[Skox]

Please have a look at this link

---

Last edited by BigMackCam; 07-30-2018 at 11:00 AM. Reason: Link removed by site owner

[BigMackCam]

I have many Helios 44 wich are dreadful useless performers, and a few of them wich are real optical gems

I own most (perhaps all?) Helios-44 variants, and several copies of certain variants. There are things to consider about these lenses:

Firstly, with Soviet lenses, you have to make sure you are comparing the exact same model, from the same era and factory of production. For example, its pretty safe to compare two 1978 Helios-44-2 lenses from the KMZ factory and expect to get the same optics, same coatings, same build quality and internal finishing, with only minor sample variation. They should perform more or less equally. But if you compare one of those to a Helios-44 manufactured ten years earlier by a different factory, one with more diaphragm blades, different coatings, or perhaps an entirely different model with the same basic optical formula - such as the Helios-44M or 44M-7 - all bets are off. Different factories even used up remaining parts from different eras for continued output of certain models for many years, and at different rates. These aren't sample variations in the classic sense. You almost need to treat them as separate lenses sharing the same optical formula. In this sense, vintage Soviet lenses can be very different from those produced in Japan (for instance).

Secondly, you have to consider that a very large number of vintage Soviet lenses (and, I'd suspect, non-Soviet too) have been serviced since they were first produced... often numerous times, and occasionally by less than scrupulous technicians (in some cases, I hesitate to even use that word - "butchers" might be more fitting). Many have been poorly reassembled, in some cases using parts and optical elements from other lenses, with coatings missing or removed through cleaning / polishing, even sometimes with key elements reversed during reassembly (!).

So, when drawing conclusions about a specific Helios-44 variant, you need to look at your own results and sample size, and consider those in context with the majority of opinions from other users. Only then can you (a) validate or invalidate your own findings, and (b) form a reasonably accurate appreciation of that specific variant

Please have a look at this link.

Thanks for the link

With respect, I think a good deal of that article is trying rather too hard to be high-brow and "artsy".

The definition I can relate to - though I've not heard "plasticity" used to describe it before - is subject-to-background separation due to depth of field, and the associated rendering qualities of in and out-of-focus areas (and the transitions therein), contributing to the "3D" effect. But, I'd suggest that sample variation between otherwise identical lens models is typically insufficient to have material impact on those aspects of rendering. Take ten different copies of the Pentax M50/1.7, for example, and you might find some tiny differences in performance; but the level of subject-to-background separation at a particular aperture and distance will be near-enough identical, as will the rendering of in- and out-of-focus areas.

I've never heard someone use the term "plasticity" before in relation to photography. Is it really in widespread use with professionals, as that article suggests?

[photoptimist]

A Review can be 100% reliable ONLY if it speaks about build quality. On the contrary, never when it speaks about optical performances. My approach is very pragmatic. Its not only about sharpness or other measurables parameters. Its about an X factor (aesthetic?) wich only optical gems own, and that you can find where you dont expect. I have many Helios 44 wich are dreadful useless performers, and a few of them wich are real optical gems, sharper and aesthetically superior to my Leica summicron M. So, how should Helios 44 optical performances be reviewed ?? I am sure that who is engaged in researching and selecting optical gems like i do understand what I mean....

How should the optics of the Helios 44 be reviewed? Exactly as you have written: "some are real gems and some are dreadful useless performers." You actually have very valuable data on the Helios 44. Many would love to know that buying a Helios 44 is a risk that sometimes pays off.

Note that the same gems and dreadfuls occurs with modern lenses (look up posts mentioning "de-centering" if you don't believe me).

No review can ever be 100% reliable because all lenses have some copy-to-copy variations. Even the build quality varies from lens to lens in issues such as he play in the aperture ring, tightness of the focus ring, quality of paints and finishes, etc.

[BigMackCam]

How should the optics of the Helios 44 be reviewed? Exactly as you have written: "some are real gems and some are dreadful useless performers."
...
Note that the same gems and dreadfuls occurs with modern lenses (look up posts mentioning "de-centering" if you don't believe me).

Exactly!

Hence why conclusions should only be drawn from majority evidence taken from one's own and other owners' samples (both for vintage and modern lenses)...

[sqrrl]

If the helios comment is a reference to what I said - I did only mention the 44-m - not helios in general, and i also noted that it has the most sample variance of any lens I've tested properly.

[Jonathan Mac]

I will introduce my self. I am a photographer and videomaker who collects vintage manual focus prime lenses and experiment new combination between old glasses and modern digital sensors.
I test hundred of lenses on regular monthly base, trying to select the best optical gems. What I have find out is that a review is just impossible for a manual focus vintage lens.

Manual focus vintage lenses, adapted to modern digital sensors, have a feature: each single copy is exclusive and unique because it reacts to colors and plasticity in its own exclusive and unique way.
A review is just impossible for a vintage lens.
A review can only provide indications about the specific copy wich is tested and some valid indication about build quality, but nothing about the optical performances of that model in general.

I disagree entirely. All lenses have variance between copies, this is not limited to vintage ones, and optical properties across multiple copies will have definite similarities unless they were put together in a very slap-dash way with poor quality control.

Obtaining and testing multiple copies would be difficult to do, so the solution is that when reading reviews, always bear in mind that each one is of a specific copy used by a specific person and there's some variance and subjectivity in it.

Read multiple reviews, ignore the numbers, look for trends.

[sqrrl]

Look, I'm going to go out on a limb here.

After 15-20 years photographic practice, a masters degree, and a photographic practice which hasn't lost 'much' money I would say that I have a really good understanding of maybe 2-3 dozen lenses - and a loose understanding of the capabilities of maybe 5-6 dozen more. And I used to buy 20 odd bulk rolls a year plus digital. Not a cheap practice. I've also taught at a tertiary level (university). I have no idea how many photo's I've taken over this period - at a guess 350-500k perhaps much more, I have a couple of feet of 35mm film in my filng cabinet - thickness, not length. I have nowhere near the experience of quite a few people I know, but enough to have formed an opinion.

I doubt that someone can review 3-6 lenses per day, consistently, month after month, and give relevant, useful and pertinent information about each.

I have no idea how a person would even acquire 3-6 lenses per day for testing, let alone test them on an ongoing basis.

---

Last edited by BigMackCam; 07-30-2018 at 02:22 AM.

[Skox]

Look, I'm going to go out on a limb here.

After 15-20 years photographic practice, a masters degree, and a photographic practice which hasn't lost 'much' money I would say that I have a really good understanding of maybe 2-3 dozen lenses - and a loose understanding of the capabilities of maybe 5-6 dozen more. And I used to buy 20 odd bulk rolls a year plus digital. Not a cheap practice. I've also taught at a tertiary level (university). I have no idea how many photo's I've taken over this period - at a guess 350-500k perhaps much more, I have a couple of feet of 35mm film in my filng cabinet - thickness, not length. I have nowhere near the experience of quite a few people I know, but enough to have formed an opinion.

I doubt that someone can review 3-6 lenses per day, consistently, month after month, and give relevant, useful and pertinent information about each.

I have no idea how a person would even acquire 3-6 lenses per day for testing, let alone test them on an ongoing basis.

With all my respect,
this is "hairsplitting" or "pedantry".
The substance of the sentence is what matters.
Substitutes "monthly" with "yearly".
Substance wont change.

[HoutHans]

OK, thanks for the article on plasticity. I guess I can see what your getting at, but I'm afraid I still don't understand it sufficiently to be able to relate it to lens variation. The lens rentals blog has a number of articles on copy to copy variation and they explain it clearly by stating that an element needs to be about a micrometer off to show up in terms of sharpness, but I'm not sure how that translates into background separation as I would call plasticity. BigMackCam's explanation for the variation between Helios's makes perfect sense, so that may not be the best example to prove your point (and even if all Helios's would be manufactured in one plant under the same strict QC conditions, we'd still have n=1, so no scientific basis for this bold statement.

I'd really appreciate it if you could post some photos in the lens reviews section that explain your point if only because it will allow all of us to learn from this.