Note that this is not an issue if you are shooting on something like a Sony A7 – but it will impact the way you set the aperture on the lens. This is so that when shooting with an SLR, you can focus more easily with a brighter image at f2, before quickly returning to the desired aperture for the correct exposure. With one you ‘set’ the aperture with a click-stop, and then with the other you can smoothly move between that aperture and the widest available. Some of the earlier lenses are ‘pre-set’, meaning that you have two aperture rings. The major functional differences between the different Helios lenses relate to the way in which the lenses focus. For a really great video on the 44-2 lenses specifically, see this from a Russian lens expert. To be honest, there’s a whole load of myth surrounding the Helios 44… far more than I could ever claim to understand, so for more information, I’d recommend the fairly comprehensive thread that can be found over on the MFLenses forum. There are reports that this tendency occurs less readily in the later models (presumably because of the reduced number of aperture blades), though this hasn’t necessarily been my experience. One of the most sought after features of the Helios 44 lenses is the swirly bokeh that was mentioned earlier. Later lenses had a different coating to earlier models, which has an impact on their propensity to flare.The inconsistent nature of USSR quality control means that there are inevitably differences between the output of even the same plants (and definitely between plants) When you look at the length of time these lenses were produced over, it’s safe to assume there can be some significant differences. There are some with 16 blades being sold on eBay, but these have been unofficially modified afterwards, and so are not original. The earliest had 13, though 8 is more common, and the later models had 6. Earlier lenses have a larger number of aperture blades.However, in practice, it seems like the character of the lenses can vary. The received wisdom is that the various Helios 44 models share the same optical design, and should be pretty similar. The Russians were a bit cavalier about slapping whatever logos they felt like onto equipment for a long time though, so I’m not sure I’d put too much faith into this method of identification, but you never know. Something that is fairly interesting is that each lens has the logo of the plant where it was made visible on the front, so you can work out who (probably) made your lens by referring to this handy page (or this one if you’d rather avoid Google Translate). My Helios 44 lens collection (part of it) Any quibbles over the sharpness are clearly coming from people that are more interested in gear talk and technical specs than actually shooting photographs in the real world. The truth is that the Helios 44 is more than sharp enough, and surprisingly so for both its price point and availability. I’m not entirely sure what people are expecting, but if clinical sharpness is required, it seems strange for them to be using vintage manual focus lenses in the first place. There are a few reports elsewhere on the web that talk about the Helios 44 being only ‘passably’ sharp, or that it is ‘barely usable’ when shot widen open. It is worth noting that if you are shooting on anything less than full frame (a digital camera with APS-C for example), the effect will obviously be less pronounced. This is something I am yet to nail perfectly. Helios 44-2 Helios 44M Helios 44M Helios 44M-6Īchieving a full on case of the infamous ‘swirly’ bokeh can be pretty difficult, as it requires some specific combination of background, distance, highlights, and focus. This feature in particular is really what gives these lenses their reputation – especially as digital shooters have increasingly discovered their idiosyncracies. Even without getting the full ‘swirl’, out of focus areas are rendered nicely, and have a real character to them. The bokeh produced by the Helios 44 is its most distinctive, and sought after feature. Despite some wobbles on the older ones, they are much more reliable, and often in better condition than many of the other vintage lenses I’ve seen – especially from the USSR. They are a nice size, built well, and have a good heft. It’s quite possible that if you have an old Zenit camera lying around, that there might already be one attached, so have a look in the attic before heading on to eBay if you want to grab one. The lens was mass produced in the USSR for a number of decades in various forms, and as such is fairly easy and inexpensive to find. A Soviet copy of the Carl Zeiss Biotar 58mm f2, the Helios is known for its unique ‘swirly’ bokeh, as well as its relative sharpness. In any discussion about manual lenses, inevitably, the Helios 44 is bound to come up sooner rather than later.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |