Russian Summicron?

[iangreenhalgh1]

I was reading about the Helios-103, the successor to the Jupiter-8M as the standard lens for the Kiev rangefinders.

Apparently, it's a copy of the 1979 Summicron 2/50 and according to narod.ru, it boasts a resolution in lp/mm of 55 in the centre and 28 on the edges. By comparison, the Jupiter-8 is 38/28.

Also, contrast is supposed to be markedly improved over the J8 and as it is a symmetrical 6/4 planar design it had much less distortion than the unsymmetrical Sonnar design of the J8.

Helios-103s are readily available on ebay for 20ukp, so I'm going to grab one, I can use it on both my Kiev and my NEX.

Anyone got any experience of this lens?

If it's as close to the Summicron as the J8 is to the Sonnar, it will be a stunning lens, no doubt. Only thing is it's a late Russian lens and the 80s and 90s are when their QC was at it's nadir. That being said, I have a 1988 I-61 that's very good and a 1988 Zenitar M2S that's excellent.

I'll never be able to afford a M series Leica and an actual Summicron, but a Kiev with a Helios-103 sounds like a suitable ersatz version for a tiny fraction of the cost.

[LucisPictor]

It's a shame it doesn't come with a Leica-coupled M39-mount...

[Drack]

I had used the helios-103 with my kiev. The results surprised me. The lens is very sharp and offers great contrast. Bokeh is very nice, has that russian lens feel to it . I recomend the 1982 version. From what I have heard the 82 versions were the best built ones.

[kievuser]

I have compared it with Canon FD 50/1.8 and Zuiko 50/1.8, and viewed the same roll of b/w film with a 50x microscope, and at F5.6 and above, they look identically sharp. But at F8, a Jupiter 8M is also very sharp, and even a bit contrasty to my eyes.

[Lightshow]

I remember seeing some shots from one on a NEX somewhere, IQ was very nice.

[ForenSeil]

[iangreenhalgh1]

It might be possible to put the optical block of the Helios 103 into the M39 barrel of the I-61. Someone put the block of the I-61 into the barrel of the J8:

http://www3.telus.net/public/rpnchbck/I61%20lens%20conversion.html

[nukemall]

[ForenSeil]

Jupiter-8 might work better has it has a larger optical block
I will try to make a conversion or buy an adapter for sure!

According to the diagrams it's not an 1:1 copy of the 79 Summicron, only pretty close.
And it's very different to the 1956 Summicron

[Attila]

Click here to see on Ebay

cheap device to try it out first

[ForenSeil]

[Attila]

[ForenSeil]

From the examples on Flickr the Helios 103 looks imho much better than Jupiter-3 and much more typical Biotar-like than Summicron-like
http://www.flickr.com/photos/indie7/3589399932/
Very interesting character, I need this lens for Leica M mount

[Attila]

Click here to see on Ebay
I bought one shame on you who will next ?

[ForenSeil]

[iangreenhalgh1]

Oh come on, you're both too slow, my Helios-103 is on it's way and can use it on NEX or Kiev

The simple Russian adapter seems a bit useless to me as the Helios-103 has no Helicoid so all you will get is fixed focus at infinity.

BTW, it's not really like a Biotar:

Helios-103



Biotar 2/58



Summicron-M 2/50



They are all 6 element 4 group double gauss/planar types of course. Clearly the Helios-103 isn't the same design as the Helios-44/Biotar, but whether it is really a copy of the Summicron or just close to it in design I don't know. The glass types will differ a bit as I doubt the Russians were makng precisely the same glass types as Schott or whoever provided the glass to Leica in the 80s.

The Helios-44 varies in resolution depending on variant, but figures of between 40 and 50 lp/mm are given for the centre, with the original 44 being close to 40 and the last 44-7 being close to 50, in general, they got sharper over time. The Helios-103 is supposed to be 55 in the centre, which compares very favourably with other advanced 'normal' types and is a significant improvement on the older classical types, for instance the Industar-50 Tessar type is 42 and the Jupiter-8 Sonnar type is 38. 55 represents a 35% increase in resolution (only in the centres, edges are the same at 2 between J-8 and H-103.

I'm expecting to see the same difference between the J-8 and H-103 as I found between the Helios 44 and the Zenitar M2S, both of which represent an upgrade from a 1950s lens to a 1980s one. The Zenitar is significantly sharper than the Helios and significantly more contrasty. The Helios still remains a good lens and is actually preferable for some subjects (eg portraits) due to it's interesting character but the Zenitar outclasses it technically and is probably close to the Planar 1.7/50 in resolution and contrast. The Zenitar represents a 1980s attempt to match the best of the West and so does the Helios-103, so to me it's very interesting.

I'm not saying the Zenitar M2S is as good as a Planar 1.7/50 but the Zenitar is so good that it's better than most other 50mm lenses I've tried and resides alongside the Topcor RE Auto 1.8/58 and Hexanon 1.7/50 in the top level of 50s I own. The Zenitar is dirt cheap, if it wasn't for the plastic build, it would be almost perfect.

[Attila]

so this time we did follow you Ian, thanks!

[Attila]

[ForenSeil]

Hopefully it has the same good multicoating as the Zenitar M2S 50/2

[iangreenhalgh1]

[iangreenhalgh1]

[Attila]

[aspen]

[BurstMox]

[iangreenhalgh1]

I doubt it would be very hard for a repairman to convert a Helios-103 to M39, just haveto put the optical block in a suitable M39 barrel from another Russian lens.