Helios 103

[Mauro]

I have just received a Helios 103 lens for my Kiev 4, and I like to read your opinions on it.
It is said this lens is better than the Jupiter 8 with colour films: is it true?
I own both these lenses: should I use J8 with B&W, and Helios with Colour films?

ciao from Italy!
Mauro

 

[varjag]

I would suggest to use Helios-103 both for BW and color. Sonnar bokeh is the only advantage J-8 has over it: sharp part of the image is much better done by the Helios

 

[ed1k]

Eugene:
My words would be quite opposite. I like slight warm hint my J8M produces with colour film, though I'm not colour shooter. My J8 is much sharper than H-103 I tried (and didn't buy that lens for this reason), yet it gives much more pleasant bokeh.
Mauro:
Characteristic of vintage FSU lens well depends on condition of lens and original quality. There was a few factories in USSR that manufactured J8 lenses, and every factory used slightly different glass, coating and mechanical parts; moreover all these changed over the years.
Try both H-103 and J8 shooting a test roll, and then make a decission depending on particular examples of the lenses which you have.
Interestingly, for J8 and J9 I have, I've chosen lenses made by Arsenal - same factory symbol on lens as you can find on acessory shoe of your Kiev. According to city legends, these lenses should be worse than from KMZ or LZOS... but this doesn't follow my try outs where KMZ and LZOS lenses were presented as well (probably I just got bad samples).
Eduard

 

[oscroft]

Hi Eduard,

Interestingly, for J8 and J9 I have, I've chosen lenses made by Arsenal - same factory symbol on lens as you can find on acessory shoe of your Kiev. According to city legends, these lenses should be worse than from KMZ or LZOS... but this doesn't follow my try outs where KMZ and LZOS lenses were presented as well

How do you find out which factory your J-8 was made in? (I don't have a Kiev to check the symbol on the accessory shoe - and my J-8 is an LTM one).

 

[ed1k]

Alan,
For example, bottom of this page has FSU manufacturer symbols
http://www.commiecameras.com/sov/index.htm
I don't think Arsenal produced any lenses in LTM mount. Likely yours is from KMZ or LZOS.

 

[Mauro]

Dear friends, thanks for your explanation.
My Helios 103 is a brand new lens with its factory passport; it shows the same logo stamped on the J8.
I will test them with different rolls: the result will follow of course.

Thanks!

 

[ed1k]

Mauro:
Change lens in the middle of roll and shoot the same subjects with different lens - you'll have same emulsion and same processing, just from leader to, say, frame #12 will be Helios and frames # 13-24 will be Jupiter. Two different rolls doesn't sound like good idea to me.
You made me wonder what's "double P" ;o)
Eduard

 

[varjag]

Eduard, sample variation indeed is present, but by the factory specs H-103 has noticeably higher resolution. For a fair comparision a test at maximum apertures is a must, and of the two (different age, but none really early tho) J-8 samples I tried noone came close to the Helios. From f/4 and above there really isn't that much difference. But there's no warranty that you wouldn't get a dud of course.

 

[colyn]

I have just received a Helios 103 lens for my Kiev 4, and I like to read your opinions on it.
It is said this lens is better than the Jupiter 8 with colour films: is it true?
I own both these lenses: should I use J8 with B&W, and Helios with Colour films?

ciao from Italy!
Mauro

I have both the J-8 and Helios and to be honest the only real difference I can see is the Helios is very slightly more contrasty.

I use both for color and black & white with excellent results.

 

[vrgard]

Without meaning to disagree with any of the other posters above, and understanding the issue of sample variation, a simple test of my samples of these lenses (J8 vs Helios 103) showed the Helios to be sharper. Test was using a single roll where I took a series of shots then swapped lenses and then took the same series of shots.

-Randy

 

[Marc-A.]

I would suggest to use Helios-103 both for BW and color. Sonnar bokeh is the only advantage J-8 has over it: sharp part of the image is much better done by the Helios

I second each word!
I've test the J8 and the H103 on my new Kiev and the difference between the two lenses is obvious. Sharpness, contrast for the H103; creamy bokeh and softness for the J8; I'll use the J8 for some portraits, but definitely the H103 is better.
Best,
Marc

 

[oscroft]

For example, bottom of this page has FSU manufacturer symbols
http://www.commiecameras.com/sov/index.htm
I don't think Arsenal produced any lenses in LTM mount. Likely yours is from KMZ or LZOS

Great, thanks - my J-8 is a KMZ one.

 

[varjag]

H-103 is not bokeh king for sure, but I would qualify it as tolerable. It clearly exhibits "doubling" of an over-corrected Planar, but this is most noticeable when there are inscriptions or other regular contrasty patterns in OOF area. The lens is not in Sonnar smoothness league, but neither that bad as to prevent taking a casual portrait when there's no J-9 with me.

 

[ed1k]

Eduard, sample variation indeed is present, but by the factory specs H-103 has noticeably higher resolution. For a fair comparision a test at maximum apertures is a must, and of the two (different age, but none really early tho) J-8 samples I tried noone came close to the Helios. From f/4 and above there really isn't that much difference. But there's no warranty that you wouldn't get a dud of course.

I didn't say H103 gives blurry image and J8 is razor sharp. What I said J8 could be reasonable sharp, sometimes even better than H103. If saying "factory specs" you mean technical requirements which is also known as TU (in cyrillic TY-blah-blah-YY; blah-blah is a number encoding item and YY is a year these TU were released), I'm very aware of TU. When I was young I maintained a massive chart of soviet lens specs in my notebook, mostly picking up information from publications in "Sovetskoe Foto" magazine. I did that for very simple reason - I didn't want to buy a lens which has poor technical characteristics. Once I was asked why I didn't consider buying Jupiters and I replied that reason is their poor resolution. Then a couple of passports for Jupiter lenses were produced to me. Passport, as you know, is a small paper stating number of lens, which TU it meets, when it was manufactured/sold, stamp OTK (OTK means QA) and sometimes measured resolution during factory tests. These two had hand written resolution in lpm center/edge. I didn't touch my notebook since and I don't know if my mom still keep it in a pile of junk I left. Should I say those Jupiters had better measured resolution than my considered sharp lenses (also measured data from passports). I know that many Jupiters were as bad as advertised in TU, and I believe I know how that man got those exceptional lenses... you know, normally you can't check 10 or 20 passports to pick up the best, but sometimes it was possible.
Returning to original question that was asked I still think the best approach is to test. Mauro already has two lenses, so there is no problem to test them.
I'm sorry to hear you had two bad J8 samples. Keep looking and you'll find one. Mine is J8M, from 1979...
On related note, I was looking for J9 this summer. I tested 3 different lenses:
1) Good, usual J9 as one can dream. Very narrow DOF at f/2 but definetely sharp. Slightly low contrast which could be strong point for portrait lens.
2) Good, but something unusual in drawing. At glance it seems more sharp than #1, but looking closer it's not sharper but contrast is unusually high for J9. And picture has some 3D look... I spent couple of hours looking and comparing boring test pics and decided this lens gives some tonal perspective, that's why image doesn't look as flat as with #1.
3) Soap. There was no DOF up to f/4 because there was no focus point - everything was blurry. At f/4 it was close to #1 and #2 at f/2 and at f/8 one could think this is quite acceptable lens if didn't see first two.
They all met once the same TU, they all were manufactured just 1 year apart, but soooo different. I bought #2 though it was not best lens mechanically from samples the seller provided.

Attachments: J8M, ProFoto 100, f/2 1/1000. Original negative (yes I have problems with framing ), rotated and cropped pic, 100% pic fragment scanned @3200 dpi if we talk about sharpnes. You can see narrow DOF, poppy flower is sharp everything else blury.

Eduard.

 

[Marc-A.]

Just a sample from my first roll with new H103. Make your opinion.
Marc

Kiev II, H103, TriX

 

[varjag]

Eduard, I am cetrainly aware of the passports; in fact I have the original passports for my mid-1950s J-9 and J-11 (both above TU, and excellent performers). That's what I mean by sample variation. They have stopped putting actual measured figures into passports somewhere in 1970s, maybe to avoid "passport scouting" by conscious buyers, or to cover the dive in production quality.

Still, assuming that both lenses are built to same standard and measured with same methodology, one with better calculated resolution (per TU) would likely have it better in practice. Also, given same magnitude of sample variation, the "better" type of lens will have both peaks and lows higher than the other, and better average value. Whether magnitude is really the same however, is a big question.

Your lens looks very convincing sharpness-wise, exibiting perhaps as much resolution as you would need in practice. Don't think the H-103 I have performs a slightest bit worse tho, and I just took the first offered by seller without comparisions and tests. Both my J-8M samples were from mid-70s, none of them performed particularly well, giving very low contrast and not too sharp picture. I kept one that came with camera for sake of completeness. Now I got J-3 specifically for Sonnar look on 50 and half an extra stop, I hope it will be a good performer.

 

[ed1k]

Don't think the H-103 I have performs a slightest bit worse tho, and I just took the first offered by seller without comparisions and tests

Just to clarify - I tested J9's, I got J8 with a camera body as it was usually sold in SU. No test, no comparisons, first offer and pure luck. Here and elsewhere I've read you don't believe J8 could be sharp. As well as I remember reading other people opinions on net that Sonar design in general has poor resolution, so be happy with 10 lpm you have at f/2. That simple isn't true. Yes, there is trade off between resolution and other parameters for every optical design and among them. But would be no Sonar lenses if they performed as bad as some Jupiters do.
Yes, I 100% agree with you that 90% of H103 will have better resolution than J8. But if difference is only marginal, I'd prefer J8.
I hope J-3 you got is a good one. I was looking for one too, but didn't find... I mean locally, in Kiev/Kharkov or Toronto, for reasonable price and ability to test prior buying
Eduard.

 

[varjag]

Well, the reputation of the lens is built from general opinion of its userbase. I admit to never doing any statistically meaningful sampling of J-8s but that two pieces I had opportunity to check confirmed to me the general opinion. If, say, 70% of the lenses have poor sharpness or prone to flare, it receives according reputation among users, and it is hardly undeserved.

There was that well-documented case with Helios-44, standard lens for many Soviet SLRs, of somewhat poor repute. In response to numerous readers' complaints to "Soviet Photo", the magazine was presented an "adjustment sample" from KMZ, apparently used at assembly line to check other lenses against. This was absolutely first class lens of stunning performance. Too bad that majority of H-44 were never close to that level.

 

[ed1k]

LOL! Though I don't personally know statistically meaningful number of J8 owners, most of them are very happy with sharpness of this lens. I still think my J8 isn't exceptional but an average lens...
Good example with Helios-44 (of course, I have H-44-M4 bought with my Zenit-11... but I left it in Ukraine as I didn't touch it for years), and this time I don't know any one who would be happy with H-44. How strange...
Eduard.

 

[varjag]

Notice I didn't say Jupiter 8 is a bad lens, just that H-103 tends to be better This was just my unscientific conclusion, based on limited personal experience. I have nothing against Jupiter designs, it's just my draw of J-8s has been underwhelming, and by that I only mean wide-open performance: they get ok-ish at 2.8 and just fine at f/4. I am not alone in my opinion though, even here if you scroll up you can find similar sentiments. Can't be just my bad influence

Ultimately, one should test what is available and pick the better performer. I still think though that in a blind pick you'll have better luck with the Helios.