Field report

Helios-44 58mm f/2 M39: Helicoid Service of the Thirteen-Blade Biotar Copy

Reviewed

By Soviet Box
31/10/2026
18 comments

Helios-44 58mm f/2 M39: Helicoid Service of the Thirteen-Blade Biotar Copy

"A focusing mount is a screw thread that must stay sweet for half a century. Mark it before it parts, clean it to bare metal, and give it only as much grease as it needs."
— Notes from the repair bench

The earlier account of overhauling the Industar-50 drew a lively response, so without a long preamble, here is the service of a lens much sought after by photographers working in an artistic vein: the Helios-44. The example on the bench is the version made for cameras with the M39×1 mounting thread and a flange focal distance of 45.2 mm. Its defining feature is a diaphragm of thirteen blades, which gives the out-of-focus zone a particular character. Later series of the Helios-44 repeat the mechanics of this lens, so once the disassembly and assembly of the Helios-44 M39 are understood, the same work is easily done on the Helios-44-2 with the M42×1 thread and 45.5 mm register.

A Copy of the Zeiss Biotar

The Helios-44 is a copy of the Zeiss Biotar 2/58 and entered Soviet production in 1958. The two optical diagrams below show how closely the Soviet lens follows its German original.

Optical diagram of the Helios-44 with element spacings and the 44.52 mm back focal distance — The Helios-44 optical layout, with the air spaces between groups and the back focal distance of 44.52 mm marked in the drawing.

Optical diagram of the 1939 Zeiss Biotar 58mm f/2 for the Kine Exakta — The 1939 Zeiss Biotar 58 mm f/2 for the Kine Exakta, the design the Helios-44 reproduces element for element.

The Helios-44 was first fitted to the Start camera. That version had an automatic diaphragm mechanism and practically repeated the solutions used in the Kine Exakta. It is still regarded as the best of the whole Helios-44 family: mechanics and photographers know that its elements were numbered, selected and matched individually for each lens. That is why Helios-44 enthusiasts transplant optical blocks from the Start into barrels compatible with their own cameras. The Helios-44 M39 described here is interesting for its many-bladed diaphragm.

Now to the work itself. Focusing on this example is difficult: the ring moves in jerks, the characteristic sign of a contaminated helicoid thread and missing lubricant. The lens will be partly disassembled, the thread cleaned and the grease replaced. The optical block needs no attention. Despite its somewhat worn appearance, the lens has lost none of its photographic quality. This is how it looks on arrival.

Silver Helios-44 lens marked Made in USSR standing beside its aluminum lens cap — The Helios-44 as received, with its original aluminum cap. The bright barrel is dulled and stained, but intact.

Front view of the Helios-44 showing the engraved name ring and the 2/58 marking — The front of the lens: the engraved name ring, the 2/58 designation and coated elements free of serious damage.

Close view of the Helios-44 front element and inscription ring — A closer look at the front element. The glass is clean enough that the optical block can be left sealed.

Side view of the Helios-44 with depth-of-field and distance scales and grimy knurling — The side of the barrel with the depth-of-field and distance scales. Dirt is packed into the knurling and around the rings.

Helios-44 standing front element up beside its cap, with the depth-of-field scale and red index — The lens standing beside its cap, front element up. The knurled focusing grip above the scales is the ring that moves in jerks rather than turning smoothly.

Helios-44 viewed from the side with its scales, the rear end and rear element visible below — Another side view: the aperture, depth-of-field and distance scales, with the rear end of the lens and its rear element at the bottom of the frame.

Separating the Optical Block

The lens consists of two units. The helicoid unit mounts the lens on the camera and focuses it. The optical block holds the lenses themselves, the diaphragm mechanism and the diaphragm control. Taking the optical block apart is strongly discouraged and is justified only as a last resort, for example when the elements and diaphragm blades are heavily contaminated with oil. Even then it must be remembered that such an intervention always disturbs the positioning of the elements and changes the photographic properties of the lens, and it should not be attempted without sufficient experience.

The first step is to separate the focusing unit from the optical block. The lens is held by its tail, the part that fits the camera, in the left hand, while the right hand grips the front of the lens and turns it counterclockwise with some force. The optical block sits on a tight fit and is secured by nothing else, so it simply unscrews from the focusing unit, as the photograph shows.

Helios-44 optical block partly unscrewed from the helicoid unit, red arrows marking the parting line — The optical block coming out of the helicoid unit. The arrows mark where the two units part.

On the left is the optical block with its adjusting shim, marked with a red arrow; on the right is the helicoid unit.

Helios-44 optical block with an arrow on its shim ring next to the empty helicoid unit — The two units side by side. The arrow points to the shim on the optical block, which sets the lens-to-film distance and must not be lost.

This is the adjusting shim.

Thin bright adjusting shim ring of the Helios-44 lying in front of both lens units — The thin adjusting ring removed. Its thickness is matched to this particular lens at the factory.

And this is the helicoid unit.

Helicoid unit of the Helios-44 viewed from the front with the optical block removed — The empty helicoid unit seen from the front, with the thread that receives the optical block.

Helios-44 helicoid unit on its side with the distance scale and focusing knurl — The same unit from the side, carrying the distance scale and the focusing knurl.

Helios-44 helicoid unit with the depth-of-field scale and red index facing the camera — The helicoid unit turned to show the depth-of-field scale and the red index triangle.

Dismantling the Helicoid Unit

Before anything comes apart, a mark is made across the mating parts.

Fine scribed mark, arrowed, across two mating rings of the Helios-44 helicoid unit — A fine witness mark, arrowed, scribed across the focusing ring and the body before the ring is released.

The focusing ring is then removed. This opens access to the large black ring that holds the tail, and part of the helicoid thread with its contaminated grease comes into view.

Helios-44 helicoid unit with the focusing ring lifted off, exposing the black tail ring and dirty helicoid thread — The focusing ring off. The large black tail-retaining ring is now exposed, and the old grease on the helicoid thread is visible.

More marks are scribed. First on the body.

Inside of the Helios-44 body with a small arrowed scribe mark on the rim — A mark scribed on the body, arrowed. Its partner goes on the large ring.

Then on the large ring.

Scribe mark on the large black ring of the Helios-44 aligned with the depth-of-field scale — The matching mark on the large black ring, lined up beneath the depth-of-field scale.

Now the tail-retaining ring can be removed. The three screws spaced around it are released, and the ring is unscrewed counterclockwise. This is a fine single-start thread, so there is no risk of refitting it wrongly.

Helios-44 parts laid out with an arrow on the large ring whose three screws have been released — The large ring with its three screws backed off, arrowed, ready to be unscrewed from the tail.

Even so, a reference line is scribed to show how far the part must be tightened on reassembly.

Black ring of the Helios-44 with a scribed reference line showing its tightened position — A reference line scribed along the ring, recording the exact position to which it was tightened.

Only then is the ring removed…

Side view of the Helios-44 helicoid with the tail-retaining ring removed — The tail-retaining ring off, leaving the tail free to be withdrawn.

…followed by the tail of the lens, sometimes also called the shank. A guide slot is cut on the inner side of the tail, and a guide screw runs in it.

Inside of the Helios-44 tail with an arrow on the guide slot clogged with old grease — The inside of the tail. The arrow marks the guide slot, packed with old, hardened grease.

Here is that screw. The dirt had to be wiped off with a cloth first; under it the screw could not even be found.

Helicoid of the Helios-44 with an arrow on the guide screw after wiping off grime — The guide screw, arrowed, uncovered after a first wipe of the grime.

To dismantle the helicoid, the screw has to come out, and so it does.

Helios-44 helicoid with the guide screw removed and lying on the paper beside it — The guide screw removed and set down on the paper; its empty hole is visible in the helicoid ring.

Marks are scribed again, this time with the helicoid against its infinity stop…

Scribed marks across the Helios-44 helicoid parts at the infinity stop — Witness marks made at the infinity stop, the reference position for reassembly.

…and at the point where the outer helicoid ring comes off its thread.

Two arrowed marks on the Helios-44 helicoid recording where the outer ring leaves the thread — Two arrows mark the position at which the outer ring disengages. Matching them later catches the correct start of the multi-start thread.

That is all. The focusing unit is fully dismantled.

Dismantled Helios-44 focusing unit: tail, rings and helicoid parts laid out on paper — The focusing unit in its component parts, every one of them coated in old grease and dirt.

Washing

As the old children's rhyme has it, open up the tap and wash your nose and both eyes too. As can be seen, there is plenty to wash off. A good deal of benzine seems to go on lenses; a whole tray of it. The thought of putting everything in the ultrasonic cleaner did come up, but the prospect of then having to clean the ultrasonic bath itself after all that grime was not appealing. This way is better: the parts come out cleaner, and the bath stays clean for more delicate work.

Helios-44 helicoid part soaking in a plastic tray of benzine clouded with dissolved grease — The parts in a benzine tray. The liquid turns grey almost at once as the old grease dissolves.

And here everything is clean.

Cleaned Helios-44 helicoid rings with bright threads — The helicoid rings after washing, the threads back to bare, bright metal.

Cleaned Helios-44 inner helicoid with multi-start thread and guide screw hole — The inner helicoid with its multi-start thread and the hole for the guide screw, now free of deposits.

Clean Helios-44 outer helicoid ring held beside the inner part — The outer helicoid ring, cleaned inside and out.

Clean Helios-44 focusing ring, tail and retaining rings stacked together — The focusing ring, tail and retaining rings, all washed and dried before assembly.

Reassembly

Assembly can begin, but first two warnings.

First, never try to assemble the helicoid thread dry, without grease. If it seizes, getting it apart again will be very, very difficult.

Second, never put grease on the static threads intended only for fastening. The parts will stick on the grease, and unscrewing them later will be very hard and sometimes impossible.

So, grease is applied to the multi-start helicoid thread. This much, and no more.

Thin stripes of fresh grease applied along the multi-start thread of the Helios-44 helicoid — Fresh grease laid in thin stripes along the multi-start thread. Turning the helicoid will spread it into an even film.

With the marks aligned, the outer helicoid ring is screwed onto the thread…

Outer helicoid ring of the Helios-44 being threaded onto the inner part with marks aligned — The outer ring started on the thread at the marked position, which guarantees the correct start.

…the combined stop and guide screw is screwed back in, and its head is greased.

Guide screw, arrowed, refitted in the Helios-44 helicoid with grease on its head — The stop and guide screw back in place, arrowed. Its head runs in the tail's slot, so it gets a touch of grease.

Grease is put into the guide slot of the tail.

Grease applied inside the guide slot of the Helios-44 tail — A small amount of grease in the guide slot, where the screw head will slide during focusing.

The tail goes back in place.

Helios-44 tail refitted into the helicoid with the large black ring beside it — The tail refitted, with the large retaining ring waiting beside it.

The tail is secured by screwing on the large ring, which is then locked with its three screws.

Large black ring screwed onto the Helios-44 tail up to its scribed reference line — The large ring tightened up to its reference line and locked by its three screws.

The helicoid action is checked. Note the thread: practically no grease can be seen on it. That is how it should be.

Helios-44 helicoid extended to show the thread with almost no visible grease — The helicoid run out to check its action. The thread looks almost dry, which means the amount of grease is right.

Using the marks made earlier, the rings carrying the scales are fitted.

Scale rings of the Helios-44 being refitted onto the cleaned helicoid — The scale rings going back on, positioned by the witness marks.

The scales are checked against their indices.

Helios-44 depth-of-field and distance scales checked against the red index — Infinity on the distance scale sits exactly against the red index, confirming correct assembly.

Remembering the adjusting shim, the optical block is screwed in until the red dot on the aperture scale lines up with the red mark on the distance scale.

Assembled Helios-44 with the aperture scale red dot aligned above the red distance index — The optical block screwed home on its shim, the red dot of the aperture ring aligned with the red distance mark.

The lens is assembled. This is its front element…

Front element of the reassembled Helios-44 seen through the name ring — The front element after assembly, clean and free of smears.

…and this is the rear. Yes, those were cleaned with candle soot too.

Rear element of the Helios-44 after cleaning with candle soot — The rear element, likewise cleaned with candle soot.

This is an illustration of how the lens can be used for macro photography with a mobile phone, simply by holding it against the phone like a close-up attachment lens.

Macro photo of a small rectangular vintage watch dial taken with a phone through the Helios-44 — A small rectangular watch dial photographed with a phone through the Helios-44 held in front of its camera.

The lens fully assembled.

Fully serviced Helios-44 standing on a glass dish — The Helios-44 back together, focusing smoothly across its full range.

And here it is, the famous round diaphragm of thirteen blades.

Helios-44 stopped down showing the nearly circular thirteen-blade aperture from the front — Stopped down, the thirteen blades form an almost perfect circle, the source of this version's smooth out-of-focus rendering.

Close view of the round thirteen-blade aperture of the Helios-44 seen through the rear — The same round aperture seen at closer range.

Welcome to a new life, old friend.

Political education department

The Study Continues

More restoration diaries and service guides in the reading room.

All Articles

Feedback from comrades

Was this article useful?

Comments

Sort By

By tirarex · 13/03/2020

Why not clean the whole barrel properly? The work has been done, but from the outside it looks just as old and dirty as it did before.
Photo attached by tirarex

By Opacha · 13/03/2020 in reply to tirarex

I asked myself the same question after reading the previous article, about the Industar. But it seems to me these shiny lenses are covered with an old lacquer, and the dirt is either under it or within the paint layer itself, so it could only be washed off by stripping everything completely.

By Soviet Box · 13/03/2020 in reply to Opacha

There are many nuances, and not everyone likes a "restoration".

By Opacha · 13/03/2020 in reply to Soviet Box

Well, I am curious what those nuances are too; the lacquer was just my guess. It would be interesting to hear the details. Are there really connoisseurs of ancient dirt?

By Soviet Box · 13/03/2020 in reply to Opacha

Let me tell you an old army joke instead.

An army inspection is under way. A general walks into the barracks and looks around. Spotless, nothing to find fault with. He calls the sergeant major.
"Well done, sergeant major! What rule do you live by?"
"'Cleanliness is the key to health,' comrade general."

The general goes into the arms room and orders the rifle rack moved aside. They move it, and there is a cigarette butt. He calls the sergeant major again.
"Sergeant major, and what rule do you live by here?"
"Well, comrade general, a pig will find dirt anywhere!"

Something like that.

By tirarex · 14/03/2020 in reply to Soviet Box

You should go into politics. There are some mythical nuances, but instead of explaining them you joke and change the subject.

By Soviet Box · 14/03/2020 in reply to tirarex

Matthew 7:6: Nolite dare sanctum canibus; neque mittatis margaritas vestras ante porcos, ne forte conculcent eas pedibus suis, et conversi dirumpant vos.

By tirarex · 14/03/2020 in reply to Soviet Box

Even more useless text that has nothing to do with the review. But still no answers and no explanation of the mythical nuances that prevent washing the grease off a lens.

By boyscout · 14/03/2020 in reply to Soviet Box

"neque mittatis margaritas vestras ante porcos"
On the other hand, with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And the giving hand will never fail.

By OreSama · 13/03/2020 in reply to Opacha

In an ultrasonic bath with warm water and Fairy, even lacquered ones can be washed.

By Professore · 13/03/2020 in reply to Opacha

There is no lacquer there. Sometimes the grease polymerizes into something like a lacquer. To restore the shine you would need to grind out the aluminum corrosion spots, polish, and restore the paint in the engraved figures. That makes the job several times longer and more expensive. And who is going to pay? Any whim for your money. You can even polish the fine scratches out of the lenses, together with the coating, if one was applied at all back then in the USSR. For example, on an Industar-17 aerial lens from an Il-28 military bomber, from 1957 I think, I found no coating even on the inner lens surfaces after disassembly.

By consumewhore · 14/03/2020 in reply to Professore

As far as I am concerned, polishing an antique is inappropriate. This is an old lens that has already lived its life. What is the point of making it look young? To please people with OCD?

By Professore · 16/03/2020 in reply to consumewhore

I believe that in a museum all equipment should work and be available for study. Otherwise what is a museum for, writing dissertations? I need to pick up a spear to understand HOW people hunted with it, start a steam engine to understand what it is, and so on. Besides, this optics is still used, people still shoot with it. It is more pleasant and more useful to hold a fully restored item and a COLLIMATED lens. You have simply been brainwashed by old museums full of rotten junk that you may not touch and may only look at from a distance and through glass. In such a museum you understand nothing even with a guide.

You look at a scratched lens with a continuous fine web on the outer elements, with leaching spots on the coating from rainwater, and you cannot understand how it was used, what could be seen through it, what internal reflections and flare it had, how much the glass absorbed, what its color cast was. Something incomprehensible and useless for knowledge just sits there: do not touch, do not think. Only the outer shell. The man in a case.

By Asteroth · 13/03/2020

A great lens, especially a rare original rather than a remake… I played with one myself on an A77. I will take your post as a disassembly guide and will definitely clean mine too…

By Soviet Box · 13/03/2020 in reply to Asteroth

I will be glad if my modest stories can help in some way. Good luck! Thank you!

By I_m_possible · 13/03/2020

Your reviews are a pleasure to read! Thank you!

By Soviet Box · 13/03/2020 in reply to I_m_possible

Thank you!

By jeepeg · 13/03/2020

To avoid soiling the bath, you can line it with plastic food wrap and pour the liquid onto that. Is the grease something special, like KSB-8?

By Soviet Box · 13/03/2020 in reply to jeepeg

No, I have used OKB-122-7 for many years; it is semi-synthetic. Yes, it can be done in a plastic bag. But this way is better and quicker, even if it uses more benzine.

By Oswald · 13/03/2020

A pity that all this equipment was killed, first by digital cameras and now by multi-camera smartphones that process photos with neural networks. I look at my FED-3, a present from my uncle 35 years ago.

By BanZay_Pro · 13/03/2020 in reply to Oswald

If you want to use old equipment, Avito is full of it. But there is no point fighting progress. Smartphones now shoot well enough for everyday pictures, and you no longer need to lug a big camera plus batteries around. Acceptable pictures anywhere and everywhere. I think parents of small children especially appreciated what phones can do. I had a Nikon myself, plus a fifty, the kit lens, and a Helios 44-2 through an adapter. It shoots better, of course, but not so much better that you would carry it everywhere.

By Asteroth · 13/03/2020 in reply to BanZay_Pro

It is not simply about old equipment… It is about certain lenses that really give a recognizable bokeh and a particular charm to the photo… This same Helios, for example, or the Tair-11A, and there was plenty of optics from Zeiss or from the Japanese…

By Soviet Box · 13/03/2020 in reply to Asteroth

Only the Tair-11 is better without the "A".

By Asteroth · 13/03/2020 in reply to Soviet Box

Why? The A seems to be the coated one…

By Soviet Box · 13/03/2020 in reply to Asteroth

They are effectively different lenses. Both are coated, but their correction differs. The "A" is a sharp telephoto; the one "without A" is a wonderful soft portrait lens whose rendering hardly changes when stopped down. It is especially noticeable on film.

By karabas7650 · 13/03/2020 in reply to BanZay_Pro

I have a similar set plus a telephoto… It has been lying in a cupboard for over a year… My kid played with it and moved on to an iPhone…

By Oswald · 13/03/2020 in reply to BanZay_Pro

Two kinds of film, Tasma and Svema I think, fixer and developer, a case of gear from the rental shop to print the pictures, a red safelight. I printed in a wardrobe; I grew up in a village house with no bathroom. Then we started taking a cine camera on hikes, then student years, first job, and at work you could borrow the first digital camera, which cost crazy money, an Olympus, 1.2 megapixels. On a rafting trip I managed to photograph a pelican in the Urals; nobody believed it, and I won a lot of bets with that photo. Nostalgia and a piece of life, which cannot be brought back.

By Stranger12 · 13/03/2020 in reply to Oswald

"Two kinds of film, Tasma and Svema I think, fixer and developer, a case of gear from the rental shop to print the pictures"
Yes, except the quality of those pictures was rubbish. To make a decent photo that you were not ashamed to print larger than 10×15, you needed expensive equipment and materials. You could not buy them on one salary, as you can now (or even less: it is easy to invest 20 to 30 thousand). "nostalgia and a piece of life"
That is true, though. Back then it was magic; now it is routine.

By Professore · 16/03/2020 in reply to Stranger12

A decent photo: a Moskva-5, 6×9. A Krokus enlarger. 30×40 cm photo paper. And the portrait is ready. But mass demand was for 10×15, and I tried not to print smaller than 18×24. Ordinary knowledge and skill, no magic. Knowledge of physics and chemistry. Of course, drinking vodka was cheaper.

By Soviet Box · 16/03/2020 in reply to Professore

Not the Moskva-5 with the I-24 1:3.5, but the Moskva-2. For a portrait on 6×9, a 105 mm focal length is short. But with the 6×6 insert you could shoot head-and-shoulders. The Moskva-2 had the Industar-23 110 mm 1:4.5, with superb sharpness and plasticity, a full copy of the Super Ikonta C 531/2. On the Moskva-5 they decided to improve the lens to f/3.5, which does not suit a Tessar at all, nor does 2.8, by the way. And so… they got the Moskva-5. I shot with both. Groups. Later, when Kiev-6 cameras appeared at the plant, they were converted to 4.5×6. It saved film, after all, especially color film.

We have drifted off topic again…

By Professore · 16/03/2020 in reply to Soviet Box

Well, nobody canceled stopping down in daytime, and at 3.5 moonlit nights came out quite well. Still, the M-5 was a much nicer and technically more finished camera. Its lens had to be overhauled and collimated, and by 1980 the grease had set even in the shutter.

By wired · 13/03/2020 in reply to BanZay_Pro

Heh, a Nikon 1 + kit lens + Helios 44-2 with an adapter. They went on OLX at the start of the year; for everyday family shooting the iPhone XR beats all of that.

By Asteroth · 13/03/2020 in reply to Oswald

Phone cameras and point-and-shoots will never match the quality of digital cameras, even with an APS-C sensor, not to mention full frame. Add the good fast optical zoom available to cameras, which phones are unlikely to get in the foreseeable future…

By FlyingRat · 13/03/2020 in reply to Asteroth

All true, but for pictures like "us at a barbecue" or "me and my cat", or food photos for Instagram, smartphone cameras are more than enough. And such pictures make up over 95%, if not more.

By Asteroth · 13/03/2020 in reply to FlyingRat

Unfortunately… :(

By Soviet Box · 13/03/2020 in reply to FlyingRat

There have always been more good cameras than good photographers.

By FlyingRat · 13/03/2020 in reply to Soviet Box

It is normal that not everyone is Baltermants or Cartier-Bresson. :)

By DDimann · 13/03/2020 in reply to Soviet Box

And the fuss with chemistry is not for everyone, either. I never got as far as color prints back in the day; I did not have the knack and stopped at color slides, which are simpler after all. And truly skilled processing… I once came across an article, The dying art of darkroom printing: how iconic photos were edited without Photoshop, and went through it several times… Magic, honestly…

By Tolan · 13/03/2020 in reply to Soviet Box

Spot on! Golden words…

By ddonkeyhot · 11/06/2025 in reply to Soviet Box

And that is fine! Otherwise the factories stand idle, you see… everyone is in IT… oops, I mean everyone is a photographer.

By Lightaction · 14/03/2020 in reply to FlyingRat

Yes, that is true for the average person. From a photographer's side the situation is different. I can photograph "us at a barbecue" on a smartphone better than 95% of my friends. The pictures win through composition, angle, correct lighting, no under- or overexposure, the ability to be in the right place at the right time, to put the right thing in the frame and remove what is superfluous, to notice what others do not notice, to work properly with people's emotions, and so on. That is, mainly through my knowledge of theory, my practice, experience and abilities. But in that same place I see how many proper, gorgeous shots I simply CANNOT take without a DSLR, an external flash and several lenses with me. And not just cannot: I see that without proper equipment, on a smartphone alone, they will not come out under any circumstances, with no amount of clever blurring or neural-network processing. That is why I sacrifice some convenience and would rather take the heavy camera backpack along once more, just so as not to miss and to get those 5% of shots that simply cannot be taken with a phone. Different cameras shoot differently even in identical conditions; changing the lens in identical conditions gives a different picture. Yes, the average person does not understand this, but looking at the photo he gets a feeling of something beautiful and unusual, and understands that this cannot be shot on a smartphone. If I take a DSLR to a barbecue, I try not to shoot what others are shooting, and more often shoot what others cannot shoot or do not see. So my "us at a barbecue" pictures taken with my equipment differ from those of people who shot on a smartphone, as a rule for the better, and evoke more positive emotions. And as a consequence, if I do not take my camera along, I do not even try to shoot on a smartphone the scenes that, in my opinion, would look "shameful" shot that way. Although even so people would be happy.

By Soviet Box · 14/03/2020 in reply to Lightaction

By and large, the camera is the last thing a photographer needs.

By Lightaction · 14/03/2020 in reply to Soviet Box

When Vera Kobylkina was fired from the canteen for bad cutlets, she decided to become a photographer.

"Taking orders," she wrote on social media. Then she thought and added: "Some dates still available." And after more reflection: "Shooting in Paris in June, in the Antilles in August." She had long liked the word "Antilles", and she had been to Paris with her mother last summer.

But that seemed too little. She needed a pseudonym. Short and at the same time mysterious. Vera Verina, she came up with. Wild, ardent and bright. She looked at herself in the mirror. "I need to dye my hair. Fiery red!" And sneakers. And piercings. And smoking.

"A camera!" Vera suddenly remembered.

By boyscout · 15/03/2020 in reply to Soviet Box

"By and large, the camera is the last thing a photographer needs."
Please explain. I am curious.

By Professore · 16/03/2020 in reply to Soviet Box

Not a photographer, a Master. And masters can be counted on your fingers.

By vigera · 14/03/2020 in reply to Lightaction

"From a photographer's side the situation is different"
I have always wondered how often people look at their photos that seem to them close to perfection, made with all the tricks and nuances described above. Who is all that effort for? To satisfy the inner perfectionist, or external perfectionists who make up a tiny fraction of a percent of the total audience that viewed the photo (especially a "barbecue photo")? And that is if even one real lover of looking at photographs turns up in that barbecue crowd at all…

By Stranger12 · 13/03/2020 in reply to Asteroth

"Phone cameras and point-and-shoots will never match the quality of digital cameras"
Hard to say; top smartphones take quite decent pictures. They look good even in a large format. And they shoot better than many digital point-and-shoots. The other thing is that for many people this is expensive. A DSLR with comparable or even better quality will cost several times less.

By Asteroth · 13/03/2020 in reply to Stranger12

But we are talking about cameras, not point-and-shoots. And neither the iPhone 11 nor the Samsung S20 can compare with the photo quality of full frame plus a 50/1.4. Or are you also suggesting shooting sports events on a phone or a point-and-shoot? "A DSLR with comparable or even better quality will cost several times less."
Um… photo quality depends very, very heavily on the glass, perhaps even more than on the sensor. And the same Zeiss 200/2.8 for Sony costs over 70 thousand rubles.

By Stranger12 · 13/03/2020 in reply to Asteroth

"Um… photo quality depends very, very heavily on the glass"
That is a big misconception. In most shooting conditions, without studying the details at length, you will not notice the difference between lenses whose prices differ by two orders of magnitude (100 times).

By BanZay_Pro · 13/03/2020 in reply to Asteroth

I am not a photographer. For pictures like "me with my family", nieces and nephews, nature, things, documents, random stuff and so on, a phone is more than enough. If I want great pictures, I go to a photographer.

By OreSama · 13/03/2020 in reply to Oswald

"Killed", just like that. Whoever wants to take photographs uses proper cameras, and whoever is happy with a duck face on Instagram snaps with a phone.

By Oswald · 13/03/2020 in reply to OreSama

I went on a trophy expedition with art photographers; some of them now work for National Geographic. For them the norm is medium format, like a Mamiya, then scanning the analog to digital. What I mean is, everyone has different standards ))

By Oswald · 13/03/2020 in reply to Oswald

No time to answer everyone, so I will write to all at once. I had a Nikon, then a Canon 50D with the standard set of optics: kit, fifty and telephoto. About 8 years ago I read an article saying technologies were just around the corner that would render whatever focus, depth of field and bokeh you need in software, all in post-processing. I sold everything, bought a more or less decent camera phone, and I live quite well in the photographic sense.

By the way, I wonder what has become of those technologies

By OreSama · 13/03/2020 in reply to Oswald

"By the way, I wonder what has become of those technologies"
The same as 8 years ago. They do not exist.

By Oswald · 13/03/2020 in reply to OreSama

And they wrote about it so beautifully on the Nikon and Canon websites. ;-)

By ololonewolf · 13/03/2020 in reply to Oswald

Lytro did not exactly fail completely, but their consumer cameras remained exotic, and in the end they were bought up, by Nokia I think. That said, modern multi-camera modules in smartphones handle the same task quite well: a depth map is built from several cameras, then objects are selected and a neural network paints in the depth of field and bokeh and corrects the focus a little.

By boyscout · 14/03/2020 in reply to ololonewolf

"corrects the focus a little"
What, does AI really change the geometry of the frame? Or is this about focusing? I was surprised by the equivalent focal length on the Honor 10i camera with AI. The last line: [attached image no longer available]

By ololonewolf · 24/03/2020 in reply to boyscout

Considering that a 3D model is effectively built from the frames of several cameras, the geometry can be changed too, within limits.

By boyscout · 24/03/2020 in reply to ololonewolf

From the point of view of natural intelligence, it also seems to me that this would not be difficult. It would be nice to have an adjustable angle of view on a phone camera.

By boyscout · 25/03/2020 in reply to boyscout

It turns out it all exists already. Super Res Zoom technology has been ported to Google Pixel 4/3 smartphones.

By Professore · 16/03/2020 in reply to ololonewolf

And what remains of reality there? Of the real image drawn by light? What is there is what the processor drew in graphics. A fake. That is no longer photo-graphy. Not light-writing. It is a digital photo editor.

By ololonewolf · 24/03/2020 in reply to Professore

The term used for this now is "computational photography". You can feel differently about it, but it allows you to get results that are far from the worst.

By vlandus · 16/03/2020 in reply to Oswald

Here you can read an excellent article on "what has become of those technologies". Recommended, among others, to all ardent DSLR loyalists.

By Soviet Box · 16/03/2020 in reply to vlandus

The word "photography" as such is disappearing from professional use altogether. In the old days, even those distant days, journalism faculties gave only about a semester of material on photography. Now there is something else: picture-making, the creation of an image, where photography is regarded only as a source of material for making a picture. Photography is no longer a self-sufficient closed process. And the fact that any phone today far surpasses any 24×36 film camera in the convenience of getting a finished result is an absolute fact. Amateur photography has undoubtedly turned into mobile photography. This is natural, given the constant improvement of algorithms and methods of capturing images. Further development means direct viewing, which will eventually throw out that photographic vestige, the mirror, to the devil, and further miniaturization of the camera based on image-processing algorithms. That will let people stop thinking about the technical side of getting an image. But the artistic side of the image… there, forgive me, the algorithm is put into the head by the Lord God, and very selectively and sparingly at that. Those to whom the Lord did not give it will break lances over "which is better, Nikon or Canon". And those to whom the Lord installed such software do not care in the least what they use to bring their imagination to life, as long as it is convenient and reliable.

Only why are there still masses of film of every format on the shelves, why can you still buy in any kiosk or shop… you will not believe it, a disposable camera loaded with film? Interesting, isn't it?

By Professore · 16/03/2020 in reply to Soviet Box

"Further development means direct viewing, which will eventually throw out that photographic vestige, the mirror, to the devil." I have been waiting impatiently for the last 20 years. Hee-hee… I do not think I will live to see it. Either it is a conspiracy of DSLR makers, or their hands grow from below their heads. Or the technology has not matured yet.

By vlandus · 17/03/2020 in reply to Soviet Box

Very interesting. Especially for educational purposes. Demand for vintage technologies will always remain at a certain level. People will buy and sniff paper books. Listen to vinyl on tube amplifiers. Shoot on film. Wear mechanical watches. Restore old cars and drive them. People will still be able to preserve a corner of the old warm tube-amp life, from before digital reached every iron. But none of this can stop new technologies from displacing old ones. And the "mirror" is just a crutch, like the auto diaphragm, the rangefinder, interchangeable lenses, flashes. It is a person who shoots. And he chooses the tool he likes.

By Professore · 17/03/2020 in reply to vlandus

Sniff books? Interesting. On the other hand, I see more and more paper books on public transport, even with smartphones and e-readers around.

By vigera · 17/03/2020 in reply to Professore

"I see more and more paper books on public transport"
In my view, in the hands of the young this is mostly hype, a wish to feel unique. In middle-aged and older people it is an ossified habit, an inability (and unwillingness) to master convenient new technologies.

By vlandus · 17/03/2020 in reply to Professore

I have often heard something like "I do not like e-books, I like the smell of paper."

By vigera · 17/03/2020 in reply to vlandus

""I do not like e-books, I like the smell of paper.""
In my view, during reading a book is only a tool for enjoying the meaning and style of a literary work! And that tool can be archaic, like a paper book that sometimes has to be leafed to the back for notes and references, with a primitive external bookmark and lighting in the dark, or modern, in the form of a thin, convenient electronic device that automatically remembers and restores where you stopped reading, can scroll the text automatically and has a backlight.

By habatuk · 13/03/2020

Excellent, as always. You tell it very engagingly. Thank you, I am looking forward to new reviews.

By Soviet Box · 13/03/2020 in reply to habatuk

Thank you! I will do my best.

By fant_asia · 13/03/2020 in reply to Soviet Box

Will there be a Jupiter-8?

By Soviet Box · 13/03/2020 in reply to fant_asia

There are two of them by design. The first, the one fitted to the Zorki-3, with a double helicoid, and the second, the most common, the lever-focus and lever-less version from the Zorki-4. The first is generally better left undisassembled. The second is fairly simple; I can show that one. Oh, and there is also a third, the black one, among the very last. But I do not have one at hand right now.

By fant_asia · 13/03/2020 in reply to Soviet Box

My Zorki-4 is still alive. :)

By Soviet Box · 13/03/2020 in reply to fant_asia

By Tolan · 13/03/2020 in reply to Soviet Box

Fresh as a cucumber! As if straight from the window of a Soviet photo-goods store…

By Soviet Box · 13/03/2020 in reply to Tolan

Well… as they say, "from my personal collection" :) Brought to "shop window" condition with my own hands. There was also a boxed version of the first models with the lever-focus Jupiter. But someone practically begged it from me on bended knee. I had to give in. This one, though, I really did bring to perfection. I sometimes shoot with this camera.

By Soviet Box · 14/03/2020 in reply to fant_asia

"Will there be a Jupiter-8?"
If it is a personal request, then very soon :)

By Soviet Box · 14/03/2020 in reply to fant_asia

"Will there be a Jupiter-8?"
It is already here. Here you go! :)

By putrach · 14/03/2020 in reply to Soviet Box

Um. Is a Helios-40 coming, perhaps?

By Soviet Box · 14/03/2020 in reply to putrach

:))))))) I am working on another, also very interesting lens right now, one whose servicing is not described anywhere. And in parallel on watches, by way of rest :)

By kotmorse · 13/03/2020

Explain to me, why are these old lenses needed? I have already thrown away several, including the one reviewed here, because I could not sell them on Avito. I still have a Zh-25; photographer friends laugh and say nobody needs it either.
Photo attached by kotmorse

By Soviet Box · 13/03/2020 in reply to kotmorse

Sell… Well, for some it is merchandise, for others a working tool.

By OreSama · 13/03/2020 in reply to kotmorse

"because I could not sell them on Avito"
That must be a joke? Even the most mass-produced Helios can quite realistically be sold. You just need to set a realistic price, 500 rubles. "photographer friends laugh and say nobody needs it either"
The second result on Yandex. Of course nobody will buy it for a lot, because afterward they will have to fiddle with a lathe and find a helicoid somewhere.

By Asteroth · 13/03/2020 in reply to kotmorse

IMHO… To learn to take photos properly, nothing better than lenses without electronics has been invented: you have to set the aperture and the delay by hand rather than put the camera in AUTO mode :))

By Fire_bird · 13/03/2020 in reply to Asteroth

Blurring the background into mush whether it is needed or not is bad taste)

By DDimann · 13/03/2020 in reply to Fire_bird

And who said into mush? Go ahead, roughly like this. Or do you prefer to shoot a portrait at f/22? If shots 1 to 3 differ little, then of 4 to 6 I would definitely choose 5, because 6 has a background that is not at all acceptable for a portrait, and 4 is precisely blurred into mush. 7 to 9, the same. I could not find the photo I mentioned just now, otherwise I would have posted it too. Everything should be in moderation, including depth of field.
Photo attached by DDimann

By Fire_bird · 13/03/2020 in reply to DDimann

These shots have, in principle, neither a background nor any artistry. Depth of field must have an artistic justification, not just be small by default at any hint of a portrait.

By Dzot · 14/03/2020 in reply to Fire_bird

What artistic justification? Depth of field first and foremost separates the portrait from the background

By Stranger12 · 15/03/2020 in reply to Dzot

"Depth of field first and foremost separates the portrait from the background"
Why? Look at an example of a classic portrait. And imagine what would happen if the background were smeared. A portrait is a portrait so that it is beautiful. And the background plays an important role in building the picture. Yes, sometimes it makes sense to make the background soft. But that is a small share of portraits, especially group ones.
Photo attached by Stranger12

By boyscout · 15/03/2020 in reply to Stranger12

Right. Half a smeared frame is a reject. And there are many ways to focus attention on the subject.

By Tolan · 13/03/2020 in reply to Asteroth

By delay you mean shutter speed?

By Soviet Box · 13/03/2020 in reply to Asteroth

"Three people are standing, and behind them, about 15 meters back, a bar counter, bottles… You can read the labels easily."
That is a portrait???

By DDimann · 13/03/2020 in reply to Soviet Box

"That is a portrait???"
You think three question marks are too few? I can add more… For me a portrait should have a background, but the emphasis should be on the faces. Otherwise it is "me in front of the Colosseum". The Colosseum is fine at least, a cultural monument of sorts, but a mother with two sisters in front of bottles is a cool photo for an eightieth birthday…

By Sintetik · 13/03/2020 in reply to kotmorse

A lens, like an eyepiece, is essentially an optical instrument and has only an indirect relation to a camera. They simply do their job, but believe me, optics does not end with cameras.

By tuz_83 · 13/03/2020 in reply to kotmorse

"Explain to me, why are these old lenses needed? I have already thrown away several, including the one reviewed here, because I could not sell them on Avito."
First, people sell [listing no longer reachable] them, and second, people even buy them(!). The price is often around 2.5 to 3.5 thousand rubles. Personally I was not interested in buying or selling; since my Helios-44M-6 was lying idle, I had to put it to some use. I bought protective caps on AliExpress for the camera and for the lens [AliExpress listing no longer available], took off the standard lens and capped it against dust.

After that I decided to "play" with the lens on the cheapest CCTV camera (that is actually why I bought the rear lens caps: I wanted to cobble together a simple adapter from them).

Suddenly the Chinese, as always, upset all the plans: the camera turned out to be defective, the connection gets terribly hot. Alongside that camera I bought a "video peephole" from the same seller, which arrived fine, but here there seems to be a contact problem; the patient needs opening up…

P.S. If it were not for this lens, there would be no adventures for my backside, and without them life is "boring")))
Photo attached by tuz_83

By tuz_83 · 13/03/2020 in reply to tuz_83

P.S. On "playing", I will add one link [link to a forum thread, no longer reachable] so it is clearer what I meant. I just wanted to hang a camera over my desk for convenience, even though I bought a Chinese Eakins VGA/HDMI microscope [AliExpress listing no longer available] long ago)))
Photo attached by tuz_83

By DDimann · 13/03/2020 in reply to tuz_83

"bought a Chinese Eakins VGA/HDMI microscope long ago"
Working distance: 100 mm. Here it is clearly more :)

By tuz_83 · 13/03/2020 in reply to DDimann

"Working distance: 100 mm"
No, more like 150 to 200 mm, the reviews [a link to a review of the Eakins VGA/HDMI microscope] confirm it. But above 220 mm there is definitely nothing to be had, and here it is half a meter. USB lag means absolutely nothing for a visual inspection of boards from AliExpress and wiping them with isopropyl alcohol, and for soldering the Eakins is of course real-time. One does not get in the way of the other, and the main thing is that, unlike the Eakins, it takes no space on the desk.

By DrDave_one · 13/03/2020 in reply to kotmorse

In our city they sell from 1.5 thousand. I am keeping an eye out myself, but I cannot decide which model to take.

By Fire_bird · 13/03/2020 in reply to kotmorse

You sold them in a strange way) The same Helios 44-2 is more than in demand on the market)

By dimo · 13/03/2020 in reply to Fire_bird

Maybe the 40-2 =))?

By harm · 13/03/2020

I once had to overhaul a 40. After that I swore off taking jobs passed on through third parties.

By Kotozay · 13/03/2020

"I was going to throw it all into the ultrasonic cleaner, but the prospect of washing the ultrasonic bath itself after all that did not appeal to me."
Take a plastic bottle, cut off the neck, pour in benzine, put the lens in the bottle. Put the bottle with the lens in the ultrasonic bath. The bath stays clean, less benzine is used, and everything gets cleaned

By Soviet Box · 13/03/2020 in reply to Kotozay

Yes. Indirect washing. I sometimes do that with watches.

By Professore · 13/03/2020 in reply to Kotozay

Put the lens in the bottle. That is the end of the lens. Maybe the individual parts?

By Ariva · 13/03/2020

I have 3 different Helioses, each renders differently. But it is like taking 3 phone cameras and comparing them on crop: each is fine in certain conditions, BUT I do not want to keep changing them. So all 3 lie idle, and I cover this focal length with a screw-drive Nikon 50 mm, and for macro I use a reversing adapter.

By Gruffy · 13/03/2020

The review is done at a very high level, as always, but… Today, for most users of this site, the Helios-44 is a legendary antique; 99% have not only never taken a photo with it but have never even held one. In my time it was very, very common. Alas, I cannot say anything good about it. An extremely unsuccessful lens: soft, and the resolution is so-so. It was more or less suitable as a portrait lens, but not at all as the main standard lens.

As for equipment in general. For 99.99% of people, this crossing of old glass(!) lenses with digital point-and-shoots, let alone with phones, is a needless absurdity. Just to amuse one's ego. Professionals and those associated with them know that each lens rendered in its own way, that all the great firms had their own signature, and so on. The difference is especially visible at high quality. The same scene shot with different lenses (of the same focal length, naturally) looked slightly different. Naturally, real quality starts with 6×6 film and up. Now, in the digital era, all these nuances have sunk into oblivion. All pictures are basically the same. They can be high-quality and beautiful, but there is no life in them. On the other hand, color photos used to be the domain of literally a handful of people, and today anyone can make them by the thousand. Only somehow quantity does not turn into quality.

By vigera · 13/03/2020 in reply to Gruffy

"Alas, I cannot say anything good about it. An extremely unsuccessful lens: soft, and the resolution is so-so."
I agree completely! Photography was a big hobby of my father's in the 1970s, and our home collection then had no fewer than fifteen cameras, from the Kiev-30 to some plate camera from the early 20th century. About four of them were Zenit-E and EM with Helioses of various versions, and for a while it even seemed that there was nothing better in the world than the EM.

Until in 1975 Dad bought a Praktica LTL3 with a Pancolar MC lens. That is when it turned out how wrong we had been in judging the quality of Soviet photo equipment! And that was an East German product, good, but still of lower quality than Western equipment of the time…

By Professore · 13/03/2020 in reply to vigera

"And that was an East German product, good, but still of lower quality than Western equipment of the time…"

NOT lower in the same class and price! No, not even that: the price was extremely low, a direct challenge to and competitor of West Germany. East German optics and mechanics were the direct heir of Third Reich production, down to the drawings and developments of SLRs and lenses from the late 1930s. They simply could only realize them in the 1950s and 1960s. No wonder that after German reunification the West German competitor was destroyed (supposedly by the former owner), the workers and engineers fired, the factories razed and optics production moved to China and Japan. And in the USSR, Third Reich cameras and optics were churned out under their own names until the early 1980s, on Reich equipment and machine tools. What is more, joint development with the Germans based on those ideas made the Kiev-10 the first automatic SLR (automatic diaphragm), I think. In short, it grabbed a world prize.

By vigera · 13/03/2020 in reply to Professore

"NOT lower in the same class and price! No, not even that: the price was extremely low"
Back then I simply had nothing to compare with. But now I have no doubt that Dad's Praktica lost to its Western classmates both in size and weight (it was heavier and bulkier) and in the degree of automation (exposure was set semi-automatically, by matching a needle to a zero mark in the viewfinder by changing aperture or shutter speed, and film advance was manual). Pricing in the satellite states was not far removed from the Soviet kind and had little in common with the free market, so comparing the East German price of the time with that of West German products is simply silly! In the USSR it was in very short supply, although it cost much more than a Zenit-EM. Dad somehow managed to grab one at the state price in a Moscow store for about 700 rubles (which at the official rate was about $1,000, and at the black-market rate $230). For the mid-1970s this was simply huge money (the utilities for our two-room apartment never came to more than 7 rubles 50 kopecks a month, almost half of which went on the telephone).

By Professore · 16/03/2020 in reply to vigera

Back then, in the 1970s, only 4 countries made 35 mm SLRs, in descending order of quality and price: Japan, West Germany, East Germany, the USSR. That is it. At the same time the Zenit was popular in the West because it cost 60 dollars on average. And it was a fashionable SLR. A decent SLR cost 1,000 to 2,000 dollars, WITHOUT a lens. And Italian workers could not afford Nikons! The most expensive were the West German Leicas, individually hand-assembled and collimated by ONE master. The Praktica's quality was an order of magnitude above all Soviet SLRs. Of course it was behind West Germany and Japan, but it was several times cheaper. And it was no heavier. In weight the Japanese led, with plastic bodies and lenses. In the mid-1970s it cost 350 to 450 rubles depending on the model, against 80 to 100 rubles for a Zenit on average. 700 rubles was the price of a 6×6 Pentacon, with lenses for it up to 1,200 rubles. With an average salary of 90 rubles. How do I know? My brother came home on leave in 1976 after a voyage to Ethiopia on a ship and bought out a whole department store's stock of East German 35 mm and 6×6 photo equipment and optics. For 6,000 rubles. And afterward I clicked away with that equipment. And was blown away by the quality.

By vigera · 16/03/2020 in reply to Professore

"In the mid-1970s it cost 350 to 450 rubles"
You are mistaken about the price. I remember exactly that my father sold his Praktica LTL 3 with a Pancolar 1.8/50 Multi Coating about two years after buying it, for 650 rubles, and that was a little less (by about 20 rubles) than what he paid in the store.

By Professore · 16/03/2020 in reply to vigera

You are right and so am I. The price changed in 1975, and in 1980, and in 1985… Prices in the USSR rose! Even for film.

By Asteroth · 13/03/2020 in reply to Gruffy

"For 99.99% of people, this crossing of old glass(!) lenses with digital point-and-shoots, let alone with phones, is a needless absurdity."
And what are the new ones made of, not glass? And such lenses are usually crossed not with point-and-shoots and phones but with proper digital cameras. M42/M39 adapters exist now for every mount…

By Maxim_Sed · 13/03/2020 in reply to Asteroth

"M42/M39 adapters exist now for every mount"
enough to play with for half an hour and then sell on Avito or OLX

By boyscout · 14/03/2020 in reply to Maxim_Sed

You can play much longer on full frame with a speed booster for APS-C. Although when disappointment with full frame at this level of equipment sets in, the outcome is most likely the same: Avito or the shelf. But that is the common path of all toys.

By Avgur · 17/03/2020 in reply to Gruffy

"Now, in the digital era, all these nuances have sunk into oblivion. All pictures are basically the same. They can be high-quality and beautiful, but there is no life in them."
I do not quite agree. I used to think the same, since photography was comparable to art (especially with filters), given that you could not see the result immediately. But a few years ago I bought a Panasonic (inexpensive, with interchangeable lenses). My son uses it, and he took all my lenses (I kept both a Zenit and a FED as mementos) and shoots something with them. As he explained to me, one is convenient for macro, another for nature, and the standard lens is "rubbish")))))). There are still people who "want" to shoot with old lenses)))))).

By Soviet Box · 17/03/2020 in reply to Avgur

He has "read too much Walter Scott" :)) The standard lens is more than decent.

By Avgur · 18/03/2020 in reply to Soviet Box

"He has "read too much Walter Scott" :)) The standard lens is more than decent."
))))) I cannot make him read literature (and it is too late now); chats, social networks, everything comes from there. But I like that he is not becoming an armchair strategist and is gaining his own experience (after discussing in chats). He does not like the standard lens and "cannot stand" automatic mode; he is happy with the former Soviet ones (I thought it was the other way round))))))). Huge thanks for your articles!!! I dream of "cleaning" my Industar using your method)))))).

By Soviet Box · 18/03/2020 in reply to Avgur

""cannot stand" automatic mode"
That is a pity. By the way, there are user automatic modes too, mode "P". And there is aperture-priority automation and shutter-priority automation. Why ignore what photographic technology has striven for throughout its existence? The automation solves such tasks far more cleverly; you just need to hint at where to think :) "he is happy with the former Soviet ones"
If you get the hang of it, then… the situation is this. In any art there is a certain starting point. With Rembrandt it is a dark background, for example. If you choose the lens's rendering as the reference point and develop the picture in that direction, the results will be excellent. But one must know moderation in everything and have a sensitive understanding of the result. "Huge thanks for your articles!!!"
You are welcome! "I dream of "cleaning" my Industar"
It is as simple as can be. Just care, that is all. These are barrels with a single helicoid. Lenses with double helicoids, now those do require some skill. A little later I will show something as an example and to understand the general approach.

By Avgur · 19/03/2020 in reply to Soviet Box

"That is a pity."
Young people look for a "special something" in everything, and not in vain. That is how they gain precious experience))))) (instead of sitting on the couch drinking beer))))). "Why ignore what photographic technology has striven for throughout its existence? The automation solves such tasks far more cleverly; you just need to hint at where to think :)"
That is what I do… I have become lazy))))) But technology will never replace a professional; by the way, that shows in your articles and the comments on them. And how to become a professional......))))) Automation is made so that an ordinary person can take decent photos. But a professional shoots more than ordinary photos: he "catches moments", "finds the special something", chooses the lens, background, distance, understands in which lenses the diaphragm works and how)))) the advantages and drawbacks, and so on. Technology cannot replace him yet. We have two cameras in use at home (meaning new digital ones). I was left the Panasonic TZ70 point-and-shoot; I shoot mostly in automatic )))))))))) "A little later I will show something as an example and to understand the general approach."
I think I will not be the only one waiting for that))))) Have you ever taken apart modern lenses? In one of my lenses the automatic mode does not work.

By voicenemo · 20/11/2021 in reply to Gruffy

""… this crossing of old glass(!) lenses with digital point-and-shoots… is a needless absurdity.""
Why?.. It is old optics… What difference does it make what you project onto?.. Film or sensor, you get the same optical rendering, which differs greatly from modern optics. Photography, like any art, does not tolerate formalism. And what a "good photograph" is, that is not even a question.

By Sintetik · 13/03/2020

Definitely a plus for the Helios 44. One of the legendary lenses of the USSR. I myself owned a Start; it came from my grandfather, who in turn bought it in the early 1960s. Unfortunately the film advance mechanism in the camera broke, and it had to be handed over to a photo collection; besides, the age of film cameras was coming to an end.

By Maxim_Sed · 13/03/2020

"this crossing of old glass(!) lenses with digital point-and-shoots, let alone with phones, is a needless absurdity."
+

Digital SLRs have no split-image wedges or microprism, and the focusing screen is not designed for focusing "by eye". Tested many times.

On a 1.6 crop and smaller it is all very sad.

+

The different flange distances of Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Sony and Olympus are a whole separate story.

+

In most cases you lose aperture control (even the preset one in the case of the H-44M).

+

The camera's metering "falls off", which greatly complicates shooting when time is limited.

By OreSama · 13/03/2020 in reply to Maxim_Sed

"Digital SLRs have no split-image wedges or microprism, and the focusing screen is not designed for focusing "by eye". Tested many times."
Yet even on a ten-year-old Canon 50D I had LiveView with 14x magnification that worked better than any eyepiece magnifier. And on mirrorless cameras this is the native mode, in which even a 50/1.4 focuses easily and effortlessly.

By Maxim_Sed · 13/03/2020 in reply to OreSama

"LiveView with 14x magnification"
… for reportage photography? Are you joking? Ancient manual lenses without aperture control on full-frame mirrorless cameras are for amateur photographers. Not suitable for work. I am not even mentioning mirrorless cameras with a 1.6 crop and smaller.

By Fire_bird · 13/03/2020 in reply to Maxim_Sed

1. What does reportage have to do with it? 2. Where did aperture control suddenly go? 3. I am more than sure you will not find a difference between shots taken on full frame and on a 2x crop camera :)

By Maxim_Sed · 13/03/2020 in reply to Fire_bird

"Where did aperture control suddenly go?"
Please tell me about controlling the aperture of any third-party (manual) lens through an adapter on a Canon mount. Just do not tell me you can turn the aperture ring by hand. ;)

By Fire_bird · 13/03/2020 in reply to Maxim_Sed

I do not even know what to say) Imagine, on modern Fujifilm cameras the aperture is still set with a ring on the lens) And yes, it is more convenient and quicker than on those Canons of yours)

By NikVar · 18/03/2020 in reply to Fire_bird

By the way, one question, since we have got onto this. How does the aperture of crop lenses, for example the Helios-44, relate to the aperture of the Canon 18-55 kit lens? That is, will f/8 on the Helios correspond to f/8 on the Canon?

By Soviet Box · 18/03/2020 in reply to NikVar

Yes. It will be exactly so. Aperture is an absolutely mathematical quantity, the ratio of the diameter of the light opening to the focal length. It can also be expressed through light flux, as the ratio of the illuminance of the real image it forms in the focal plane to the original luminance of the object being imaged; that figure accounts for the overall light transmission of the lens system. So it does not depend on the frame size, only on the physical dimensions of the lens and the focal length. The other thing is that the maximum aperture of a zoom will change as the zoom's focal length changes, while in a lens of fixed focal length that cannot happen in principle. Unless you move the lens two or three flange distances away from the camera for macro work.

Hard without preparation, probably? Do not think about it; you do not need it in practice. The camera's automation will take everything into account by itself. It is smarter than any photographer.

By NikVar · 18/03/2020 in reply to Soviet Box

It really is hard to picture. Thank you for the explanation. I am thinking of doing a comparison of lenses for sharpness and color rendering soon (photos in RAW), but this question was unclear to me.

By Fire_bird · 20/03/2020 in reply to Soviet Box

"The other thing is that the maximum aperture of a zoom will change as the zoom's focal length changes,"
There are zooms with constant maximum aperture. You need to look at the specifications of the particular lens.

By Soviet Box · 20/03/2020 in reply to Fire_bird

There are, of course. But they are not what we are talking about in this category.

By sov39 · 05/03/2021 in reply to Soviet Box

"… while in a lens of fixed focal length that cannot happen in principle." It can, if instead of an ordinary adapter you fit a 0.71x speed booster; then the aperture increases by one stop. The Chinese make super-fast lenses for mirrorless cameras on this principle, for example the 7Artisans 0.95/35: its optical design consists of a 1.7/50 lens plus a 0.75x booster, and the real aperture is not 0.95 as the Chinese claim but 1.2, which is also not bad.

By Maxim_Sed · 05/03/2021 in reply to sov39

unfortunately the Chinese copy of the Speed Booster falls "a tad" short of the original in resolution, so using it is pointless ((

By sov39 · 05/03/2021 in reply to Maxim_Sed

That is exactly what I want to check. The thing is that the resolving power of lenses is several times higher than the resolution of sensors. The photographic resolution of the 7Artisans 0.95/35 combined with a Sony a6000 camera is 100 lines/mm and cannot be more; the sensor does not allow it.

By OreSama · 13/03/2020 in reply to Maxim_Sed

"… for reportage photography?"
Far from everyone shoots reportage. I would even say a minority. Most shoot portraits and landscapes. And a staged portrait will put up with ten seconds of focusing. Not to mention a landscape, which is not going anywhere. "Not suitable for work."
There you go: you started with split-image wedges and microprisms and ended up, pardon the expression, with work. What "work" are we even talking about? Wedding hacks? Because in every other job the employer provides the tools, and all the employee can change is to quit if the working conditions do not suit him.

By Stranger12 · 13/03/2020 in reply to Maxim_Sed

"Digital SLRs have no split-image wedges or microprism, and the focusing screen is not designed for focusing "by eye"."
And what are phase-detection sensors for? "In most cases you lose aperture control"
And what are hands for? I sometimes attach old optics precisely for the convenience of control. An aperture ring on the lens is more convenient to turn than the little dial on the body. "The camera's metering "falls off""
Why would it fall off?

By Maxim_Sed · 13/03/2020 in reply to Stranger12

"And what are phase-detection sensors for?"
So that the user buys a "dandelion" chip and tells everyone how "convenient" the AF confirmation hint is, instead of full AF with native lenses. "And what are hands for?"
In reportage there is no time to turn the aperture ring. ;P Or did you never have a Zenit-E with an Industar-50? "Why would it fall off?"
Because you will have to focus manually wide open. And when you stop down you will have to correct the whole exposure (through exposure compensation or some other way), which again is unrealistic in reportage.

P.S. Even a film Minolta Dynax 5 with an H-44 through an adapter metered exposure incorrectly (all frames were overexposed).

By Stranger12 · 13/03/2020 in reply to Maxim_Sed

"and tells everyone how "convenient" the AF confirmation hint is, instead of full AF with native lenses"
Only that "full" AF often requires extra manipulations to focus where you need rather than where the automation wants. That is, in time and convenience the two options are comparable. "In reportage there is no time to turn the aperture ring."
So? Do not turn it. If there is no time to change it quickly, set a fixed value and shoot. "Because you will have to focus manually wide open."
Why? The automation is far more sensitive than the human eye. "And when you stop down you will have to correct the whole exposure"
If you really want to focus with the lens wide open, what stops you from stopping down before metering?

By DDimann · 13/03/2020 in reply to Maxim_Sed

"Because you will have to focus manually wide open."
The auto diaphragm was mentioned somewhere above…

By Fire_bird · 13/03/2020 in reply to DDimann

A mirrorless camera with focus peaking or electronic split-image does the job, and you can shoot at any aperture without problems.

By Soviet Box · 13/03/2020 in reply to Fire_bird

If the camera has an EVF, you can focus even at f/32. And reportage and street are shot by the red dots, if anyone still knows what that means. That method eliminates the lag completely.

… oh, pardon me, I am just a mechanic and shooting is not my business.

By dimkin · 13/03/2020 in reply to Maxim_Sed

"Digital SLRs have no split-image wedges or microprism, and the focusing screen is not designed for focusing "by eye". Tested many times."
Where there is a will. And there are many such firms, although Katzeye, for example, has closed. www.focusingscreen.com/index.php?cPath=22_92

By voicenemo · 20/11/2021 in reply to Maxim_Sed

There are split-image and microprism screens (you can install them), there is LiveView, and there are adapters with an AF confirmation chip, which, incidentally, lock the auto diaphragm on all lenses so manual aperture becomes available even without taking the lenses apart. (How has aperture control been "lost" if the diaphragm itself remains physically accessible?..) There is Focus Peaking, a really great feature. It is also unclear how using these lenses disrupts the meter?.. The meter shows the same values as before… Why would it not?.. (If anything, there is exposure compensation.) How do different flange distances make old manual lenses harder to use?.. Yes, they differ, and for the main ones (M39 rangefinders and M42 SLRs, and practically M39 SLRs too) standard adapters taking these distances into account have long existed (unless we are talking about various one-off adaptations of lenses: cine, projection, scale-focus and so on). Crop too small? There is full frame. Whatever anyone needs is all available. I have never heard anything like this from anyone.

By nomeron · 13/03/2020

I have a whole box of Helios 44-2s. At work they wrote off an old video recording studio, and before throwing it out they decided to take the cameras apart, and inside were Helioses in a slightly different version from the photo ones. Not clear what to do with them, though. They lay in a time capsule from the 1980s.

By Fire_bird · 13/03/2020 in reply to nomeron

Sell them on Avito. Helioses got a new life with the arrival of adapters and mirrorless cameras.

By Soviet Box · 13/03/2020 in reply to nomeron

That is wonderful. If the lens blocks are standard, they can be fitted into the corresponding barrels whose lenses are scratched. A lot of fiddling, of course.

By cherkes · 14/03/2020 in reply to nomeron

Sell them.

By dimo · 13/03/2020

A gorgeous and useful guide, thank you! It will come in handy during attacks of dismemberment-and-sanitation mania =))

By Soviet Box · 13/03/2020 in reply to dimo

Thank you! The main thing is that it is useful to people.

By tuz_83 · 14/03/2020 in reply to Soviet Box

I got nostalgic and remembered the lens that made the biggest impression on me in my life. It was in the 1990s; I dropped into a second-hand shop, and there stood… a "bucket", priced like a bottle of vodka. Only I had no money in my pocket at that moment, and while I ran home the "bucket" was gone))) Now I remembered it and found it in Google Images. A picture worth seeing: MC MTO-11SA
Photo attached by tuz_83

By Stranger12 · 14/03/2020 in reply to tuz_83

"Only I had no money in my pocket at that moment, and while I ran home the "bucket" was gone)))"
Just as well. A worthless lens. Slow, shallow depth of field. You would hardly have shot with it.

By Professore · 16/03/2020 in reply to Stranger12

Why do you need depth of field on a telephoto? To shoot portraits? Ha-ha-ha-ha… That is NOT WHAT IT IS FOR. That immediately gives away a dilettante. It is a highly specialized! lens. It is worthless only to those who do not know how to use it and what it is for. And YES, I shot with an MTO-500 at aeromodelling competitions. You need 500 to 1200 ISO film. The MTO-11 is a super telephoto for super purposes. Decent amateur telescopes are made from them. To play with and find out whether you need that hobby.

By Soviet Box · 14/03/2020 in reply to tuz_83

An interesting thing, only very specialized. Besides shooting distant objects, it is interesting for the rings in the out-of-focus zone. Soviet Photo often published such pictures: little boats, a river, and rings, rings all around… Nowadays mirror lenses are bought for the same purpose. But if it is for the rings, the "five hundred", the MTO-500, is better. It is handier in size and can be used handheld. This telescope is tripod-only, and a fairly sturdy tripod at that. In film days you could only load 250 GOST film in the camera for it; now you can set 3200 in the camera, so it is quite usable, especially considering that it has no fixed focusing limits and can be screwed onto any extension.

By tuz_83 · 14/03/2020 in reply to Soviet Box

"In film days you could only load 250 GOST film in the camera for it; now you can set 3200 in the camera, so it is quite usable"
Well, back then (in film days) ordinary Soviet users could not buy anything faster than 250 units anyway, and who needed it with that huge grain. Meanwhile even the traffic police had 500 GOST film, only I did not have it, because my camera was completely different: an RFK-5. Film slower than ISO 800 was not issued for it; cassettes came in 70-meter lengths, free, cut off as much as you like. Only using such film in ordinary cameras was almost impossible: some models fogged even the perforations(!). Often the films brought were entirely experimental, with no ISO value even given, but at a guess it was definitely up to 1500. By the way, these cameras are still sold on Avito [a 2020 Avito listing, no longer available], but the sellers prefer to keep quiet about the film…

By Professore · 16/03/2020 in reply to tuz_83

From the army I had Aerofoto 1200 GOST on a spool. That is what it was called. The prosecutor's office gave it to me to shoot in the morgue. Later I used that film to shoot amateur performances, our unit's theater troupe touring towns, without flash. It was a very pleasant film. Super! Resolution over 120 lines. No grain up to 18×24. That was a miracle, and with a special developer you could push it to 2400. The only bad thing was that the contrast was three times higher, and you had to develop and print with extra-soft developers. These films were handled well by the Zenit-19, Kiev-15, Zenit-TTL, that is, all the decent cameras. And Foto-250 I pushed to 500 to 700 GOST with benzotriazole and nimidazoles. Homemade developers. TsO-32 I pushed to 90 GOST.

By tuz_83 · 16/03/2020 in reply to Professore

"From the army I had Aerofoto 1200 GOST on a spool."
+100500. Absolutely right. I first met the RFK-5 and these films in the army (1986 to 1988), and since the outfit has been "blown" anyway, I will add photos from the album:

Those cameras hung over these screens and photographed the "residual phosphor glow" in automatic mode. A nasty thing: it hung over your head next to your left ear and "yapped" with a squeal, and sometimes people banged their heads on it))) The one thing all the operators (P-18, P-37, PRV-17) were glad about was that they did not have to run to the command post with the films: a specially trained person did that (he is in the spoiler with his 15 kg machine gun, wrapped in that same 35 mm film). A specially trained comrade with the RFK-5 )))
Photo attached by tuz_83

By virrao · 14/03/2020

As always, wonderful: the subject, the language and the presentation. As an aftertaste, the feeling that I could never do this ;) I did not understand this: "This is an illustration of how the lens can be used for macro photography with a mobile phone." You just held the lens up to the phone?

By Soviet Box · 14/03/2020 in reply to virrao

Thank you, virrao! Yes, just by holding the lens against it, like a close-up attachment lens. Nothing more than a simple experiment.

By Soviet Box · 14/03/2020 in reply to virrao

"I could never do this ;)"
Oh come on, it is not the gods who fire the pots :)

By viktor2010 · 14/03/2020

"The Helios-44 was first fitted to the Start camera. It had an auto diaphragm mechanism and practically repeated the solutions used in the Kine Exakta. By the way, it is precisely this version of the lens that remains the best in the Helios-44 family to this day."
And it looks completely different too.
Photo attached by viktor2010

By Soviet Box · 14/03/2020 in reply to viktor2010

Of course. A complete copy of the Exakta.

I once converted one of these for the Zenit-S. More precisely, for the very first Zenit, still without the "S".
Photo attached by Soviet Box

By Stranger12 · 15/03/2020 in reply to viktor2010

"And it looks completely different too"
It differs because of the mount. The Start, like the Kiev, was made for professionals (and its price was to match; a newspaper or magazine editorial office could afford it), so it came with a bayonet rather than a screw mount.

By Soviet Box · 15/03/2020 in reply to Stranger12

The Start came with an M39 adapter. And extension rings with the bayonet were made for it. But… whoever shot with a Start knows how nasty it is to focus because of that "shaft". And its grip is bad. The Start was not a bad idea, but it was never developed into a system. On the other hand, it was the first SLR in the USSR with a full-frame viewfinder. And the Kiev… If it is the Kiev-4, then a professional who had shot ten rolls with it wore the index finger of his right hand down to blood. We put a rubber band on the advance knob or stuck a plaster on the finger.

These are the adapters for the Start.

By Stranger12 · 15/03/2020 in reply to Soviet Box

"The Start was not a bad idea, but it was never developed into a system."
Why not? That same auto diaphragm jumped over to the Zenits. And the Kodak-system bayonet mount, rather than this exotica (otherwise we might have suffered the same way with the Zenits), was perhaps used in later models thanks to the Start. More likely there was no point in developing two similar cameras.

Now the Leningrad, yes, that is a pity. It was a fun camera for its time. But for some reason it got no successor.

By Soviet Box · 15/03/2020 in reply to Stranger12

"Why not?"
What use is a camera without a range of optics for it? It turned out to be a dead-end model from the start. "Now the Leningrad..."
Did you really shoot with it? I did in the old days, until the rangefinder frame cracked on the fifth roll.

All right. I am about the mechanics. Using the equipment is a separate subject.

By Stranger12 · 15/03/2020 in reply to Soviet Box

"What use is a camera without a range of optics for it? It turned out to be a dead-end model from the start."
Agreed. But its solutions were tried out on it, weren't they? From a certain point the Zenits became similar to the Start and "jumped off" the Zorki base. Or am I wrong? "Did you really shoot with it?"
No, a childhood dream. Even the Start I know only because my aunt had one. Otherwise, in the film era, the most interesting things I clicked with were FEDs and Zenits. Not counting Smenas, Etudes, Lyubitels and similar affordable equipment.

By Soviet Box · 15/03/2020 in reply to Stranger12

"Or am I wrong?"
To some extent you are wrong. If you look under the top cover of the Start, traces of the Zorki-4 will be clearly visible. By the way, with the same trouble in the escapement: skipping at 1/15. And the Start's base is fundamentally different from the Zenit-E. "No, a childhood dream"
If it comes true, mind your eyebrows in automatic mode. Sometimes hairs get caught under the flywheel… oh, what a pleasure! The interesting Leningrad is the very first one, with the all-metal shutter and the clever trigger (sliding) wind. It really was a complete system: optics, accessories. And all in one magnificent case. But… alas!

By Stranger12 · 15/03/2020 in reply to Soviet Box

"To some extent you are wrong"
Hm. So, with a couple of lines, you have destroyed decades of misconception :) Thank you! Now I have a reason to reread the history of photographic equipment.

By Ondap · 15/03/2020

"Yes, yes, I cleaned those with candle soot too!"
Thank you, Soviet Box. This is the first time I have read about such a method of cleaning optics.

By Soviet Box · 15/03/2020 in reply to Ondap

You are welcome. An ancient, effective and absolutely simple method.

By akantus · 15/03/2020 in reply to Soviet Box

Tell me, have you come across a Helios-77? I have a problem with the diaphragm: if you try to close it slowly it stays put, but if you twist the ring sharply, it closes. I suspect it needs to be taken apart, washed and lubricated.

By Soviet Box · 15/03/2020 in reply to akantus

Automatic lenses have this problem. There is one more catch there. Over time a deposit forms on the diaphragm blades. But removing it requires taking the lenses apart. The cure may turn out worse than the disease. But for a start you can remove the tail and look at the state of the diaphragm linkage. If the grease there has stuck, clean it out and replace it. In general such symptoms are typical of Arsenal equipment "for Nikon", the Helios-81N, for example. But if the diaphragm works in shooting mode, then shoot. Everything works crisply there.

By akantus · 15/03/2020 in reply to Soviet Box

It works for me paired with a Sony a300; the auto-diaphragm pin is naturally locked, so the diaphragm closes and opens only manually, and when I need to stop down by one or two stops, it just stays where it is. I have to close it sharply and then open it to the desired position. Most likely the blades are sticking, and the diaphragm is between the lens groups. So I would like to know: if my hands are fine, I will not make it worse? :)

By ivanp1985 · 20/05/2025 in reply to Soviet Box

Good day to you. I got one of these lenses, and it has play. Could you help me get rid of it?

Helios-44 58mm f/2 M39: Helicoid Service of the Thirteen-Blade Biotar Copy

A Copy of the Zeiss Biotar

Separating the Optical Block

Dismantling the Helicoid Unit

Washing

Reassembly

The Study Continues

Comments

Write a comment