[Prince Harbinger]

I'm interested in these five lenses. I'd like to know your thoughts from experience with these lenses. Helio's 77-M4 does it produce better swirl than the Helios 44? Zenitar M 50mm f/1.7, MC Helios 81 H, Helios-103 MC Industar 61 (FED version). Please share your sample photos if you don't mind. Thank you for your time.

[FozzFoster]

I've posted some of my Helios 44-2 images recently (definitely worth owning):




I guess you're not directly asking about this lens though...
:P

[paulh]

You might take a look at this thread: Soviet lenses club - PentaxForums.com

[Prince Harbinger]

I've posted some of my Helios 44-2 images recently (definitely worth owning):




I guess you're not directly asking about this lens though...
:P

I really like the first example. I own the Helios 44 8 blade early version. I would like 44-2 Zebra in my collection. As well as the First Helios model with 13 aperture blades, Red P coated optics and F/22. Bit rare to find now and days. I saw one on Ebay not to long ago, but it had a broken preset aperture. Not sure how hard that would be to fix. So I didn't want to chance it. My guess is the owner tried to CLA it, and didn't put it back together properly. I'd imagine that it would be fairly hard to actually break it. Considering I didn't see any visable signs of damange on the body. Than again, I don't have any experience repairing that particular model since it is a different design than the one I currently own.

[Topsy]

I'm not sure if the 77m creates better swirl, but I assume that if it swilrs better it's probably not "worth" the higher price.

Another 50/1.8 that is swirly would be the Cosinon 50/1.8. It's even cheaper than the helios, I think you get the most swirl for your money with that one.

[stevebrot]

The Arsenal Helios 103 53/1.8 was never made in a form that has its own focus helicoid.

That said, I own one in Contax/Kiev mount and it is a very nice lens, sharp and with good contrast. If it has a tendency to swirl, it is not obvious, though I don't generally shoot wide open on my rangefinder cameras.







...and here is the lens on the Bessa R3M courtesy of the quite excellent and $$ Amadeo adapter.




Note again that this lens has no focus helicoid.


Steve

[stevebrot]

Are you aware that the Helios 77M-4 is reviewed on this site?

Helios 77M-4 MC 50mm F1.8 Lens Reviews - Russian and Zenitar Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database

Yes, it does swirl...at least for the owner in the most recent review.

[kypfer]

I've got an N-61L/D (aka Industar) from FED in M39 (FED/Zorki) fitting and an N-61L/Z from LZOS in M42. As far as I'm aware both lenses are a Tessar-type design. Neither exhibit any great degree of "swirl" in my experience, certainly nothing like my Helios-44's. Any effect is reduced on an APS-C sensor, unfortunately … maybe one day I'll be able to justify the asking price for a full-frame camera

[boriscleto]

I'm not sure if the 77m creates better swirl, but I assume that if it swilrs better it's probably not "worth" the higher price.

Another 50/1.8 that is swirly would be the Cosinon 50/1.8. It's even cheaper than the helios, I think you get the most swirl for your money with that one.

Do not need another 50mm. Do not need another 50mm. Do not need....

[stevebrot]

As far as I'm aware both lenses are a Tessar-type design. Neither exhibit any great degree of "swirl" in my experience,

I believe you are correct on both counts. I have a very pretty "Zebra" in LTM and aside from the sloppy build (need stiffer grease?), it is a good lens. I have been tempted to pick up the M42 version just to have a Tessar on the shelf, but figure for the going price I could probably get a CZJ Tessar.


Steve

[blackcloudbrew]

I have the Helios 40-2 1982 85mm f1.5 lens. It's a brute but is quite sharp and can give a very nice swirly bokeh like this:

They are an acquired taste though but they are fun to use.

[Prince Harbinger]

The Arsenal Helios 103 53/1.8 was never made in a form that has its focus helicoid.

That said, I own one in Contax/Kiev mount and it is a very nice lens, sharp and with good contrast. If it has a tendency to swirl, it is not obvious, though I don't generally shoot wide open on my rangefinder cameras.







...and here is the lens on the Bessa R3M courtesy of the quite excellent and $$ Amadeo adapter.




Note again that this lens has no focus helicoid.


Steve

Interesting architecture shots. I like reflection of the clouds on the second shot. It gives the impression that the clouds are trapped inside. Thanks for the samples and info.

---------- Post added 10-07-20 at 05:24 PM ----------

I've got an N-61L/D (aka Industar) from FED in M39 (FED/Zorki) fitting and an N-61L/Z from LZOS in M42. As far as I'm aware both lenses are a Tessar-type design. Neither exhibit any great degree of "swirl" in my experience, certainly nothing like my Helios-44's. Any effect is reduced on an APS-C sensor, unfortunately … maybe one day I'll be able to justify the asking price for a full-frame camera

You could get a focal reducer. What is the difference that you do notice between the two lenses? As far as performance goes?

---------- Post added 10-07-20 at 05:29 PM ----------

I have the Helios 40-2 1982 85mm f1.5 lens. It's a brute but is quite sharp and can give a very nice swirly bokeh like this:

They are an acquired taste though but they are fun to use.

That's a lovely sample. I have heard of that lens. I know that KMZ still makes them and sells a updated MF version on their website. The design is still the same it's just the coatings are better. Personally I prefer the white body. I would love to own that lens though.

[Astro-Baby]

I restored a Helios 44 ( cant remember which version ) a few months ago. They are a complete horror to work on and I would NEVER do it again. It had an oily aperture and a stuck focus. Disassembly is fraught with problems and reassambly doubly so.

There are some guides online but even with those the lens had a lot of nasty traps built in. Worst was the multitude of tiny grub screws whose ends will strip off if you so much as look at them the wrong way.

Think I posted some pics of it in bits on here somewhere.

[pinholecam]

The Arsenal Helios 103 53/1.8 was never made in a form that has its own focus helicoid.

That said, I own one in Contax/Kiev mount and it is a very nice lens, sharp and with good contrast. If it has a tendency to swirl, it is not obvious, though I don't generally shoot wide open on my rangefinder cameras.







...and here is the lens on the Bessa R3M courtesy of the quite excellent and $$ Amadeo adapter.




Note again that this lens has no focus helicoid.


Steve

I got one with the helicod hacked from some cheap russian camera and stuffed on to a Sony-FE mount.


Edited some of the sample mix up...








---------- Post added 10-08-2020 at 03:03 PM ----------

[/COLOR]This one from the Helios 44-2

[kypfer]

Originally posted by kypfer
I've got an N-61L/D (aka Industar) from FED in M39 (FED/Zorki) fitting and an N-61L/Z from LZOS in M42. As far as I'm aware both lenses are a Tessar-type design. Neither exhibit any great degree of "swirl" in my experience, certainly nothing like my Helios-44's. Any effect is reduced on an APS-C sensor, unfortunately … maybe one day I'll be able to justify the asking price for a full-frame camera


You could get a focal reducer. What is the difference that you do notice between the two lenses? As far as performance goes?

Not sure I'd bother with a "focal reducer" … never seen one in K-mount, not that I've looked!
These lenses are "left-overs" from my film days.
The N-61L/D simply doesn't get used these days, though I do have other M39 lenses I use on an "alternative brand" mirrorless with an adaptor.
The N-61L/Z is a handy light-weight close-focus (1ft) lens for when I want something in my pocket a little less bulky. I've not made direct comparisons.