Kevcaster
Well-known
I grabbed a dysfunctional, and therefore cheap, Contax lla from eBay. With the help of multiple forum members I managed to restore the functions and now need a lens for it.
I have a 1961 F2.0 Zeiss Sonnar on a llla and wondered if this Russian bargain would do a good enough job compared with the Zeiss jewel.
I will post up the evidence in a moment once Flickr has resolved the upload problems currently being experienced. In the interim, let's look at the mechanics. This lens is new, bought from Rafcamera trading on eBay out of Novopolotsk, Belarus. The current price is $32 plus $12 shipping. It arrived in a circular black plastic keeper with the original, and now degraded, foam packing and a certificate in Russian cyrillic with a 1984 date stamp.
The appearance is good, bright aluminium with a black anodised aperture ring and click stops! The lens is clean and clear although there is some oil on the aperture blades.
The mount retaining screws stand proud and catch your fingers as you mount the lens, I suspect that one more assembly step was cut out drilling a seat for these but have not investigated as yet.
The bayonet itself is inaccurately milled and the lens wobbles on the Contax mount, the bayonet leaves are cut such that they sit away from the internal seat by a small but significant amount. In addition the lens catch is slightly smaller than the Zeiss allowing the lens to twist from side to side by a fraction when on the camera. It therefore feels a little insecure and lacking in the precision of the Zeiss lens. I prised the bayonet leaves in and they now locate on the seat more securely improving the handling experience. This material is aluminium not chrome as is the Zeiss and I expect it to wear with use.
The weight compares with the Zeiss at 158gms and Helios 156gms.
In use the Helios scores major points over the Zeiss for two reasons. The aperture control has click stops and, they are clearly marked and readable. The Zeiss scores as the focusing knurling is slightly easier to grab and away from the aperture control, which on the Helios encroaches on the focusing area.
Flickr still down so I will post results later, as a clue: Without a reference I cannot tell the negatives apart. For my purposes the pictures are equally good.
Kevin
I have a 1961 F2.0 Zeiss Sonnar on a llla and wondered if this Russian bargain would do a good enough job compared with the Zeiss jewel.
I will post up the evidence in a moment once Flickr has resolved the upload problems currently being experienced. In the interim, let's look at the mechanics. This lens is new, bought from Rafcamera trading on eBay out of Novopolotsk, Belarus. The current price is $32 plus $12 shipping. It arrived in a circular black plastic keeper with the original, and now degraded, foam packing and a certificate in Russian cyrillic with a 1984 date stamp.
The appearance is good, bright aluminium with a black anodised aperture ring and click stops! The lens is clean and clear although there is some oil on the aperture blades.
The mount retaining screws stand proud and catch your fingers as you mount the lens, I suspect that one more assembly step was cut out drilling a seat for these but have not investigated as yet.
The bayonet itself is inaccurately milled and the lens wobbles on the Contax mount, the bayonet leaves are cut such that they sit away from the internal seat by a small but significant amount. In addition the lens catch is slightly smaller than the Zeiss allowing the lens to twist from side to side by a fraction when on the camera. It therefore feels a little insecure and lacking in the precision of the Zeiss lens. I prised the bayonet leaves in and they now locate on the seat more securely improving the handling experience. This material is aluminium not chrome as is the Zeiss and I expect it to wear with use.
The weight compares with the Zeiss at 158gms and Helios 156gms.
In use the Helios scores major points over the Zeiss for two reasons. The aperture control has click stops and, they are clearly marked and readable. The Zeiss scores as the focusing knurling is slightly easier to grab and away from the aperture control, which on the Helios encroaches on the focusing area.
Flickr still down so I will post results later, as a clue: Without a reference I cannot tell the negatives apart. For my purposes the pictures are equally good.
Kevin
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
Mine is pretty good, but it visibly is a more modern lens than the Sonnars - that is, there is little difference (in image quality and properties) to any 70s/80s vintage 50mm Nikon, Canon or Leica lens. I like it, very much so, but people from the bokeh front might prefer the Sonnar.
Highway 61
Revisited
I'm pretty sure you know this already, yet... who knows :
http://www3.telus.net/public/rpnchbck/Helios%20103%20dismantle.html
The lens catch machining QC is of no real effect re. the lens wobble. Basically the catch is there so that you don't lose the lens while grabbing it for focusing, but I once adjusted the bayonet tabs of a Nikkor-S-C 50/1.4 on which the catch was broken and then the lens didn't budge at all, feeling very secure in spite of its missing catch.
Here you go :
http://www3.telus.net/public/rpnchbck/loose inner lens mount.html
Sorry again if you know Russ' site already...
http://www3.telus.net/public/rpnchbck/Helios%20103%20dismantle.html
The lens catch machining QC is of no real effect re. the lens wobble. Basically the catch is there so that you don't lose the lens while grabbing it for focusing, but I once adjusted the bayonet tabs of a Nikkor-S-C 50/1.4 on which the catch was broken and then the lens didn't budge at all, feeling very secure in spite of its missing catch.
Here you go :
http://www3.telus.net/public/rpnchbck/loose inner lens mount.html
Sorry again if you know Russ' site already...
KoNickon
Nick Merritt
I have a couple of these lenses and have been most impressed with them. Can't say that I have done a direct comparison with the Sonnars, but I like the results from the Helios.
Can you explain what you mean by the "bayonet leaves"? You're maybe referring to the flanges on the lens that engage the internal lens mount? If so, it sounds like you bent those out from the lens body slightly, correct? I note that they are largely cut out from the lens body, so could be bent -- though I'd worry about fatiguing the metal.
Can you explain what you mean by the "bayonet leaves"? You're maybe referring to the flanges on the lens that engage the internal lens mount? If so, it sounds like you bent those out from the lens body slightly, correct? I note that they are largely cut out from the lens body, so could be bent -- though I'd worry about fatiguing the metal.
Highway 61
Revisited
Bayonet leaves = bayonet tabs = bayonet flanges = bayonet sectors.
Kevcaster
Well-known
I'm pretty sure you know this already, yet... who knows :
http://www3.telus.net/public/rpnchbck/Helios%20103%20dismantle.html
The lens catch machining QC is of no real effect re. the lens wobble. Basically the catch is there so that you don't lose the lens while grabbing it for focusing, but I once adjusted the bayonet tabs of a Nikkor-S-C 50/1.4 on which the catch was broken and then the lens didn't budge at all, feeling very secure in spite of its missing catch.
Here you go :
http://www3.telus.net/public/rpnchbck/loose inner lens mount.html
Sorry again if you know Russ' site already...
Ah, that's useful. I may tackle the cleaning of the internal surfaces. I'll need a lens spanner.
Thanks
Kevin
Kevcaster
Well-known
Yes, I don't know what to call then. Tabs I suppose, they locate against the focus mount to hold the lens in as you surmise.
I'm totally impressed with the performance of the lens and it should go the distance.
Kevin
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
Back in the summer of 2012, I tested a Helios 103 against a very late model 50mm Summicron.
I shot both the lenses at the same targets in the same lighting at the same aperture. Close focus, full-length portrait distance, medium distance about 20ft and infinity.
In a blind comparison I showed the images to some friends and the Helios only fell short against the Summicron at infinity using apertures wider than f/5.6. Up close, the images were not identical but very sharp. Both had a different look but neither were displeasing.
So my $12 lens held its own against one that cost a few thousand on an M9.
It was good enough for me after that and then I sold all my Leica gear except one sentimental camera, traveled across the country and bought an old Mercedes-Benz.
Phil Forrest
I shot both the lenses at the same targets in the same lighting at the same aperture. Close focus, full-length portrait distance, medium distance about 20ft and infinity.
In a blind comparison I showed the images to some friends and the Helios only fell short against the Summicron at infinity using apertures wider than f/5.6. Up close, the images were not identical but very sharp. Both had a different look but neither were displeasing.
So my $12 lens held its own against one that cost a few thousand on an M9.
It was good enough for me after that and then I sold all my Leica gear except one sentimental camera, traveled across the country and bought an old Mercedes-Benz.
Phil Forrest
Kevcaster
Well-known
Love it Phil, old Mercedes for bag full of gear!
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
Actually, selling the M9 and 35mm pre-asph Summilux bought me a Nikon SP, a 10.5cm Nikkor, 2.8cm Nikkor, 3.5cm f/1.8 Nikkor, 13.5cm Nikkor, 21mm CV Skopar S AND a 1978 Mercedes 300D as well as every rubber bushing on that car which needed replacing.
Phil Forrest
Kevcaster
Well-known
OK, now that is a good result. Nice outfit capable of doing whatever the Leica stuff could.
Many years ago I saw an exhibition of photographs by a New York photographer called George Forss. I bought the book and learned that he used thrift shop cameras of one stripe or other, whatever was working. He produced his own prints, rich and powerful, which he had been selling on the streets of New York. No Leicas, Nikons or Canons and a rudimentary darkroom. That will not be me. I love the mojo of a beautiful mechanical device, and I suppose both the Nikon and the Mercedes fits that bill
Many years ago I saw an exhibition of photographs by a New York photographer called George Forss. I bought the book and learned that he used thrift shop cameras of one stripe or other, whatever was working. He produced his own prints, rich and powerful, which he had been selling on the streets of New York. No Leicas, Nikons or Canons and a rudimentary darkroom. That will not be me. I love the mojo of a beautiful mechanical device, and I suppose both the Nikon and the Mercedes fits that bill
Moto-Uno
Moto-Uno
^ Well the Nikon anyway! Peter
Kevcaster
Well-known
First 'live' photo. FP4 in Rodinal.
Plenty of issues with this shutter, a series of blank frames and signs of hesitancy or 'bounce'
Kevcaster
Well-known
Kevcaster
Well-known
Significant flare from the Helios. Time for a clean I think.
Update:
I disassembled this lens as far as I could and took a look at it. The machining was woefully rough and there was a small amount of micro aluminium debris around. The inside front retaining ring had no retaining grub screw and was swipe-glued into the mount with super-glue or possibly clear nail varnish. I wonder, was this a factory job, or a later feature?
The elements available to me were spotless so the flare was not from this source, I believe that it is built in to the design. In addition, this lens purchased as new on eBay from the Ukraine had evidence of having been opened up after it left the factory. There were two small fibres held between the front elements, looks like the fibres from cotton buds, that I also assume were not factory fitments. My conclusion is that these late model lenses were possible unsold factory stock and/or parts completed elsewhere and then sold as new. I put this in front of you as knowledge for your own purposes.
Overall, I am still pleased with the performance of this lens and follow my brother's advice, 'don't point it at the sun"
Kevin
Update:
I disassembled this lens as far as I could and took a look at it. The machining was woefully rough and there was a small amount of micro aluminium debris around. The inside front retaining ring had no retaining grub screw and was swipe-glued into the mount with super-glue or possibly clear nail varnish. I wonder, was this a factory job, or a later feature?
The elements available to me were spotless so the flare was not from this source, I believe that it is built in to the design. In addition, this lens purchased as new on eBay from the Ukraine had evidence of having been opened up after it left the factory. There were two small fibres held between the front elements, looks like the fibres from cotton buds, that I also assume were not factory fitments. My conclusion is that these late model lenses were possible unsold factory stock and/or parts completed elsewhere and then sold as new. I put this in front of you as knowledge for your own purposes.
Overall, I am still pleased with the performance of this lens and follow my brother's advice, 'don't point it at the sun"
Kevin