Helios 44-2 vs. Carl Zeiss Jena Biotar 58mm f2. Like father, like son? Which is better?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 18 มิ.ย. 2024
- This video presents side-by-side comparisons of two Biotar design lenses from 1950 and 1975 to discuss which is the better lens.
Here are time links to different sections:
00:00 Introduction
01:06 Carl Zeiss Jena Biotar 58mm f2
02:03 Helios 44-2
03:19 Swirls and sharpness
07:37 Colours, contrasts and flares
10:44 Minimum focus distances
11:55 Conclusions
To contact me, or for donations to support my channel: simons.utak1@gmail.com - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
Helios wins in the area "Bang for the Buck" for certain. My first 44-2 developed severe oil on the blades after two years of ownership. I paid $45 US for that one. I was so impressed with the lens, I bought a second copy. This time, I purchased it from a "Lens Tech." He had CLA'd it and also re-greased it with modern silicone-based grease. For this one I paid $75 US
Now this is a video i was expecting for a long time
always love these interesting and informative videos!
I got a 'Red T' Biotar a couple of years ago during lock-down. It is a later, M42, silver version with a ten blade, preset aperture mechanism. I have had serious trouble getting it off of my Sony ever since! I also have two Helios 44-2 lenses made by MMZ (Belomo); a 1969 'Zebra' version & a green focus scale index example from 1973. I finished up using the green scale version for my tests.
It was the festive season & a very hot summer. I would briefly slink outside, fire off a few shots & scuttle back inside in the late afternoon, as the temperature dropped below the mid forties. I shot close-ups of peeling tree bark & the like, as ants marched, in single file, up & down the shaded side of the trunk. As usual, I aimed my camera in the general direction of the sun hoping to capture the heat haze. My results were similar to yours in that I did not notice any big differences between the German & Soviet versions of this optical design. I would note that my less historic Biotar does not show a brown cast. I did notice that one lens might show better contrast in certain conditions. I had similar feelings regarding colour rendering, sharpness &c. My general feeling was that, on the whole, the Biotar balanced these various & sometimes competing factors, better. I also have not been able to shake off the feeling that this may simply be a bias for the much venerated name 'Zeiss!' We all have to answer, somewhere, for the expenditure on umpteen copies of what essentially amounts to the same optic... I have lost count of the number & types of Industar-22 lenses sequestered in drawers in my 'studio!'
Finally, young Simon, I have two words for you: HELICOID ADAPTERS! They are available in most mounts & you do not need to remove the lens & change in another part to gain that extra bit of bellows extension. One of my favourite Soviet era optics is a 1954 Industar-22 designed for the very first Zenit SLRs. Essentially, a rangefinder objective which has been modified for the extra flange distance of the mirror box, it only focusses down to 1m. With my cobbled together adapter; an arrangement of a shorter, sturdy helicoid, m42-m39 adapter & an m39 extension tube, all stuck together with blue loctite, I can seamlessly focus from infinity down to about 30cm. The only other requirement was a couple of spots of red nail varnish to mark the infinity setting on the helicoid. There are m42 helicoid adapters which do not need these modifications, but they have the wrong flange distance for my m39 Zenit lenses & tend to flex & feel a tad flimsy with some of my heavier lenses. I am sure your little Biotar would be right at home on one of these. Ciao mate, 😉
I enjoyed your comparative video very much. I'm surprised there is not much of a difference in terms of sharpness and bokeh Between the biotar and Helios. For the drawbacks you have spoke of, there are later bigger Biotar versions, which have 49mm filter ring diameter (instead of yours 40.5mm). The next version solves the issues you are mentioning : it adds a preset mechanism on the diaphragm ring, and a longer helicoid, for a minimum focusing distance of 0.50m.
By the way, according to my Carl Zeiss Jena production documentation, the serial N# of your Biotar gives a date of may 1949, so it is older than your depicted date. Again, here you have the first M42 version of this venerable design.
Cheers!
I actually have my Helios 44/2 from back in the day, when I bought my Zenit EM from T&OE (Technical and Optical Equipment) in Praed Street, London in 1974.
T&OE took apart every camera and lens before it was sold in the UK market to ensure reliability, and indeed the years that I had my Zenit EM it performed faultlessly. I sold on the body to another photographer as a spare but he didn't want the lens so I hung onto it, and now, 49 years later I'm glad that I did.
This lens is a joy to use, so much so that I have in my collection pretty much all of the other Helios 44 variants (except the /7)
Looking at these images, Simon, I cannot really differentiate between the CZJ and the Helios in any meaningful degree, both produce pretty much the same sort of image, and both need pretty much the same "helping hand" in post processing.
I love your channel on here, it's great to see lenses that we haven't used personally tried out by you.
Really enjoyed this video. I have a Helios 44M on my Olympus EM1mk2 and enjoy it a bunch. Cheers!
Thank you. A really fascinating comparison. After reading your title, first reaction was that this would be another lens to add to my collect. However, it was quite surprising just how similar the results were. Had you not labeled some of your images, it was not possible to tell one from the other. Sure, the lenses look and handle differently - and that can certainly be important. I own a Helios 44, early M39 silver version and the 13-blades really sets it apart from many of my other lenses. Main takeaway from your review and the comments is that I should replace my current M42 adapter on the Helios with a focusing helicoid. Thanks again, always appreciate your informative reviews, given your expertise with vintage lenses.
Possiedo un Helios 44-2, esteticamente molto "vissuto", e lo uso su micro4/3: è in grado di reggere senza problemi gli scatti in alta risoluzione a mano libera, a 50 Mpixel. Tenendo presente che l'area del sensore è 1/4 del full frame, lo ritengo un gran bel risultato.
I'd love one of these type of lenses. Very cool.
If you set the aperture on the Helios to 16, you can steplessly adjust the aperture using the ring. For example, if you only set the aperture to 4, you can switch between aperture 2 and 4 steplessly. This allows you to set the desired maximum aperture and quickly switch between them; that's why I love the Helios!
I love this feature. It allows lightning fast aperture adjustments. My R6mkii can take 40 shots a second, so I can set the aperture to say 8, slowly scroll the aperture wheel and get 40 different aperture shots in one second. Of course i never take it that far but its funny how this old lens beats modern digital lenses in this way
Thanks for a video. Interesting comparison Simon. The one I wanted to see for a while. My experiences are quite similar. In general most Biotars (specially later versions ( preset, semi automatic and automatic) have better T coating than Helioses. I know that talking about micro contrast is king of off, but, Biotar is one of those lenses that have that sense of volume more present. On color side, my Biotars are quite colder than Helioses. But, in a nice gentle way. All later version have respectable 0.5 meter MFD, so Biotar made same year as your Helios 44-2 have same MFD, proper preset mechanism, better coating. They used to be cheap, and are still cheaper than CZJB. I never use plain m42 or plain exacta adapter but one with additional helicoid. That make long MFD of 0.9m less dramatic. Both are great lenses but , for me, the only real advantage of Helios is price.
Great comparison
Thank you for this interesting and informative review. I am fortunate to have both lenses and like them both. I really enjoy well crafted lenses -- even when they are not necessarily superior optically -- and thus particularly enjoy using the Zeiss, and appreciate its smaller size for carrying purposes. The Helios is for me a more "normal" 35mm film camera type lens -- I grew upon a Minolta SRT101 -- and thus very comfortable and familiar to use. I'm happy with both lenses optically, and am pleased that the generally very affordable Helios, as well as many other Russian lenses, performs so well.
Great comparison. I have that same 44-2 and use it for video work often. Have you any experience with vintage lenses that have been re-housed in cinema bodies?
thanks for sharing, i'll go for Helios
I recently picked up a sony a6000 and some vintage lenses. Been enjoying your channel, it's been very informative. Can you make a video about cleaning and/or repairing vintage lenses?
Many thanks! A video on cleaning/repairing lenses would be tricky because every lens is unique. I tend to surf the internet hoping to find a tutorial for the specific lens I'm trying to clean. But I will think about how to do a more generic type video.
Thank you for the info of the CZJ vs Helios. Nit having a standard M39 distance is a deal-breaker for me. And with the hysteria over the Helios now the CZJ is quite a bit cheaper.
I love my 44-2. I love its crazy flares and its muted colours too. It's among my fave lenses that's for sure. I have wondered about whether it would be worth getting a CZJ Biotar at some point, but honestly I have never seen anything that would make me like one of those more than I like my Helios. I don't think I could ever justify the price when buying another 44 variant or three would be a much better use of the same money.
I'm like this. I have a KMZ Helios 44M and I adore it! Everyone can pick the photos it takes no matter how I edit them and it just has such a nice "look". For all of $100 Australian it's quite hard to go past it
My Biotar (a later Exakta mount one with fewer blades and a clicky aperture) flares less, but it’s a newer one, while the contrast on my Helios (a late cheap one without a clicky aperture) always made things look washed out.
I own both for the reasons you described.
May you make a comparison between the Carl Zeiss and a Helios 44M-6 eventually? I have one and now I'm curious about how good, or better, it is in comparison to the Biotar
The color rendering from the Zeiss is much better. Amazing color.
Nah, pure snobbery. Totally comparable lenses.
Very nice comparison. One thing however - none of the optical glass lenses are hand blown
very nice. I like the design of the Zeiss more, but the IQ...well Helios will do :) thanks for showing
Is there any modern iteration of the Biotar? Maybe some chinese manufacturer could make one
I am using an M42 "ZENIT T* BIOTAR-KRASNOGORK 58mm f/2,0" adapted with excellent results on my SONY cameras!
Спасибо за обзор. Как по мне, изображение у Carl Zeiss более контрастное. Это можно заметить по деревьям на фотографии с жёлтым фонарём. Это вполне объяснимо, так как у советского объектива нет MC. Недавно обнаружил, что у Гелиос 44м есть версия с МС. Будете ли вы делать обзор на эту версию объектива?
If there are MC versions of the 44M (and I've also read they do exist), they are rare, and not for me personally. I'm happy with my MC later versions.
شكرا جزيلا
Ive been looking at getting a Biotar or a Canon FD.
This is an excellent comparison video! You have, perhaps inadvertently, explained the allure of the Helios; comparable performance to the Zeiss for a much lower price. Or perhaps not, as the Russian lenses have become a 'cult item' with some rather ridiculous asking prices. There are still a lot more of them than the Biotars so a bargain could still be found. I personally dislike my Helios 44, even though it was very cheap. It's just not suited to my photography. To be fair I don't think a Biotar would be either, but I wouldn't pass one up at a bargain price.
i have later biotar version and earlier helios-44 version (13 blades). Although Helios gives amazing results (especially colors, subjectively i think it give better result than later kmz 44-2 and, especially, valdai 44-2)), i would chose Biotar for most of the tasks - it's better build, more professional "look&feel" and the photos have touch of a Zeiss 3d vibe added to classic swirly helios bokeh
13:44 13:44
I just purchased a Helios 44M and one of the considerations was the auto/manual button. However my new KF adapter for my Fujifilm XT5 has a small plate that the aperture blade pin touches, rendering the switch unusable. I noticed I can remove this plate with the provided allen tool but I’m concerned that would affect infinity focus. Can you help me with this issue? Thank you.
What issue are you having with the switch? It should remain in manual mode and once the adapter presses the pin you should have the full control of the aperture. You can't use teh auto setting on the modern camera anyway.
@@Senjak026 As Simon has related, the switch is very handy for opening to full aperture when focusing. Obviously it’s easier to focus at full aperture versus being stopped down to f16 under more dim conditions. The switch allow toggling back and forth between full aperture and whatever f stop you have chosen for the composition.
I'm afraid I've never used that particular adapter, so I hope someone else might be able to help.
@@Simonsutak Can I ask what brand/type of adapters you do use with your Pentax lenses that incorporate the auto/manual switch? By the way I love your videos and how you present the information. They’re just exceptional.
I understand the use case for the switch on a SLR or DSLR as you're limited with a mirror view, but on MILC in live view dim conditions shouldn't be too much of an issue. Old Zenits have a spring-loaded mechanism that fires once you press the shutter button and engage the pin. I don't think that I've seen an adapter that incorporates the button for that particular feature@@baggerrider8073
The problem is that at present on a certain site the price of a Helios 58mm f2 has shot to crazy levels. I could get ten Pentacon 50mm or two Pancolar 50mm for the same price. Madness!
Does the later auto diaphragm Helios lenses still swirl because these are the lenses people are asking stupid amounts for. I have just got a Zenit 122 body and wanted one of the Helios 58 variants they have. No chance at present prices.
I do have two of the pre-set lenses: The 44-2 and 44-3, so i'm happy.
Yes, some of the prices are crazy. I suppose prices are driven partly by the difficulties of accessing lenses from Russia.
Speaking of close focusing distance, I'd still recommend a focusing helicoid as a replacement for an "ordinary" M42 adapter. There are no sacrifices to be made, only additional flexibility and close up capabilities. For Sony it's pretty much straightforward. A thin "flange" adapter (like a pound on Aliexpress) + 25-55mm M42 helicoid (cca 25 pounds) and that's it. You get from 0 to around 30mm extension (with anything in-between of course), which turns a 58mm lens into a semi-macro. The difference between Biotar and Helios in regards to MFD would become absolutely meaningless, and you'd never wish to crop an image just to "get closer". No need to fiddle with extension tubes and limit the focusing range, and no need to remove the helicoid for infinity shooting.
When it comes to flaring, those numerous scratches on the front element of the Biotar, as thin as they may be, make a huge difference with backlight. They also reduce overall contrast a little bit, and add glow around highlights (like people wearing white, daisy flowers etc.). Like-new Biotar would perform better in this regard, but that's really, really hard to find I'm sure, and too expensive for what it is. Besides, this can also be considered a feature.
May I ask if you have tested these lenses for radioactivity? Are there any radiation from Helios 44-2?
Yes, and no, no radioactivity.
@@SimonsutakThanks for answering! If you need video ideas I would really like to see a video titled something like: The best non-radioactive affordable vintage lenses (in your opinion). Featuring lenses that are known to be non-radioactive in all versions. I think others that don’t have money to invest in a geiger counter that can measure alpha radiation would like to see that too.
Try the helios with a reversing ring. You may also need extension rings. Bokeh is amazing.
Could you explain how these would help? Please 🙏🏼
@@diana.falcon I found that I had to use extension rings in order to get it to focus
Biotar is one of the best vintage taking lens for anamorphic adapter bcuz of its high apeture blade count. Anything else I'd use Helios.
honestly, i think its quite ridiculous how much style the Helios 44 has for its avarage price
I think you didn't mention it in an earlier video, but its important where the Helios are made. There are manufacturers symbols on the lens, basically the dot with a barbed arrow is the Belarus factory and the worst. Ideally you want the Krasnogorsk factory. But even the Belarus ones work if stopped to f4. You will get the famous swirl! It's normal to find them for 5 euros. 20 would be top dollar (well...euro!)
Also thank you for your videos I find them very useful and interesting.
Thank you this is a good point. I've never directly compared my 44-2 from different factories, in terms of build quality etc., because, as you can see in the video, my JOV version's body is so battered while other versions (including MMZ) are in better condition.
Thank you!
Some East German Zeiss typically goes for lower prices than West German Zeiss, however, it still goes for an unnecessary premium because of Zeiss branding. The reason Helios doesn’t got for the same prices is lack of Zeiss branding.
Apart from a few models like the mentioned Biotar, Carl Zeiss Jena glass isnt expensive at all. THe CZJ 50mm F1.8 Pancolar for example goes cheaper than a Helios these days while having similiar bokeh behaviour just a bit more muted.
😀😀😀❤❤❤❤❤
Prices for Helios' even the shitty later models are rising with the older versions now being nearly on the level of the Biotar.. Id take that as a draw imo
Wot Blitz is signed)
I just got the Helios for like 15 euros
Helios -10$ , zeiss- 1m $😂
The soviets never took the optical formulas. The rights for the optical formulas were opened to the world as war reparations. This means the Japanese could also produce German designs and did. The Jena factory ended up on the Soviet side because East Germany decided to join the Soviet Union. Although the statement you made is common it is a perversion of history.
Many thanks. I didn't make the statement, I was very careful to say legend has it.
@@Simonsutak I wasn't blaming you. I have heard this over and over again and it's not completely accurate, but through no fault of your own.
East Germany DECIDED to join the SU? Lol, they weren't asked at all but simply were occupied.
The Carl Zeiss Jena factory joined the soviet block of Europe, because of USSR and Stalin. They had no choice. Some engineers had the chance to flee to the west. And the Zeiss factory was soon stripped from a large part of their tooling to bolster the USSR optical and photographical industries, as war reparations. Plus some German technicians and engineers were "invited" to work in USSR also. Comparable as Zeiss Jupiter / Sonnar lenses, and the Kiev / Contax rangefinder camera, the Helios is a bit more than a mere copy of german designs. It sounds more like a robbery.
so they took it just in other words