Helios M42 lenses - Have I misunderestimated them?

[E. von Hoegh]

Misunderestimated?? :confused:




Says the man so proud of his home he doesn't mention it.

Nor do you mention yours. Momus mentions that he was "born in the south".

 

[MartinCrabtree]

Allow me to correct that.

 

[Xmas]

That Helios 44 is a Soviet copy of the Zeiss Biotar. A good sample can give outstanding results. I have several.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-Gauss_lens
the Zeiss works lost their documentation when Dresden was torched so the Russians had no more design information than Canon had for their 5cm f/1.8 LTM
the post 1982 lenses will have been derived from Mandlers type IV Summicron

 

[E. von Hoegh]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-Gauss_lens
the Zeiss works lost their documentation when Dresden was torched so the Russians had no more design information than Canon had for their 5cm f/1.8 LTM
the post 1982 lenses will have been derived from Mandlers type IV Summicron

There's also the Mir 37/2.8, a Flektogon design and reputed to be very good. From what I've seen on the web, it is.
One reason I've acquired a couple screwmount bodies is to play a bit with these lenses which I've been curious about for a while now.

 

[Bill Burk]

I've got a Helios 44, unfortunately on a semi-functional "Start" SLR. By semi-functional, I mean that apparently the mirror rests at the wrong angle. It looks like it's adjustable. Any ideas on how to correct that?
Charles

Get a Pentax Spotmatic body and put the Helios 44 on it.

 

[Bill Burk]

Checked the prices on the lens, it certainly can be had for a fair price.

I had one once, brand new. Camera broke first year and I learned the mechanism well. It was beyond my personal technological ability, but I could tell the innards were rough compared to other machines I was familiar with.

Meanwhile the lens, didn't have anything particularly wrong with it, but I didn't like it at the time. Too bad because now I see it for its pictorial capability, where before I just didn't like flare.

It might be taking me down the road of hypocrisy if I were to go and "replace" this lens of my childhood. Considering how much I hated it.

But it's a heck of a lot cheaper than the OM lenses being discussed elsewhere.

 

[Xmas]

in one of our brick camera shops there is a large wicker work basket with junk in it and any working zenith body minus lens is 5 GBP the Helius are already sold off for larger sums...

an ERC for the body also 5GBP

There is a current thread about the cost of Olympus OM1 lenses being unreasonable

I've removed fungus from one Helius for a chum. ditto a repair on a LTM J8 with 00xxxxx serial. The FSU lenses are maintainable...

 

[Endo]

BTW, are there any good US made lens?

 

[blockend]

The Soviets somehow managed to combine cameras of great solidity with appalling manufacturing tolerances. My uncle once brought back some rangefinders from a trip behind the wall. He was hoping to sell them on for a profit, as they were so cheap to buy. Knowing I was a photographer, he asked me what I thought. Brand new out of the box, they felt as though someone had filled them with sand and loosened every screw they could find at the same time. Rough doesn't begin to describe them. Domestic consumption cameras were even worse than export models.

Lenses were often of exemplary design if they were put together properly. I imagine the workers were 'under-motivated' to put it kindly.

 

[Peltigera]

BTW, are there any good US made lens?

Yes: Bausch & Lomb are pretty good. I don't think they make camera lenses any more but they were good enough for Carl Zeiss to have a co-operative venture with them. Bestbeloved assures me that her Bausch & Lomb spotting scope is as good as they get.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

BTW, are there any good US made lens?

Yes. Goerz New York, Kodak Ektars, Bausch & Lomb, Wollensak, Ilex; all made world class lenses, but unfortunately not for SLRs (Unless you count Graflexes!)
There's a guy on feepay selling NOS coated 45mm Goerz Tessars in barrel, put one of these on an m42 focussing mount and you might have a dandy little lens.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Yes: Bausch & Lomb are pretty good. I don't think they make camera lenses any more but they were good enough for Carl Zeiss to have a co-operative venture with them. Bestbeloved assures me that her Bausch & Lomb spotting scope is as good as they get.

Spencer Buffalo made microscopes and such, during WWII they made binoculars for the military. I have a coated pair of 7x50s that are just superb - even by today's standards. I also have a B&L spotting scope, and it is as good as they get.

 

[Peltigera]

Yes. Goerz New York, Kodak Ektars, Bausch & Lomb, Wollensak, Ilex; all made world class lenses, but unfortunately not for SLRs (Unless you count Graflexes!)
There's a guy on feepay selling NOS coated 45mm Goerz Tessars in barrel, put one of these on an m42 focussing mount and you might have a dandy little lens.

The Goerz lenses were German designs which puts Goerz New York in much the same position as the makers of the Helios lenses.

BTW, have you taken your moniker from the designer of Goerz's Dagor lens (Emile Von Hoegh) or is it co-incidence?

 

[E. von Hoegh]

The Goerz lenses were German designs which puts Goerz New York in much the same position as the makers of the Helios lenses.
BTW, have you taken your moniker from the designer of Goerz's Dagor lens (Emile Von Hoegh) or is it co-incidence?

Not at all. Goerz N.Y. was originally the American office of the Berlin-Freidenau operation, they were seized as alien property when the U.S. entered WWI. At this time, virtually all lens designs were German or English.

No coincidence, I really am 148 years old as of last spring.