VinceC
Veteran
One of the interesting things about the Rangefinder Forum is that you meet people like Brian Sweeney and, before you realize it, you end up with a 1984 Soviet Helios-103 53mm f/1.8 that you never even knew you'd want, correctly shimmed for the Nikon RF mount.
It doesn't quite fit onto my S3-2000, but it mounts quite nicely onto all my vintage Nikon bodies. So I tried it out on my vintage S3.
I have to admit, having shot half a roll, I like the look of this lens. It has very very low contrast. The attached photos have all been post-processed through PhotoShop, but even after contrast adjustment, the tones are unique compared to the classic and Millenneum Nikkor 50/1.4s. If the Millenneum Nikkor has a crisp modern look, and the classic 50/1.4 has a classic 1950s look, then this lens seems to have a more vintage quality. I particularly like the out-of-focus look ... very smooth. The tradeoff is that it does not seem to be as critically sharp as the Nikkors. It has wonderful tones but lacks that bit of punch that some folks call micro-contrast.
Also, I know Brian has to make some compromises with shimming. It seems to be ever-so slightly front-focused, but well within tolerance for everyday shooting.
It doesn't quite fit onto my S3-2000, but it mounts quite nicely onto all my vintage Nikon bodies. So I tried it out on my vintage S3.
I have to admit, having shot half a roll, I like the look of this lens. It has very very low contrast. The attached photos have all been post-processed through PhotoShop, but even after contrast adjustment, the tones are unique compared to the classic and Millenneum Nikkor 50/1.4s. If the Millenneum Nikkor has a crisp modern look, and the classic 50/1.4 has a classic 1950s look, then this lens seems to have a more vintage quality. I particularly like the out-of-focus look ... very smooth. The tradeoff is that it does not seem to be as critically sharp as the Nikkors. It has wonderful tones but lacks that bit of punch that some folks call micro-contrast.
Also, I know Brian has to make some compromises with shimming. It seems to be ever-so slightly front-focused, but well within tolerance for everyday shooting.
Attachments
Last edited:
VinceC
Veteran
ZivcoPhoto
Well-known
Why won't it fit on your "new" S3 VInce?
VinceC
Veteran
The inner bayonet is just a little too tight on the S3-2000. Once seated, it takes too much force to try to turn the lens to the locked-in postion. In fact, I haven't turned it that far because it feels like something would give. ... It is possible to misallign the gear teeth in a Contax/Nikon-S mount. Probably a combination of reverse-engineered machining on both the S3-2000 and the Soviet lens; the tolerances ended up in opposite directions.
Last edited:
Xmas
Veteran
Vince
After our last dialogue (about J12)
I did more experimenting and you were correct I got one of my J12 to flare badly and do iris images independently as well... now I need a sunny day and a nx J12 test, in the UK the sun is an infrequent visitor.
But my H103 seems to have good micro contrast compared to my f/2 post WWII sonnar, the only problem I have with the 103 is that it also has a contra jour problem of radial lines (of about 1mm on the negative radial from sun). These dont show on my flatbed.
Please could you say what film you were using for resolution and what aperature, and where in frame - on axis or off centre, and if you using a hood for contrast tests? If you look through my H103 with a light source in a dark room mine looks like it has not had any black paint on element peripheries, so I shelved mine until I read they were good and It seemed to be good with K64, deep hood, and f/8.
Noel
After our last dialogue (about J12)
I did more experimenting and you were correct I got one of my J12 to flare badly and do iris images independently as well... now I need a sunny day and a nx J12 test, in the UK the sun is an infrequent visitor.
But my H103 seems to have good micro contrast compared to my f/2 post WWII sonnar, the only problem I have with the 103 is that it also has a contra jour problem of radial lines (of about 1mm on the negative radial from sun). These dont show on my flatbed.
Please could you say what film you were using for resolution and what aperature, and where in frame - on axis or off centre, and if you using a hood for contrast tests? If you look through my H103 with a light source in a dark room mine looks like it has not had any black paint on element peripheries, so I shelved mine until I read they were good and It seemed to be good with K64, deep hood, and f/8.
Noel
VinceC
Veteran
The interior shot is definitely f/1.8. The exterior shots are approximately f/2.8. Film: Kodak C41 b&w 400. No lens hood. No filter.
Now that I'm aware of the front focus issue, my first impression of muted micro-contrast might be related to that . . . All those shots were at my typical shooting distance for portraits, which is the bulk of my photography. In most cases, ideal focus is an inch or more in front of the eyes.
I'm comparing my impressions with results from a Millenneum Nikkor 50/1.4 (ranked by most people as having performance in the same class as its most modern Leitz counterpart) and a classic 50/1.4 Nikkor, which seems to have slightly more contrast and sharpness, and less smooth out-of-focus areas.
I know from personal experience that there is sample variation on the postwar Zeiss Sonnars.
I'm not one to do clinical lens comparisons, but on my next roll, I'll try to compare a few frames to the two Nikkors.
Now that I'm aware of the front focus issue, my first impression of muted micro-contrast might be related to that . . . All those shots were at my typical shooting distance for portraits, which is the bulk of my photography. In most cases, ideal focus is an inch or more in front of the eyes.
I'm comparing my impressions with results from a Millenneum Nikkor 50/1.4 (ranked by most people as having performance in the same class as its most modern Leitz counterpart) and a classic 50/1.4 Nikkor, which seems to have slightly more contrast and sharpness, and less smooth out-of-focus areas.
I know from personal experience that there is sample variation on the postwar Zeiss Sonnars.
I'm not one to do clinical lens comparisons, but on my next roll, I'll try to compare a few frames to the two Nikkors.
Xmas
Veteran
Vince
My post war sonnar is really good. I was startled that the H103 seemed better in same conditions, I will try some more tests.
Brians technique for a compromise shim setting is really good but you may need to hold out for the focal length adjustment for your girl's eye lashes.
I like your test shots...
I'm thinking about black paint for my H103, but I dont like stripping lenses.
Noel
My post war sonnar is really good. I was startled that the H103 seemed better in same conditions, I will try some more tests.
Brians technique for a compromise shim setting is really good but you may need to hold out for the focal length adjustment for your girl's eye lashes.
I like your test shots...
I'm thinking about black paint for my H103, but I dont like stripping lenses.
Noel
VinceC
Veteran
>>I was startled that the H103 seemed better in same conditions<<
I was very suprised at the quality of the lens, for reasons I have trouble describing. At risk of running into a vocabulary normally used for wine, if my Nikkors are crisp and tangy, then the Helios is rich and smooth.
I was very suprised at the quality of the lens, for reasons I have trouble describing. At risk of running into a vocabulary normally used for wine, if my Nikkors are crisp and tangy, then the Helios is rich and smooth.
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
Just before we left for Japan I got my Menopta 53f1.8 from Brian.There was just time to run a couple of rolls with it but it works very well. Even at f1.8 it is more than acceptable and stopped down it is as good as most of the other 50's that I have.
i have a brick (20 rolls) of Adox/KB 14 that is waiting for an extended period of sunny weather so that i try out some of these lenses. There is of course also the 4 rolls of Kodak unspecified film with an expiry date of May 1930 to test! My friend who gave it to me suggest a starting speed of 0,375 ASA!
i have a brick (20 rolls) of Adox/KB 14 that is waiting for an extended period of sunny weather so that i try out some of these lenses. There is of course also the 4 rolls of Kodak unspecified film with an expiry date of May 1930 to test! My friend who gave it to me suggest a starting speed of 0,375 ASA!
VinceC
Veteran
Live on the edge, Tom. Go ahead and push it to 0,65!
VinceC
Veteran
Oops.
Don't shoot the Helios into the sun.
I suppose a sunshade would help for the worst of these, but my Nikkors don't really need a shade in these conditions. The longer shot with the house in the background has the setting sun in the frame, and you can see some circular reflections near hear arm in the corner.
I've heard that the Helios is based on the Summicron and I've heard it's based on the Summarit. Does anyone know for sure which? Also, it's not a "clone" of either of those, because it's f/1.8, which I don't think exists in the Leitz world.
Don't shoot the Helios into the sun.
I suppose a sunshade would help for the worst of these, but my Nikkors don't really need a shade in these conditions. The longer shot with the house in the background has the setting sun in the frame, and you can see some circular reflections near hear arm in the corner.
I've heard that the Helios is based on the Summicron and I've heard it's based on the Summarit. Does anyone know for sure which? Also, it's not a "clone" of either of those, because it's f/1.8, which I don't think exists in the Leitz world.
Attachments
V
varjag
Guest
Helios-103 is a generic Planar derivative, not based on anything in particular.
It is prone to flare, although I never had such spectatular ones as in your examples. Maybe the difference in coating: some had neutral color coating and others with more typical magenta tint.
It is prone to flare, although I never had such spectatular ones as in your examples. Maybe the difference in coating: some had neutral color coating and others with more typical magenta tint.
Krosya
Konicaze
varjag said:
I don't know for sure, but according to following site Helios 103 is based on a Zeiss Biotar design.
http://rafcamera.com/helios103-lens-1853mm-for-kievcontax-bayonet-p-60.html
VinceC
Veteran
Thanks for the info. Mine has neutral coatings. It's from 1984.
V
varjag
Guest
Mine is neutral coated also, so must be something else (if any).
As a sidenote, I once disassembled mine. The optical assembly is rather well and precisely made, and blackening on the lens edges is very good matte black. Problem is, it's not applied on every edge! One can see where workers were cutting corners; makes me wonder how good the design could be in a place with higher manufacturing culture. I used a permanent marker as a quick fix and I'd say it improved the lens.
As for the "original" design there are several stories. Helios brand was adopted for all Planar-type designs (of which Biotar is a subtype). Witness the 85/1.5 Helios-40 for which there was no German prototype. My version is that Helios-44 50/2, the most common of them, was indeed copied from East German Biotar and the story stuck. I don't see why H-103 should've been a Biotar while it has shorter register distance and is of uncommon for the latter 1.8 aperture. Designing a double-gauss 50mm from scratch was comparatively simple task by 1980s anyway.
I don't have any firsthand info though, so take my opinion as such.
As a sidenote, I once disassembled mine. The optical assembly is rather well and precisely made, and blackening on the lens edges is very good matte black. Problem is, it's not applied on every edge! One can see where workers were cutting corners; makes me wonder how good the design could be in a place with higher manufacturing culture. I used a permanent marker as a quick fix and I'd say it improved the lens.
As for the "original" design there are several stories. Helios brand was adopted for all Planar-type designs (of which Biotar is a subtype). Witness the 85/1.5 Helios-40 for which there was no German prototype. My version is that Helios-44 50/2, the most common of them, was indeed copied from East German Biotar and the story stuck. I don't see why H-103 should've been a Biotar while it has shorter register distance and is of uncommon for the latter 1.8 aperture. Designing a double-gauss 50mm from scratch was comparatively simple task by 1980s anyway.
I don't have any firsthand info though, so take my opinion as such.
VinceC
Veteran
The Soviets could put people into space and build nuclear submarines. I think they were capable of designing a 53mm lens. Their economy had its idiosyncracies, but they weren't always slavish copy cats. Most of the camera models do have a "designed by committee" look that should be familiar to anyone who has spent much time in a very large bureaucracy.
Xmas
Veteran
Vince
The panzer army wanted a clone of the T-34 tank after they 'played' with it, it was still a viable tank at the close of WWII as the Red army forced the Berlin bridges.
The Helios is a late rationalised Biotar similar in layout to the late Planars/Summicrons, apart from non of them have much black paint... Neg with BS for a black paint job.
Noel
The panzer army wanted a clone of the T-34 tank after they 'played' with it, it was still a viable tank at the close of WWII as the Red army forced the Berlin bridges.
The Helios is a late rationalised Biotar similar in layout to the late Planars/Summicrons, apart from non of them have much black paint... Neg with BS for a black paint job.
Noel
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
VinceC said:
... ironic, isn't it?
