Build Quality of the Later Helios' 44m

[themoleman342]

While doing my research for the m42 russian lens list, a post a little while ago, I came across a stray comment that said that the build quailty of the 44m-4,5,6,7 were sub-par with more 'plasticy' parts. Knowing that kmz and valdai (only optics) turned to plastic on their camera exteriors and on the zenitar m2 (a little pancake 2/50mm standard) I wouldn't be suprised that some parts turned to plastic. Only ever owning the 44-2 and 44m I know that they are pretty bulky hunks of metal and glass.

So can anyone confirm or deny this? Are they of lesser build quality but still good? In addition, for my own personal knowledge, does anyone know about the quality of the zenitar 1.7/50mm + 1.9/50mm?

Thanks in advance
~Marc

[Orio]

They are part plastic, but still MUCH more solid build than, say, Nikkor AF 1.8/50 or Canon EF 1.8/50.
-

[peterqd]

There's no plastic on my 44M-4

[Borges]

[peterqd]

The Japanese Helios zooms have a lot of plastic don't they?

[themoleman342]

Yes the Japaneses helios' zooms and I believe wide-angle were somewhat sub-par. I'm not sure how the name got taken up by the Japanese but they aren't of similar design.

I found this site: http://www.ciar-roisin.net/presources/Reviews/Lenses/m5820.html
There is a little blurb at the bottom that basically says they still remain predominantly metal and of fairly nice construction. To bad about the 6 iris blades...the 8 would be great...or better yet the 12 of the earliest helios!

Now the resolution figures are great and all for comparing between the different versions but what do they mean otherwise? What kind of resolution figures have come out of say...pancolar tests? I've heard that the FSU had somewhat different standards than the west so would any of the data really stack up? Obviously I know there is sooooo much more to a lens than resolution but it's just something I've always wondered.

Thanks
~Marc