Takumars, Anyone?

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Dustin, that Takumar 55 1.8 images make me curious. Tell me, do I also get mirror problems with that lens, so that the mirror hits the back of the lens?

No, Florien. Part of the reason that I went with the 55mm f/1.8 instead of the 50mm f/1.4 is because the 55 works perfectly on a full frame body. It has very few of the optical imperfections you associate with older lenses.

 

[florianbieler.de]

Well okay, that's nice, I modified the old 50 1.4 to work with my 5D Mark III without hitting the mirror but I don't own it anymore. But I have seen the 55 1.8 is only around 60€ here so I got one off ebay with minimal dust inside, I think there's a M42 adapter still flying around here so I thought I'd give it a shot! Your shots with that thing certainly make me curious.

 

[ugly_bokeh]

The Helios produces the most unique bokeh of any lens I have used and is also very sharp wide open. It is also quite versatile, because stopped down it has less "character" and just becomes a sharp prime. Color rendering has a Zeiss quality. Considering I got mine for $25 shipped from Russia, it is also an amazing value. It is an awesome portrait lens.

I was asking myself why the Helios 44-2 was your favorite, so I tried getting more information.
I saw some photos with magnificent vortex-like bokeh and can barely believe a f/2 lens can produce it.

If you like the look of the Helios lenses, you might also like the Carl Zeiss Biotars. I think there is something of a chicken vs the egg debate about the Helios and the Biotar (what I have read makes me think that the Zeiss came first), but they are definitely related and have similar looks.

My apologies to the OP for prolonging the Helios sidebar....

 

[florianbieler.de]

The Helios 44-2 you are all talking about is that 44-2 58mm 2.0 lens, right?

 

[bjd]

So would anyone happen to have instruction showing how to disassemble the lens to clean the dust out of the inside?
Sorry, found some instructions (Just need to use the correct search string).
Cheers Brian

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

The Helios 44-2 you are all talking about is that 44-2 58mm 2.0 lens, right?

I that is directed at me, then the answer is yes. It is my favorite vintage lens to use because it has such unique rendering. It will hit on the mirror near infinity, so I switch to live view if using it that way. Most of my work with it is within 15 feet, though. Very unique portrait lens.

 

[Artifex]

The Helios 44-2 you are all talking about is that 44-2 58mm 2.0 lens, right?

I that is directed at me, then the answer is yes. It is my favorite vintage lens to use because it has such unique rendering. It will hit on the mirror near infinity, so I switch to live view if using it that way. Most of my work with it is within 15 feet, though. Very unique portrait lens.

Strange, I have no mirror problem with my Helios 44-2 on my 6D.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

The Helios 44-2 you are all talking about is that 44-2 58mm 2.0 lens, right?

I that is directed at me, then the answer is yes. It is my favorite vintage lens to use because it has such unique rendering. It will hit on the mirror near infinity, so I switch to live view if using it that way. Most of my work with it is within 15 feet, though. Very unique portrait lens.

Interesting. I have a Helios 44-4 and have no mirror issues with it, but my 44-2 does. The 44-4 and 44-2 are very different designs. My 44-2 is a preset version with 8 very curved blades. My 44-4 is much more modern looking, has clearly defined stops, and has only six blades (less curved). I feel like the more modern 44-4 has less microcontrast, although I haven't compared them head to head.

Strange, I have no mirror problem with my Helios 44-2 on my 6D.

 

[florianbieler.de]

I also received a Helios 44-2 today and the mirror doesn't hit the back of the lens on infinite. I am quite satisfied with it and probably will return the Takumar 55 1.8, one of those 50-ish lenses will do and the Helios with its swirl is probably the more interesting one.

 

[agierke]

my interest is peaking with this talk of vintage glass and i am wondering if any of you can provide advice on the brand of adapters you are using to convert these lenses to the Eos system.

i have looked at fotodiox and they appear to be quality products but they dont seem to include AF confirmation. so far it seems like most of the adapters i see with AF confirmation are coming from China (i just dont trust ordering a product from China so i'd like to stay in the US or europe)

another question i have is that its appears there are no issues with mirror clipping on APS cameras but i will be wanting to use this on the 5D series cameras so do all the adapters run the same risk of mirror clipping or do some prevent this better than others. or is it simply a crap shoot as it seems (from what i have read) that there are variances from body to body in mirror clearance.

final question, is it better to get an adapter without glass in it and deal with potential mirror clipping or does an adapter like the fotodiox have quality enough glass in it that IQ of the original lens will be preserved?

appreciate any insight and direct experiences any of you might have concerning above questions.

 

[florianbieler.de]

I just use a simple screw-in-adapter without any AF confirmation. I don't see the need for them because I probably won't take out such an adapted lens on a hike where I don't have much time to shoot, I only take it with me when I know I can play around a bit and then I can also set the focus via LiveView to be sure.

By the way there is my first good swirly shot with my Helios 44-2, I can't really believe how sharp it is.


Down the rabbit hole von Florian Bieler auf Flickr

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

I just use a simple screw-in-adapter without any AF confirmation. I don't see the need for them because I probably won't take out such an adapted lens on a hike where I don't have much time to shoot, I only take it with me when I know I can play around a bit and then I can also set the focus via LiveView to be sure.

By the way there is my first good swirly shot with my Helios 44-2, I can't really believe how sharp it is.


Down the rabbit hole von Florian Bieler auf Flickr

Yep, that's what I'm talking about right there. The Helios is very sharp in the center of the frame, and then that wonderful artistic bokeh rendering. This is a fantastic use of it!

 

[Kernuak]

It's beginning to make me think I should dig out my 44-4 that came with my old Zenith.

 

[pwp]

My very first "real" camera was an ancient though perfectly good 1960's hand-me-down Pentax Spotmatic with a 50mm f/1.4 Takumar. The exquisite, unique qualities of this lens helped foster the beginnings of a decades-long love of photography. As I was generally shooting 64 iso Kodachrome or 125 iso Ilford FP4 I tended to shoot wide open a lot. Pure magic...no wonder this lens still has a well informed following.

-pw

 

[sama]

Please be aware that Helios lenses with the same name are built differently. I have mirror clearance problem with both my 44-2 58mm 2.0 and 44M on my 5DIII when focus to infinity.

I started working on the 44-2 and trimmed about 1 to 2mm off the rear lens metal barrel with a Dremel Rotary tool and the mirror problem is gone.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Please be aware that Helios lenses with the same name are built differently. I have mirror clearance problem with both my 44-2 58mm 2.0 and 44M on my 5DIII when focus to infinity.

I started working on the 44-2 and trimmed about 1 to 2mm off the rear lens metal barrel with a Dremel Rotary tool and the mirror problem is gone.

That is true. My Helios 44-2 (preset design) does hang the mirror near infinity. My 44-4 works without hanging, but I find that micro-contrast isn't as good.

 

[ugly_bokeh]

my interest is peaking with this talk of vintage glass and i am wondering if any of you can provide advice on the brand of adapters you are using to convert these lenses to the Eos system.

i have looked at fotodiox and they appear to be quality products but they dont seem to include AF confirmation. so far it seems like most of the adapters i see with AF confirmation are coming from China (i just dont trust ordering a product from China so i'd like to stay in the US or europe)

another question i have is that its appears there are no issues with mirror clipping on APS cameras but i will be wanting to use this on the 5D series cameras so do all the adapters run the same risk of mirror clipping or do some prevent this better than others. or is it simply a crap shoot as it seems (from what i have read) that there are variances from body to body in mirror clearance.

final question, is it better to get an adapter without glass in it and deal with potential mirror clipping or does an adapter like the fotodiox have quality enough glass in it that IQ of the original lens will be preserved?

appreciate any insight and direct experiences any of you might have concerning above questions.

The Fotodiox adapters have treated me well and I have their Nikon F->EF, C/Y->EF, and M42->EF. People seem to think they are made in the U.S., but I don't know that to be true. (I doubt it, actually.)

Generally, I steer clear of the super-cheap versions (I have a few M42->EF that aren't Fotodiox), but others have obviously not hesitated.

So far, I have not used an adapter with an element. The consensus seems to be that you are better off avoiding that option, but it probably depends on how you plan to use the lens(es). If you are after characterstics not related to optimum sharpness, I would definitely try one. (I probably will try one, eventually, but there are so many adapter/lens combinations to consider without folding in such...elements.)

At some point, I stumbled on the 5D compatibility list of M42 lenses below and it has come in quite handy.
http://www.panoramaplanet.de/comp/

 

[sama]

At some point, I stumbled on the 5D compatibility list of M42 lenses below and it has come in quite handy.
http://www.panoramaplanet.de/comp/
[/quote]

I made reference to this list as well but please do not rely on it 100%.

Both my lenses indicated in my previous post are reported to be not having problem : "mirror hits lens back when focussing to infinity" but in the real world, they have to be modified slightly to avoid mirror jam and err message.

 

[DIABLO]

Helios 44-3 MC

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Here's another one where the whole shot was built around the unique swirling effect of the Helios 44-2 bokeh. I also have the 44-4, but don't find that the effect is pronounced (and don't like it as well).


Tunnel Vision by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr