u/PrimordialObserver

I disassembled my Helios-40 and followed two tutorials from Retro Foto House to clean and regrease my helicoid, and to clean the optical elements.

When positioning the main front element from the back, I accidentally bumped against the aperture blades (the aperture ring is very loose, so the blades closed down while I was positioning the optical element), and now one of the aperture blades is no longer in position.

I looked for tutorials on how to work on the aperture blades of the Helios-40, but I didn’t find any. Does anyone know how to fix it?

Misha loves chilling out in the garden (on a leash).

I bought the Schneider–Kreuznach Xenon 50mm ƒ/1.9 last month, based on the watercolor-like rendering I saw in other people’s photos. But when I tried the lens myself, my initial response was that it’s surprisingly bubbly. Last week I had another look at the first test photos I took last month, and I realized, it actually looks quite a lot like the MC Helios-77M-4 50mm ƒ/1.8!

So today I took some comparison photos with both lenses, and I was even more spot-on than I realized. Dare I say, if you have one of these lenses, you don’t necessarily need the other. That is, unless you can appreciate some of the minute differences. Here are my observations:

• Bokeh & swirl – Let’s get the most important yet subtle difference out of the way: the rendering of the out-of-focus highlights. To my surprise, the Xenon produces EXACTLY the same amount of swirl, and the bokeh are the same cat-eye shapes. The only difference is that the Xenon has sharper bubble outlining. Depending on the lighting conditions, the outlining can look milder or very sharp—almost edged. The outlining tends to be so thin though that in some photos (not the ones shown here) they can have a light and almost ethereal quality to them.
• Detail & focus – It felt like it was easier to achieve optimal focus with the Xenon, because I think the focus throw is longer. But when pixel-peeping, I’m not noticing a difference in the amount of detail. In the Xenon photo of the bird feeder, the roof tile on the very front is sharper, but the ones above it are sharper in the Helios-77M-4 photo, so those differences seem to be down to a very slight difference in focus. I must have focused slightly further away with the 77M-4, most likely because of that shorter focus throw. In my experience, both the 77M-4 and the 44-2 are a bit finicky with focusing, because moving the focus ring just slightly can alter the focus range quite a bit. I also noticed that the Zeiss Biotar was easier to focus, so it’s possible that German lenses tend to have a longer focus throw.
• Contrast – I don’t have much to report here; the contrast looks quite even to me. Actually, the Xenon may even yield a slightly higher contrast, judging from the deeper shadows in the background (see first image), although it’s also possible that the deeper shadows are due to the Xenon photos being a bit darker in general (see second image in particular). Either way, it’s quite impressive, as my Xenon is from 1958, while my Helios-77M-4 is from 1991. I did forget to test how the lenses compare in direct sunlight, however. The Xenon will undoubtedly lose contrast faster since it’s a single-coated lens. I will probably do a follow-up test, as I’m also curious how the flare potential of both lenses compares.
• Colors & tones – Here is the second most significant difference I’ve noted between the two lenses; the Xenon seems to produce a green tint, which is especially noticeable in the roof tiles in the first image, but it’s also noticeable in the brown colors of the trees. The 77M-4 meanwhile produces neutral and fresh colors. And as mentioned, the Xenon appears a little darker, which is particularly noticeable in the second image. Despite the white balance being the same (5500 K), the Buddha head is rendered in a darker and slightly cooler gray, the greens in the background are noticeably darker, and the yellows of the 77M-4 are brighter. It’s actually a bit curious that the Xenon is darker, since it has a slightly wider aperture than the 77M-4. I guess the glass of the Xenon has a weaker light transmission.

—

Conclusion

So which is the better lens? I think in most technical aspects, it will have to be the Helios-77M-4; it produces better colors, it has a better light transmission, and it can focus much closer (although the minimum focus distance of the Xenon varies; I will explain more about that below). But in my opinion, that sharper bokeh outlining of the Xenon is an exciting characteristic to explore in artistic photos.

Here are three more things to note:

• Aperture blades – I tend to shoot wide open anyway, but for those who stop down, the number of aperture blades are probably important. The Helios-77M-4 has just 6 aperture blades, while my zebra Xenon in Exakta mount has an astonishing 18 aperture blades, so background highlights will always stay round when stopped down. In either case though, stopping down will immediately ruin the cat-eye bokeh and reduce the swirl. If you want to get yourself a Xenon lens, do pay attention to the variant. Only the first silver Exakta lenses and the later zebra ones have 18 aperture blades. The silver Retina-Xenon (DKL mount) has just 5 aperture blades, and the zebra Edixa-Xenon and the black Xenon both have 6 aperture blades.
• Minimum focus distance – I took all pictures in this test at a distance of 80 cm, since that’s the MFD of my Xenon. The Helios-77M-4 meanwhile has an MFD of 45 cm, so you can get much larger background highlights by focusing closer. Of course you can put the Xenon on a helicoid for closer focusing, however. Usually I do, but I still have to order some Exa–M42 adapter rings so I can mount more of my Exakta lenses on my M42 helicoids. Here again, if you want to get a Xenon, pay attention to the variant. The DKL Retina-Xenon has an MFD of 100 cm, while the Edixa-Xenon and the black Xenon have an MFD of just 50 cm.
• Xenon vs. Helios lenses – A while ago I compared the Helios-44-2 and the Helios-77M-4 with each other, and I noted that they also produced the same amount of swirl and bokeh size, but that the 77M-4 produced slightly sharper bokeh outlining, and that the 44-2 has slightly more gentle background transitions. I feel that comparison also holds for the Xenon and the Helios-77M-4. In other words, the three lenses lie on a spectrum from mild outlines to incrementally sharper bokeh outlining. I will probably do a comparison of all three lenses at some point, so you can see that spectrum for yourself. Note also that the Carl Zeiss Jena Biotar 58mm ƒ/2 is optically identical to the Helios-44-2, so it can be placed on that same spectrum. I might just include the Biotar in that comparison.

Which lens do you prefer, the Xenon or the Helios-77M-4?

I bought my Leotax Leonon 5cm ƒ/2 with significant fungus on two internal elements, which I managed to clean; but after I reassembled the lens, I’m left with 1–2 mm of play in the lens block (it can move slightly outside of the barrel, thus losing infinity focus when extended). I’ve reassembled the lens about four times now, but the play never reduces. The first photo shows how the lens should look, while the second photo shows the lens block extended.

The whole lens block is connected to the barrel/helicoid with a rear retainer ring (see third photo). So logically speaking, I would think the play should disappear when I completely screw the retainer ring in. But I’ve screwed it in as tightly as possible, and still the lens block can move 1 or 2 millimeters.

The lens is fully functional, and you might even argue that the extra 2 mm extension increases the focus range by reducing the MFD. Still, I would love to know how I can remove the play.

Any thoughts?

Here are a few more photos I took this week with the Leotax Leonon 5cm ƒ/2, a pretty rare lens from Japan.

I got it for a pretty good price because it was full of fungus, but it cleaned up nicely. It has quite a few drawbacks, but so much character! Yesterday I went on a one-hour walk with the Leonon and the KO-90. The last three photos are from that walk.

He’s not sharing it with anyone though.

The Leotax Leonon 5cm ƒ/2 is my favorite lens at the moment. It has a lot of cons, like an absurdly long MFD of 1 meter (which I overcome somewhat using a 12–17 mm L39 helicoid), a crazy short focus throw of about 40 degrees, and a Jupiter-8-like glow and low IQ (which can be mitigated using an AI sharpener like Topaz Photo AI). But that bokeh though!

In the first photo, I was really pleased to see it can produce this beautiful spectral/ghostly bokeh that I’ve only ever seen in some of my Helios-44-2 photos (see second image).

Incidentally, these are photos taken of the same hibiscus tree next to our house, but about a year apart.

I bought the pretty rare Leotax Leonon 5cm ƒ/2 (only 4,000 were made), which is capable of producing a fairly unique etched rendering as Toby Marshall calls it. But I actually find it’s a much more versatile lens in terms of rendering characteristics than I thought.

In any case, when I took a test shot of the bird feeder (first image), I thought the background highlights were surprisingly bubbly, but it also reminded me of the triangular shapes and the directional bubble outlining towards the center that the Westron can produce.

So the last three photos are a more controlled test (photos taken at the same time, with the bird feeder centered at the same optical size) using the Leonon, the bubbly Meyer-Optik Görlitz Domiplan 50mm ƒ/2.8, and the coma-heavy ISCO–Göttingen Westron 35mm ƒ/2.8.

Here are my observations:

• Leonon sharpness & contrast – The Leonon is very glowy and it has a notoriously low IQ, so it’s not a surprise to me that it shows a lower contrast than the other two lenses, with a much more subtle texture on the roof tiles (the first image was sharpened, so the second image is more representative of the Leonon’s performance in terms of sharpness and contrast).
• Domiplan sharpness & contrast – I was actually really pleasantly surprised by the sharpness of the Domiplan! To be fair as well, I suspect that the previous owner blackened the edges of the front element for improved contrast.
• Leonon & Westron bokeh – The Leonon has a fascinating bokeh quality in my opinion. The shapes are flattened toward the edges, while showing strong bokeh outlining toward the center, just like the Westron. Although the shapes are not as triangular as the Westron, these two features do give the background highlights a similar directional quality, with a mild swirl.
• Leonon & Domiplan bokeh – Although at first glance the Leonon looks quite bubbly when there are strong background highlights, they lack the thicker outlines and rounder shapes of the Domiplan. The sharp outlines towards the center give the Leonon this etched quality, and the more open/translucent shapes allow the highlights to layer rather than overlapping like with the Domiplan.
• Leonon & Jupiter-8 – Ohh! I was about to say that the layering reminds me of the Jupiter-8, and looking at some pictures, it actually shows a similarly vaguely triangular bokeh, one-directional outlining, as well as heavy glow. They’re probably the closest lenses to each other! I should compare the two sometime soon. They’re also both L39 mount lenses.

And there you have it. I thought the Leonon shared qualities with the Domiplan and Westron, but perhaps it’s better thought of as “the Japanese Jupiter-8.”

I suspect that the Leonon doesn’t look all that impressive compared to the other two photos, and indeed the lens is one of the least sharp in my collection. However, it’s actually my favorite lens right now! You will probably understand better why after seeing some of my future Leonon posts.

This stare is totally innocent, right? It’s probably just a crush. 🤭

This surprised me. I’ve known for a while that the Auto Revuenon 55mm ƒ/1.4 can produce cat-eye bokeh and some swirl. Looking at this first photo, I felt it actually looks like a Biotar optical design.

So I decided to compare it to two photos I took of the same fence post (but at different times) using the Helios-44-2 58mm ƒ/2 and the Helios-40 85mm ƒ/1.5, and the Auto Revuenon actually looks closer to the Helios-40—at least in terms of the cat eye shapes and the amount of swirl.

Very unexpected! I do find that when focusing very close to a subject, the Auto Revuenon is able to produce dreamy painting-like rendering, which I haven’t seen from the two Helios lenses.

Photo taken with the KO-90 90mm ƒ/1.9, a ’60s–’70s Soviet projection lens that can produce a swirly out-of-focus background.

But the star of the show is definitely the crown-like arrangement of flowers and buds!

I shot the same rose (Polyantha?) with three different vintage lenses, with a composition that I felt suited each lens:

• Helios-44-2 58mm ƒ/2 (MMZ, 1971): swirly with spectral highlights
• Auto Revuenon 55mm ƒ/1.4 (c. 1972): dreamy painterly style with gentle swirl
• ISCO–Göttingen Kiptar 45mm ƒ/1.6 (c. 1955): swirl vortex with dynamic highlights

The front of my Auto Revuenon 55mm ƒ/1.4 popped off! There IS a fine thread near the front of the lens that the nameplate supposedly screws onto, but it’s not actually catching (I tried both directions, but to no avail).

Does anyone know the best way to mount the nameplate on the lens? I’m hesitant to glue it, but I guess it’s hard to avoid at this point. If I were to glue it, what kind of glue would you recommend?

I shot the same subject with three different (swirly) lenses:

• Helios-44-2 58mm ƒ/2 (MMZ, 1971)
• Auto Revuenon 55mm ƒ/1.4 (c. 1972)
• ISCO–Göttingen Kiptar 45mm ƒ/1.6 (c. 1955)

It’s not a controlled experiment; I just shot the same flower with a composition that I felt suited each lens:

• Helios-44-2: swirly with spectral highlights
• Auto Revuenon: dreamy painterly style with gentle swirl
• Kiptar: swirl vortex with dynamic highlights

Today I decided to perform a controlled test between my new Helios-40 85mm ƒ/1.5 (KMZ, 1961) and the Helios-44-2 58mm ƒ/2 (MMZ, 1971) to see how the bokeh compares; and I decided to throw the Mir-1B 37mm ƒ/2.8 (ZOMZ, 1986) in the mix as well, because although it’s not a Biotar design, I think it makes a great swirly wide-angle companion to the Helios-44-2.

The first image compares the three lenses with the bird feeder framed the same way, showing the difference in bokeh size at the same composition. The Mir-1B produces stronger bokeh outlining, so on reflection it may be a better companion to the MC Helios-77M-4 50mm ƒ/1.8, which similarly produces stronger outlining than the Helios-44-2.

The second image shows the same scene from a fixed position. I’m fascinated by how dramatically the framing changes between focal lengths (which are roughly evenly spaced apart, with 27 mm between the Helios-40 and Helios-44-2, and 21 mm between the Helios-44-2 and the Mir-1B).

Comparing the photos in the first image, I was also surprised by the amount of visible swirl. The Helios-40 is said to swirl the most, while in my experience the swirl of the Mir-1B is usually constrained by the small size of the highlights. But in these images, the swirl is arguably most apparent with the Helios-44-2 or Mir-1B. I don’t think they necessarily swirl more; rather, the wider field of view leaves more background visible, allowing the circular motion to complete itself. With the Helios-40, much of that swirl is simply cropped out.

In other words, all three lenses may swirl to a similar degree, but the effect becomes more legible when enough background remains in the frame. For close subjects, the Helios-44-2 may actually reveal swirl more readily than the Helios-40!

Two photos of Eiki (Japanese for ‘glitter’), both taken with Japanese lenses from around 1970.

In my experience, photos taken with the Konica Hexanon AR 57mm ƒ/1.4 often look particularly beautiful in black and white, and here again the monochrome photo looked better than the full-color one.

I figured the same could be true of the Auto Revuenon 55mm ƒ/1.4, since it has similarly gentle background transitions. But no, in this case I think the color photo has the edge.

I decided to take my Meyer-Optik Görlitz Orestor 100mm ƒ/2.8 on a walk again!

I noticed when trying to take photos of red flowers, that it did incredibly poorly at capturing the tonal nuance from the sunlight falling on the petals. My phone did a much better job at capturing those values.

Has anyone else experienced this? Does it have anything to do with this lens in particular, or the Sonnar formula, or my camera perhaps?

—

Also, does anyone have experience with both the 100mm and 135mm Orestor? I decided to get the 100mm one because I favor the focal length, and I read that it’s a bit sharper than the 135mm version. But in case of the first photo, I think it would have yielded a better result with more background blur. What do you think?

Daisies in a Dream

Photos taken with a 1971–1973 Auto Revuenon 55mm ƒ/1.4.

This lens keeps surprising me with its ability to render ordinary scenes like dreamy paintings.

I recently bought this Soviet projection lens, the KO-90 90mm ƒ/1.9, which about a year ago I was told is so rare that you won’t find it on eBay, and yet in the last two months three of them have appeared! I bought mine for just 40 USD inclusive shipping.

The optical design is a Kinolux, which is a Petzval-type formula. I believe there are five lenses in the KO family, but the KO-90 and the KO-90M are the swirliest ones (the others are 120mm and 140mm).

And it’s a fun lens to use! I think it’s the swirliest lens in my collection after the ISCO–Göttingen Kiptar 45mm ƒ/1.6, and unlike the Kiptar, it covers full-frame.

It’s also decently sharp in the center, provided you nail the focus, which in my experience can be tricky as the depth of field is pretty shallow.