can do lot of the magic of the bigger brother in smaller package for much less money. So you made the right decision.