haring
Established
I love the Carl Zeiss BIOTAR 75mm f/1.5 lens. I am thinking about buying one of them but I can see that there is a huge range in price for this lens. They seem the same to me. I am just wondering whether anybody can tell me which series of these lens I should buy to get the best image quality and what makes the price to range so wide...
ferider
Veteran
Have a look at the second post in http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic.php?t=22065, it shows you pictures.
Depending on the mount, it can be a very rare lens (which is why you don't read much about it on a rangefinder forum).
I myself like the Russian clone, the Helios 40-2, converted to fit my Nikons.
Roland.
Depending on the mount, it can be a very rare lens (which is why you don't read much about it on a rangefinder forum).
I myself like the Russian clone, the Helios 40-2, converted to fit my Nikons.
Roland.
haring
Established
Thanks so much for the info! Do you have a few samples photos of the Helios 40-2?
f16sunshine
Moderator
I have one in M42 mount (1951 "skinny" chrome brass version even).
It's a wild lens wide open. Rolands Helios 40-2 gives a similar result although add about 1/2kilo of weight
Coma, optical vignetting, ... the works! These things have character. Pretty sharp on center and when stopped down to f4-8 pretty good overall.
I actually posted a couple the other day from that lens in another thread.
Here is one of those images.
It's a wild lens wide open. Rolands Helios 40-2 gives a similar result although add about 1/2kilo of weight
Coma, optical vignetting, ... the works! These things have character. Pretty sharp on center and when stopped down to f4-8 pretty good overall.
I actually posted a couple the other day from that lens in another thread.
Here is one of those images.
haring
Established
Yeah, this is it! LOLI have one in M42 mount (1951 "skinny" chrome brass version even).
It's a wild lens wide open. Rolands Helios 40-2 gives a similar result although add about 1/2kilo of weight
Coma, optical vignetting, ... the works! These things have character. Pretty sharp on center and when stopped down to f4-8 pretty good overall.
I actually posted a couple the other day from that lens in another thread.
Here is one of those images.
I have looked at the Helios, as well. They are much cheaper and I think they have the same bookeh. Are they the same regarding picture quality, micro-contrast, sharpness...? Thanks!
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
YMMV. I had a Biotar in Exakta mount, which I liked, and which never delivered swirlies as wild and nasty as above or the Helios pictures I've run across on the net - but then, I probably never used it above f/4. No bad lens, but given the current going rate (which is well in recent Leica lens territory - amazing for lenses for dead mounts that sold for 30DM at every camera fair two decades ago), it is a lens to sell, not to buy - that money will buy you quite a few even better lenses.
mfogiel
Veteran
Even better, look for a Primoplan.
ferider
Veteran
Compared to Andy's photo, just some "Hausmannskost"
It's true, it's not a small lens:
But then, neither is the camera.
Roland.
KHW
Established
I have two sets in Contax RF mount. One is in full original condition, very nice to use, need some skill on focusing especially when fully open. The another one was claimed to be restored by an expert on Contax in North America. Not even correctly assembly. Still sitting in my cabinet and I will have it restored one day myself.
Optically is just what described. It is a collector item. But if you only want the effect, a USSR copy will be great.
Optically is just what described. It is a collector item. But if you only want the effect, a USSR copy will be great.