Two points of clarification! (Since I can't do this in a video edit) 1. Helios 40 sharpness stopped down. As I say in the video, my lens is not razor sharp stopped down, and it's not as sharp stopped down as some other vintage 85mm I've tried. If you own a Helios you may disagree; it's possible that other people's Helios 40s are sharper than mine. It's just my lens tested here. 2. Helios 44 swirls. I'm aware that people have tested the swirls of different Helios 44 series from 44 to 44M-7, and found under controlled conditions that they swirl in the same way. If I could edit this video, I'd say that I've conducted my own head-to-head tests in a controlled situation and found similar conclusions. The Helios designers worked to improve coatings and reduce aberrations, but possibly did not try to eradicate swirls, over the series types. However, I still find that under less controlled, real world walk-around conditions that my early Helios 44 and 44-2s seem (for some reason) to swirl more, it's just my experience. Similarly, in most real-world conditions where I'd expect a Helios 44-2 to swirl, I'd say my early CZJ Biotar 58/2 doesn't swirl. But in a few exceptional situations, the Biotar will swirl quite a lot. I think these "real world conditions" make a difference. Personally, I find it harder to get swirls from the 44M lenses onwards. Again, this is just my experience, and understand if people disagree.
Brilliant as always Simon..... my early aluminium helios 44 continues to be my reliable character lens... and bokeh monster (in the right conditions).... just haven't bonded with the later 44m's.........I am however still drawn to the 40.... big beautiful Soviet lump of a thing
Why do you still only have sub-10K subscribers? Your videos are soooooo well put together and so useful you deserve to have at least 10x as many as you do! Keep up the good work, Simon, and greetings from Budapest! 🇭🇺
Superb video, beautifully delivered with an articulate, confident charm. I particularly enjoyed the stopped down-wide open fade examples, it was lovely to see those backgrounds cross dissolve away revealing the gorgeous character of these unique lenses. Thank you so much for taking the time to share this labour of love with youtube viewers.
The circular/swirly bokeh effect is something I associate with films of the silent era; Bitzer, Murnau, Hendrik Sartov, etal. It's something I wish I could work into my own films.
An aspiring film maker myself (coming from a background of music, photography and professional documentary making), this is interesting. You just got a new subscriber. :-)
Just wanted to pop by and say thank you for making this video - a couple of months after first seeing it, I'm now the happy owner of a near-pristine 40-2 from 1985. Essentially everything said here still almost fully applies to that generation of the lens. There are a couple of quality of life improvements with it - the 67mm thread, the default M42 mount, and no need for any screw adapter on its tripod attachment ring. It's not quite instant magic, but I keep going out and shooting with it despite its bulk. Having a crop sensor camera and a workable focal reducer as an option also gives two pretty different fields of view, both of them quite interesting - the swirl definitely comes out best with the reducer (or on an actual full frame), and in general I think it's a slightly nicer composition... though that comes at the price of very noticeable vignetting up to about f/4. The flaring is very much still there, often with two very characteristic flares in slightly different positions (one green, one red/orange), and the image does wash out anywhere in the direction of light. There's also a fair bit of purple fringing up through f/2.8, though you'd expect that. The only thing that does seem to have been eliminated compared to the old version is the bluish tint. Another thing I noticed is that my 1985 lens does, at least in certain situations, give bokeh with surprisingly defined edges - not as creamy as images I see here, but actually almost "soap bubble"-like. I haven't quite figured out under what conditions I get that look, but it's very interesting - especially since I still get lots of very smooth and blurry bokeh in other situations. Colour rendition is also often a mystery to me. Some shots are just brimming with bright, crisp, hyper-real primary colours with great contrast right out of the camera - but other times I have to do lots of post-processing with this one. In any case, still lots of fun to use - thank you for the even-handed assessment here, which really did tip the scales in favour of getting this one for myself!
Thank you so much for these observations - really interesting and helpful. Your comment about the mystery of colour rendering is especially pertinent. Right now I'm trying another Soviet lens - the Tair 11a - and even though I think I've worked out its rendering (slightly dull greenish tint with some orange touches), out of the blue, it produces a much more vibrant image.
Glad if it's useful! Really looking forward to your Tair 11A review then - I have been looking at options for one of the longer Tairs as well (will most likely be a Tair 3-FS), and I am also seeing lots of comments out there about some of the quirks with their colour rendition and contrast. And just as a follow-up - something I've discovered in the last few days is that one cause of the flares and colour inconsistencies might have been the filters I put on the Helios 40-2. Some of the more prominent green flares in low light were actually just from a cheap UV filter I had on it (just for protection) - though the lens still has a very characteristic dual orange-green flare pattern. It also didn't seem to take well to a basic 4-400 variable ND filter (which my Helios 44-2 works very well with) - that may have muted some of the colours and contrast. A somewhat better 2-32 variable ND+CPL combined filter does seem to give better results, and I do get the sense that in a lot of situations, the 40-2 really benefits from some light polarization - that big front element really seems to catch light from all sorts of directions and so that helps. I'll have play more with filters and see what works best! One of the challenges of the big Helios (that I've really been enjoying, actually) is that it's almost unworkable outdoors for me in daytime without a variable ND filter, since I haven't yet found anything resembling a happy medium. Even small changes in lightning seem to drastically affect its rendition sometimes. But even trying to figure it out has been interesting and rewarding - after immersing myself in the Helios 40-2 for a couple of weeks, I went out yesterday to shoot with a couple of modern (but still manual) lenses, and was surprised how much my ability to not just focus, but also carefully gauge lighting and framing, had improved. My Samyang 135mm f/2 has a bit of a reputation for being heavy and hard to use - but after the Helios 40-2, it feels like a breeze by comparison! But I'm already looking forward to the next outing with the big Soviet lens... In any case, thanks again for the review, and I do look forward to the Tair 11A video!
The swirly look happen due to the lens barrel design. You can test it out on any lens you have, just wrap a paper sheet around your lens to the point where the paper sheet is almost visible through the viewfinder and you will notice the swirly bokeh forming around the edges of the image circle. Due to the barrel design the light falling from the sides of the lens get slightly cut off and that forms the swirly look. Another thing to note on 44-3 is that I wouldn`t suggest buying this version, because of the mount. Due to the lens construction, the focusing ring is very close to the camera mount, and when you put a M42 adapter on the lens, and screw it on tightly it touches the focusing ring of the lens and that prevents the focusing ring to be used, because when you turn it you will unscrew the lens from M42 mount... So in short, 44-3 cant be used properly with M42 ring on it. Jupiter 9 is fine lens, but it produces the milky, butter like bokeh. I wouldn`t say its a sharp lens, maybe its just my copy, but sharpness is not as good as a Helios 44-2 I own. It also flares and has some haziness. Its not really a special effect lens like the Helios 44 or 40. Actually Jupiter 9 is quite small and compact lens for what it is.
Glad you mentioned the Jupiter. I owned that lens and loved it. I own the 85mm multi coated version Helios 40 and can agree with everything you said in the review. It seems to have less color fringing and the newer lenses seem a lot better built and cleaner in general. I opted for it for that exact reason. Otherwise it seems identical. The chromatic aberration is still there but seems less severe than the old variants. This is also due to film.
Thumbs up. Fantastic video. I recently picked up this lens and really love shooting with it. Loving the image. But I couldn't believe how heavy it was. With an adapter it's heavier than a Canon EF 85 f1.2 L. But I'm not complaining. The swirly look is amazing. Thanks for this video.
5:50...This is so true. I've had my Zenit 85 f1.5 for nearly three years, and with the images, I've taken, I'm finding the degree of "swirl" often depends on the background and your distance to the subject. Through trial and error and wonderful TH-cam channels such as this, I am learning that you have to look for opportunities to get the swirl you want when taking images with this beast. Otherwise, you don't maximize the true gem that this lens is.
I still own two of Helios-40-2 lenses, they give an impressive image wide open that you'll never get with a modern prime. Swirls, ghostings when focusing away from the image center, strooong flare... Just perfect for dreamy portraits of a dancing girl with flowers, for example :)
My silver 65xxxx Helios-40 just arrived from Kazakhstan today, with original leather case, caps, and filters! With it and my black 16xxxx Helios-40-2, now I can stay fashionable on either side of Labor Day :D
Hello Simon, Thank you for this thoughtful and thought-provoking report - not that those terms cannot be equally applied to so many of your other videos. I think one reason I really appreciated this one is the fact I've been looking at listings for the 40-2 - a handsome, solid looking beast with (perhaps?) some refinements that might make for a better balance between the swirly bokeh and better stopped down performance. If you ever should get your hands on one of the newer versions, I'm sure it would make for an enlightening piece. As another commenter pointed out, I also appreciate your un-rushed intelligent delivery and the welcome absence of hype. And your discussion of the choice to invest in the 40 based on which version of the 44 one owns, especially in terms of the ease and likelihood of achieving dramatic bokeh, was also most welcome. Also, nice idea regarding converting small aperture shots to B/W. Bravo, and keep them coming! P.S: Ever since discovering your work, I've wondered about the story behind your site name.
Many thanks for your kind words - they are much appreciated. Utak means brain in Filipino. I actually started out looking to use something from 'Takumar' on my Flickr account - because my first ever prime lens was a Takumar. Something like you-Tak. When I read what utak meant in other languages I thought I'd go for it, Simon's brain!!
I have the later, Nikon F mount Zenit Helios 40-2 and I LOVE LOVE LOVE This lens. It's soft as all hell wide open but MAN does it take some amazing looking photos. One of my favorite lenses i've ever gotten, and the guy the handles sales for them for the US is right here in SF, nice guy does all the repairs himself. These things are built like a tank, the only gripe I can say is that some units have a little more grease on the blades than one might like, but I've never had it cause an issue for me.
Your welcome! So glad you are enjoying the videos - they are fun to do, and taking more photos to support the text....so I'm learning a lot about my lenses.
Enjoyed the video! Fascinating observations... I bought a new 40-2 around a year ago and after quite a lot of use I feel I can finally understand how to get real results from it. The light conditions have to be read slightly differently, as it’s definitely intolerant of certain kinds of light - any flare can destroy the colours quite easily. However it can produce stunning portraits, especially at around f1.9 where it’s very sharp and contrasty and there’s still a lot of swirl but no loss of bokeh shape. Regarding bokeh, I love the painterly textures (without strong points of light) even more than the swirl. With practice, I think it can get a similar enough look to the Biotar 75/1.5 without having to spend an extra £1k! :)
Great observations! When I first starting using my lens, I was rather disappointed. The first thing I did was to find a solution for a hood....and that helped with the flare. But as you say, it was more a process of learning to appreciate the way the lens renders light and painterly textures. Thanks for mentioning the advantages of stopping down to f1.9 or so. That's what I've been doing to.
That was another great video. It makes me think I lucked out with a decent 44-4K copy that produces a bokeh that I'm pleased with. The Pentax mount is handy too.
The biggest advantage of the 85/1.5 over the 58/2.0 is that the 85 has a much bigger image circle, so you can either use it with tilt/swing on full frame mirrorless cameras, or use it on a Fuji GFX and capitalize on the bigger frame and even shallower depth of field.
Excellent explanation! I own an early (silver) version of the Helios 40. Can you please tell me which adapter I need to fix the tripod head to the Helios screw mount? You show it in your video but do not mention the measurements. What is the size of the Helios screw mount?
I bought a 58mm f2 Carl Zeiss Jena Biotar. The aperature control ring is a bit stiff, but the images are wonderful, and swirly. I also have a Helios 44m, it's also a great lens, though I prefer the slightly cooler colours of the Biotar. The Biotar also has more "pop" (with lack of a better word). They're all interesting for producing unique images. I just found your channel, and this is a very good review. No other reviewer mentioned the lack of sharpness at a distance. But it is a portrait lens, after all...
Hey Simon, great video, I like the unhurried pace, the nice fades from deep to shallow depth of field, and the solid info. I completely agree with your point about finding the sweet spot of a lens for bokeh. One of my tricks is to get a lens focused at that spot where it produces the best bokeh, and then move around with it at that focus point framing things up as I go. Interestingly, after viewing this I'm not sure this is the best lens for my next purchase... but I'm very keen to watch the rest of your videos to see what I might find that is better. We shall see!
Do you know about a 100mm f1.5 soviet KMZ made lens? I was maybe for night vision equipment. It have a blue coating, a 72mm filter, and m42 mount. Could be a good buy for 30usd?
A really well put together and informative video. I have the 44-2 and have used it for many years, and having considered the 40 at length, it’s the shape of the bokeh balls that puts me off. Methinks a solution would be to cut a slit into the Cyclops for Waterhouse stops, but having said all that, I will stick with the 44-2.
Great vid Simon, finally found an early one (serial starts No63) from a charity shop on eBay selling as "parts/repairs". it arrives next week and looks fully complete, but needs a major restore...I have been watching retro-foto-house tutorials and am going to have a go at cleaning and restoring it....wish me luck!
it arrived this morning and pleasantly surprised....just a bit of fungus and some oxidation otherwise in great nick....clean blades smooth focus and aperture..a bargain at £180.
Good luck!! Retro Foto House is such a good source, as a guide and inspiration. I recently took apart a Tair 11a, following his videos and it was OK. But I must say he makes it look easy, sometimes easier than it was for me! What a great early serial number you've found.
@@Simonsutak thanks Simon, I did get a Tair 11a a couple of months ago is in pretty good Nic but good to know there is a vid out there if I ever need it. My copy is not very sharp.....as regards the Helios 40 took it apart and only old fungus on front element, impossible to get it all off with acetone and alcohol, but it’s a lot better. Everything else good, my 0000 and 00 steel wool arrived so attempted careful cleaning of the corroded parts starts next week, only a few small areas.
Thanks for pointing out focus ring and mentioning they are stiff. I just ordered one half price due to problems in this department, hopefully I be able to loosen it up.
Very nice job explaining for the Helios Thank you,I have a questions have an Helios 40 but mine doesn't have the Tripod ring, where can I get one please like yours.?
I personally would not try and use a Helios-40 without the aid of something like what's in the Nikon Z-series of cameras, with live view that can be instantly zoomed to 400% and focus peaking. As you mentioned, a "sharp" looking image in viewfinder that turns out to be not-so-sharp in post is something I found to be a common problem back shooting on my D700, before I swapped to a Z6. Looks like you got a great copy of the Helios 40 though, very much on the list to add to my collection in the (distant, probably) future! Thanks for the video!
I'm not a fan of swirl bokeh, I find them too distracting. On the other hand the smoothness of the background in some of those sample images is outstanding. Great video.
Thank you for the great video. I would also like to have one of the older versions of these lenses. For aesthetic reasons alone. But do you think that the new edition that can be bought on Amazon is as good as the original?
I'm sorry, but I don't know! The sales blurb says that the new lens has the same image characteristics (and swirls) but with improved coatings. Perhaps other people on here have experience with both lenses.
Hi Simon, I don't have this lens in my collection... Yet! However, I have an early Zenit-C SLR & a number of the early silver Zenit (zM39) lenses including the Mir-1, Helios-44, Jupiter-9, Industar-24 & Jupiter-11. I noticed in a previous video that you are using an M39-M42 adapter ring with an M42 camera adapter. This combination gives the wrong flange distance. The flange distance of the zM39 lenses is 0.3mm shorter than the M42 mount. Of my lenses the Helios-44 is probably the most used. I like it as an 87mm equivalent portrait lens on my Sony-a6000. I live in a rural area & tend to work fairly close with these lenses so I did not notice any issues until I took a trip to the big smoke. While in Fremantle I saw some brightly painted vintage cars & crossed the street to fit a couple of these cars in the frame. However, stepping further back to include the desired scene I found that I could not achieve focus. It is amazing the difference a mere 0.3mm can make! This may be the cause of your problem with distant subjects in the railway track shots. I initially remedied the the situation with a short M42-NEX helicoid adapter & M39-M42 ring. I found & marked the infinity focus on the helicoid & worked from there. However, there is a much simpler solution: The second longest ring on an M39 set of four macro tubes is the correct length to use these early Zenit lenses on FED or Zorki rangefinder cameras. Attaching this 16.Xmm tube to an LTM adapter gives the correct flange distance & no M39-M42 ring is needed. This permits an infinity focus with the SLR lenses & rangefinder lenses can be used for macro work. Or the macro tube can be removed to use LTM lenses, such as the Jupiter-8, on the a6000. The Jupiter-8 & Jupiter-11 offset the weight & bulk of the Jupiter-9 & make for a well spaced & matched set of Soviet Sonnars. Ciao mate, ;-)
@@O4KAST I have several sets of these M39 macro tubes. All of them are well machined & made out of metal. Sets can be found with a bakelite canister for storage but this will cost more. I was visiting a friend in Fremantle when I wrote the above & did not have recourse to my notes. Here is a more specific summary of the flange distances & tube sizes involved: 1). Flange distance of the FED & Zorki rangefinders; 28,8mm. 2). Flange distance of the early 39mm screw mount Zenits; 45,2mm. 3). Flange distance for the 42mm Praktica/Pentax mount; 45,5mm. 4). Length of the second longest macro tube in the M39 set; 16,4mm. N.B. 28,8 + 16,4 = 45,2mm. Giving the correct flange distance for these early Zenit lenses with a 39mm screw mount. I like the term zM39 to distinguish these lenses from the M39 or LTM rangefinder lenses. Ciao, fm.
1019g! what a beast! very nicely made and informative/entertaining video. enjoyed a reviewing some of your awesome shots taken with the lens too.. no link to your flickr album? :)
Can you tell me please about the adapter where did you get it,,,its 66mm to 67mm anything also about the tread I need to know Maybe ,,,, Thank You,Like 66x0.75 to 67x0.75 is it the one Please? And Thank You
How would you say this compares to the Jupiter 9? Is it worth the upgrade for something this unwieldy (I'd say perhaps more than just physically as they tend to have a HEFTY price tag) for the faster aperture and swirly bokeh - not to say that the Jupiter 9 is any slouch with it's creamy and easily cooked bubble bokeh, it's got a bit of its own 'pixi dust' inside... My copy is Silver with blue glass and appears to have gone through a few modifications from Kiev to m39 to m42(strangely) and needs a bit of a cla - it works with clean glass but the focus is super tight.
Hi, thanks for the comment. I've also got a silver Jupiter-9. It's a M39 mount, from 1966. It produces lovely Sonnar bokeh, and yes, I'd say it has its own pixie dust inside. I'll be doing a review of the lens in 2021, and a brief comparison wit the Helios 40. You're quite right about the main differences - swirls, speed, size/weight, and price. If you like smooth bokeh with bubbles, and can do without the dramatic swirls, there's little reason to have both - at f2 (versus f1.5), the Jupiter also has a really narrow dof. I think a silver Helios 44 (for swirls), with a silver Jupiter is a great combination.
Am I wrong or has the Cyclops version become almost as expensive as a Helios 40-2? I ended up buying a 40-2c after searching for a Cyclops as it was too expensive where as I paid $200 USD for the 40-2c EF version.
I'm really wondering how these lenses render on film or applying other creative techniques like brenizer stiching. Should be really fun to try with some bold contrasty film like ektachrome or ektar 100.
Yes, this old lens would need a bold contrasty film. The Brenizer idea is a great - as I've found 85mm (full frame) is a good focal length for this method. I'll give it a go! Cheers, Simon
Not so much as it has a recessed front element...and I've seldom used a hood with the 44-2...although I have used my hand to shade the lens from very bright sun/flares!
The early Helios 40, with the M39 mount are 0.26mm short of achieving infinity focus with M42 adapter. Its hardly ever relevant, for a lens of this type, but if it is, you can shave 0,26mm of the shims-ring between the optical block and the focusing helicod.
Let me correct it a little. Helios is a brand of lenses. And the brand that produces them is Zenit (KMZ). Now Zenit has an excellent set of manual lenses that are suitable for both photo and video shooting. For example I highly recommend Zenit Zenitar lenses.
There were other factories besides KMZ that manufactured Helios lenses, They are not tied only to KMZ. And Zenitar is just another line up of lenses, many are not suitable for video at all as they all had clicking aperture. Only recent 50mm .095 is click-less.
Yes, if you buy one of these lenses with a M39 mount - and use a Sony mount - then you either need a M39 to Sony mount, or (like I've done) a M39 to M42 adapter ring and then a M42 to Sony adapter.
I’m still confused on the reason behind m-39-m42-Sony adapter tho. I have a industar 61 and from I remember it’s m39-Sony mount adapter, should I consider mounting a m42 ring to it what would that do
@@douglaslemus1726 OK - to clarify, there's a M39 to Sony e-mount adapter. However, I personally used a different set-up because I prefer to use one main adapter for all my M39 and M42 lenses. As I'm, sure you know, the M39-M42 adapter is only a ring around the screwmount, and each of my M39 lenses has a ring screwed on.
I have all the 44 helios versions but only the new 40-2.. its a great lens but as ive not used the m39 version i cant say anything,,, im waiting for a clean M39 with filters and bag.
The reason why the text on the food car wasn't in sharp focus, is because it's a viewfinder issue, not a lens issue. Typically it has to do with the focusing screen, which basically means you're getting a slightly different view of focus than the sensor will actually get. This is generally remedied by using different focusing screens for your camera, if available. It typically happens with lenses that have a shallow DOF, and it happens even on modern lenses. For example, my Canon 85mm 1.8 has the same problem, and it requires the super precision EE-S focusing screen to actually show true critical focus. They recommend it for any lens that is f/2.8 or wider.
You're right, there is a potential issue with viewfinders, particularly with fast lenses, and particularly (in some cases) with electronic focusing screens. I use f1.2 and f1.4 lenses focused though my Pentax K-1 mirror-based viewfinder (and in theory, what you see is what you should get) and don't find there's a problem achieving accurate focus on extremely narrow dof shots. But not with my Helios at longer distances...so maybe it’s a stabilization issue. Nevertheless, I'm confident in saying that my copy of the old Helios 40 is not razor sharp at longer distances. Your Canon 85mm 1.8 is a much better/sharper lens I've no doubt about that...and as you write, to get optimal results it needs an accurate focusing screen. One of the main reasons why I’m making these videos is to learn more about my lenses…and photographic techniques…and I’m certainly doing that!
So that would work better on a mirrorless camera I presume? Since your viewfinder's output is taken straight from the sensor, what you see is literally what you get.
@@FrankyFeedler Yes, it would perform better on a mirrorless camera. It's not a huge issue though, and it's understandable. When sharp focus is soo razor thin, potentially even just a few millimeters, it can be hard to distinguish what is actually in sharp focus if soo little is in sharp focus, because sharp focus does not make up the whole depth of field. Meaning that the sharpest point in a depth of field is a singular infinitely small point, and that trails off as a gradient where it gradually gets less and less sharp in both directions opposite of that point, and we consider some of that gradient acceptably sharp and as sharp focus. So you or your camera might latch on an area that is less than sharpest focus, because it doesn't have enough information to determine the true sharpest points. For example, if you're photographing a tiny sliver of a corner of a fence at a very low depth of field from a distance, the sharpest area on the lens might only make up a few dozen pixels. That means it's pretty easy to miss that focal point, and autofocus or even manual focusing, might result in slightly front or back focusing, not to mention your own movements. If your DOF is a few millimeters thick and you breathe a little, you could move the camera a few millimeters forward or backward in that time and completely change your focal point without realizing it. Most of the time it's not an issue, but when critical focus is important (like eyes), it can be tricky, even if you are shooting at a fast shutter speed. Just pressing down the shutter button can change the camera's position/angle enough at low DOF's without people realizing it. So while mirrorless could help, user error is still pretty common.
It partly depends on condition, the mount (M39 v M42), and maybe the design of the tripod collar (I wanted one that was easily taken off and on). Personally , I’m very happy with my early version. I’ve not tried later or even new versions so I can’t comment. All I can say is that I had the option to buy early, later, new and went for the early version!
Hi. First of all, for my particular M39 mount lens, I need a M39 to M42 adapter ring on the lens itself. So you may need one of these. (I'm assuming your lens is either a M39 or M42 screwmount - 39mm or 42mm being the width of the screw-mount). And then you can use a Sony e-mount to M42 adapter. On-line shops have these adapters and I always read the reviews/comments carefully! I personally use a Fotodiox PK-NEX Sony e-mount to Pentax K mount adapter, and then a K mount to M42 mount adaptor inside the Fotodiox...a more complicated set-up because I want to use both K mount and M42 mount lenses on my Sony a6000. The set up works perfectly for infinity etc.
@@Simonsutak Ok, perfect, thanks! I got my hands on this exact Helios 40 as you have. ;) One question I still have. What approximate focal length does this setup come out to? For APS-C is it still around 127mm? (APS-C Crop factor of 1.5)
@@nomeus Good luck, it's a fascinating and fun lens. Yes, in terms of the crop, it will be around 127mm, but pedantic photographers/commentators will always say, "it's a 85mm lens, and it's still a 85mm lens on APS-C". But the amount of image left after the crop will be the equivalent of a 127mm lens!
From what I have discerned the 40-2 is a far better lens than the 40. Very similar but a fair bit lighter, M42 mount rather than M39, 67mm filters rather than 66 and no blue tint on the lens. But I've no idea about the new 40-2's that you can buy now
I got it on ebay.co.uk, three years ago. But the last time I looked there were none for sale. You could try contacting one of the Chinese makers of step up rings and asking them if they have any.
I have kind of a weird version of this lens that I cannot find any on it. It is a Helios 40-2 that is black but it has an m39 mount like the older silver Helios 40’s do.
vintage.frames it’s glossy black. The serial is N711700. It’s just strange, because based off the information I’ve researched, they didn’t make a black 40-2 in a Leica thread mount/m39. I had to get a m39 to m42 ring adapter to use it in my screw mount adapter for my canon and Sony cameras.
@@CottonTeeth It has to be a transitional version, ii guess it's more rare so that's why you couldn't find much on it. For example, I have a helios 44 (not -2) which color scheme is called zebra, yet it is M42 mount. I'll look into it on Russian sources, I'll update you if I find anything.
![เจ็บที่ยังฮัก - ม่อน วรวิทย์ [ Official Mv ] จอนนี่มิวสิค](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/KALIGSRSjFs/mqdefault.jpg)
Two points of clarification! (Since I can't do this in a video edit)
1. Helios 40 sharpness stopped down. As I say in the video, my lens is not razor sharp stopped down, and it's not as sharp stopped down as some other vintage 85mm I've tried. If you own a Helios you may disagree; it's possible that other people's Helios 40s are sharper than mine. It's just my lens tested here.
2. Helios 44 swirls. I'm aware that people have tested the swirls of different Helios 44 series from 44 to 44M-7, and found under controlled conditions that they swirl in the same way.
If I could edit this video, I'd say that I've conducted my own head-to-head tests in a controlled situation and found similar conclusions. The Helios designers worked to improve coatings and reduce aberrations, but possibly did not try to eradicate swirls, over the series types. However, I still find that under less controlled, real world walk-around conditions that my early Helios 44 and 44-2s seem (for some reason) to swirl more, it's just my experience.
Similarly, in most real-world conditions where I'd expect a Helios 44-2 to swirl, I'd say my early CZJ Biotar 58/2 doesn't swirl. But in a few exceptional situations, the Biotar will swirl quite a lot. I think these "real world conditions" make a difference. Personally, I find it harder to get swirls from the 44M lenses onwards. Again, this is just my experience, and understand if people disagree.
Brilliant as always Simon..... my early aluminium helios 44 continues to be my reliable character lens... and bokeh monster (in the right conditions).... just haven't bonded with the later 44m's.........I am however still drawn to the 40.... big beautiful Soviet lump of a thing
This is one of the best channels on TH-cam.
Thank you for your compliment...much appreciated!
What an outstanding video. The best I have seen so far on this lens. And your diction is second to none.
Thank you so much for your kind words!
This is the best Helios 40 review on TH-cam! I hope to own one one day
Why do you still only have sub-10K subscribers? Your videos are soooooo well put together and so useful you deserve to have at least 10x as many as you do! Keep up the good work, Simon, and greetings from Budapest! 🇭🇺
Thank you so much for your kind words! I'm not discouraged by the numbers right now, and I'm enjoying posting the videos and reading the comments!
Thanks for the review, you're one of the best lens reviewers on the YT. Informative, interesting and useful.
Superb video, beautifully delivered with an articulate, confident charm. I particularly enjoyed the stopped down-wide open fade examples, it was lovely to see those backgrounds cross dissolve away revealing the gorgeous character of these unique lenses.
Thank you so much for taking the time to share this labour of love with youtube viewers.
The circular/swirly bokeh effect is something I associate with films of the silent era; Bitzer, Murnau, Hendrik Sartov, etal. It's something I wish I could work into my own films.
An aspiring film maker myself (coming from a background of music, photography and professional documentary making), this is interesting. You just got a new subscriber. :-)
Just wanted to pop by and say thank you for making this video - a couple of months after first seeing it, I'm now the happy owner of a near-pristine 40-2 from 1985.
Essentially everything said here still almost fully applies to that generation of the lens. There are a couple of quality of life improvements with it - the 67mm thread, the default M42 mount, and no need for any screw adapter on its tripod attachment ring.
It's not quite instant magic, but I keep going out and shooting with it despite its bulk. Having a crop sensor camera and a workable focal reducer as an option also gives two pretty different fields of view, both of them quite interesting - the swirl definitely comes out best with the reducer (or on an actual full frame), and in general I think it's a slightly nicer composition... though that comes at the price of very noticeable vignetting up to about f/4. The flaring is very much still there, often with two very characteristic flares in slightly different positions (one green, one red/orange), and the image does wash out anywhere in the direction of light. There's also a fair bit of purple fringing up through f/2.8, though you'd expect that. The only thing that does seem to have been eliminated compared to the old version is the bluish tint.
Another thing I noticed is that my 1985 lens does, at least in certain situations, give bokeh with surprisingly defined edges - not as creamy as images I see here, but actually almost "soap bubble"-like. I haven't quite figured out under what conditions I get that look, but it's very interesting - especially since I still get lots of very smooth and blurry bokeh in other situations.
Colour rendition is also often a mystery to me. Some shots are just brimming with bright, crisp, hyper-real primary colours with great contrast right out of the camera - but other times I have to do lots of post-processing with this one.
In any case, still lots of fun to use - thank you for the even-handed assessment here, which really did tip the scales in favour of getting this one for myself!
Thank you so much for these observations - really interesting and helpful. Your comment about the mystery of colour rendering is especially pertinent. Right now I'm trying another Soviet lens - the Tair 11a - and even though I think I've worked out its rendering (slightly dull greenish tint with some orange touches), out of the blue, it produces a much more vibrant image.
Glad if it's useful! Really looking forward to your Tair 11A review then - I have been looking at options for one of the longer Tairs as well (will most likely be a Tair 3-FS), and I am also seeing lots of comments out there about some of the quirks with their colour rendition and contrast.
And just as a follow-up - something I've discovered in the last few days is that one cause of the flares and colour inconsistencies might have been the filters I put on the Helios 40-2. Some of the more prominent green flares in low light were actually just from a cheap UV filter I had on it (just for protection) - though the lens still has a very characteristic dual orange-green flare pattern. It also didn't seem to take well to a basic 4-400 variable ND filter (which my Helios 44-2 works very well with) - that may have muted some of the colours and contrast. A somewhat better 2-32 variable ND+CPL combined filter does seem to give better results, and I do get the sense that in a lot of situations, the 40-2 really benefits from some light polarization - that big front element really seems to catch light from all sorts of directions and so that helps. I'll have play more with filters and see what works best!
One of the challenges of the big Helios (that I've really been enjoying, actually) is that it's almost unworkable outdoors for me in daytime without a variable ND filter, since I haven't yet found anything resembling a happy medium. Even small changes in lightning seem to drastically affect its rendition sometimes. But even trying to figure it out has been interesting and rewarding - after immersing myself in the Helios 40-2 for a couple of weeks, I went out yesterday to shoot with a couple of modern (but still manual) lenses, and was surprised how much my ability to not just focus, but also carefully gauge lighting and framing, had improved. My Samyang 135mm f/2 has a bit of a reputation for being heavy and hard to use - but after the Helios 40-2, it feels like a breeze by comparison! But I'm already looking forward to the next outing with the big Soviet lens...
In any case, thanks again for the review, and I do look forward to the Tair 11A video!
The swirly look happen due to the lens barrel design. You can test it out on any lens you have, just wrap a paper sheet around your lens to the point where the paper sheet is almost visible through the viewfinder and you will notice the swirly bokeh forming around the edges of the image circle. Due to the barrel design the light falling from the sides of the lens get slightly cut off and that forms the swirly look.
Another thing to note on 44-3 is that I wouldn`t suggest buying this version, because of the mount. Due to the lens construction, the focusing ring is very close to the camera mount, and when you put a M42 adapter on the lens, and screw it on tightly it touches the focusing ring of the lens and that prevents the focusing ring to be used, because when you turn it you will unscrew the lens from M42 mount... So in short, 44-3 cant be used properly with M42 ring on it.
Jupiter 9 is fine lens, but it produces the milky, butter like bokeh. I wouldn`t say its a sharp lens, maybe its just my copy, but sharpness is not as good as a Helios 44-2 I own. It also flares and has some haziness. Its not really a special effect lens like the Helios 44 or 40. Actually Jupiter 9 is quite small and compact lens for what it is.
Glad you mentioned the Jupiter. I owned that lens and loved it. I own the 85mm multi coated version Helios 40 and can agree with everything you said in the review. It seems to have less color fringing and the newer lenses seem a lot better built and cleaner in general. I opted for it for that exact reason. Otherwise it seems identical. The chromatic aberration is still there but seems less severe than the old variants. This is also due to film.
Thumbs up. Fantastic video. I recently picked up this lens and really love shooting with it. Loving the image. But I couldn't believe how heavy it was. With an adapter it's heavier than a Canon EF 85 f1.2 L. But I'm not complaining. The swirly look is amazing. Thanks for this video.
5:50...This is so true. I've had my Zenit 85 f1.5 for nearly three years, and with the images, I've taken, I'm finding the degree of "swirl" often depends on the background and your distance to the subject. Through trial and error and wonderful TH-cam channels such as this, I am learning that you have to look for opportunities to get the swirl you want when taking images with this beast. Otherwise, you don't maximize the true gem that this lens is.
love your vid´s and its great to hear someone who knows what hes talking about
Thank you!
I still own two of Helios-40-2 lenses, they give an impressive image wide open that you'll never get with a modern prime. Swirls, ghostings when focusing away from the image center, strooong flare... Just perfect for dreamy portraits of a dancing girl with flowers, for example :)
Are your lenses older (000xxx) or newer (625xxx)?
@@brucehull2455 I can't say as I moved from Russia. My wife will go there for some days and I hope she'll bring it to me :)
Thank you for these well put together videos and your help in letting us make the right choices…
My silver 65xxxx Helios-40 just arrived from Kazakhstan today, with original leather case, caps, and filters! With it and my black 16xxxx Helios-40-2, now I can stay fashionable on either side of Labor Day :D
Hello Simon,
Thank you for this thoughtful and thought-provoking report - not that those terms cannot be equally applied to so many of your other videos. I think one reason I really appreciated this one is the fact I've been looking at listings for the 40-2 - a handsome, solid looking beast with (perhaps?) some refinements that might make for a better balance between the swirly bokeh and better stopped down performance. If you ever should get your hands on one of the newer versions, I'm sure it would make for an enlightening piece.
As another commenter pointed out, I also appreciate your un-rushed intelligent delivery and the welcome absence of hype. And your discussion of the choice to invest in the 40 based on which version of the 44 one owns, especially in terms of the ease and likelihood of achieving dramatic bokeh, was also most welcome. Also, nice idea regarding converting small aperture shots to B/W.
Bravo, and keep them coming!
P.S: Ever since discovering your work, I've wondered about the story behind your site name.
Many thanks for your kind words - they are much appreciated. Utak means brain in Filipino. I actually started out looking to use something from 'Takumar' on my Flickr account - because my first ever prime lens was a Takumar. Something like you-Tak. When I read what utak meant in other languages I thought I'd go for it, Simon's brain!!
I have the later, Nikon F mount Zenit Helios 40-2 and I LOVE LOVE LOVE This lens. It's soft as all hell wide open but MAN does it take some amazing looking photos. One of my favorite lenses i've ever gotten, and the guy the handles sales for them for the US is right here in SF, nice guy does all the repairs himself. These things are built like a tank, the only gripe I can say is that some units have a little more grease on the blades than one might like, but I've never had it cause an issue for me.
Thanks for this great video. I really enjoyed it as well as your previous ones!
Your welcome! So glad you are enjoying the videos - they are fun to do, and taking more photos to support the text....so I'm learning a lot about my lenses.
Love your reviews and overviews❤
Enjoyed the video! Fascinating observations...
I bought a new 40-2 around a year ago and after quite a lot of use I feel I can finally understand how to get real results from it. The light conditions have to be read slightly differently, as it’s definitely intolerant of certain kinds of light - any flare can destroy the colours quite easily. However it can produce stunning portraits, especially at around f1.9 where it’s very sharp and contrasty and there’s still a lot of swirl but no loss of bokeh shape. Regarding bokeh, I love the painterly textures (without strong points of light) even more than the swirl. With practice, I think it can get a similar enough look to the Biotar 75/1.5 without having to spend an extra £1k! :)
Great observations! When I first starting using my lens, I was rather disappointed. The first thing I did was to find a solution for a hood....and that helped with the flare. But as you say, it was more a process of learning to appreciate the way the lens renders light and painterly textures. Thanks for mentioning the advantages of stopping down to f1.9 or so. That's what I've been doing to.
That was another great video. It makes me think I lucked out with a decent 44-4K copy that produces a bokeh that I'm pleased with. The Pentax mount is handy too.
The biggest advantage of the 85/1.5 over the 58/2.0 is that the 85 has a much bigger image circle, so you can either use it with tilt/swing on full frame mirrorless cameras, or use it on a Fuji GFX and capitalize on the bigger frame and even shallower depth of field.
Excellent explanation!
I own an early (silver) version of the Helios 40. Can you please tell me which adapter I need to fix the tripod head to the Helios screw mount? You show it in your video but do not mention the measurements. What is the size of the Helios screw mount?
I bought a 58mm f2 Carl Zeiss Jena Biotar. The aperature control ring is a bit stiff, but the images are wonderful, and swirly.
I also have a Helios 44m, it's also a great lens, though I prefer the slightly cooler colours of the Biotar. The Biotar also has more "pop" (with lack of a better word).
They're all interesting for producing unique images.
I just found your channel, and this is a very good review. No other reviewer mentioned the lack of sharpness at a distance. But it is a portrait lens, after all...
Thank you! I agree about the differences between the Biotar and Helios, especially the pop.
Hey Simon, great video, I like the unhurried pace, the nice fades from deep to shallow depth of field, and the solid info. I completely agree with your point about finding the sweet spot of a lens for bokeh. One of my tricks is to get a lens focused at that spot where it produces the best bokeh, and then move around with it at that focus point framing things up as I go. Interestingly, after viewing this I'm not sure this is the best lens for my next purchase... but I'm very keen to watch the rest of your videos to see what I might find that is better. We shall see!
Do you know about a 100mm f1.5 soviet KMZ made lens? I was maybe for night vision equipment. It have a blue coating, a 72mm filter, and m42 mount. Could be a good buy for 30usd?
Thànk you for a Nice review
I have a helios 77m-4 and also producing almost same effect
A really well put together and informative video. I have the 44-2 and have used it for many years, and having considered the 40 at length, it’s the shape of the bokeh balls that puts me off. Methinks a solution would be to cut a slit into the Cyclops for Waterhouse stops, but having said all that, I will stick with the 44-2.
What a stunning lens and a superb video to match.
Great vid Simon, finally found an early one (serial starts No63) from a charity shop on eBay selling as "parts/repairs". it arrives next week and looks fully complete, but needs a major restore...I have been watching retro-foto-house tutorials and am going to have a go at cleaning and restoring it....wish me luck!
it arrived this morning and pleasantly surprised....just a bit of fungus and some oxidation otherwise in great nick....clean blades smooth focus and aperture..a bargain at £180.
Good luck!! Retro Foto House is such a good source, as a guide and inspiration. I recently took apart a Tair 11a, following his videos and it was OK. But I must say he makes it look easy, sometimes easier than it was for me! What a great early serial number you've found.
The blades can be the really tricky part, so that's great news!
@@Simonsutak thanks Simon, I did get a Tair 11a a couple of months ago is in pretty good Nic but good to know there is a vid out there if I ever need it. My copy is not very sharp.....as regards the Helios 40 took it apart and only old fungus on front element, impossible to get it all off with acetone and alcohol, but it’s a lot better. Everything else good, my 0000 and 00 steel wool arrived so attempted careful cleaning of the corroded parts starts next week, only a few small areas.
Thanks for pointing out focus ring and mentioning they are stiff. I just ordered one half price due to problems in this department, hopefully I be able to loosen it up.
Very nice job explaining for the Helios Thank you,I have a questions have an Helios 40 but mine doesn't have the Tripod ring, where can I get one please like yours.?
My lens came with the Tripod collar; I'm not sure where you can find a separate one. Maybe contact one of the on-line sellers of Helios 40s?
@@Simonsutak I tried on Ebay Can not find anything..ty
Awesome mate, I'm a big fan of Helios. Enjoyed a lot, thanks for this!
I personally would not try and use a Helios-40 without the aid of something like what's in the Nikon Z-series of cameras, with live view that can be instantly zoomed to 400% and focus peaking. As you mentioned, a "sharp" looking image in viewfinder that turns out to be not-so-sharp in post is something I found to be a common problem back shooting on my D700, before I swapped to a Z6.
Looks like you got a great copy of the Helios 40 though, very much on the list to add to my collection in the (distant, probably) future!
Thanks for the video!
I'm not a fan of swirl bokeh, I find them too distracting. On the other hand the smoothness of the background in some of those sample images is outstanding. Great video.
Super cool video! thank you!
I have a the newer (1980s) 40-2. It's a great lens, but I've always wanted to try the Biotar 75.
Thank you for the great video.
I would also like to have one of the older versions of these lenses. For aesthetic reasons alone. But do you think that the new edition that can be bought on Amazon is as good as the original?
I'm sorry, but I don't know! The sales blurb says that the new lens has the same image characteristics (and swirls) but with improved coatings. Perhaps other people on here have experience with both lenses.
@@Simonsutak Thank you very much.
I have Helios 40 cyclope and love that dark beast.
Fascinating. Thank you.
Hi Simon, I don't have this lens in my collection... Yet! However, I have an early Zenit-C SLR & a number of the early silver Zenit (zM39) lenses including the Mir-1, Helios-44, Jupiter-9, Industar-24 & Jupiter-11. I noticed in a previous video that you are using an M39-M42 adapter ring with an M42 camera adapter. This combination gives the wrong flange distance. The flange distance of the zM39 lenses is 0.3mm shorter than the M42 mount. Of my lenses the Helios-44 is probably the most used. I like it as an 87mm equivalent portrait lens on my Sony-a6000. I live in a rural area & tend to work fairly close with these lenses so I did not notice any issues until I took a trip to the big smoke. While in Fremantle I saw some brightly painted vintage cars & crossed the street to fit a couple of these cars in the frame. However, stepping further back to include the desired scene I found that I could not achieve focus. It is amazing the difference a mere 0.3mm can make! This may be the cause of your problem with distant subjects in the railway track shots. I initially remedied the the situation with a short M42-NEX helicoid adapter & M39-M42 ring. I found & marked the infinity focus on the helicoid & worked from there. However, there is a much simpler solution: The second longest ring on an M39 set of four macro tubes is the correct length to use these early Zenit lenses on FED or Zorki rangefinder cameras. Attaching this 16.Xmm tube to an LTM adapter gives the correct flange distance & no M39-M42 ring is needed. This permits an infinity focus with the SLR lenses & rangefinder lenses can be used for macro work. Or the macro tube can be removed to use LTM lenses, such as the Jupiter-8, on the a6000. The Jupiter-8 & Jupiter-11 offset the weight & bulk of the Jupiter-9 & make for a well spaced & matched set of Soviet Sonnars. Ciao mate, ;-)
Wow, this is super helpful
The only downside is that those tubes are usually plastic/bakelite so one should be more careful
@@O4KAST I have several sets of these M39 macro tubes. All of them are well machined & made out of metal. Sets can be found with a bakelite canister for storage but this will cost more. I was visiting a friend in Fremantle when I wrote the above & did not have recourse to my notes. Here is a more specific summary of the flange distances & tube sizes involved:
1). Flange distance of the FED & Zorki rangefinders; 28,8mm.
2). Flange distance of the early 39mm screw mount Zenits; 45,2mm.
3). Flange distance for the 42mm Praktica/Pentax mount; 45,5mm.
4). Length of the second longest macro tube in the M39 set; 16,4mm.
N.B. 28,8 + 16,4 = 45,2mm. Giving the correct flange distance for these early Zenit lenses with a 39mm screw mount. I like the term zM39 to distinguish these lenses from the M39 or LTM rangefinder lenses. Ciao, fm.
1019g! what a beast! very nicely made and informative/entertaining video. enjoyed a reviewing some of your awesome shots taken with the lens too.. no link to your flickr album? :)
Nice Lens I have One too and I am looking for the ring Like you have on it.
Can you tell me please about the adapter where did you get it,,,its 66mm to 67mm anything also about the tread I need to know Maybe ,,,, Thank You,Like 66x0.75 to 67x0.75 is it the one Please? And Thank You
Mine wont focus to infinity on the Pentax k1 what adapter should I get?
How would you say this compares to the Jupiter 9? Is it worth the upgrade for something this unwieldy (I'd say perhaps more than just physically as they tend to have a HEFTY price tag) for the faster aperture and swirly bokeh - not to say that the Jupiter 9 is any slouch with it's creamy and easily cooked bubble bokeh, it's got a bit of its own 'pixi dust' inside... My copy is Silver with blue glass and appears to have gone through a few modifications from Kiev to m39 to m42(strangely) and needs a bit of a cla - it works with clean glass but the focus is super tight.
Hi, thanks for the comment. I've also got a silver Jupiter-9. It's a M39 mount, from 1966. It produces lovely Sonnar bokeh, and yes, I'd say it has its own pixie dust inside.
I'll be doing a review of the lens in 2021, and a brief comparison wit the Helios 40. You're quite right about the main differences - swirls, speed, size/weight, and price. If you like smooth bokeh with bubbles, and can do without the dramatic swirls, there's little reason to have both - at f2 (versus f1.5), the Jupiter also has a really narrow dof.
I think a silver Helios 44 (for swirls), with a silver Jupiter is a great combination.
Am I wrong or has the Cyclops version become almost as expensive as a Helios 40-2? I ended up buying a 40-2c after searching for a Cyclops as it was too expensive where as I paid $200 USD for the 40-2c EF version.
The red-P versions have these blue coatings, this also is the case for the jupiter lenses, the non red-p ones will have yellowish/colorless coatings
I'm really wondering how these lenses render on film or applying other creative techniques like brenizer stiching. Should be really fun to try with some bold contrasty film like ektachrome or ektar 100.
Yes, this old lens would need a bold contrasty film. The Brenizer idea is a great - as I've found 85mm (full frame) is a good focal length for this method. I'll give it a go! Cheers, Simon
Would you say the 44-2 benefits from a lens hood as well?
Not so much as it has a recessed front element...and I've seldom used a hood with the 44-2...although I have used my hand to shade the lens from very bright sun/flares!
The early Helios 40, with the M39 mount are 0.26mm short of achieving infinity focus with M42 adapter. Its hardly ever relevant, for a lens of this type, but if it is, you can shave 0,26mm of the shims-ring between the optical block and the focusing helicod.
I have black one and it is quite sharp even at 1.5
Let me correct it a little. Helios is a brand of lenses. And the brand that produces them is Zenit (KMZ). Now Zenit has an excellent set of manual lenses that are suitable for both photo and video shooting. For example I highly recommend Zenit Zenitar
lenses.
There were other factories besides KMZ that manufactured Helios lenses, They are not tied only to KMZ. And Zenitar is just another line up of lenses, many are not suitable for video at all as they all had clicking aperture. Only recent 50mm .095 is click-less.
@@ceaschannle5752 you can mod it to be clickless. It doesn't take much effort, but you have to know what you're doing.
Sir, what kind of adapter from M39 to M42? where we can buy from? thanks
It's a simple ring that fits around the M39 screwmount. I got mine on ebay.
@@Simonsutak do you have link Sir? could you please share it. thanks
For mount this on a Sony you said I need a m39 -m42 and then m42 to Sony adapter? So two adapter s?
Yes, if you buy one of these lenses with a M39 mount - and use a Sony mount - then you either need a M39 to Sony mount, or (like I've done) a M39 to M42 adapter ring and then a M42 to Sony adapter.
I’m still confused on the reason behind m-39-m42-Sony adapter tho. I have a industar 61 and from I remember it’s m39-Sony mount adapter, should I consider mounting a m42 ring to it what would that do
@@douglaslemus1726 OK - to clarify, there's a M39 to Sony e-mount adapter. However, I personally used a different set-up because I prefer to use one main adapter for all my M39 and M42 lenses. As I'm, sure you know, the M39-M42 adapter is only a ring around the screwmount, and each of my M39 lenses has a ring screwed on.
Also it has an interesting gear shape of bokeh when stopped to around 2.8 due to its diaphragm shape
I have all the 44 helios versions but only the new 40-2.. its a great lens but as ive not used the m39 version i cant say anything,,, im waiting for a clean M39 with filters and bag.
Yes, the old Helios 40 looks good with that bag/filter set! It'll be interesting to compare the new with the old.
The reason why the text on the food car wasn't in sharp focus, is because it's a viewfinder issue, not a lens issue. Typically it has to do with the focusing screen, which basically means you're getting a slightly different view of focus than the sensor will actually get. This is generally remedied by using different focusing screens for your camera, if available. It typically happens with lenses that have a shallow DOF, and it happens even on modern lenses. For example, my Canon 85mm 1.8 has the same problem, and it requires the super precision EE-S focusing screen to actually show true critical focus. They recommend it for any lens that is f/2.8 or wider.
You're right, there is a potential issue with viewfinders, particularly with fast lenses, and particularly (in some cases) with electronic focusing screens. I use f1.2 and f1.4 lenses focused though my Pentax K-1 mirror-based viewfinder (and in theory, what you see is what you should get) and don't find there's a problem achieving accurate focus on extremely narrow dof shots. But not with my Helios at longer distances...so maybe it’s a stabilization issue.
Nevertheless, I'm confident in saying that my copy of the old Helios 40 is not razor sharp at longer distances. Your Canon 85mm 1.8 is a much better/sharper lens I've no doubt about that...and as you write, to get optimal results it needs an accurate focusing screen. One of the main reasons why I’m making these videos is to learn more about my lenses…and photographic techniques…and I’m certainly doing that!
This can also be overcome if your camera has micro-adjustment.
@@Simonsutak I've had this problem myself. This lens seems notorious for needing some micro adjustments. Probably because they are made for 35mm
So that would work better on a mirrorless camera I presume? Since your viewfinder's output is taken straight from the sensor, what you see is literally what you get.
@@FrankyFeedler Yes, it would perform better on a mirrorless camera. It's not a huge issue though, and it's understandable. When sharp focus is soo razor thin, potentially even just a few millimeters, it can be hard to distinguish what is actually in sharp focus if soo little is in sharp focus, because sharp focus does not make up the whole depth of field. Meaning that the sharpest point in a depth of field is a singular infinitely small point, and that trails off as a gradient where it gradually gets less and less sharp in both directions opposite of that point, and we consider some of that gradient acceptably sharp and as sharp focus. So you or your camera might latch on an area that is less than sharpest focus, because it doesn't have enough information to determine the true sharpest points.
For example, if you're photographing a tiny sliver of a corner of a fence at a very low depth of field from a distance, the sharpest area on the lens might only make up a few dozen pixels. That means it's pretty easy to miss that focal point, and autofocus or even manual focusing, might result in slightly front or back focusing, not to mention your own movements. If your DOF is a few millimeters thick and you breathe a little, you could move the camera a few millimeters forward or backward in that time and completely change your focal point without realizing it. Most of the time it's not an issue, but when critical focus is important (like eyes), it can be tricky, even if you are shooting at a fast shutter speed. Just pressing down the shutter button can change the camera's position/angle enough at low DOF's without people realizing it. So while mirrorless could help, user error is still pretty common.
Would you recommend an older lens (003xxx) or a newer one (625xxx)?
It partly depends on condition, the mount (M39 v M42), and maybe the design of the tripod collar (I wanted one that was easily taken off and on). Personally , I’m very happy with my early version. I’ve not tried later or even new versions so I can’t comment. All I can say is that I had the option to buy early, later, new and went for the early version!
Simon, what kind of lens adapter did you use to mount it to A6000? I am having a hard time finding one that would fit.
Hi. First of all, for my particular M39 mount lens, I need a M39 to M42 adapter ring on the lens itself. So you may need one of these. (I'm assuming your lens is either a M39 or M42 screwmount - 39mm or 42mm being the width of the screw-mount).
And then you can use a Sony e-mount to M42 adapter. On-line shops have these adapters and I always read the reviews/comments carefully!
I personally use a Fotodiox PK-NEX Sony e-mount to Pentax K mount adapter, and then a K mount to M42 mount adaptor inside the Fotodiox...a more complicated set-up because I want to use both K mount and M42 mount lenses on my Sony a6000. The set up works perfectly for infinity etc.
@@Simonsutak Ok, perfect, thanks! I got my hands on this exact Helios 40 as you have. ;) One question I still have. What approximate focal length does this setup come out to? For APS-C is it still around 127mm? (APS-C Crop factor of 1.5)
@@nomeus Good luck, it's a fascinating and fun lens. Yes, in terms of the crop, it will be around 127mm, but pedantic photographers/commentators will always say, "it's a 85mm lens, and it's still a 85mm lens on APS-C". But the amount of image left after the crop will be the equivalent of a 127mm lens!
From what I have discerned the 40-2 is a far better lens than the 40. Very similar but a fair bit lighter, M42 mount rather than M39, 67mm filters rather than 66 and no blue tint on the lens. But I've no idea about the new 40-2's that you can buy now
Where did you purchase your 66 to 67mm adapter ring?
I got it on ebay.co.uk, three years ago. But the last time I looked there were none for sale. You could try contacting one of the Chinese makers of step up rings and asking them if they have any.
@@Simonsutak Thanks
I have kind of a weird version of this lens that I cannot find any on it. It is a Helios 40-2 that is black but it has an m39 mount like the older silver Helios 40’s do.
Is it glossy or matte black?
vintage.frames it’s glossy black. The serial is N711700. It’s just strange, because based off the information I’ve researched, they didn’t make a black 40-2 in a Leica thread mount/m39. I had to get a m39 to m42 ring adapter to use it in my screw mount adapter for my canon and Sony cameras.
@@CottonTeeth It has to be a transitional version, ii guess it's more rare so that's why you couldn't find much on it.
For example, I have a helios 44 (not -2) which color scheme is called zebra, yet it is M42 mount.
I'll look into it on Russian sources, I'll update you if I find anything.