u/PrimordialObserver

Here is some context on how these photos came to be, but feel free to skip to the bold text:

>Last week, someone on Facebook asked about the differences between the Jupiter-8 50mm ƒ/2 and the Helios-44-2 58mm ƒ/2. A strange question, I thought, since they have almost nothing in common—but I gave a brief description of their respective “personalities” anyway.

A few days later, with the Sun out, I figured I might as well compare them. I got a great shot with the Helios (see last photo), but when I mounted the Jupiter-8 on my 17–31 mm helicoid, I realized it added far too much extension—it effectively turned the lens into a semi-macro. I’d somehow assumed it would behave like an M39 adapter. My actual adapter, unfortunately, is stuck on my MTO-1000.

Only afterward did I realize I could have cobbled together a workaround with an M39–M42 adapter ring, an M42–NEX adapter ring, and a 10 mm extension tube. But at the time I thought, “Who needs an adapter anyway? Why not hold the lens in front of my camera at the right distance, with my hand acting as a tunnel?”

——

Using the Jupiter-8 without an adapter

Right then, the Sun became veiled by clouds and never returned, hence the first pictures are quite gloomy. But such thrilling results!

The Jupiter-8 already produces noticeable coma (second only to the Westron 35mm ƒ/2.8 in my experience), but holding it freehand intensified it. It’s nearly impossible to keep the lens perfectly perpendicular to the sensor, so parts of the subject fall out of focus—but it’s exactly that tilt that produces fascinating background highlights!

In the second image, the background even begins to swirl near the top of the frame. The pink glow is harder to explain—possibly a flare, or perhaps light leaking past my hand.

——

Using the Helios-44-2 without an adapter

Today, I tried the same approach with the Helios-44-2, so the comparison lives on.

The Helios behaves quite differently: no coma, but a strong sensitivity to perspective shifts. In the fourth image, the bokeh on the left balloons dramatically, while the right side transitions toward smaller highlights and eventually infinity focus.

You do have to accept that your subject won’t remain fully sharp, but I think it’s a fun creative tool!

Tip: Holding the Helios freehand proved much harder. The flange distance is simply too large to block stray light effectively. Instead, I mounted a 25–55 mm helicoid (essentially an M42 adapter when fully retracted) and held the lens in front of that.

——

The final image shows the result of the Helios-44-2 properly mounted, for reference.

So what do you think—is this a fun creative tool worth exploring, or sheer balderdash and an affront to the dignity of photography?

Misha has a naturally grumpy-looking face. Someone compared him to Quentin Tarantino. 🤭

Here I present a comparison of the optical performance of the MC 3M-5CA 500mm ƒ/8 (LZOS, 1991) and the MC Rubinar 500mm ƒ/8 Macro (LZOS, 1994)—two lenses that evolved from the 1950s MTO-500 lineage.

Here are my observations:

• Sharpness: Both lenses have a similar sharpness and ability to resolve details—provided you are able to nail the focus, which is challenging with these lenses. Although most photos presented here were taken handheld, the first ones with the sunset were taken on a tripod, and even then the photos aren’t hairsharp but “sharp enough” if you don’t pixel-peep.
• Contrast: Perceived sharpness does rely in part on contrast, and here the MC 3M-5CA definitely has the edge. Even though the lens is much older (first released in 1983, whereas the MC Rubinar is from 1992), it holds its contrast much better in direct light. The contrast of the MC Rubinar is fair, however, which is easily corrected in post.
• Colors: As you can see in the 4th image (the second side-by-side) in particular, the MC 3M-5CA seems to have a slight green tint, while the MC Rubinar has a brown tint and produces warmer colors. Personally I prefer the colors of the MC 3M-5CA overall, although the way it skews yellow colors like the fence and the sunset in the first photos is not the most flattering. I don’t know for certain which color profile is the best starting point for color grading, although I’m leaning towards the MC 3M-5CA because all it takes is shifting the yellow range slightly towards the red.
• Flares: So far, the MC 3M-5CA looks like the better lens (or the one I prefer), but one major benefit I see in the MC Rubinar is its flare potential. As you can see in the first side-by-side and the 6th image, the MC Rubinar produces flares in varying colors (often red and green), which in my opinion results in a more compelling image, although some may prefer the MC 3M-5CA in this respect for its ability to suppress flares.
• Bokeh: Both lenses have the same aperture and mirror size, so they produce virtually identical donut bokeh—which may or may not be your taste. I think mirror lenses can be a fun creative tool, but if you’re going to use one just for the reach and their compactness, as you can see in the second-last picture of my cat Eiki, these lenses CAN produce sharp images at a long distance, but you’re always going to see ring-shaped background highlights, and things like branches are often rendered with dark cores, emphasizing their outlines.
• Minimum focus distance: The MC 3M-5CA can focus as closely as 4 meters (13.1 feet) which is quite standard for a mirror lens of this age. Here the MC Rubinar has the edge, as it can focus as closely as 2.2 meters (7.2 feet), achieving a magnification of 1:4. So the MC Rubinar is more flexible, although in practice I don’t know whether you would necessarily use a 500mm lens to focus so close. It’s handy in principle, but it may only make sense with very small subjects. When photographing the bird feeders, I had to walk back to about 15 meters (49.2 feet) to get a good composition, because photographing them at a distance that felt more intuitive to me would result in not being able to fit the subject into my frame. I think I may actually favor a mirror lens of 300mm or so.

Conclusion

I don’t think there is a very clear winner between these two lenses. I think technically the MC 3M-5CA may have the edge because of its higher contrast and I personally prefer its colors. Plus I prefer the feel of the lens, with its metal focus ring. Having said that, I think I would give the MC Rubinar more use because I favor its flare potential.

I originally bought the MC 3M-5CA for Moon photography, and on that front I think I will favor it over the MC Rubinar, but I might at some point compare the performance of both lenses for Moon photography specifically.

If you don’t yet have a mirror lens and you’re wondering whether you should get one, do keep in mind that these lenses are very difficult to focus (even at their fixed aperture of ƒ/8)—not only because of their long focal length, but mirror lenses are also inherently less sharp than refractive lenses. I found it very difficult to get sharp pictures, especially of moving subjects like my cats.

I’m curious, do you have a 500mm mirror lens with a faster aperture than ƒ/8, or a 300mm mirror lens with a faster aperture than the equivalent ƒ/4.8? Does that complicate focusing further? It does seem fun to experiment with even larger donut bokeh.

Here is a lens comparison (not the optical performance) of the MC 3M-5CA 500mm ƒ/8 and the MC Rubinar 500mm ƒ/8 Macro.

Production years

Both lenses descend from the MTO-500 500mm ƒ/8 (1954–1970) lineage, but represent different stages of its development; the MC 3M-5CA was introduced in 1983 and produced until around 1991–1992, while the MC Rubinar 500mm ƒ/8 Macro appeared around 1992 and remained in production into the 2000s, before apparently being modernized and reintroduced in 2021. My own copies were produced by the same factory, only a few years apart, in 1991 and 1994.

Optics

The MC 3M-5CA is a Gregory–Maksutov design, based on the Maksutov–Cassegrain telescope. This design is characterized by two lens elements in two groups, plus two mirrors which allow for a much more compact design than conventional refractive lenses.

The optical design of the MC Rubinar by contrast is a Maksutov variant called RuMak, consisting of three elements in two groups, plus the two-mirror configuration.

Weight

It’s interesting to compare two lenses of the same lineage and see how they were modernized. The original MTO-500 was a very heavy lens, at around 1.5 kg (3.3 lbs). The MC 3M-5CA weighs “only” around 600 g (21 oz), and the MC Rubinar weighs 520 g (18 oz).

Length

But perhaps most remarkable is how much smaller they managed to make the MC Rubinar. At first glance, it seems only slightly smaller than the MC 3M-5CA, but its rear section consists of two screw-on filters which keep a metal sleeve in place that partially protects the focus ring. Only after removing the filters and sleeve is the mount revealed.

>Edit: Ohh right before posting, I finally realized that the metal sleeve isn’t just protection, but a screw-on lens hood! That’s ingenious! I couldn’t be bothered to take new photos, so in the third image I’ve Photoshopped the hood from the first photo onto the lens.

It is admittedly a little tedious to dismantle these extra parts—especially since they hold filters I will likely never use—but the design is rather clever: the lens carries several filters on its own body, while the same assembly doubles as protection for the mount.

By contrast, the MC 3M-5CA uses a simple metal cap that screws directly onto the rear mount. I actually don’t recall if mine came with filters; but I have the MTO-1000 as well, which came with a large wooden box with compartments for three filters.

Once you remove the filters of the MC Rubinar though, it’s significantly shorter than the MC 3M-5CA, at 9.9 cm (3.9") compared to 14 cm (5.5").

Minimum focus distance

Besides the more compact design, another major improvement is the minimum focus distance. The MC 3M-5CA has an MFD of 4 meters (13.1 feet)—the same as the original MTO-500; whereas the MC Rubinar can focus as close as 2.2 meters (7.2 feet).

Besides the pretty impressive MFD, the MC Rubinar can reach a magnification of 1:4 (25% of the true size of the subjects). Although this is impressive for a mirror lens from the early ’90s, it’s technically not a macro lens, even though it says MC Rubinar Macro on the barrel.

Handling

As for how the lenses feel when taking photos, I guess the rubber focus ring of the MC Rubinar should technically be better, as it provides more tactile feedback and grip.

However, I actually much prefer the MC 3M-5CA, as its all-metal body and focus ring feel more premium. But I have to admit, its weight probably biases my opinion as well; in psychology, there is a known effect called the weight heuristic, where our brain automatically equates a heavier object with higher quality, durability, and value. But bias or not, I simply prefer the older lens.

This is even true for how the lens looks from the front, with the MC 3M-5CA showing a mirror in the center, whereas the MC Rubinar shows a plastic cap, which I think you can conveniently unscrew to easily open the lens for cleaning. It’s another undeniable improvement, but the MC 3M-5CA simply looks cooler!

—

I hope you enjoyed this physical comparison of these two related lenses. In my next post, I will present an optical comparison and my observations on their optical performance.

What’s your favorite catadioptric mirror lens?

Here is a comparison between the Aldis Anastigmat 85mm ƒ/2.5 projection lens and the Fuji Fujinon 55mm ƒ/2.2; the Aldis is a fast Cooke triplet (which is fairly exceptional, as Cooke triplets are usually ƒ/2.8 or slower), and the Fujinon is a 4E / 4G Unar-type lens.

Now, this isn’t a fair comparison, as they have different optical designs and different focal lengths. I just felt like testing my fastest two bubble lenses. This is in fact the first time I’m testing my Aldis, as it took me a while to print a suitable adapter.

So how do they compare?

• Aldis: The bubbles are actually fairly soft. The lens can produce the watercolor-like rendering of the Trioplan, but the bubbles look much gentler and less defined. I also found it poor at resolving details from close up, and of course the lack of an iris disallowed me from expanding the depth of field. I had the same experience with the Triplet-5 100mm ƒ/2.8. It seems projection lenses can be quite sharp at their native focal length, but you can’t push them far beyond that.
• Fujinon: The Fujinon has sharper bubble outlining, but the outlines layer a lot, thus forming sort of fuzzy boundaries. As a result, the bubbles can still appear fairly soft. But I find the bokeh of this lens quite exciting, because it produces Cooke triplet-like bubbles but with a sense of motion, like they’re brimming with energy. It’s definitely a sharper lens than the Aldis, but I still didn’t have the easiest time resolving details up close (see the last photo).

A few months back, I won an aluminium preset Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 35mm ƒ/2.8 from around 1958–1959 for just C$28 in an auction (for a total of C$51 with shipping). The reason it was so cheap was because an element in front of the aperture had heavy haze. I wasn’t confident whether the haze could be cleaned, but I was curious to try it.

—

Cleaning the element via the rear

My first approach was to remove the rear element to access the next element. I cleaned the back end of the hazy element, but looking through it, it still looked milky.

I had some trouble getting the rear lens back in, so I asked for advice on Facebook and Reddit. Marco Kröger from ZeissIkonVeb.de told me that by removing the rear rings that held the rear element in place, I had inadvertently decentered the lens, which he said could never be centered again (apparently only the original factory could center it again, which closed 30 years ago). In his words, I fucked the lens up and I should just throw it away now.

But I wasn’t ready to give up yet! I figured even if he is right, I might learn something from putting the lens back together and removing the haze from the element. And what do you know—I managed to insert the rear lens and screw the rings back on, and the lens was perfectly sharp! I guess I learned a lesson not to give up when a supposed expert tells you there is no point to doing something. You can always give up after trying.

—

Cleaning the haze

To remove all of the haze, I realized I had to open the lens via the front. The name plate had no holes to insert a lens spanner into, so I ordered a set of rubbers to unscrew the front ring with friction. That worked like a charm!

I then cleaned the front of the hazy element with denatured alcohol, and it looked like that mostly did the trick. I then decided to experiment and invert the front element, expecting it to produce spherical distortions just like the Mir-1B which is based on the Flektogon. To my surprice, there were no distortions! I took the first two photos with this setup.

I then took the front element out again to finish cleaning the hazy element with 3% hydrogen peroxide, and to my eye that completely removed the haze. When I put the lens back together though (with the front element back in its original position), to my surprise the photos it took were hazier than ever (see third photo)! I thought I somehow permanently messed up the lens. Maybe Marco was right after all, but for different reasons. I thought oh well, at least I learned something new. No hydrogen peroxide next time!

The next day though, the lens took really sharp pictures without any haze (see last photo)! I guess the hydrogen peroxide created a hazy film, which just needed some time to evaporate.

—

Conclusion

Had I listened to Marco, I would have thrown away a lens I spent C$51 on. Not the greatest loss, but a loss nevertheless. Because I decided to go ahead with this project anyway to see what I might learn from it, I ended up reviving the lens, which now has a market value of about C$200. I’m very pleased!

In my next post, I will compare the performance of the Flektogon with the Mir-1B, so stay tuned!

The Auto Revuenon 55mm ƒ/1.4 is such an amazing lens for producing photos that look like paintings!

I have several lenses that can produce gentle transitions and plenty of background blur, but there is something about the Auto Revuenon that results in a genuinely painterly effect.

I mean, I did apply some color grading and textures to amplify that painterly look, but still—none of my other lenses give me that same potential.

A photo of my cat Misha, taken with an optically modified Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar 50mm ƒ/2.8 (the front element was replaced with an element of an unknown lens).

The lens is never sharp, alas, but it produces amazing bokeh and coma!

Photos taken with a 1966–1967 7-element Super-Takumar 50mm ƒ/1.4.

Photo 1: I love the dramatic flares this lens can produce! This time it worked out extra well, as the sunrays became divided by the wind chimes, thus fragmenting the geometric patterns of the flare.

Photo 2: My cat Misha. Always fun to see cat eye-bokeh in a cat picture!

I’m trying out my new Fuji Fujinon 55mm ƒ/2.2 that arrived today. It’s so bubbly! It can’t beat the Trioplan 100mm ƒ/2.8, but it easily beats all 50mm Cooke triplets like the Trioplan 50mm ƒ/2.9 and the Domiplan 50mm ƒ/2.8.

I mentioned before how I resisted buying this lens because it looked so ugly to me. Well, I bought this one together with another lens and a teleconverter for just $35, so that reduced the barrier to entry.

The lens body is made of brittle bakelite, so the focus ring often has a crack in it. Well, mine had most of the focus ring missing because large chunks fell out! I broke off the remaining chunks, exposing silver plating underneath. I should find a way to sand the top of the focus ring flat so it doesn’t look this irregular. But all in all, I don’t think it’s the worst-looking lens, especially not at a distance.

Anyway, BUBBLES!

I did this quick test at the start of March, but I forgot to upload it.

Here is a comparison between the ISCO–Göttingen Westron 35mm ƒ/2.8 and the Meyer-Optik Görlitz Orestegon 29mm ƒ/2.8. My observations:

• Sharpness: The Westron looks to be a bit sharper at its peak (see photo 2), but it has significant fall-off towards the edges, whereas the Orestegon maintains its sharpness throughout (see photo 3).
• Bokeh: The Westron shows significant coma, creating a triangular geometry in the background highlights, whereas the Orestegon stays nicely round. Beyond the shapes, both lenses produce background highlights with a similar amount of mild outlining, although I would say the outlining of the Westron looks a bit sharper.
• Contrast: The contrast seems a bit more gentle in the Orestegon; it has more than sufficient contrast, but the shadows are a bit lighter.
• Color: I’m not sure I can say much about the colors. The Westron looks a bit warmer to me, but it’s possible I had the white balance set to auto, so I don’t know how that might have affected colors. The Orestegon does seem to have slightly more constrained colors, however. The Westron looks a bit more punchy, perhaps due to its higher contrast.
• Focal length: It’s interesting to me how much of a difference 6mm in focal length can make. While the composition is the same (or rather, the bird feeder is at the same distance), you can see quite a bit more of the environment in the Orestegon photo. And of course the Orestegon shows a stronger perspective distortion, as evidenced by the stronger curve of the bottom of the bird feeder.

My take on these two lenses: I’m not a fan of wide lenses; I find they don’t quite fit my photography style. And yet, the Westron is among my favorites because of its distinct bokeh and significant coma. I hope to find a 50–100mm lens with similar rendering! The Orestegon meanwhile looks like a very capable wide-angle lens, but it just doesn’t have the pronounced character I look for in lenses. The Westron has the coma, the Mir-1B and Flektogon have the swirl. The Orestegon? I don’t know…

I think I will get more fun out of this lens once I reverse the front element and it will produce spherical distortions like the modified Mir-1B does.

Which lens do you prefer? And what is your favorite wide-angle lens?

Some weeks ago I mentioned that the only lens in my collection that produces more intense coma than the ISCO–Göttingen Westron 35mm ƒ/2.8 is my modified Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar 50mm ƒ/2.8 which has the front element of an unknown lens. So yesterday I figured, let’s compare the two!

As you can see, it did not go well with the Tessar. If you focus on the bokeh only, then it’s no contest: the Tessar won the coma competition! But the subject is so blurry, it’s an unusable photo. And I swear I nailed the focus! I took a bunch of photos, and this was the best one.

It’s such a confusing lens though, because it CAN take usable and compelling photos. Have a look at the third image of my cat Misha, which I took yesterday as well. Yes, it’s still not sharp anywhere, but I still love the result; it’s just sharp enough.

I took a whole bunch more photos with the Tessar yesterday, and I would say all the closeup photos are absolutely unusable, and of the photos I took a bit further away, 1% of them were keepers.

I was going to say I might consider redoing this test with the bird feeder a bit further away if anyone is interested. But on second thought, what is the point? I might prove to myself that indeed this lens should be used at a few meters distance, but it’s not like you could even buy this lens for yourself.

No, if you want intense coma, I still recommend the Westron (the ƒ/2.8 version; there is a ƒ/3.5 version as well). At least it gives consistent results! I just wish I could find a 50mm vintage lens with intense coma.

I decided to take out my modified Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar 50mm ƒ/2.8 again.

According to the seller, the front element was broken so he replaced it with the front element of an unknown lens. The result is a lens that is never quite sharp, but with potential for some amazing results, including bloom, geometric structures, and intense coma.

I took a whole bunch of photos, but 99% of the photos were trash. Yes, this lens has the potential for amazing effects, but its potential for producing unusable results is even greater!

Nevertheless, I got one cool result of my cat Misha sitting in front of a tree with pink Christmas lights that turned into interesting triangular coma pointing towards him. In color, it shows a nice rainbow flare, but I think the photo actually works much better in black-and-white.

I’ve also included some photos I took with the lens last year. On rare occasions, I think this lens can truly WOW. Most of the time though, I ask myself whether it was even worth buying. I guess I would say though, for the two black-and-white photos I truly like so far (the new one of Misha, and the old one with the deteriorated leaf surrounded by bubbles), YES it was worth buying.

I only wish that WOW effect would show up a bit more frequently.

Another photo taken with the ISCO–Göttingen Westron 35mm ƒ/2.8 and its wild bokeh.

It almost looks like there are geometric patterns inside the background highlights, giving them a highly energetic appearance. The Westron is anything but tranquil—perhaps an ironic contrast with this Buddha head and what it represents.

The second image is a crop of the first, where you can see the triangular highlights/coma adorning the edge of Buddha’s crown.

I was testing the Auto Miranda 50mm ƒ/1.8 which seemed to perform fine, until light entered the lens in a specific way and this cool petri dish halo appeared. As amazing as this looks, it immediately made me suspicious about contamination.

Also, looking at the test photos I took of the bird feeder, it actually shows a lot of bloom (see second photo) which is not intrinsic to this lens.

The first photo immediately makes me think of fungus, but when I shine blacklight through the lens, I don’t see anything I recognize as fungus based on earlier experiences.

Any idea what this is?

—

Before & after cleaning

In photos 3–5, you can see what the glass looks like when I shine blacklight through it. Clearly the glass is dirty. So I gave it a wipe with a Zeiss lens wipe, which did help a bit.

But as you can see in the last two photos, the glass is still contaminated with something—probably internally.

Description of contamination

I actually found it impossible to capture what I’m actually seeing, which are minuscule, almost point-like stars with three or four arms. What I don’t see is interconnected web-like structures that I would usually recognize as fungus; all these stars are completely disconnected from each other.

Dust after all?

Actually, I just checked a lens that doesn’t have any issues, and it’s also showing some of those stars towards the edges, which makes me think they’re just dust particles refracting light. But of course dust particles shouldn’t result in glowy photos and organic structures inside haloes…

I’m back with another lens comparison! This time between a 1970 zebra MMZ Helios-44-2 58mm ƒ/2 and a 1952 black type 2 Carl Zeiss Jena Biotar 5.8cm ƒ/2.

I imagine for you this might be one of the most exciting comparisons I have done considering the legendary status of the Biotar, and I certainly went into this comparison with the same excitement. But for me, it was actually the most disappointing comparison. Why?

I kept reading people’s takes on how they compare, with three pretty consistent themes:

1. The Biotar has more gentle background transitions
2. The Biotar has a magic that the Helios-44-2 lacks
3. The Biotar doesn’t swirl as readily as the Helios-44-2

Based on my tests, none of that is true! Based on the third theme I anticipated favoring the Helios-44-2, but I was really excited to note the significant differences between the two lenses. It’s always nice when you get a new lens and it renders unlike lenses you already own. Unfortunately that’s not the case here.

But alas, it can still be interesting to note the minute differences, so here are my observations:

• Bokeh quality & swirl: This was my biggest and maybe sole disappointment, which is that these lenses render EXACTLY the same in terms of the background transitions, amount of swirl, and the quality of the bokeh. No sharper outlining as in the Helios-77M-4 and more glow in the Helios-44-2. No—these lenses are optically identical, to the extent that there is no way I could tell them apart based on the background rendering alone.
• Contrast: One of the things that sets them apart is that the Biotar drops contrast more readily in direct light. Not a surprise, given that the coating technology is almost two decades older, and the Biotar lacks the recessed front of the Helios-44-2 which acts as a subtle hood.
• Sharpness: The lenses are identical in sharpness, but I found the Biotar easier to nail the focus. It’s like even a tiny adjustment of the focus ring of the Helios-44-2 brings it out of focus, while the Biotar is a bit more forgiving.
• An oddity: I thought maybe I was shooting at slightly different distances, making the depth of field of the Helios-44-2 shorter. That’s why I did a second test (see second image), this time putting the Helios-44-2 at the minimum focus distance of the Biotar, which is 90 cm (it’s 50 cm for later Biotars). Suddenly I was stepping as far back as I had to with the Jupiter-11! That was odd. So I had my wife measure the distance when shooting the Biotar at its MFD. She measured 85 cm from the front of the glass to the bird feeder, so that’s probably exactly 90 cm from the bird feeder to the sensor. In other words, the Biotar’s distance scale is exact. But somehow when standing at the same distance with my Helios-44-2, it measures 70 cm. Having tested the two lenses again though, I found that their sharpness was the same, as well as their depth of field. It’s just that my Helios-44-2 measures the distance wrong.
• Color aberrations: Both lenses are identical on this front; they produce the same amount of cyan fringing around the subject. I’ve also observed purple fringing in the Helios-44-2, but I haven’t observed that in either lens in this test. I imagine they will show the same amount of purple fringing as well though. Both lenses seem relatively well controlled on this front.
• Temperature: In my first comparison shoot, I found this was another genuine difference between the two lenses. People said the early Biotars render quite warm (Simon’s utak even noted a brown tint), but in my experience, the Helios-44-2 rendered much warmer, and the Biotar even leaned cool, as you can see in image 1 and 3. I later realized I had the white balance set to auto. In the second image, I set the white balance to 4900 K if I remember correctly. The greens look lighter and fresher, which might be due to a difference in lighting (the Sun being less obscured by clouds for instance). But looking at the bird feeder, I can’t say one lens renders warmer than the other. I think they both lean a bit warm.
• Flare: So if the lenses don’t differ in temperature but in contrast only, their flares are the only other difference between the two lenses. The Helios-44-2 often produces purple or cyan flares. In this case, it decided to produce a red halo with a purple core. The Biotar, however, produced a beautiful blue halo with a blue core. You don’t see that often!

And that’s it! Does the Biotar have a certain magic that the Helios-44-2 lacks? I haven’t observed this to be the case in my tests. I think you should get the Biotar if you want blue flares rather than red-and-purple ones, or if you favor a lower contrast lens that gives you a bit more flexibility in post-processing (it’s difficult to get the low-contrast look with a high-contrast lens), or if you favor German engineering, or if you care about the historic significance of the Biotar. Or in case of the type 2 Biotar, if you prefer a much smaller lens on your camera (Simon’s utak felt it was a bit too small for comfort).

But don’t get the lens expecting it to render significantly different than the Helios-44-2. In my experience, they are optically IDENTICAL, and the only real differences I’ve observed are due to the lens coatings and the more recessed front of the Helios-44-2.

Zenitar-M 50mm ƒ/1.7 (KMZ, 1985)

This lens doesn’t get enough attention in my opinion. Look how sharp it is wide open! The second image is a crop of the first.

This is definitely the sharpest Soviet lens I own, and it’s probably in the top 5 sharpest lenses in my collection.

What are your sharpest vintage lenses?

Finally trying out my MC Rubinar 500mm ƒ/8 Macro (LZOS, 1994), which I got a few months back.

As a mirror lens, it produces these interesting ring-shaped background highlights, as seen in these sunset photos. One thing that took me by surprise was the colorful flares! I didn’t realize mirror lenses could do that. But on second thought, why wouldn’t they?

Some interesting facts about this lens:

• Although the lens has ‘macro’ in its name, its maximum magnification level is actually 1:4, so it’s not a true macro lens.
• However, its MFD of 220 cm is still very impressive for such a long focal length; usually it’s about 400 cm.
• This lens has 3 elements in two groups plus two mirrors, as opposed to the more common 2 elements. This optical design is apparently called RuMak, which is a Maksutov variant.
• This lens is a more evolved version of the MTO-500 lineage. I also have the MC 3M-5CA 500mm ƒ/8, which is a slightly less evolved lens in the same lineage. Naturally, I will be comparing both lenses sometime soon.

Misha and Eiki playing in the garden.

Photos taken with a Helios-44-2 58mm ƒ/2 (MMZ, 1970) on a 25–55 mm helicoid.

The last photo is just funny to me. Misha is absolutely ferocious—the undisputed crime boss of the garden. I saw him shake down a squirrel for protection money!