Question about Helios 44 (again, I know...)

[Lucio]

Hi there!
I'm currently building up a set of "vintage" lenses for a film to be shot next March, so I'm constantly reading online reviews (that's how I found out about this forum) and testing old lenses.
I heard very good things about the Helios 44 and I managed to put my hands on a 44M-7. Well, the lens I have is surprisingly sharp and contrasty at the center, even WO, but borders are so soft and aberrated, even on a Super35 sensor, that it's next to impossible to understand when they're actually in focus, until you stop down to f/4. Before wasting time finding and testing more samples, my question is: is this the normal behaviour of this lens or I got a lemon? Normally, I would think that's a bad sample, but the fact that the center is so good and that both borders are equally so bad makes me doubt...

[blotafton]

Welcome!

The Helios 44 is not the best for sharp corners. It's better for a center subject close up to get a nice swirly bokeh in the background.

My copies are very easy to focus at f/2. (at the center)

For better corners I recommend a Rollei Planar 1.8/50 or Takumar 1.8/55 or Yashica ML 1.7/50.

[visualopsins]

Welcome Lucio

When you find old MF lens that works well on your cameras please let us know.

Sounds like a not so good copy of helios.

[Lucio]

Thank you for the replies, guys!

To help me understand whether or not that's a bad copy of the Helios 44, I'm gonna show you three 100% crops of a calendar: dead center, extreme left border and extreme right border at f/2 on an APS-C sensor, about 1m from the subject. Corners are just a blurry mess, so I didn't even try to put them in focus...

Center
http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20181/10585_Center_1.png

Left border
http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20181/10585_Left_1.png

Right border
http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20181/10585_Right_1.png

I already have a couple of 50mm lenses that are pretty good on the whole frame even WO, but I really like the color rendition of this lens, the way it handles OOF transitions and backlight, the rack focus breathing... that's exactly the look the director is looking for.

Of course, as soon as I'll have my complete lineup (range will be 20-135mm) I'll share with you my findings. I already found a couple of lenses that really really impressed me. I found a very old Voigtlander that... I just couldn't believe it. The only downside is that it flares like hell, but... in such a peculiar and fascinating way... well, I don't wanna go OT!

[D. P.]

I had about 20 different Helios. What you write about is perfectly normal for this lens. The softness at the periphery can be expressed more or less noticeably. But in general, the result will be identical - a sharp center, soft edges.
At the moment I use Haiou-64 - the result is very similar.

[Lucio]

Thank you very much, DP, I think at this point I can consider the case closed and keep the lens I have.
One last question, just for my curiosity: my Helios has a 94XXXXXX SN and a 6 blades iris, which makes think it's an actual 44-M7, but the name ring rotates. The name ring has no holes, it is not screwed on the lens like on most Helios 44M-X, but I'm pretty sure it is not supposed to move, so I wonder if it had been replaced... in short, is there a way to verify if that's an actual 44M-7?

[D. P.]

[Lucio]

Great. Thank you very much, DP, you've been extremely helpful!

[D. P.]

[tb_a]

Would be helpful If you state which camera you're using if you want to have recommendations for a lens.

However, a very good lens with sharp corners in M42 would be the Voigtlaender Color Ultron 50/1.8 (100% identical to the Rollei Zeiss Planar which is available in QBM mount only). The KMZ Zenitar 50/1.7 would also be much better in that respect than any Helios.

If you are able to use other mounts as well the selection would be much broader.

[Lucio]

Well... the Ultron is precisely the lens I was talking about a few posts ago. Amazing lens. I'm waiting to test a couple of other 50s, mostly for flare resistance, but I'll keep that one anyways.
The camera I'll be using has an EF mount, so yes, I can use quite a large variety of mounts, I was just curious to know if I could find a better performing Helios because I really like its "character".

[andreac75]

Well maybe a lemon. Btw corners at f2 in such old and cheap lens could be a normal problem.
This photo is taken at f2 :



Helios 44-2 and Sony A7.

I have also These 50mm :

Minolta MD 50 1.7 : I prefer Helios
Olympus OM 50 1.8 : good lens for a good price
Yashica ML 50 1.7 : very good lens (again for the price)

Yashica is the better, but I love swirly bokeh 😉

[Lucio]

Yeah, the swirly bokeh is fun (and I guess more evident on the Helios 44-2 than on the newer and supposly more corrected versions) but it's not so relevant on a Super35 sensor; of course, you can spot it, but not like that.

Unfortunately, I can't adapt Minolta lenses on an EF mount. Flange distance is too short.
Oly lenses are usually very small and short and often come with the focus ring closer to the camera than the iris ring. They're quite a pain to use on a fully rigged cinema camera. That's a pity, there are some models that I would have really loved to test, expecially the 21/2.
The Yashica ML 50/1.7 is one of the lenses I'll test in the next few days. I wanted to like the 50/1.4 ML but I have an idiosincrasy for 8 bladed diaphgrams and it's not so good when it comes to flare resistance, so I switched to the little brother. I have three copies on the way...