Helios 40-2 39mm adaptation

[Pete B]

I've bought a original version silver Helios 40 (EDIT: not Helios 40-2 I now think) with 39mm thread. I was hoping to use it on my Nikon FM3A via a 39 to 42 step up ring into a 42 to Nikon F adapter. Having received the lens, and holding it against the flange of the Nikon, I think I will be missing infinity focus by more than I expected. Can you suggest the best cheap film SLR (Zenit?) that will enable infinity focus. I intend to use the lens for portrait and full body images, so distant focus isn't too much of an issue; It just seems that it's going to be a bit limiting on the Nikon.
Pete

 

[mfogiel]

If I recall, on my Nikons this lens on an adapter could focus up to 3 meters, more than enough for a portrait, but check focus accuracy before shooting wide open, I was getting consistent back focus on most bodies.

 

[Pete B]

Yes, I'm thinking of Just buying a Zenit 3m unless there is a better alternative. Am I right thinking it won't focus to infinity on the later M42 Zenits via an adapter?
Pete

 

[f16sunshine]

Hi Pete

Skip the zenit. Get yourself a Pentax, Yashica/Contax, or Eos with AE and good metering.

With the correct adapters you can use this lens on a camera with a nice focus screen.
There is no auto aperture linkage in tge lens.
Why suffer an old dim vf ?

I used to have a 39mm copy of this lens.
Once the 39-42 adapter goes on it is difficult to remove.... which is fine.

It's a fine lens. I let mine go when I got the much smaller and lighter Zeiss biotar f1.5/75mm.
If not for tge biotar, I would still have the helios for that character those two lenses share.

Cheers!

 

[Pete B]

Woah there! You mean I can focus to infinity with either the Pentax or contax? I can buy one of the two camera bodies I've always been interested in, the MX or the S2???
Pete

 

[f16sunshine]

Woah there! You mean I can focus to infinity with either the Pentax or contax? I can buy one of the two camera bodies I've always been interested in, the MX or the S2??? Pete

It should. You may be a touch short or long of infinity depending on the lens and adapters.
The MX would be great although the lens is do heavy.
Make sure you find a brass m39-m42 ring.

 

[Pete B]

Ebay MX on its way!
Pete

 

[Wulfthari]

Yes, I'm thinking of Just buying a Zenit 3m unless there is a better alternative. Am I right thinking it won't focus to infinity on the later M42 Zenits via an adapter?
Pete

The Zenit 3m is a nice little camera (more or less as little as the MX) and pretty cute, if you can find its antecessor, the Kristall, it's even more funky, they are however early SLR so no return mirror, no focusing help (fresnel, split screens...nothing) but a good platform for these lenses.

If you want to use the Helios 40 on a M42 just buy the M42 version, you'll be happy. Sooner or later I'll get a Tair 11 for my Krystall.

 

[Pete B]

The Pentax MX arrived, and the lens Using a 39mm to 42mm adapter into the Pentax 42mm to K adapter does seem to focus very close to infinity. Unfortunately, the MX wasn't firing right so has gone to hospital for a couple of weeks.
(The adapter for the Nikon arrived and, as predicted, wouldn't focus more than 5 metres away).
Pete

Scan-150611-0004 by Pete, on Flickr


Scan-150611-0001b by Pete, on Flickr

 

[Sarcophilus Harrisii]

Hi Pete

Skip the zenit. Get yourself a Pentax, Yashica/Contax, or Eos with AE and good metering.

With the correct adapters you can use this lens on a camera with a nice focus screen.
There is no auto aperture linkage in tge lens.
Why suffer an old dim vf ?

I used to have a 39mm copy of this lens.
Once the 39-42 adapter goes on it is difficult to remove.... which is fine.

It's a fine lens. I let mine go when I got the much smaller and lighter Zeiss biotar f1.5/75mm.
If not for tge biotar, I would still have the helios for that character those two lenses share.

Cheers!

Sorry, I have to take issue with this. Nobody is going to suggest the 3-M is the ultimate SLR, with its restrictive range of shutter speeds. But I've got one and its simple plain ground glass screen is pure delight to use, very crisp and effective. Perhaps not the brightest ever made (this is always relative) but it's far from unusable. What is much more of a consideration, I would suggest, is its mediocre percentage of frame coverage: 75-80% or so? You frequently do have to frame tight. But it's a lovely focusing screen, and microprism spot or split RF aids aren't missed at all.

The same problem is often mentioned in association with another eastern bloc SLR, the Contax S/D. Again, there is more to the effectiveness of a focus screen than just its brightness. I have a Contax D, and it may just have the best ground glass (actually, the lower surface of the pentprism) that I've ever used.
Cheers,
Brett

 

[Peter de Waal]

The Zenit 3 has a brighter and slightly larger finder than the 3M if you can find one. The 3M has a field of vision of '20x28 mm' which works out to 79% of the full frame diagonal.

The problem with using the older Helios-40 on a Pentax is the flange focal length of Zenit L39 lenses is 45.2mm rather than the normal 45.5mm of M42-mount cameras.

The Zenit factory site advises this is a problem on the longer focal lengths:

http://www.zenitcamera.com/mans/instr-M39-M42/instr-M39-M42.html

if you use a translator you get workable instructions for this task.

 

[Wulfthari]

Sorry, I have to take issue with this. Nobody is going to suggest the 3-M is the ultimate SLR, with its restrictive range of shutter speeds. But I've got one and its simple plain ground glass screen is pure delight to use, very crisp and effective. Perhaps not the brightest ever made (this is always relative) but it's far from unusable. What is much more of a consideration, I would suggest, is its mediocre percentage of frame coverage: 75-80% or so? You frequently do have to frame tight. But it's a lovely focusing screen, and microprism spot or split RF aids aren't missed at all.

The same problem is often mentioned in association with another eastern bloc SLR, the Contax S/D. Again, there is more to the effectiveness of a focus screen than just its brightness. I have a Contax D, and it may just have the best ground glass (actually, the lower surface of the pentprism) that I've ever used.
Cheers,
Brett

For me the absence of microprism and split screen is a problem, on the other side I've never had any framing problems and the viewfinder is bright enough, at least wide open: not having an automatic diaphragm when you close it everything gets dark.

Shooting with these cameras makes me understand why at that time rangefinders were much more popular: easier and more precise focusing, you don't always have to advance the film lever to see inside the camera etc...until the late 50s it wasn't disputable that RFs were easier to operate, then the japanese developed the instant return mirror, microprisms, TTL metering etc...to make the SLR easier for everybody, and at the end of the 70s the last innovation, open metering signed the end of the RF era.

Still, the 3m/Kristal in good hands is fun to use.