[pepperberry farm]

we said goodbye to our girl Saffron today:

[ivanvernon]

had a chance this morning for an impromptu comparison between my Helios 44K-4 (58mm f2) and my SMC 55mm f2...

all shots at f16 and no processing - these are jpg's from the K-3:

K55/2



Helios



second pair:






K55/2



Helios



overall, I was impressed with the rendering and sharpness of the Helios - I would be hard-pressed to differentiate between the two if just given the images themselves...

The 55 seems to be sharper toward the edges. On the yellow mums, most noticeably, the Helios shows a distinct fuzziness on the right side of the photo. What do you think? Perhaps there is another explanation other than the lens itself? Color and central sharpness look very good for both lenses.

[pepperberry farm]

The 55 seems to be sharper toward the edges. On the yellow mums, most noticeably, the Helios shows a distinct fuzziness on the right side of the photo. What do you think? Perhaps there is another explanation other than the lens itself? Color and central sharpness look very good for both lenses.

yes - there is some fall-off on the Helios at the extreme edges; I wonder if it is sharpness falling off from center or something else?

beyond that, I thought the Helios held up well...

---------- Post added 10-25-16 at 03:36 AM ----------

my DA21 Ltd returned home (from Advance Camera - recommended) yesterday:

[ivanvernon]

yes - there is some fall-off on the Helios at the extreme edges; I wonder if it is sharpness falling off from center or something else?

beyond that, I thought the Helios held up well...

---------- Post added 10-25-16 at 03:36 AM ----------

my DA21 Ltd returned home (from Advance Camera - recommended) yesterday:

Hard to say. I am no lens expert! I do have a copy of the Helios, however, so will give it a similar test to yours. I do not have the 55, but maybe substitute my Canon FD 55mm f 1.2 (permanently converted to K mount) and shoot at f2.0 for both lenses. I am afraid the Canon will win hands down because it is pretty sharp when stopped down to 2.0.

[ivanvernon]

Three photos using:

1. Canon --FD 55mm f 1.2 (permanently remounted as K-mount)

2. Helios-44K-4, 58mm, f 2.0

3. Super-Takumar 1:1.4/50.

The three photos are shown in the same order as listed above.

All settings were Manual mode, f 8.0, 1/60 sec., 200 ASA. These were handheld, so framing is not exactly the same but similar. Environment was shaded from bright sunlight.,

[pepperberry farm]

I surprised at how different each lens rendered the colors!

[ivanvernon]

I surprised at how different each lens rendered the colors!

Yes, I was very surprised at the degree of difference, although the general order of quality did not surprise me. The Canon, i think, lived up to its reputation, and rendered color and detail with fantastic fidelity with wall-to-wall sharpness. The Helios provided a very acceptable rendering and excellent center sharpness, but with noticeable softness at the edges, similar to your Helios test shot, maybe just a little less fall off.

I was actually surprised at the lack of sharpness and the dull color rendering of the Takumar since this lens generally enjoys an excellent reputation. It is so poor, in fact, that it makes me wonder if I am somehow using the lens wrong, or if perhaps I have just received a bad copy.

I just received my newly ordered and highly touted Tokina AT-X, 90mm, f 2.5 macro, and getting ready to put it through its paces. Perhaps I will do a macro test of the Tokina AT-X 90mm f 2.5 macro, the Kiron 105mm f 2.8 macro, the Phoenix/Samsung 100mm, f 3.5, and the Pentax-M 100mm, f 1.4. The Tokina and Kiron are the two legendary ones, but the Pentax is also highly rated, and the Samsung, the only one with auto focus, is also quite good.

[ivanvernon]

Yes, I was very surprised at the degree of difference, although the general order of quality did not surprise me. The Canon, i think, lived up to its reputation, and rendered color and detail with fantastic fidelity with wall-to-wall sharpness. The Helios provided a very acceptable rendering and excellent center sharpness, but with noticeable softness at the edges, similar to your Helios test shot, maybe just a little less fall off.

I was actually surprised at the lack of sharpness and the dull color rendering of the Takumar since this lens generally enjoys an excellent reputation. It is so poor, in fact, that it makes me wonder if I am somehow using the lens wrong, or if perhaps I have just received a bad copy.

I just received my newly ordered and highly touted Tokina AT-X, 90mm, f 2.5 macro, and getting ready to put it through its paces. Perhaps I will do a macro test of the Tokina AT-X 90mm f 2.5 macro, the Kiron 105mm f 2.8 macro, the Phoenix/Samsung 100mm, f 3.5, and the Pentax-M 100mm, f 1.4. The Tokina and Kiron are the two legendary ones, but the Pentax is also highly rated, and the Samsung, the only one with auto focus, is also quite good.

I just remembered that I have a second copy of the Takumar 50 f 1.4, so I have made another test with it, same subject, same aperture, shutter speed and aperture. There is lots of difference and now its rendering and sharpness closely approaches the Canon and in my estimation may exceed the Helios.

The problem I believe is yellowing of the lens elements of the first Tak I tested. These lenses use radioactive Thorium glass, which tends to yellow over time, and perhaps the first Tak copy had that problem. I will set it in open sunlight for a while to see if the yellowing disappears.

[ChristianRock]

had a chance this morning for an impromptu comparison between my Helios 44K-4 (58mm f2) and my SMC 55mm f2...

all shots at f16 and no processing - these are jpg's from the K-3:

K55/2



Helios



second pair:

K55/2



Helios



overall, I was impressed with the rendering and sharpness of the Helios - I would be hard-pressed to differentiate between the two if just given the images themselves...

They're both good lenses... just for me personally, the Pentax 55 seems to have more true-to-life colors. I like the Pentax pictures better.

What was wrong with your DA 21, by the way?

I just remembered that I have a second copy of the Takumar 50 f 1.4, so I have made another test with it, same subject, same aperture, shutter speed and aperture. There is lots of difference and now its rendering and sharpness closely approaches the Canon and in my estimation may exceed the Helios.

The problem I believe is yellowing of the lens elements of the first Tak I tested. These lenses use radioactive Thorium glass, which tends to yellow over time, and perhaps the first Tak copy had that problem. I will set it in open sunlight for a while to see if the yellowing disappears.

Yes something is clearly off with your first Takumar lens. This second one seems, to me, better than the Canon - those Canon FDs are very sharp lenses, sharper than most of that era, but they typically have low contrast, which makes the images less interesting in my opinion. The Helios shot is typical Helios - very sharp center, pleasing images but the colors aren't quite as good as Pentax or Takumar (and if I had not seen the same image with the 2nd Takumar, the Helios colors would probably look perfectly fine ) Still, it's hard to draw any definite conclusions because the light seems to have varied a lot from shot to shot, being brighter in the last Takumar shot.

I passed on a Helios 44K for a good deal locally, twice... in fact it might still be up for sale at this old camera store, it is attached to a Zenit camera that they can't seem to be able to sell (the Zenit camera works perfectly well by the way, but it is very ugly). I'm not regretting it, the 55/2 is a wonderful lens and I think in Ivan's test it would excel (it is super-pleasing in sharpness and colors when you close down a bit - not that it isn't nice wide open, it is super nice, but it gets even better...)

[Cyril_K5]

Two? Don't be ridiculous; I have primes at 15, 21, 24, 31, 35, 43, 50, 55, 77, 100, 135 and 300mm and that's *nothing* compared to some around here

Ha ha... you must have a lot of dust on your sensor due to all the changing you must be doing ;-)

[ivanvernon]

Four lens were focussed upon the same subject with settings f 5.6, shutter 1/50 or 1/60, and ISO 200. All jpgs right from camera and no processing. Framing is not exact because of differences in lens focal length and the vagaries of hand-held shooting in general.

The lenses in the order of photo presentation are:

1. Tokina AT-X 90mm f 2.5 macro

2. Kiron 105mm f 2.8 macro

3. Pentax-M100mm f 4.0 macro

4. Phoenix/Samsung 100mm f 3.5 macro

[pepperberry farm]

What was wrong with your DA 21, by the way?

the focusing helicoid was loose, which was not allowing the lens to focus at infinity... I found an older thread here on PF that indicated that there have been several instances of the DA21 having this issue....

[ChristianRock]

the focusing helicoid was loose, which was not allowing the lens to focus at infinity... I found an older thread here on PF that indicated that there have been several instances of the DA21 having this issue....

Ah. Yes, I have heard reports about problems with that lens. Not just that, but also in some cases the lens just falling apart during use.

A good lens but maybe not worth the risks... if it was f/2.4 or faster I would probably look for one (but then it would be twice the size...)

[ivanvernon]

They're both good lenses... just for me personally, the Pentax 55 seems to have more true-to-life colors. I like the Pentax pictures better.

What was wrong with your DA 21, by the way?



Yes something is clearly off with your first Takumar lens. This second one seems, to me, better than the Canon - those Canon FDs are very sharp lenses, sharper than most of that era, but they typically have low contrast, which makes the images less interesting in my opinion. The Helios shot is typical Helios - very sharp center, pleasing images but the colors aren't quite as good as Pentax or Takumar (and if I had not seen the same image with the 2nd Takumar, the Helios colors would probably look perfectly fine ) Still, it's hard to draw any definite conclusions because the light seems to have varied a lot from shot to shot, being brighter in the last Takumar shot.

I passed on a Helios 44K for a good deal locally, twice... in fact it might still be up for sale at this old camera store, it is attached to a Zenit camera that they can't seem to be able to sell (the Zenit camera works perfectly well by the way, but it is very ugly). I'm not regretting it, the 55/2 is a wonderful lens and I think in Ivan's test it would excel (it is super-pleasing in sharpness and colors when you close down a bit - not that it isn't nice wide open, it is super nice, but it gets even better...)

Thanks for your comments, and I generally agree with you. I agree with your comments comparing the Canon to the Pentax in terms of rendering. To my eye, the Canon has greater fidelity to the subject but does not pop the colors the way the Pentax does. Perhaps it could be said that the Canon is more clinical, and the Pentax is more interesting.

[ChristianRock]

we said goodbye to our girl Saffron today:

I forgot to comment on this... I found these pictures pretty moving. Sorry about the loss of what looked like a fun and faithful friend!