The Russian Helios 44M 58mm f/2.0 - Now I also add my two cents

The Helios-44 was the standard, fast, 58mm lens typically found as the kit prime on the Zenit-series russian SLR cameras, produced from 1958 till 1992. There are numerous variants available, some of which include multicoated lens elements. And they were made in more than one factory. KMZ (Krasnogorski mechanitscheski sawod) was probably the most prolific producer.

Based on the lens Zeiss Biotar 2/58 , at the beginning was called "БТК" - "БиоТар Красногорский" (BioTar Krasnogorski). A fast 6-element anastigmat, it was available in both single-coated and multi-coated versions.

The name of Helios lenses are usually written as Helios-44X-N, where X -is the index of lens mount (M for m42 thread, K for Pentax K bayonet, Д for Zenit-D bayonet) and N is a optical resolution index 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 (the higher number the higher is an optical resolution of lens).  The Russian designers of the Helios-44 lenses were P.A.Lapin and W.N. Borodulin from the KMZ plant in Krasnogorsk.

A bit chunkier and heavier than the other versions, the 44-M has the advantage of a wide base that mounts firmly with a rimless M42 adapter on Pentax. It has an A-M aperture switch, not the 2 ring preset aperture of the common 44-2. 

There are obviously in the net infinitely many different copies. Here are the data that apply only to my copy with M42-Mount:

52mm filter thread (In the net usually specified with 49mm)  

8 diaphragm blades (I have counted myself ;o))
F/2-16 max-min aperture.
50cm minimum focusing distance.
A mag ratio of 1:6.5 at closest focus point.
Weight: 230 gr.

From Camerapedia, uploaded from User Plt712h (2011)

Usually you pays for good specimens between 20 to 40 Euro.  I have it mounted with a very cheap M42 adapter from Shanghai to my Sony a6000. Such Chinese adapters can be bought via Amazon or EBay. They cost about 10, - Euro and are of good quality. I bought several such adapters (PK-, FD-, M39-, LeicaM-, Nikon Ai- or other mounted) from China and never had any real scrap. I can really recommend these pieces from Far East.

Let's look at the picture quality: When the aperture is open, so f / 2.0 the images are very sharp in the center of the image. To the edges everything becomes very soft and blurred.

Sony a6000 with Helios-44M at f/2.0, 1/1000s, ISO 100, look at the light swirly bokeh in the right background.

Sony a6000 with Helios-44M at f/2.8, 1/250s, ISO 100 against the light of sunset (the flares are inconspicuous)

Sony a6000 with Helios-44M at f/2.8, 1/80s, ISO 100 at closest focusing distance

The lens is, moreover, wide open very light-sensitive, the photos are then low-contrast and fuzzy. The use of a lens hood is recommended. For my review, I unfortunately had no matching lens hood at home, but 52mm should not be a problem. This is a common size and not expensive.

Easily stopped down, the picture quality is excellent. Even at aperture 2.8 the photo looks almost like Zeiss-like. At aperture 5.6 the image from edge to edge are really correctly perfect.

Here is a photo at aperture f/2.8 and below as a 100% -crop.

The bokeh is most comparatively creamy and quiet. In the net you can read a lot of the swirly bokeh of the Helios 44M. This is, however, the version Helios 44M-4 or 44M-2. My copy, so the Helios M44 without lens-index and 8 blades is a later version from the 70s. The production of the Helios-44M ended in 1972. General rule is: the older the Helios and more blades, the most swirly character.  On the other hand, a restless background at the right distance can also produce this swirly bokeh. You have to experiment a bit. Look at my first Danbo-picture in this post.

Let's summarize: The lens is cheap to have, as Russian bulk goods you get it on many platforms in the net. The picture quality is good from f/2.8, really perfect from f/5.6. The blinds snapped in well and audibly. The haptics are very solid like a Russian tank.  From my own experience, I can finally recommend this lens. It is not my favorite and best Fifty, but a good performer for daily use.
When I shoot with this lens on an APS-C camera, the focal length extends to about 87mm. This is already a light telephoto focal range at the full format. In the everyday life of photography, therefore, rather a portrait focal length. My pictures in the following part of the report show, however, that the lens can actually be used for any purpose.

Sony a6000 with Helios-44M at f/2.8, 1/40s, ISO 100

Sony a6000 with Helios-44M at f/5.6, 1/500s, ISO 100

Sony a6000 with Helios-44M at f/5.6, 1/640s, ISO 100

Sony a6000 with Helios-44M at f/2.0, 1/125s, ISO 100 (processed with Nik Silverefex)

Sony a6000 with Helios-44M at f/2.0, 1/30s, ISO 640

Sony a6000 with Helios-44M at f/2.8, 1/100s, ISO 100

Sony a6000 with Helios-44M at f/4.0, 1/250s, ISO 100

Sony a6000 with Helios-44M at f/2.8, 1/125s, ISO 100, 50%-crop from original picture

Sony a6000 with Helios-44M at f/2.8, 1/60s, ISO 125

Sony a6000 with Helios-44M at f/2.8, 1/640s, ISO 100

Sony a6000 with Helios-44M at f/2.8, 1/160s, ISO 160

The Canon new FD 28mm f/2.8 : only average?

As the last 28mm lens I would now like to introduce the newer Canon FD 28mm f / 2.8. I bought my copy some time ago for about 30, - Euro in a forum. So far I have not had time to deal extensively with this often praised lens.

Although many photographers - especially in interplay with the Sony a7 series - have presented this lens, I want to add my two cents. I am particularly interested in the comparison with other 28mm lenses.

As always, we come to the technical facts:

Focal length: 28mm 

Aperture ratio: 1:2.8 

Lens construction: 7 groups, 7 elements

Coating: S.S.C (super spectra coating) 

Angle of view: Diagonal: 75° Vertical: 46° Horizontal: 65°

Distance Scale: (m) 0.3 (magnification 0.13X) to 3.00 (ft) 1 to 10.00 

Focusing: Helicoid

Minimum aperture: f/22 

Filter Size. 52mm

Hood: BW-52B

Cap: C-52

Length x max. diameter: 40mm x 63mm

Weight: 170gr.

The lens is solidly built of metal and the focus ring has excellent grip. The focal length is average long. The photographer has no problems to adjust the sharpness exactly to the point.

With my copy I had some trouble to move the aperture ring. Maybe the cheap adapter from China is the reason for this. The FD-NEX adapter is comparatively narrow to an M42 or Nikon Ai adapter. This means that the combination of the adapter and the lens is not too copious.

Let's get to the picture quality. In contrast to many cheap lenses of the present (for example the Neewer 28mm f/2.8), not only the center of the image is sharp in open aperture. Also the edges of the picture are acceptable to good. With little stopped down to aperture 4.0 the lens has already reached the optimum of sharpness. Further stopping down brings no more advantages. The distortions are tolerable. You can clearly see it with horizontal lines. But this is good to correct in Lightroom or Photoshop.

The bokeh is a bit uneasy, but it has - totally untypical for Canon - the swirly character of the old Russian Leica replicas and the German Görlitz lenses.

In the frontlighing, the Canon FD 28mm is quite modest even with open aperture. Nevertheless a lenshood is highly recommended, in order to avoid strong flares.

Let's compare some 28mm lenses. I have made some comparisons with other 28mm lenses. The camera (Sony a6000) was mounted on a tripod parallel to a bookshelf.  I have always photographed with open aperture and fixed sensitivity of ISO 100. Add a "mirror lockup" of 2 seconds to avoid camera shake.  Here are the results:

Canon nFD 28mm f/2.8

Vivitar (I) 28mm f/2.5

Hanimex 28mm f/2.8

Sigma Mini Wide 28mm f/2.8

Tokina 28mm f/2.8

Neewer 28mm f/2.8 (Noticeable: the image angle is significantly larger than that of the other 28mm lenses)

Actually, there are no big differences at the first glance. When zooming up to 100% of the original photo, the photographer already sees significant differences. The sharpness in the center of the picture is quite good for all lenses. There are clear halos with the Vivitar 28mm f / 2.5. The photo appears somewhat milky and blurred as the comparison lenses.  If you then look in general direction of the picture edges then only the Neewer 28mm falls clearly in the picture quality. The other lenses are average to good. The distortions are clearly recognizable, the worst at the Neewer, the least at the Tokina and oddly at the cheap lens of Hanimex.

I have here for the comparison once the Leica X Vario at 28mm f/3.5 and my Nikon AF-S 28mm with open aperture f/1.8 with the same motif. Much better are the results, especially with the Nikon 28mm also not. The Leica lens is most convincing with regard to sharpness and distortion.  The sharpness I have adjusted with the small compact Leica X Vario also manually.

Nikon D610 with AF-S 28mm f/1.8

Leica X Vario an 28mm f/3.5 (open aperture)

Well, let's get to the last word on this lens. It is inexpensive to have, it is compact, it also has a good sharpness and resolution with open aperture. What more do you want? Most adapters prefer the excellent new Canon FD 28mm f / 2.0, but this is unfortunately only very expensive to get.

For the version with aperture 2.8 you usually pay depending on the condition between 25 and 45 euros. More I would not spend on it. For the version with aperture 2.0 are often more than 150, - Euro required and also paid. Whether this hefty surcharge is really worth the price, everyone has to decide for themselves. For a narrow budget the newer Canon FD 28mm f/2.8 is not only simple average, but a good choice.

Here are some more pictures I shot in the last days with the Canon nFD 28mm f / 2.8:

Sony NEX-3N with Canon nFD 28mm at f/4.0 (a gloomy, rainy day)

SONY NEX-3N with Canon nFD 28mm at f/5.6

SONY NEX-3N with Canon nFD 28mm at f/2.8

SONY NEX-3N with Canon nFD 28mm at f/8.0

SONY NEX-3N with Canon nFD 28mm at f/8.0

SONY NEX-3N with Canon nFD 28mm at f/4.0

SONY a6000 with Canon nFD 28mm at f/5.6

SONY a6000 with Canon nFD 28mm at f/2.8

Here you get sucked in (I)

Veil nebula (Mikael Svalgaard), Wikipedia

Everywhere, it is a set truth that the earth revolves around the sun. Does anyone know why this should be? Many will now begin to ponder. There was something. But what? Because the teachers said that at school. And the experts and the scientists and the funny nerds from NASA - they also said that. Then it must be so. Or not?

For the normal consumer on the earth, it is not possible to see clear evidence on the spot. On the contrary, it takes long astronomical observation to find the decisive proof. On the one hand, the planet Mars, Jupiter and Saturn, which are visible to the naked eye, suddenly move backwards in the night sky for a few weeks. Specifically, they draw a loop between the seemingly immovable stars.  Huh, How is that possible?

Quite simply: all planets move on orbits around the sun and the earth, closer to the sun overtakes the outer planets. Just as with our fast family car we overtake a transporter on the highway, the heavy load truck seems to move backwards.

This creates the loop that Mars draws in the night sky (Wikipedia)

Secondly, if we observe a relatively close star over a year, he seems to draw a circular path in front of the still further distant stars background. If we assume - which seems reasonable - that the star has not really changed its position in the sky, the orbit of the star can only be an image of our movement around the sun.

If the Earth were at the center of the universe, then one can not explain these phenomena. But if the earth revolves around the sun, then it is easy to understand these apparent movements. It has lasted many centuries, and many, even death sacrifices, are required, until finally this world-conception has prevailed. Between the goecentric world-image (the Earth at the center of the universe) and the final mathematical proof by Galileo, Kepler and Newton, which instead is the sun in the center of our solar system, nearly two thousand years passed.

Note: what appears to be obvious, it is worth to be examined more closely.

Only then can you be sure that you will not diddle into something.

Still a cheap pancake: the Neewer /Meike 35mm f/1.7

Sony NEX-3N mit Neewer 35mm f/1.7 bei f/1.7

Neewer und Meike haben im Mai 2016 insgesamt vier Linsen angekündigt, die es dann im Laufe des Sommers tatsächlich weltweit zu einem echten Schnäppchenpreis zu kaufen gab. Na ja bis auf eines der vier Objektive: das 25mm f/0,95. Da werden dann etwas mehr als 500 Euro fällig. Allerdings ist das wiederum für ein Objektiv mit einer Lichtstärke von 0.95 schon wieder eher billig.

Ich bin ganz ehrlich, das Meike/ Neewer 25mm f/0.95 kann ich mir (nur zum Ausprobieren) nicht leisten, ist mir am Ende doch schlicht zu teuer. 

Aber die anderen drei Linsen sind schon ganz interessant und mit Preisen zwischen 70 und 80 Euro wirklich bezahlbar. Interessant vor allem deswegen, weil sie mit nativen Bajonetten der üblichen (weil meistverkauften) verdächtigen Spiegellosen (EOS-M, Nikon-1, Sony E-Mount, Microfourthirds) ausgestattet sind. Das macht sie zu echten Pancakes, weil man auf die teils unförmigen, großen und schweren Adapter verzichten kann.

Meike und Neewer überbieten sich in der Werbung für ihre Billig-Objektive gegenseitig, guckst Du hier:

Was ist am Ende davon wirklich wahr, was gelogen? Schauen wir mal.

Positiv ist erst einmal das Feeling beim Auspacken und ersten Befummeln des Objektivs. Es ist aus vollem Metall (nicht gerade üblich heutzutage) und lässt sich mit relativ breiten und gut fassbaren Ringen fokussieren und abblenden. Leider ist der Blendenring ohne irgendwelche Raster, man gleitet quasi von Blende zu Blende ohne eigentlich ganz genau zu wissen, was man da eingestellt hat.

Der Fokussierweg ist schön lang, man kann problemlos- so man mit Fokus-peaking, wie bei den Sony's arbeiten kann- die Schärfe einstellen.

Sony NEX-3N mit Neewer 35mm f/1.7 bei f/4.0 : man beachte die Verzeichnung unten

Sony NEX-3N mit Neewer 35mm f/1.7 bei f/1.7

Sony NEX-3N mit Neewer 35mm f/1.7 bei f/1.7

Bei Offenblende ist zumindest die Bildmitte rasiermesserscharf- da gibt es nichts zu meckern. Richtung Rändern sieht es dann schon anders aus. Erst beim Abblenden ab f/4.0 wird das Bild zum Komponieren wirklich nutzbar. Gleichzeitig fällt eine für 35mm Brennweite doch ungewöhnlich starke Verzeichnung auf. Nicht ganz so stark wie beim 28mm/2.8, aber doch deutlich erkennbar. Lightroom oder andere Konverter helfen dan nicht viel, denn durch die fehlende Kommunikation zwischen Kamera und Objektiv gibt es keine sinnvollen Profile, um die Verzerrungen zu korrigieren.

Durch die größere Öffnung des 35mm- Objektivs scheint die Vorderlinse auch deutliche Schwächen im Gegenlicht zu haben, die Flares sind nicht nur auffällig, sondern wirklich störend. Eine passende - eventuell helfende- Gegenlichtblende liegt dem Lieferumfang nicht bei. Bei einem Filterdurchmesser von 49mm sollte ein, mehr oder weniger günstigen Ersatz zu finden sein (Leica, Voigtländer etc.).

Sony NEX-3 mit Neewer 35mm/1.7 bei f/5.6

Sony NEX-3N mit Neewer 35mm f/1.7 bei f/2.0

Typische purple fringing und  andere unschöne Verfärbungen sind leider auch recht heftig, wenn man nahe der Offenblende fotografiert. Bei Landschaftsfotografen, die gerne bis f/11 abblenden sicher kein Problem. Siehe hier (Blende 8 und 11):

Fassen wir zusammen: das Teil ist klein, kompakt, leicht und wirklich billig. Aber die vielen unschönen Nachteile sind eben auch zu bedenken. You get what you pay for. So ist das eben.

Wer kein Problem mit dem manuellen Fokussieren hat, immer brav abblendet oder sich bei Arbeiten bei Offenblende ordentlich vorsieht, bekommt für einen Appel und ein Ei eine wirklich gebrauchsfähige Alternative zu den doch recht "Preis-trächtigen" Sony-Objektiven. Die kultigen Sigmalinsen bei 19, 30 und 60mm will ich natürlich nicht unterschlagen. Sie sind recht preiswert (ab 150,- Euro) und zumindest bei 30 und 60mm ebenfalls rasiermesserscharf. Doch hier geht es eben erst bei Blende 2.8 los. Was gibt es ansonsten für Alternativen bei den anderen Spiegellosen?

Grundsätzlich all die vielen alten Objektive mit teils hervorragenden Abbildungseigenschaften schon bei Offenblende. Stellvertretend seien hier nur mal das Canon FD 35mm f/2.0 oder der Minolta Rokkor 35mm F/1.8 genannt. Wie auch immer, ich muss die alten Linsen adaptieren und das kostet am Ende nicht nur extra Geld, sondern vor allem werden die Kombinationen aus Adapter und Linsen schwerer, länger und unhandlicher, als bei nativen Gläsern. Und die Preise für die alten Objektive sind mittlerweile zum Teil jenseits von Gut und Böse.

Für die EOS-M-Fans auf jeden Fall das 22mm/2.0-ebenfalls günstig und optisch traumhaft gut bei diesem Preis (ab 160,- Euro). Microfourthird bietet etliche Linsen in diesem Brennweitenbereich an: Panasonic 14mm f/2.5 (ab 270,- Euro), Panasonic 15mm f/1.7 (ab 480,- Euro), Olympus 17mm F/1.8 und /2.8 (ab 440,- Euro bzw. 230,- Euro); also alles in allem doch recht teuer, aber eben mit gutem und schnellen Autofokus. 

Wer es ganz billig und leicht braucht und mit den Nachteilen leben kann, für den sind die Neewer und Meike-Objektive sinnvoll. Ansonsten dann doch eher ein paar Euro sparen und dann die Alternativen mit Autofokus und besserer optischen Abbildung kaufen.

Abschließend noch ein paar Fotos, die ich in den letzten Wochen mit dem Neewer 35mm f/1.7 geschossen habe.