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

Biotars vs. Helios
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2020 6:18 pm    Post subject: Biotars vs. Helios Reply with quote
Hi Everyone:

I recently purchased a CZJ Biotar 58/2 (17 blade version) as well as a couple of the 44 series Helios which I believe are copies of the 58mm. They are all still in transit.
I am also looking for a reasonably priced CZJ Biotar 75/1.5 (version 2). I have also purchased the Helios 40. I believe the latter is a copy of the former.

I am just wondering what the differences are between the Biotars and the Helios lenses? Better colors, more contrast, etc? Or would I even notice differences aside from the prices?

Thanks,

-Charles


PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2020 6:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Many many people are looking for a reasonably priced 75....which is why they tend to be unreasonably priced;)


PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2020 7:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
jamaeolus wrote:
Many many people are looking for a reasonably priced 75....which is why they tend to be unreasonably priced;)


Laugh 1 All are reasonably priced considering rarity and sought-after qualities.

I guess the CZJ and an excellent Helios copies would be nearly indiscernible -- sometimes many copies of Helios are tried before finding an excellent copy -- quality control during manufacturing process seems to vary more with some Helios models.


PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2020 9:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
visualopsins wrote:

I guess the CZJ and an excellent Helios copies would be nearly indiscernible -- sometimes many copies of Helios are tried before finding an excellent copy


How can you get an "excellent copy", if the design itself was not excellent at all? I mean if we would build the original Zeiss Biotar 1.5/7.5 cm design these days with "zero tolerances" (=near perfect quality control) it still would be a lousy lens!

S


PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2020 10:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
visualopsins wrote:

I guess the CZJ and an excellent Helios copies would be nearly indiscernible -- sometimes many copies of Helios are tried before finding an excellent copy


How can you get an "excellent copy", if the design itself was not excellent at all? I mean if we would build the original Zeiss Biotar 1.5/7.5 cm design these days with "zero tolerances" (=near perfect quality control) it still would be a lousy lens!

S


Wasn't comparing CZJ and Helios with other lens formulas. Smile

Anyway, the particular "lousy" quaiities gives the lenses the sought-after character, especially for portraiture.


PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2020 11:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
visualopsins wrote:

Anyway, the particular "lousy" quaiities gives the lenses the sought-after character, especially for portraiture.


Yes, I know their "character" quite well - however I wouldn't pay a lot of money for that*, and certainly not for portrait Wink.

I really prefer the much softer bokeh of the Hektor 1.9/7.3cm. The Biotar 1.5/7.5 cm - with its "cateye" / swirly bokeh and lots of distracting astigmatism - simply isn't my cup of tea. It seems the Leica Summarex 1.5/8.5 cm has similar properties as the Hektor; sadly i don't own any of those Leica lenses.

Interestingly, my Biotar (1st gen M42) is well suited for b/w landscape / citiscape images with the Sony A900. At f11, the images are perfectly sharp, and the shadows are extremely well captures, especially if one uses the DRO mode of the A900 at its max level. Lokk at the first image here: http://artaphot.ch/images/Technik/Zeiss/Planar-Biotar/FS143_History_ZeissPlanarBiotar_150dpi.pdf

S

*EDIT I did pay quite a ot of money for my Biotar - simply because I was writing a series on the most important Zeiss lenses back in 2011 ... so I had to buy one Wink


PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2020 6:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
jamaeolus wrote:
Many many people are looking for a reasonably priced 75....which is why they tend to be unreasonably priced;)


Ha ha. Yes, I know!


PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2020 6:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
visualopsins wrote:
jamaeolus wrote:
Many many people are looking for a reasonably priced 75....which is why they tend to be unreasonably priced;)


Laugh 1 All are reasonably priced considering rarity and sought-after qualities.

I guess the CZJ and an excellent Helios copies would be nearly indiscernible -- sometimes many copies of Helios are tried before finding an excellent copy -- quality control during manufacturing process seems to vary more with some Helios models.


Thanks, I'll keep that in mind. I'm glad I ordered several models then. They are certainly inexpensive enough.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2020 6:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
visualopsins wrote:

I guess the CZJ and an excellent Helios copies would be nearly indiscernible -- sometimes many copies of Helios are tried before finding an excellent copy


How can you get an "excellent copy", if the design itself was not excellent at all? I mean if we would build the original Zeiss Biotar 1.5/7.5 cm design these days with "zero tolerances" (=near perfect quality control) it still would be a lousy lens!

S


Ha ha. Do you mean the construction or the results in the pictures is lousy?


PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2020 6:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
visualopsins wrote:

Anyway, the particular "lousy" quaiities gives the lenses the sought-after character, especially for portraiture.


Yes, I know their "character" quite well - however I wouldn't pay a lot of money for that*, and certainly not for portrait Wink.

I really prefer the much softer bokeh of the Hektor 1.9/7.3cm. The Biotar 1.5/7.5 cm - with its "cateye" / swirly bokeh and lots of distracting astigmatism - simply isn't my cup of tea. It seems the Leica Summarex 1.5/8.5 cm has similar properties as the Hektor; sadly i don't own any of those Leica lenses.

Interestingly, my Biotar (1st gen M42) is well suited for b/w landscape / citiscape images with the Sony A900. At f11, the images are perfectly sharp, and the shadows are extremely well captures, especially if one uses the DRO mode of the A900 at its max level. Lokk at the first image here: http://artaphot.ch/images/Technik/Zeiss/Planar-Biotar/FS143_History_ZeissPlanarBiotar_150dpi.pdf

S

*EDIT I did pay quite a ot of money for my Biotar - simply because I was writing a series on the most important Zeiss lenses back in 2011 ... so I had to buy one Wink


Yes, the Hektor 1.9/7.3cm is indeed a lovely lens. I had a very specific use for the Biotar. I am into dreamy portraits, not necessarily with swirly backgrounds. This is a pastime for me, not a commercial venture. I am not looking for technical perfection. So I am looking forward to experimenting with the Biotar and getting to know it.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2020 8:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
charley5 wrote:
stevemark wrote:

How can you get an "excellent copy", if the design itself was not excellent at all? I mean if we would build the original Zeiss Biotar 1.5/7.5 cm design these days with "zero tolerances" (=near perfect quality control) it still would be a lousy lens!

S


Ha ha. Do you mean the construction or the results in the pictures is lousy?


I was talking about the optical construction - which of course influences the results in pictures.

For portraits, i usually prefer lenses with

* a focal length from 100-200mm (sometimes also 85mm, 75mm and 58 mm)
* a high resolution (at least in the central part of the image),
* a not to high contrast
* sometimes some remaining spherical aberrations ("the glow")
* a smooth, non-distracting bokeh (no bubbles, no swirley bokeh)
* low CAs (for color portraits)
* no other distracting aberration such as strong astigmatism

It is often overlooked that the Biotars originally were calculated for ciné film (roughly APS-C). Of course, back in 1936 when the Biotar 1.4/7.5 was computed, it was a great accomplishment. However, even back then, there were fast (f2, f2.8 ) and superfast (f1.5) lenses which would result in considerably nicer portraits (Sonnar 2/8.5 cm, Sonnar 2.8/18cm, Hektor 1.9/7.3 cm, Summarex 1.5/8.5 cm). Used wide open, the Biotar 1.5/75mm simply has too much flaws and requires too much attention to circumvent them - unless you look for crazy effects such as the swirly bokeh. I, however, prefer to reduce all distracting effects, and focus the mind of the viewer on the person itself.



charley5 wrote:

Yes, the Hektor 1.9/7.3cm is indeed a lovely lens. I had a very specific use for the Biotar. I am into dreamy portraits, not necessarily with swirly backgrounds. This is a pastime for me, not a commercial venture. I am not looking for technical perfection. So I am looking forward to experimenting with the Biotar and getting to know it.


That's something I can understand very well - and there much better lenses for that purpose than the Biotar 1.5/75mm (the swirly bokeh of the Biotar and its strong astigmatism will interfere with many otherwise perfectly suitable backgrounds, thus limiting your possibilities to work).

I would suggest to try a soft focus lens, to begin with. Most of these lenses are not really fast (usually f2.8 or even f4), some have an extremely smooth background bokeh, and usually they allow you to adjust the "dreaminess" of your portrait. Personally I know the following:

Leica Thambar 2.2/9cm
Minolta Rokkor 2.8/85mm Soft Focus
Mamiya Sekor C 4.5/145mm Soft Focus
Tamron SP 2.8/75-150mm Soft Focus

The Thambar has the nicest dreamy effect, however its background bokeh can be terrible (strong bubbles, but no swirly bokeh).
The Minolta is the easiest to use (focusing remains when changing the soft grade), it's small and lightweight - a perfect allrounder for dreamy portraits.
The Mamiya, in my opinion, is the best of these lenses. I prefer a slightly longer focal length, its bokeh is really smooth, and the soft effect is nicer (dreamier) than with the Minolta (let alone the Tamron). And it can be bought dirt cheap (my like new sample was <100 USD including shipping). However you need to re-focus when changing the softness.
The Tamron, finally, is more sort of a "gimmick" lens. It's a zoom, it's relatively fast for a zoom, and it has soft effects. That's a bit much to combine, and as a result often the soft effect is quite harsh and not really dreamy. In addition the bokeh can be very distracting.

If you prefer historical lenses, have a look at the Leica lenses mentioned, or the 2/85mm and 2.8/180mm Sonnars (the latter preferably before 1955).

You may also look at the combination of an "ordinary" 2/100mm or a 1.4/85 lens with a soft filler, or even with a UV filter slightly smeared with petroleum jelly ("vaseline"). The latter - often used by professionals when I was young - gives you the freedom to influence only a part of your image. Back in "anlaogue times" the effect of was difficult to foresee, but on digital cameras it's no problem at all.

That much for today - if you have some more questions, I may happily answer them next year Wink

S

Last edited by stevemark on Fri Jan 01, 2021 1:31 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Fri Jan 01, 2021 4:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
...

Last edited by Blazer0ne on Tue Feb 22, 2022 6:42 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Fri Jan 01, 2021 5:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
charley5 wrote:
stevemark wrote:

How can you get an "excellent copy", if the design itself was not excellent at all? I mean if we would build the original Zeiss Biotar 1.5/7.5 cm design these days with "zero tolerances" (=near perfect quality control) it still would be a lousy lens!

S


Ha ha. Do you mean the construction or the results in the pictures is lousy?


I was talking about the optical construction - which of course influences the results in pictures.

For portraits, i usually prefer lenses with

* a focal length from 100-200mm (sometimes also 85mm, 75mm and 58 mm)
* a high resolution (at least in the central part of the image),
* a not to high contrast
* sometimes some remaining spherical aberrations ("the glow")
* a smooth, non-distracting bokeh (no bubbles, no swirley bokeh)
* low CAs (for color portraits)
* no other distracting aberration such as strong astigmatism

It is often overlooked that the Biotars originally were calculated for ciné film (roughly APS-C). Of course, back in 1936 when the Biotar 1.4/7.5 was computed, it was a great accomplishment. However, even back then, there were fast (f2, f2.8 ) and superfast (f1.5) lenses which would result in considerably nicer portraits (Sonnar 2/8.5 cm, Sonnar 2.8/18cm, Hektor 1.9/7.3 cm, Summarex 1.5/8.5 cm). Used wide open, the Biotar 1.5/75mm simply has too much flaws and requires too much attention to circumvent them - unless you look for crazy effects such as the swirly bokeh. I, however, prefer to reduce all distracting effects, and focus the mind of the viewer on the person itself.



S


Steve, I respect your thoughts on the subject. I can't tell right now until I get the lens what my reactions will be. However, there have been only two lenses that have shown the kind of dreamy effect I am looking for: The 75mm Biotar (although admittedly mostly with film) and the Kodak AeroEktar. The latter was not a practical choice, so I guess I will have to try the Biotar to either be terribly delighted or disappointed. I too don't like distracting backgrounds, but I am interested in experimenting with background distance and lighting to see whether I can get the kind of effects I seek.


PostPosted: Fri Jan 01, 2021 5:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
[quote="stevemark"]
charley5 wrote:
stevemark wrote:

How can you get an "excellent copy", if the design itself was not excellent at all? I mean if we would build the original Zeiss Biotar 1.5/7.5 cm design these days with "zero tolerances" (=near perfect quality control) it still would be a lousy lens!

S


That's something I can understand very well - and there much better lenses for that purpose than the Biotar 1.5/75mm (the swirly bokeh of the Biotar and its strong astigmatism will interfere with many otherwise perfectly suitable backgrounds, thus limiting your possibilities to work).

I would suggest to try a soft focus lens, to begin with. Most of these lenses are not really fast (usually f2.8 or even f4), some have an extremely smooth background bokeh, and usually they allow you to adjust the "dreaminess" of your portrait. Personally I know the following:

Leica Thambar 2.2/9cm
Minolta Rokkor 2.8/85mm Soft Focus
Mamiya Sekor C 4.5/145mm Soft Focus
Tamron SP 2.8/75-150mm Soft Focus

The Thambar has the nicest dreamy effect, however its background bokeh can be terrible (strong bubbles, but no swirly bokeh).
The Minolta is the easiest to use (focusing remains when changing the soft grade), it's small and lightweight - a perfect allrounder for dreamy portraits.
The Mamiya, in my opinion, is the best of these lenses. I prefer a slightly longer focal length, its bokeh is really smooth, and the soft effect is nicer (dreamier) than with the Minolta (let alone the Tamron). And it can be bought dirt cheap (my like new sample was <100 USD including shipping). However you need to re-focus when changing the softness.
The Tamron, finally, is more sort of a "gimmick" lens. It's a zoom, it's relatively fast for a zoom, and it has soft effects. That's a bit much to combine, and as a result often the soft effect is quite harsh and not really dreamy. In addition the bokeh can be very distracting.

If you prefer historical lenses, have a look at the Leica lenses mentioned, or the 2/85mm and 2.8/180mm Sonnars (the latter preferably before 1955).

You may also look at the combination of an "ordinary" 2/100mm or a 1.4/85 lens with a soft filler, or even with a UV filter slightly smeared with petroleum jelly ("vaseline"). The latter - often used by professionals when I was young - gives you the freedom to influence only a part of your image. Back in "anlaogue times" the effect of was difficult to foresee, but on digital cameras it's no problem at all.

That much for today - if you have some more questions, I may happily answer them next year Wink

S



Interesting suggestions, Steve. I will research these lenses and get back to you! As I mention above in my response to the first part of your post, there have been only two lenses that have shown the kind of dreamy effect I am looking for: The 75mm Biotar (although admittedly mostly with film) and the Kodak AeroEktar. I am not sure what other lens would emulate their results but I shall keep an open mind when researching the lenses you suggest.


-Charles


PostPosted: Fri Jan 01, 2021 6:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
...

Last edited by Blazer0ne on Tue Feb 22, 2022 6:41 pm; edited 2 times in total


PostPosted: Fri Jan 01, 2021 6:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
...

Last edited by Blazer0ne on Tue Feb 22, 2022 6:41 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Fri Jan 01, 2021 6:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
[quote="stevemark"]
charley5 wrote:
stevemark wrote:

How can you get an "excellent copy", if the design itself was not excellent at all? I mean if we would build the original Zeiss Biotar 1.5/7.5 cm design these days with "zero tolerances" (=near perfect quality control) it still would be a lousy lens!

S




That's something I can understand very well - and there much better lenses for that purpose than the Biotar 1.5/75mm (the swirly bokeh of the Biotar and its strong astigmatism will interfere with many otherwise perfectly suitable backgrounds, thus limiting your possibilities to work).

I would suggest to try a soft focus lens, to begin with. Most of these lenses are not really fast (usually f2.8 or even f4), some have an extremely smooth background bokeh, and usually they allow you to adjust the "dreaminess" of your portrait. Personally I know the following:

Leica Thambar 2.2/9cm
Minolta Rokkor 2.8/85mm Soft Focus
Mamiya Sekor C 4.5/145mm Soft Focus
Tamron SP 2.8/75-150mm Soft Focus

The Thambar has the nicest dreamy effect, however its background bokeh can be terrible (strong bubbles, but no swirly bokeh).
The Minolta is the easiest to use (focusing remains when changing the soft grade), it's small and lightweight - a perfect allrounder for dreamy portraits.
The Mamiya, in my opinion, is the best of these lenses. I prefer a slightly longer focal length, its bokeh is really smooth, and the soft effect is nicer (dreamier) than with the Minolta (let alone the Tamron). And it can be bought dirt cheap (my like new sample was <100 USD including shipping). However you need to re-focus when changing the softness.
The Tamron, finally, is more sort of a "gimmick" lens. It's a zoom, it's relatively fast for a zoom, and it has soft effects. That's a bit much to combine, and as a result often the soft effect is quite harsh and not really dreamy. In addition the bokeh can be very distracting.

If you prefer historical lenses, have a look at the Leica lenses mentioned, or the 2/85mm and 2.8/180mm Sonnars (the latter preferably before 1955).

You may also look at the combination of an "ordinary" 2/100mm or a 1.4/85 lens with a soft filler, or even with a UV filter slightly smeared with petroleum jelly ("vaseline"). The latter - often used by professionals when I was young - gives you the freedom to influence only a part of your image. Back in "anlaogue times" the effect of was difficult to foresee, but on digital cameras it's no problem at all.

That much for today - if you have some more questions, I may happily answer them next year Wink

S



Ok, I checked out the lenses. The Thambar is beautiful but the price is over the top! Also, soft focus is not necessarily the type of dreamy or ethereal effect I am looking for. I was thinking of starting a separate thread on that topic, but here are links that capture the essence of what I consider to be ethereal images with the Biotar and AeroEktar that really spark my imagination. It is also where I want my photography to go:

Biotar 75mm
https://casualphotophile.com/2019/01/30/carl-zeiss-jena-biotar-75mm-f15-bokeh-king/#jp-carousel-14369
https://casualphotophile.com/2019/01/30/carl-zeiss-jena-biotar-75mm-f15-bokeh-king/#jp-carousel-14385
https://hispan.hu/biotar-75mm/#gallery-14
https://hispan.hu/biotar-75mm/#gallery-19
https://hispan.hu/biotar-75mm/#gallery-33

Kodak Aero Ektar
https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5551/15199677226_a2623bbd1f_o.jpg
https://www.rafaelsouzaphotography.com/kodak-aero-ektar-178mm-f2-5-love-story/
https://www.behance.net/gallery/10008395/Kodak-Aero-Ektar-178mm-25-freestyler
https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5551/15199677226_a2623bbd1f_o.jpg
https://500px.com/photo/159657667/Emily-by-Baden-Bowen/?ctx_page=3&from=search&ctx_type=photos&ctx_q=ektar+aero+

These images may be a little soft but that is not the upshot of them. The soft focus lenses you suggest don't really capture the natural qualities of these lenses that I have a hard time putting into words.

-Charles


PostPosted: Fri Jan 01, 2021 6:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
...

Last edited by Blazer0ne on Tue Feb 22, 2022 6:41 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sat Jan 02, 2021 2:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Blazer0ne wrote:
According to studies I have conducted. Studies in relation to art aesthetics not technical studies. The Contax Zeiss Planar 100mm f2 and the Topcor 85mm f1.8 may have some smooth background. I might have witnessed smooth with the Leica Super Color Plan P2, as well but haven't used it enough on portraits to be sure. Most are based on lighting. Try to keep the highlights out of the background if you want to avoid bokeh balls. If you want to see bokeh balls then find lots of highlights or point source light in the background. I tend to choose cloudy days to get smoother backgrounds. Also some of these dreamy photos need you to go in with a baroque type lighting attitude. You might also find as you stray into art lens category in that endeavor to find best bokeh you may end up with a lens that has other undesirable defects like bad color, CA or too many other aberrations. Technically you want an imperfect lens in just the right ways. You can buy from that list of soft focus lens but just as easy see on flickr those lenses can be used incorrectly.

Not a biotar but you might want to try these lenses:
Kyoei Optical Co., Ltd. Acall 105mm 1:3.5
Heinz Kilfitt Munchen Kilar 1:3.5 f=150mm C
Kyoei Optical Co., Ltd. Acall 180mm f:3.5



Hmm. Thank you for these lens suggestions. I haven't heard of these. I will check them out. Yes, I actually don't like bokeh balls unless they are not distracting. I don't even like swirly background unless it is subtle. I actually figured out that the diffuse light of overcast skies is preferable to harsh sunlight for soft bokeh, although I often take images in the shade since India is a sunny country. What is a baroque lighting? I don't mind off-colors but I don't like CA, or various other aberrations that distract the eyes. You are absolutely right about flickr often showing how lenses are not used properly, with minimum creativity and poor technical application. Thanks for your insights!

-Charles


PostPosted: Sat Jan 02, 2021 2:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Blazer0ne wrote:
Based on what I see you like swirly bokeh but the situation defines the final effect of that character.


Biotar 75mm

*Background motion blur caused this. Caution it is an effect.

https://casualphotophile.com/2019/01/30/carl-zeiss-jena-biotar-75mm-f15-bokeh-king/#jp-carousel-14369
https://casualphotophile.com/2019/01/30/carl-zeiss-jena-biotar-75mm-f15-bokeh-king/#jp-carousel-14385

*Situational backlighting. Most common effect for lenses. Cats eye vignette in lens?

https://hispan.hu/biotar-75mm/#gallery-14
https://hispan.hu/biotar-75mm/#gallery-19
https://hispan.hu/biotar-75mm/#gallery-33


Kodak Aero Ektar

*These are all over the place. Looks like busy bokeh. Photo editing beware.

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5551/15199677226_a2623bbd1f_o.jpg
https://www.rafaelsouzaphotography.com/kodak-aero-ektar-178mm-f2-5-love-story/
https://www.behance.net/gallery/10008395/Kodak-Aero-Ektar-178mm-25-freestyler
https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5551/15199677226_a2623bbd1f_o.jpg
https://500px.com/photo/159657667/Emily-by-Baden-Bowen/?ctx_page=3&from=search&ctx_type=photos&ctx_q=ektar+aero+


Ok. Fair enough. Give me a couple of more days to research the "look" that I am interested in. Thanks.

-Charles


PostPosted: Sat Jan 02, 2021 6:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
That one is a typical Biotar 1.5/75mm image:

https://hispan.hu/biotar-75mm/#gallery-19

* at medium distances (here probably 2-2.5 m) there's a typical cateye / swirly bokeh with quite pronounced outlines. If you like that - go for the Biotar
* wide open, only the very central part of the FF image is really sharp. Everything else gets distorted by pretty ugly astigmatism. Too limiting for portraiture IMHO

Here I've photoshopped the above image to show you how I would take the same image:



But of course you may not like that Wink

S


PostPosted: Sat Jan 02, 2021 7:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Too much softening -- original is sharper -- see hair...


PostPosted: Sat Jan 02, 2021 8:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Of course, the real question is not whether you prefer Biotar or Helios, but whether you prefer Biotar or Primoplan...

Laugh 1


PostPosted: Sat Jan 02, 2021 8:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
KEO wrote:
Of course, the real question is not whether you prefer Biotar or Helios, but whether you prefer Biotar or Primoplan...

Laugh 1


I could never choose between my Biotars and Primoplans (both the 58mm and 75mm lenses), like asking which of my two kids i like more 😀


PostPosted: Sat Jan 02, 2021 9:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
visualopsins wrote:
Too much softening -- original is sharper -- see hair...

The "original" has been harpened a lot - the Biotar 7.5cm, at f1.5, is quite soft even in the central part of an image!!

S
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2