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

Change in Helicoid Construction - Arsat/Volna 80mm
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed Apr 21, 2010 9:02 pm    Post subject: Change in Helicoid Construction - Arsat/Volna 80mm Reply with quote
This is just a quick note about the arsat and volna lenses. I have 4 of these lenses, 3 of them in kiev 60 mount the other in Kiev 88. The ones in kiev 60 are from '93, '94, and '95. I had never noticed before, but the lens from '93 has a significantly longer focus throw. Probably ~150 degrees compared to the ~80 of the newer lenses. It is also about 20 grams heavier. All have the same minimum focus distance of 0.6m (compared to the 1m of an actual biometar). Just thought it was interesting that perhaps all these lenses aren't quite identical...

~Marc


PostPosted: Thu Apr 22, 2010 12:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Interesting... Which style do you prefer?


PostPosted: Thu Apr 22, 2010 2:34 am    Post subject: Re: Change in Helicoid Construction - Arsat/Volna 80mm Reply with quote
themoleman342 wrote:
Just thought it was interesting that perhaps all these lenses aren't quite identical...


I had a few Helios-44M-6 lenses that were totally different in looks and mechanical construction, but optically behaved identically. This was the case because they were made by different factories (KMZ and Vologda in my case, but I know there were other very different versions made by other factories, too).


PostPosted: Thu Apr 22, 2010 1:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
... are you sure they were all M-6 to start with?

M4 to M7 were multicoated, M1 to M3 were not. M2 is the most common, and M3 is probably the rarest.

M is probably the hardest to find but its build quality is the best. It is more commonly seen in Zenit M39.


PostPosted: Thu Apr 22, 2010 3:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
I had a few Helios-44M-6 lenses that were totally different in looks and mechanical construction, but optically behaved identically. This was the case because they were made by different factories (KMZ and Vologda in my case, but I know there were other very different versions made by other factories, too).


All of the arsat/volna lenses were made by arsenal so there must have been a conscious choice to change the construction in this manner.

Quote:
Which style do you prefer?


I'm not quite sure yet. The later version are really quick to focus, but a bit more precision is always helpful. I guess it will come down to how they perform optically. Maybe it's time to test them...


PostPosted: Fri Apr 23, 2010 12:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
keltzar wrote:
... are you sure they were all M-6 to start with?

M4 to M7 were multicoated, M1 to M3 were not. M2 is the most common, and M3 is probably the rarest.


Oh, yes, I am pretty sure Smile Have a look at this:



http://zenit.istra.ru/archive/lenses/helios-44.html depicts a variety of styles these lenses came in; not even close to listing all of them, as I had lenses that looked different yet (for example, the site lists MC H44M-6 as having a 52mm filter thread; mine was 49mm).

Not all H44M-4 through M-7 were multicoated. I have a KMZ-made single-coated H44M-4 to prove. I have also seen MC versions of H44M-3; there really *was* a lot of variation among them.


PostPosted: Fri Apr 23, 2010 1:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yeah. Look at the logos on the lens . I can't recall which the better factories were, but there are differences as you say.

IMHO, the best are the M2 for character, and the M7 for final evolution.


PostPosted: Fri Apr 23, 2010 4:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
keltzar wrote:
Yeah. Look at the logos on the lens . I can't recall which the better factories were, but there are differences as you say.


This particular sample was made in Vologda. It's quite sharp, and its internal blackening is better than some H44's from other factories. I haven't heard of many quality issues with H44M-6 and M-7 lenses; most variation seems to be with the most common versions including 44-2, 44M, and 44M-4. I had two H44-2's, one was crap, another one surprisingly sharp in the center but *very* prone to flare even in slightest backlight. On the other hand, my single-coated H44M-4 is great, even better than the later MC Helios-77M. Go figure.


PostPosted: Fri Apr 23, 2010 8:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
... then you haven't seen M6 and M7 lenses with rusty pins and springs ..!

Well, its a problem. I was going to buy an M7 once and while playing with it in the shop as I was handing the money over ... the rusty bits snapped and the aperture was fouled.

Honestly, having owned at least 30-40 different M42 lenses in 50mm, I can honestly say the best value are really the SMC Takumar 55/1.8 lenses. most of them work flawlessly for years needing no new oil or servicing...

I recall quoting this stat on another forum once when I was actively buying:
70% of CZJ and soviet lenses I receive need servicing, some of which I did myself.
In comparison, only 10-20% of Pentax screwmount lenses ever did.

Having held them thereafter for 5-10 yrs ... most of the pentax lenses are still working flawlessly, whereas the Zeiss Jena and soviet lenses often need another round of servicing.

There is a fundamental design flaw in many of the E.German and some russian lenses - the aperture module is exposed to the focusing helicoid. As the grease degrades and evaporates, this leaves haze on the glass and oil which fouls up the blades.

Honestly, if you plan on collecting a good number of these old lenses.. you really need to know how to do your own servicing or the maintenance will cost a bomb.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1