oldhaven
Well-known
1936 Contax II "A" serial #, Helios 103
How good is the Helios 103?
- Thread starter Kevcaster
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 23
- Views 6K
Brambling
Well-known
Very correct - instead of thousands of words
Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
Agreed; photos really are worth a thousand words with stuff like this! Here's a direct comparison I did with its contemporary, a late Jupiter 8M on HP5+ some years ago:
Stupidly, I didn't note exposure, but I'm pretty sure these would have been at f/2. The Helios has noticeably more "swirl"; looking at optical diagrams, its design looks much closer to a Summar than a Summicron, so I can't say I'm surprised. Contrast is a tad higher, and detail tends to be sharper than its Sonnar-based brethren.
And actually testing it out HCB-style, wide-open on an M240 via Amedeo, you get this:
Edges can get a bit rough like that at f/1.8. I think that's too much of a stretch for this lens design. Here's another one at f/1.8, this time on a Leotax T2L and Fomapan 100; note the weirdness at the bottom of frame:
Once you get to f/2.8 or f/4 it's much better across the entire frame. This is at f/4 on a Kiev 4AM; terrible photo, but it shows how much better the edge sharpness is by this point.
And while I didn't log exposure for this, it was probably at f/5.6, and it's just as good as lenses ten or twenty times its price - and easily better than any other Soviet lens:
Definitely an under-rated lens. I wouldn't buy an Amedeo just to use the Helios, but having an Amedeo (or a working Contax or Kiev) makes picking up a Helios 103 a no-brainer.
Stupidly, I didn't note exposure, but I'm pretty sure these would have been at f/2. The Helios has noticeably more "swirl"; looking at optical diagrams, its design looks much closer to a Summar than a Summicron, so I can't say I'm surprised. Contrast is a tad higher, and detail tends to be sharper than its Sonnar-based brethren.
And actually testing it out HCB-style, wide-open on an M240 via Amedeo, you get this:
Edges can get a bit rough like that at f/1.8. I think that's too much of a stretch for this lens design. Here's another one at f/1.8, this time on a Leotax T2L and Fomapan 100; note the weirdness at the bottom of frame:
Once you get to f/2.8 or f/4 it's much better across the entire frame. This is at f/4 on a Kiev 4AM; terrible photo, but it shows how much better the edge sharpness is by this point.
And while I didn't log exposure for this, it was probably at f/5.6, and it's just as good as lenses ten or twenty times its price - and easily better than any other Soviet lens:
Definitely an under-rated lens. I wouldn't buy an Amedeo just to use the Helios, but having an Amedeo (or a working Contax or Kiev) makes picking up a Helios 103 a no-brainer.
Valkir1987
Well-known
Taken with the Kiev 4am a little while ago on Provia 100f.
Thread viewers
Similar threads
