Just for fun: Soviet Lens on a Leica M 240 -- can you tell?

[bobby_novatron]

Hi All,

Just thought I'd engage in a fun experiment on a Monday afternoon.

I recently bought a Contax "Contaflex" m-mount adapter from CameraQuest so I could use a post-WW II CZ Sonnar 50/1.5 I have. The Sonnar works great on the M 240, glad I got the adapter. Originally the Sonnar came from a Contax IIa that I own.

Anyway, I got to thinking: what about that old Kiev camera I have in the cupboard? It has a 1984-vintage Helios lens -- why not try it?

So I mounted the "Helios-103" lens on the Contax-to-M adapter and shot a few pics on the M 240. For comparison, I took a few pics with my Leica Summicron 50/2 v.4 as a "standard".

Of course, this is just entirely unscientific and purely in the spirit of fun. Which photo do you think is which? One is the Helios-103, the other is the Summicron. Both were shot at F4, straight conversion from DNG out of the camera, no editing. Focus point was on the grey card pattern. The final files were reduced in size, and the EXIF data removed, just to add to the mystery.

Happy guessing! I'll reveal the answer later tonight.

Photo #1

Photo #2

 

[rfaspen]

I think I know. My guess is based on the focal length (FL) of each lens and the effect FL has on DOF. The first photo appears to have a shallower DOF which, given the same aperture and same focus point, would suggest the Helios lens with its 58mm FL. I don't see any real difference in sharpness or contrast. I think I see a difference in color rendition.

I like lens comparisons such as this. Gives me confidence to mount some of my "lesser" lenses and go out and shoot them as though they were "real" lenses. Of course, all that "lesser" and "real" is just in my head. Lenses either perform or not; shouldn't get wrapped up in brand, country of origin, age, etc.

 

[bobby_novatron]

Hi rfaspen -- I agree with you 100%. Sometimes these 'lesser' lenses can surprise you. I shot the Helios-103 in different situations this past weekend and I was pleasantly surprised at its performance.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Nice collection you have on the picture 🙂
1984 is not a vintage. The lens is know to be sharp and contrasty. Kind of clinically, I let it go quickly.
#2 seems to be more sharp in the middle, #1 feels to be soft on the left.
If 103 is not the first one, it seems to be a trouble...

 

[ferider]

My giuess is the 1st being the Summicron, the 2nd the Helios (based on the focal length and the Moire in the center of the first picture).

Not 100% confident as the focal plane in the first picture is a bit further back.

Roland.

 

[edge100]

If #2 isn't the Summicron, I'll eat my hat.

 

[JP Owens]

I'm guessing #2 is the Summicron, also. But, it's very close.

The problem with Russian lenses isn't that they are Russian lenses, per se, but that they are so variable because of QC issues. I've had (and have kept) Russian lenses that were extraordinarily good, and Russian lenses that the best efforts of good repair persons couldn't make right.

 

[paachi]

#2 is summicron

 

[skibeerr]

#2 is the summicron

based on color rendition and oof areas.

 

[maddoc]

#2 the Helios.

 

[edge100]

I'm guessing #2 is the Summicron, also. But, it's very close.

The problem with Russian lenses isn't that they are Russian lenses, per se, but that they are so variable because of QC issues. I've had (and have kept) Russian lenses that were extraordinarily good, and Russian lenses that the best efforts of good repair persons couldn't make right.

I don't think it's close at all. #1 is dramatically softer virtually everywhere, but especially in the lower left.

 

[Particular]

#2 is the summicron.

I did a comparison last year between a v4 summicron and a jupiter 8, and I (think I) see similar differences. #2 is contrastier, has more even sharpness towards the edge, and has a more 3d look.

 

[bobby_novatron]

And finally, without fanfare: the answer.

#1 is the Helios-103 53/1.8 from 1984

#2 is the Leica Summicron-m 50/2 ver.4

I apologize for the slight differences in focus / composition between the two photos, as I said in the beginning, I was doing this exercise more out of curiosity than to pixel-peep or run MTF tests.

Today I shot a bunch of shots with the Helios-103 on my M 240, and used a 'Lomo' 0.9 ND filter. So the filter and lens were both products of superior Socialist labour. 😉

Honestly, I was very surprised at how well the Helios-103 performed. It's very sharp, even wide open. Sure, the background blurs into a busy and not-attractive burble, but for a change-of-pace and different character, the Helios-103 definitely delivered.

Here's a couple more samples from today. Thanks to everyone who looked at my post and tried the guessing game.

Both of these examples were shot wide-open at F1.8, with no post-processing apart from RAW to JPEG conversion in Adobe.

 

[ferider]

Is that your 64.5, Bobby ? Nice, and a rare original color too ! (mine is a year younger)

 

[goamules]

I like these types of comparisons too. I've compared Sonnars in LTM from 4 different companies, A Canon 35/2 vs a Pen-F 38/1.8, and more. In most cases people select the best picture, and assume it's the more known and prestigious lens. But they are often wrong. The top picture looked pretty poor to me, so I guessed it had to be the Helios. But some of my other FSU lenses outperform known "good" lenses.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Who cares? By the time you've strained it through a monitor it would need to be a REALLY bad lens for it to matter.

Make a decent print and it's another matter.

Cheers,

R.

 

[sevo]

Different focal plane. Under these circumstances it might even be the same lens...

 

[Huss]

Who cares? By the time you've strained it through a monitor it would need to be a REALLY bad lens for it to matter.

Make a decent print and it's another matter.

Cheers,

R.

"Paging Killjoy. Killjoy to the courtesy phone.."

 

[Roger Hicks]

"Paging Killjoy. Killjoy to the courtesy phone.."

If you can't do better than that, don't bother.

Cheers,

R.

 

[bobby_novatron]

In response to ferider, no unfortunately it isn't my Mustang -- it belongs to an acquaintance. I don't think he's ever going to get around to restoring it but it makes a good subject for a shoot. You're right, it is an unusual colour.

I thought I would do another lens comparison (again, all in good fun) between two Soviet-era lenses.

I chose two lenses that I have in Contax / Kiev mount: the Helios-103 and the Jupiter-8.

See the two photos below. They are out-of-camera images, and somewhat contrasty -- but this seems to be the way my M 240 renders in general.

No edits were made to the images, apart from cropping. And this time I used a tripod and was very careful about the focal plane. As opposed to Ken Rockwell, who likes to talk about focusing on his 'phased lattice', I focused on the 'Industar' writing on the front of the Fed-2 camera.

Both photos were taken at F4, which explains some of the softness. But I wanted to see if there was any difference in 'bokeh' and colour cast to each lens. IMHO the Helios-103 is a better performer than the Jupiter-8.

Sample #1: the Helios-103

Sample #2: the Jupiter-8