FrankS
Registered User
Hi, I don't know much about FSU lenses. Are the Helios 103 50mm and J-8 50mm the same type of lens, giving the same type of results? Is one considered better than the other? Thank you for any help!
P
pshinkaw
Guest
They are not the same. There two types of Jupiter-8's out there, the newer model has one fewer element. They are basically Sonnar type lenses.
The Helios 103 is more symmetrical (front to back) I think that makes it a closer cousin to the Planar. You can look at the rear element of the Helios, which is large, like the front element. On the Jupiter the rear element is much smaller than the front element. I think Fedka's website or Dr. Vonin's website has cut-away diagrams of the two lenses.
-Paul
The Helios 103 is more symmetrical (front to back) I think that makes it a closer cousin to the Planar. You can look at the rear element of the Helios, which is large, like the front element. On the Jupiter the rear element is much smaller than the front element. I think Fedka's website or Dr. Vonin's website has cut-away diagrams of the two lenses.
-Paul
pendevour
Just do it.
Hi, I have used a Jupiter 8 on a Zorki4 and the Helios 103 on my Kiev 4A and both lenses have given very satisfactory results. Maybe my J8 is slightly sharper and gives punchier pics. Problem is that the tolerances on many of these FSU lenses is a little variable so you could get another pair of lenses behaving differently. One thing that I find essential is the use of a lens hood, especially with the Helios which is prone to flare if the light is anywhere round to the side. Anyone else found this a problem?
P
pshinkaw
Guest
Typically users of the Helios-103 report sharper appearing photos and higher contrast than Jupiter-8 and 8M's.
When I first acquired both lenses a few years ago I tried a side-by-side comparison. I used a Kiev-4 (meter model) with the Jupiter-8M and a Kiev-4A (meterless model) with the Helios-103. I shot Fuji 200 on bright sunny winter day. Film was from the same lot number, processing was at the same time and each comparable photo was taken less than 15 secondas from it's pair. Exposure settings were identical.
The scans are not very good, but there was very little difference between the prints anyway. The Helios shots were slightly more contrasty, but that could also have been caused by a slight difference in exposure caused by the shutters of the two camera bodies. The negatives from the Kiev-4 body (Jupiter-8M) were slightly denser than those from the Kiev-4 body (Hleios-103) My best guess is that the Kiev 4 could have been 1/2 to 2/3 stop slower.
-Paul
When I first acquired both lenses a few years ago I tried a side-by-side comparison. I used a Kiev-4 (meter model) with the Jupiter-8M and a Kiev-4A (meterless model) with the Helios-103. I shot Fuji 200 on bright sunny winter day. Film was from the same lot number, processing was at the same time and each comparable photo was taken less than 15 secondas from it's pair. Exposure settings were identical.
The scans are not very good, but there was very little difference between the prints anyway. The Helios shots were slightly more contrasty, but that could also have been caused by a slight difference in exposure caused by the shutters of the two camera bodies. The negatives from the Kiev-4 body (Jupiter-8M) were slightly denser than those from the Kiev-4 body (Hleios-103) My best guess is that the Kiev 4 could have been 1/2 to 2/3 stop slower.
-Paul
FrankS
Registered User
Thank you for this info. So it's Planar style Helios versus Sonnar-style Jupiter-8.
P
pshinkaw
Guest
Oops, the photos were not labeled. The Cannon shots, the Helios was the top photo.
The Building shot, the Helios is the one on the left.
-Paul
The Building shot, the Helios is the one on the left.
-Paul
FrankS
Registered User
I'm talking to someone about trading an Oly 35rc for a Kiev 4 (without meter) and lens (Helios or Jupiter). I like the idea of sending a Japanese RF camera into Russia where they may not be so readily available as they are here.
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
Nice shots Paul. I guess the difference, if any, would have come out only in wider-open examples. These look like f/8-ish, at least the cannon shots.
P
pshinkaw
Guest
I think they were f8 at 1/500.
I was trying to verify whether or not one lens was contrastier than the other, so I went for full daylight. If I were going to redo the test now, I would probably go with an ISO 25 B&W film and a single body.
The scans pretty much show the differences betrween the final shots. I don't think there is a whole lot difference between the prints. A test at f2 would be interesting,
-Paul
I was trying to verify whether or not one lens was contrastier than the other, so I went for full daylight. If I were going to redo the test now, I would probably go with an ISO 25 B&W film and a single body.
The scans pretty much show the differences betrween the final shots. I don't think there is a whole lot difference between the prints. A test at f2 would be interesting,
-Paul
V
varjag
Guest
My H-103 performs far better wide open than my J-8M sample. And I believe the Helios is a Biotar design.
jamiewakeham
Long time lurker
Bit of a hijack, but does anyone know the answer to the same question as applied to the Jupiter-9 85/2 and the Helios-40 85/1.5? I know that I should be looking for either of them in the later MC versions, and that the Helios will weigh a ton! I'm thinking I'd like the Helios, just 'cos it looks so much fun...
Thanks,
Jamie
Thanks,
Jamie
P
pshinkaw
Guest
Varjkag:
I believe you are correct. From the diagrams I have the Helios-103 appears to be identical to a Biotar. The Summitar (different versions) have either a cemented doublet or an air-spaced doublet for a front element. The Helios has neither, it is a single and then a doublet.
The Helios-103 also appears to be identical to the Helios-44, which is an SLR lens. Yet, the Helios-103 seems to have much greater contrast and less flare in contrasty light situations than the Helios-44, although the condition of individuyal lenses could also be a contributor.
In what way does your wide-open perfomance differ between the lenses? Center sharpness, edge sharpness, etc?
-Paul
I believe you are correct. From the diagrams I have the Helios-103 appears to be identical to a Biotar. The Summitar (different versions) have either a cemented doublet or an air-spaced doublet for a front element. The Helios has neither, it is a single and then a doublet.
The Helios-103 also appears to be identical to the Helios-44, which is an SLR lens. Yet, the Helios-103 seems to have much greater contrast and less flare in contrasty light situations than the Helios-44, although the condition of individuyal lenses could also be a contributor.
In what way does your wide-open perfomance differ between the lenses? Center sharpness, edge sharpness, etc?
-Paul
V
varjag
Guest
Paul,
Helios-44 has poor reputation generally, but with proper assembly and good blackening of surfaces can be a good performer. I heard that the earlier silver M39 SLR mount Helios-44s are generally of better mechanical and optical quality.
My J8 is just too unsharp and low contrast wide open. I have a good shot or two done with it at f/2.8, but not a single one I'd like at f/2. The H-103 is more prone to flare, but has better contrast and wide open it is sharper than the J8M at f/2.8.
--Eugene
Helios-44 has poor reputation generally, but with proper assembly and good blackening of surfaces can be a good performer. I heard that the earlier silver M39 SLR mount Helios-44s are generally of better mechanical and optical quality.
My J8 is just too unsharp and low contrast wide open. I have a good shot or two done with it at f/2.8, but not a single one I'd like at f/2. The H-103 is more prone to flare, but has better contrast and wide open it is sharper than the J8M at f/2.8.
--Eugene