You SHOULDN'T Buy This Vintage Lens - And FOUR YOU SHOULD!
Вставка
- Опубліковано 25 сер 2024
- This week, four very affordable vintage lenses, each of which have an abundance of character, and each of which will make some astonishing images.
Plus - one vintage lens that turned out to be a little disappointing!
This week's lenses are: Meyer Optik Domiplan 30mm f2.8, Sirius 80-200mm f4.5-f5.6, Helios 44-3 58mm f2, Meyer Optik Oreston 50mm f1.8 and Helios 135mm f2.8
Check out the video to find out which are the winners - and which is the loser!
Help this channel to grow and develop at: www.patreon.co...
Thanks for this.
That Helios135 f2.8 at first glance reminds me of the Minolta Rokkor 135 f2.8, one which was made in the era of Leica-Minolta cooperation.
I don't have it with me at the moment and I miss it.
I know, the Minoltas unfortunately got spotted by the pack (eBay etc) and went up in price as they were always great lenses as some of us knew in the ancient 60’s and 70”s. I actually had a couple of Minolta twins, Autocords, which I bought as “Cheaper” than the Roli twins, always expensive, even in the early 70s. My Minoltas were crackers and used extensively for happy wedding couples photos, with the honoured 120 negs in favour then the Rokkors were great edge to edge and saturation. Anyway, I wander! As I so much admired the Rokkor lenses I bought a Tamaron 135, Minolta fit, fairly recently and hell, shot wide open it’s great in my opinion, having many nice Rokkor quality’s whilst giving a not so “bitingly” contrast sharp hit as the Rokkor, but giving softer well saturated interesting renderings: And, of course that useful “Reach” when used on my Sony 6000. Compact even with convertor and easy to carry. Funny how things work out.
Yep, not a Tessar. The Domiplan is triplet and as such brings the characteristic bokeh
Thanks for the info!
@@zenography7923 Would you consider doing a "best of breed" on Triplets and Tessars? I'd like to find a Cooke Triplet for a 35mm that will take a standard filter that is well made. That might be unlikely, but in a world of so many lenses, it might exist.
Hello Nigel,
The Domiplan is not a Tessar design, it is a simple Cooke triplet optik. The earlier, Meyer Optik 'Q1' branded lenses are sometimes said to be superior in optical quality, than the later, unbranded examples, such as the example shown, but I cannot confirm this.
Hi Peter, I didn't realise that, thanks for the info! By the way, I hope the images got through alright!
For what it's worth, the Q1 symbol on GDR products stands for 'First Quality'.
I have owned a Domiplan since the 1960s and it never lit any fires for me, but it works. I understand that in GDR days the Domiplan was made in numerous works in the Soviet controlled world, with the result that they vary wildly in quality. I don't know enough about that to identify any variations. Mine came with a Praktika Nova, that also still works, sometimes. There were four different standard lens offerings on that camera at the time, of which the top of the range was indeed the Tessar, but I can't remember what the intermediate offerings were.
@@jmtubbs1639 The Tessar standard was only F2.8 and not the most expensive; I think the Pentacon f1.8 cost more (though not much) and top dog was the F1.8 Pancolar.
@@christopherjackson2370 Agree those lenses were around but I don't remember them being offered on the standard Nova package range.
Video well done again.
I've just received the Domiplan this morning. After some shoots in the garden, I am extremely blown away by the quality of my copy. The color rendering, the bubble boket, and the sharpness are stunning. Very well fit on the Fuji XT1. Thanks for your advice on this video. It's a real pleasure to discover such a beautiful treasure. I admit that I prefer the character of a vintage lens over the new one from today.
To be continued.
The Domiplan and your X-T1 sounds like a fantastic combination - I'm glad you're discovering the qualities of the older lenses - technically less good but somehow more aesthetically pleasing!
I actually own Meyer-Optik Görlitz Domiplan 50mm f/2.8 taken of made in mid 70s Praktika camera (with some personal story attached to it) and just bought M42 adapter. Initial tests do not render that sharp of images, I need to play with it more. It seems to be the same glass you as you reviewed a newer perhaps improved version "Meyer Optik Domiplan 50mm f2.8" (and if not mistaken there is a typo on description). And thanks again for great review.
I'm a big fan of the Helios lenses myself. Really love the swirly bokeh look. The 13 blade m39 one has been on my watch list for a while, but it' a bit rare here in the states so people tend to over charge for it. Recently I picked up a 35mm Super Takumar lens for 38USD (probably around 20 pounds,) I've been really impressed with this lens, especially for how cheap it's going. Not compatible with full frame DSLRs but works fine with Crop sensor DSLRs and mirrorless cameras. It's made a wonderful little 70mm telephoto lens for my M4/3s camera.
Helios kicks ass. Screw the haters.... This is a lens fit for the gods.
I love the Helios 44, I've used it for many years, but I was surprised that this one didn't seem quite as nice, wide open, as my earlier kmz version. The super tak 35 is quite something isn't it?
Kevin, the takumar IS an 35 format lens, therefor you can use it with fullframe.....Aps didn't exist in those days the pentax takumar was manufactures
@@jens198363
It's not compatible because if you put it in infinity, the back element extends too far that the mirror catches on it, at least on the Canon full frames anyway. I fixed this by filing down the metal extending past the back element. I didn't mention this because I wouldn't recommend it to anyone unless they were very comfortable with doing that kind of work. On crop sensor Canon cameras, the mirror is farther back and won't catch. Also this is the reason why all mirrorless cameras are compatible with pretty much any lens because no mirror to catch and the lens is held farther from the front of the camera too.
@@kevinroberts1888 hello Kevin evidently I was refearing to the mirrorless system....on Dslr the mirror is indeed a problem...but the 35 Takumar per se, cover without problems an 24x36 sensor, thats what I meant...anyhow its fun adapting old lenses , so keep on with the fun😊
You might like the Helios 44-M4. It's as dreamy as the 44-2 but with stronger contrast.
Domiplan is a Cooke Triplet design. One of the oldest lens designs in Camera History. I would not pay a lot for one. I think I paid 10 or 15 US dollars for mine. Not a bad lens, considering it is a three element design.
I didn't realise that, thanks for the info!
The original Helios 44 (M39-mount) is truly a great lens, albeit a bit tricky to adapt (you may need to buy old Soviet macro rings to get the correct flange distance for focus to infinity, probably only possible on mirrorless).
I find its' sharpness and contrast a tad better than the 44-2, while maintaining the great swirly bokeh, which seems reduced by the 44M-4/-5/-6 models.
Highly recommended!
The Helios 44 with M39 mount has about 0,3mm less flange focal distance than the later Helios 44-2 M42 version. You can simply use a M39-M42 extension screw ring, and a slightly thinned M42 adapter ring. Then it will fit and focus to Dslr's. You should be aware that you might get mirror slap on full frame canon cameras at infinity focus. The mirror doesn't hit the glass lens, but the aluminium screw ring, attaching the rear lens to the assembly. In other words, can this be avoided (quite easy, if you are handy) by removing some of the metal protude behind the rear lens. On a mirrorless camera, you only need the slightly thinner adapter ring. On my Sony A7, I use a M42 to EF adapter, attached to a EF to Sony adapter. This way, the lens can be used both on my Canon 5Dmk2, and the Sony, without any problems.
Try reversing the front element I have done this with another of my old Helios 44-2 it helps create some amazingly different images. One of my favourite lenses at the moment 😊👍🏼
Nice video as ever is! Great work Nigel! We appreciate your magnificent contribution. Concerning the Helios 44-3, I have one of them from Belomo factory. I have the Helios 44-2, 44-6 as well. I have also tested some 44-4 and 44-5. I love all of them, but it seems it depends the quality of each unity. Same factories produced same Helios model, KMZ, Valdai, Belomo/MMZ. My 44-3 its a great lens! I prefer the click lenses to the preset because it's easier to use in photo.
Anyway as I said it seems the difference of the factory it's not the only fact but the quality of each production period. There are many bibliography and internet opinions about but I always had a great Helios. I don't like so much the 44-4 because its construction, for me its the less good, even if its nice. The 44-5 its almost the same as the 44-6, one of the best. I had sold the 44-5 because of that. I'm looking for the rare Helios 77 f1,8, the only real 50mm before the Zenitar!
Another great video, thank you. Just eBayed a Domiplan (c/w a bit of fungus for £8 :) to add to my collection. I've got 2 x 1.8 Orestons, both render colour really well. One is sharp (razor sharp, even wide open) however the other is a bit softer, as per your copy. Thanks for all you do, really got me hooked on vintage lenses especially the 44 Helios. Btw the MOG Orestegon 29mm f2.8 is definitely worth a road test if you haven't already given one a go.
Thanks, glad you enjoyed it! I guess there must be some variation in the MOG lenses - I've tried a 29mm on aps-c, where it worked very nicely as an effective 40mm!
What adapter do you use on which camera body? I have a Sony 7iii. Thanks..
@@raintree25 basic Canon EF to M42 adapters on Canon 10, 20, 30, 5D bodies.
My first camera was a Praktica Nova with the Domiplan zebra lens, I remember it was soft with slide film and negative film now this was in the late 60s/70s.
Now with Digital, I have a feeling that legacy lenses work better on digital and are rending images better than film.
I've been using Tamron lenses on my Olympus OMD 1 mk2 and getting excellent pictures.
Now I'm considering the Sony A7II full frame so I can use my collection of Minolta MD.
Quite often I've found that lenses that weren't much to write home about on film, can give rather nicer results on digital - which is after all an inherently sharper medium. A bonus, for sure!
Great Video as always,,, Have you tried the Jupiter 37a it is in my world one of the best overlooked lenses, shooosh.. Thank you for all that you do..
I know you appreciate suggestions for future videos so I thought I'd give you my idea: A video detailing which vintage lenses are and are not suitable for DSLR cameras.
Maybe I am the only one left shooting an old DSLR- and I do intend to get a mirrorless shortly- but I've found that most of the vintage lenses so far work fine (except the FD one) but I am a little nervous each time because I know that some simply won't work properly on a DSLR. It would be great to have a better handle on which ones I can get and which to avoid.
Though, obviously I can understand if there simply isn't enough call for such a video. But there's no harm in my suggesting it.
It really comes down to your flange distance, as to what will or will not work well with your DSLR. As long as any adapted lenses can still focus to infinity, and not sit so far away from your sensor so as to get near-sighted, then whatever works with mirrorless will work with your DSLR.
Not at all, suggestions always welcome, thanks!
Depends on the brand - very difficult to mount anything other than Nikon F on a Nikon, except with adapters with a glass element, which are not common. Most other brands easier to adapt to take non native lenses, eg canon can use Nikkors.
@@1davidpeter I do mean with adapters. Most of my vintage lenses are M42 with an adapter.
I have shot a Canon EOS 80D for about 4 years now and could adapt every lens that comes with M42 or Exakta mount. If you have a FF Canon DSLR, Exakta mount won't work because the mirror would hit the mount. But M42 works as long as nothing moves inside the camera behind the M42 mount, which might be the case with some Takumars.
If you shoot mirrorless you can adapt everything. I see why you are attached to you DSLR, and so was I. Perhaps I wouldn't have taken the step to go mirrorless if there wouldn't have been issues with my Canon. But now, with my Fuji, I am glad I had to.
Hi Nigel, my experience with the Helios 44-3 was the similar to yours, my copy was not very sharp wide open and it was prone to loose contrast easily. It really surprised me since the lens is MC and I found some pages claiming it was a great version in the Helios family... At the end I sold it and parted ways with it.
Probably my favorite version of the Helios lenses is the very early Helios 44 with Start bayonet (KMZ). I have 2 of them converted to Canon EF mount and I found them to be quite sharp and quite swirly wide open.
He should try the Helios 103 for the Contax mount. It is probably the sharpest Helios of all, but like most Russian / Ukrainian lenses it does not do well against the light.
Helios 83 50/2, or Arsat 50/2, is also a good choice. It is a Helios produced at the Kiev Arsenal and has a Nikon F mount.
When it comes to the quality of the coatings, Helios 77m7 is the best.
I've got a Start Helios from 1958. I believe they were the very first ones and had a unique mount.
The 2.8 Domiplan is a Cooke Triplet (first patented in the UK in 1993) and wide open can do really nice bubble bokeh.
Interesting. I bought a film camera last year and it came with a Helios 135mm f2.8 lens which has sat on a shelf ever since. (I use my Nikon 105mm f 2.5). But your video piqued my interest and I have to say I agree with all you've said. I'm going to give it a lot more use! I don't know if mine is different from yours though. The f stop numbers on mine are painted white and the aperture ring ring turns the opposite direction. F 2.8 on my aperture is at the same end as f 22 on your aperture ring.
Check out Jupiter-11A 135mm f/4. So the 11A, not the 11. It's not fast, but it focuses surprisingly close and then there's some other nice things... If you get one you'll see :)
44-3 is basically a 44-2 with Multicoating. It’s my preferred Helios actually because the coating is rather good (Atleast on my copy)
I have had the 44-2 I believe, and the current one I have now is 44-2-M, I prefer the smaller build of the previous model but the one I happened to get is in incredible shape and I mean near mint or excellent. Never knew there was a 44-3 and the difference was coatings.
@@bebopganymede I keep my 44-3 for my M42 cameras and a silver 44 for my ZM39 cameras that I was using today :) both are very useful but those 44-3’s can be a pain, I had to grind down mine because the focus ring fouled the body of a lot of cameras and adapters.
Indeed. I recently saw some pics by a Dutch friend shot on his 44-3 and they were very nice. Very like the 44-2 but a little sharper in his view. Perhaps Nigel got a dud.
@@arcanics1971 very possible, in my experience of collecting and shooting soviet cameras and lenses the quality definitely declined towards the end of the 80’s and into the 90’s and even more noticeably with sample variation is the Belomo made cameras and lenses which this is the case here
The nicest Helios 44 I've used has been the 13 blade M39 version - I've used the 44-2 a lot too, I was a little surprised that this one didn't seem quite as nice wide open.
Hello and thanks for a great episode :) enjoyed it. Would you happen to have a recommendation for a 135 mm 2.8? I like the Pentax smc look but they can be little expensive. I'm looking at a few different lenses, petri, pentagon and cosinon. Cheers
Domiplan is the lens at the top of my "want" list! It's one of the cheapest Cooke triplets. I'm looking for something with soap bubble bokeh to complement my Lydith.
I'm pleased you like the Helios 135. It's a lens which has been practically ignored on UA-cam, but it's so nice! Lovely contrast and colours with enough character to make it stand out. I like it as much as my Jena 135. Best of all I got it for free with a 44-2 I bought. Thanks for another great video.
Just watching this again. Lovely presentation, renews my enthusiasm. I had this lens on my first Practica until my much loved grandad passed and left me his Pentax SIa. Well both cameras were loved and revered, of course I still have Pentax with its 50mm 1.8 Takumar. For me, the saturation was the first thing I noticed you cannot explain the feel of these old lenses. The Domiplan felt cold hard and workmanlike the Takumar, moody soft and giving. So where next? A Nikon Photonic F with F2 Nikor,r so here we have a high contrast “machine” for serious press photography. Which did I like best? Well I still have the Takumar. I later acquired what I consider a real keeper the Zeiss Pancolar. All three lenses remind me of what I love about photography and why I never became a painter, in the “immediate” photos are an interpretation, real, but just how you see it and, the lens repeats your feeling on that day, in that moment.
Keep hold of that Takumar 1.8 - it's a very under-rated, outstanding optic! The CZJ Pancolar, as you've no doubt realised, is in another league entirely though!
@@zenography7923 As I’m sure we would agree, the beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I love em both. Thank you again for your fine work and lovely character full presentations.
Just love the way you chastize your close up cam for not focussing. Always makes me laugh... Never miss these. A wealth of info : )
Nigel, thanks for another enjoyable video. TOE were importers of Soviet cameras to the UK. Later they applied the Helios brand to some cheap Japanese imported lenses. That 135 2.8 gets a wide range of review results from great to dreadful, maybe different batches or manufacturers. Or maybe some expect too much :-)
Indeed! :)
I almost thought people were referring to me, Nigel Rogel (Philippines)! And later on realized, the author of Zenography is also named "Nigel"! 😂
Anyway, another great video indeed!!! This channel has inspired me to not just get started w/ vintage lenses on my Sony a6000 but to keep on w/ this passion & in sharing thoughts to many modern mirrorless camera users. Thanks, again, Nigel!!!
I'm surprised by your Helios 3 experience. But then not so much, pink and orange coatings?
the smiley face logo helioses ,always cerillic, tend to be alright. Kmz tombstone are best. And avoid the bow and arrow through head.
However helios coating appear to be almost a random selection, the colour range increasing as they get younger. I have about 40 of them! I aimed for several examples of each type. I also have a 3 marked up as a 2 , and some other odd one outs.
A standard Helios can be outshone by special example earlier model.
Glad I got most of mine when they were more or less worthless , more recently attempting filling in the gaps of my collection wasn't exactly pocket change.
Some amazing bargains there. You can have lots of fun shooting with these old lenses and not break the bank. I have a few old lenses including a Hanimex 135mm f2.8 on old Fuji X Mount which is surprisingly good and of course a Tessar 50mm f2.8, amazing quality. I use Olympus E-M5 MkII and there are lots of adapters for the M43 system.
Thank you for showing these lenses and images to match, great video. Take care and have fun with those lenses.
Thank you so much for this nice video once again. I kind of share you feeling about the Helios 44-3... One may read on the internet that it is the best version among all but I have never really felt this way though.
I've got a much better impression of the very first version, the Helios 44. Very nice that you could find the right words to express my feeiinf about the Helios 44-3...
Pentacon is Oreston. But you do have newer versions with different coating and quality check standards, those Multicoated ones give slightly different bokeh and colour, but it's still extremely close (difference is not bigger than the difference between different Helios variants). Early Pentacons are absolutely the same lens, they just rebranded it when they merged the factories. First Pentacon version is even called Oreston (Pentacon Oreston). Later they just changed the name and barrel colour. What every single version have in common is the optical design, that never changed. Don't mix Pentacon with Prakticar 50mm 1.8, that's something entirely different. When I compare MOG Oreston and Pentacon Auto (non-mc) I see no difference at all.
So pentacon is older? Good to know. I've seen the pentacon and oreston lenses looking identical and wondered which name was older.
@@bebopganymede Not really, first comes MOG Oreston, but in the transitional period (when the Meyer was merged with other companies into Pentacon) they rebranded the lens into Pentacon Oreston. Later the name Oreston was lost and it became simply Pentacon 50mm. By this point it's still basically the same lens, probably made from the same parts even. When they introduced Pentacon Multicoated the rendering was slightly changed, but only due to newer coating. The colour rendition got somewhat different, so as flaring and thanks to better contrast the bokeh looks ever so slightly different too (less "soapy" with a little bit less bokeh highlights outlining). Still very, very similar lens, the difference can be compared to SMC and Super Takumars etc.
My Pentacon copy is much later than. this Oreston - perhaps that accounts for the difference?
@@zenography7923 You have got to try the Kiron 28mm f2 it's really nice.
@@zenography7923 If it's Electric or Auto version without "multicoating" in its name then there shouldn't be any real optical difference (except maybe in colour cast, if they mixed coatings like Soviets did with their lenses). But then you never know with different samples and vintage lenses after being stored God knows where for 30 years or more. :) Only "Pentacon Prakticar" 50mm F1.8 lens is (entirely) different lens, perhaps optically better but less unique and interesting. Maybe you have some variant of that lens (it looks very different on the outside too). Well, at least it's never boring with these vintage lens mysteries to solve.
I really like [and want to like] my Helios 44-3 [MMZ], but have to admit that my 44M-4 [KMZ] is slightly sharper with better contrast wide open.
Can't go wrong with the Meyer Optik Gorlitz Oreston 50mm 1.8. My first Meyer... Close focus spoiled me :) I chased bokeh swirl for a while so I've tried Domiplan, Primoplan, Helios 44-2, Orestor as well as a few projector lenses... All of them are unique and worth while but guess which one is still in my camera bag??? :)
That Helios 135 wow
I'd love for you to get your hands on a Helios 77m-4!
Thanks a lot! I have been binging your videos for the last week. I just got my first vintage but actually cane without any caps. Any advice on any ways or alternatives to protect the lens when not in use?
Thanks
When I read the title I thought the Domiplan was going to be the lens one should never buy. It's the only one I ever threw out. My experience was that it produced decent images of subjects near to the lens but horrible images of subjects that were further off.
I also have a Helios 44-3 that I got with a Zenith mount requiring 8 hours of filing, more or less, with Chinese files on Russian steel, the best I could find in Bangkok. Though I've had 2 44-4s and a 44-6, the 44-3 is my favorite and well worth the time and trouble needed to make it compatible with m42. The 44-4 I've kept may be a tad sharper but the 44-3 has a je ne sais quoi that recommends it. Also, I've seen a report that the 44-3 is sharper in the corners than the 44-2 which was borne out by images provided, though there is always sample variation, so . . .
Thanks for the videos, Nigel. Cheers!
So did I!!
What are your thoughts about anamorphic lenses?
Its not so precise to judge russian/belorussian lenses only by having one copy. I just tested 2 44-3 and one was softer than the other. One of them has amazing 3d pop effect. 44-3 were made in Minsk Belomo factory, which was good reputation.44-3 is updated 44-2 with improved body design added little bit of multicoating but retaining legendary swirl. Also I have tested 3copies of 44m , 44M-4 MC, 44M-4. Talking about sharpness is negotiatible. Multicoating on 44M-4MC does its job, and images have more contrast. Talking about sharpness the best lens from these I have is 44m, but its due to exact copy I own and nobody can guarantie the one will be as sharp as the other.
I agree with your comments about the Oreston that is a lovely lens. Mine has a problem with that bit your supposed to press that's connected to the aprture ring so i have to fiddle with it to get the iris to close or open but again I didn't pay much for it.
Great video and photos sir. I recently bought Helios 44-2 not "MC", but also Valdai factory, Cyrillic name, same shape as your Helios 44-3! Weird!
Before I start to watch this video I've read the video description - Domiplan 30mm 2.8, all the sudden I was like "WHAT?!" and ready to take my credit card and go for a hunt :D But, :), a typo, unfortunately. Domiplan 50mm is amazing triplet lens with the aperture construction flaw (easy fix), well worth of every cent/penny/dime
Just caught this on my third viewing of this video: In the description box, you have the Domiplan listed as a 30mm.
For me, the Jupiter 8 shot with a Zorki was kind of disappointing. It takes great pictures at Stop down at infinite but when I tried a closed-up and wide open, it quite didn’t know where to focus. Maybe I need to calibrate the focusing. Will try it again but no Bokeh effect at all, He Боке!
Just got my hands on a domiplan in good shape for 5.90£ I must say I was surprised of it's performance
That Helios 135mm F2.8 looks identical to the Minolta MC Tele-Rokkor 135mm F2.8, I suspect they are the same lens (6 elements in 5 groups)
The Domiplan suffered a lot from item variance. Many complain of softness and aberration, but mine is perfectly fine.
I have a Helios 44-K in the drawer, which has not yet been mounted to my Pentax. Must get around to that, sometime. Nikon freaks can keep their eyes open for the 44-N, which was originally designed for the Russian SLR that used the F mount, I unrecall what model it was.
Nigel, love the videos. How many of these lenses do you actually own? You must have a house just store the glass.
Your Helios 135 f2.8 appears identical in construction and equal in performance to a similar early 1970’s lens from Vivitar, which I purchased used for my Olympus OM-1. They are the same down to the sliding lens hood, which I whimsically thought of as a foreskin. I too was surprised to find this lens sharp and reasonably contrasty wide open! I believe they were both made by Tokina, but I wouldn’t bet the family jewels on it!
That would be a rash bet, but I wouldn't be surprised if you're right!
The 135mm looks very similar to a CZJ lens. The A/M switch near the back is the same and the sliding lens hood is very similar to the CZJ 135/3.5
I think the CZJ's a bit longer, and it renders differently too - and the helios is a bit faster of course!
Similar but made by Chinon at least this version with Auto aperture switch.There are two versions of this lens.
@@eagleeyephoto8715 Mystery solved! Good to know. Thanks.
When I saw the lineup of lenses, I thought, "Wow that looks like my 135 Chinon." If it is the same lens, it's really magnificent. Very sharp, neutral colors, just saturated enough. I got mine with a 35mm 2.8 which renders almost identically.
@@nathandavis5099 As mentioned above there are two versions ,one of them is without the A-M switch and suspected.to be made by Komura ( the diamond sign on the focus ring d.o.f scale looks identical),but it can be someone else.
Maybe not Valdai, but Vologda as origin of Helios-44? The other company is BelOMO, Bel standing for Belarus.
Literally thinking about the helios 135 all day and then you show lovely examples in this. Thanks
Synchronicity! Glad you enjoyed the video!
I can remember My mentor from the 1950/60s telling me that I should avoid the Domiplan at all costs if I was to purchase a Praktica Nova body as it was one of the poorest image quality lenses available for the m42 Mount cameras☹️ Well the pandemic came along and with my poor health and being pretty much house bound curiosity finally got the better of me, and I hunted down that very lens it came on a Praktica Nova body at a bargain price and it surprised with it amazing bokeh when tested with some small led lights in the background. It’s a fun lens to use and build quality compared to some of today’s plastic fantastic is superior build wise if not optically. It’s a keeper for me along with my Pancolor Flektogon Pentax Fujica CZJ and dozens more of m42 lenses.mirrorless has bought so many of these old optical masterpieces out of mothballs
Haha, I agree, I had one for a while, I just couldn't get on with it at all, I can't put my finger on why, maybe it's because it's fiddly. A marmite lens.
hi hope you are well, could you recommend a vintage lense for portrait like the fuji 85mm for my xpro 2
it would be better if it was auto
thanks
Pentax super Takumar 55mm f1. 8.
The best m42 that I have.
I have a Helios 58mm f2 44 2 which I like as well. Makes mesmerising bokey.
Hi Nigel, I really enjoyed the video today, I have several of the lenses in question including seven Domiplans, all are Exa/Exacta fit, and all but one came with one Exa/Exacta model or other that I bought as non-working, some were as cheap as 6GBP + postage. This was two years ago or more ago when analogues were largely overlooked :-) the question from me is, I would like to to use several of my M42 lenses on the Exacta's, i bought a current adapter which was difficult enough to find in the first place, which was totally useless as the focussing is way off at infinity or so it appears? surely when they produce these adapters they take into account the revised mounting position ? or have I bought a load of........?
I have a couple of the lenses you feature here, Nigel, but a man can't have too many lenses, can he?
I really like the look of the Helios 135mm, I might just have to have a look for a good example.
It's surprisingly nice, definitely worth a look!
Hi there!, thank you another great video. I love your channel and already bought a lens following your advices.
One question, is the Helios 44M also suitable to do this revers-lens hack?
I learned from another russian guy, that depending of the fabrication year ( 80´s) it is not possible because of the lack of space
Thanks and all the best
Helios : is not valdai, is MMZ
MMZ, thanks for the correction!
I have a Tokina 135 which is similar to the Helios 135
I would love to hear your thoughts on the Helios 44M. My Helios 44M was from the KMZ factory & it is my favorite portrait lens.
I was also very disappointed in the Helios 44-4 images vs the 44-2. Good to see other people are experiencing the same and I didn't just get a bad copy.
That's interesting - it could be that we both have bad copies though? I'm going to give this one a good clean soon to see if I can improve it.
@@zenography7923 For me it was night and day. It took some beautiful video with the 44-2. 44-4 had washed out colors and none of that swirly bokeh that Helios is known for.
So now I'm wondering how the Oreston compares with your "Gold Standard" vintage 50mm Pancolar?
Great video Nigel!
The Domiplan is a clone from the 2.9/50 Trioplan, also produced by Meyer Optik Görlitz. I got mine (with Exakta mount) for 5 Euros from a junk box in a camera store because the pin on the mount was missing. It is a triplet, whereas the Tessar has 4 elements.
It seems a bit weird to me that the Trioplans both 100mm and 50mm are so hyped and overpriced whereas the Domiplan could never reach by far the same fame.
Hi Nigel! I have a Helios 44-2 58 mm f2.0 with a serial number starting N71xxxxx (the N is calligraphic). Do you know how old this lens could be? I actually write a list of my vintage lenses and want to sort them finally by their age. I think it will not be possible to determine also the month of production, but it would be nice to know at least the year of production. Thanks!
Well - and I'm not certain of this - I think if it's a kmz lens it could be 1971?
@@zenography7923 It’s a KMZ. :)
This question is unrelated to the video, but I thought I's ask anyway.
I own a Zorki 3, and occasionally there will be a light leak but most of the time everything is fine. There are no light seals in the back, not even a remnant or evidence of a light seal. Are they supposed to have light seals.?
No, no light seals on the Zorki cameras - your problem sounds more like an occasional shutter fault. The Zorki 3 is a very nice camera - it would be worth servicing!
Thank you for your reply. The light leaks are so rare and seem to occur at or near the beginning of the roll of film. It might be something in the way I load the film. Yes, I enjoy the Zorki 3. Mine has been serviced and it works like new. I think I need to load a roll of film in a dim place and see what happens. Keep up these videos, I really like them.!
Hello I have a Canon EOS 600D and I use only Canon lenses but I'm really interested in the Meyer Optik ORESTON, what must I buy to convert EXAKTA to EOS ? Thank you for your very informative video and your response.
You get the MOG Oreston in the M42 mount as well as the Exakta mount. The M42 version would normally cost a little more but it also opens up a larger catalogue of vintage lenses. You'd need an M42 to EF mount adapter or in the other case and Exakta to EF mount adapter.
Oh no no no! Now Domiplan will rise in price too :D
Oh, I hope not!
This domiplan, it REALLY looks identical to my Pentaflex - Color 50mm 2.8, very very similar in design
It could well be the same lens I guess!
Older Helios models usually have a more archaic construction and with worse optical coating (or even lack thereof). The manufacturing process haven't yet went through simplification back then. Quality control also used to be much better. So, the newer models are usually technologically superior, but were more cheaply made with more lax quality control. The best specimens of newer Helios 44 are sharper than older ones and handle colors better, but it is much harder to find a really good one. Older versions, like M39 ones, "white" or "zebra" are more consistently good and feel vastly better in hand IMO. So average "white" Helios-44 is a better lens than average "black" Helios-44-something or 44M-something and vastly better than pretty much any Helios-44 variant made in nineties.
Thanks for this. I haven't used any version later than the 44-3 in this video; in my experience the KMZ lenses are more nicely made with better coatings, and the 13 blade version (with purple coatings) is the nicest of all. In fact, my 13 blade version easily beat the CZJ Biotar from which it is more or less copied!
I bought and sold these lenses on eBay for 8 years. My findings based on multiple examples (single example tests of used lenses are not reliable):
Domiplan: a triplet. Quality control very poor and the glass is very soft and easily scratched. Most I've tested have been pretty rubbish, but very occasionally I'd get a good one that was almost as sharp as a Tessar.
Sirius 80-200: almost impossible to find old zoom lenses without fungus and they are almost impossible to clean. I've thrown away 99 for every good one I've sold. Never tested this one consequently.
Helios 44 (all models): Russian version of the Zeiss Biotar reformulated for Russian glass with a different refractive index. Brilliant lens, well worth the money. Later models with more sophisticated coatings give better contrast. Probably a rare poor example tested in this video.
Oreston: Great lens, but I do prefer the later Multi Coated Pentacon version.
Helios 135mm 2.8: Marketed by the UK importer of Zenit cameras. Not a Russian made lens, there were multiple versions from various Japanese and Korean makers. Generally pretty good surprisingly.
When wide open is f/4.5, I would hope a lens WOULD be “very sharp wide open”.
Indeed!
I have a Domiplan and it's bloody awful, I don't know if it's been dropped or a Friday afternoon job or possibly serviced by a drunkard, I suspect all three. I only bought it because some American was raving about it's bubble bokeh! I mentioned I had got one to a long standing pal who when I told him he said 'why' ? I can't remember how much I payed for it but it was very little so it doesn't owe me anything and I have thought about getting another to see if they are all that bad. It might even be the first lens I have considered throwing in the bin. It does get better as it's stopped down. Mine has the 'Zebra crossing' aperture and focus rings and is marked Meyer Optic. I don't want to out anyone off getting one though LOL!
.75 meter! (not cm). but thnks for yet another intriguing chapter on vintage glass.
The Dominant has the same optics as the famous Trioplan 50 2,9
Looks like a Sigma zoom
Yeah it's definitely a sigma zoom.
Thanks for the info!
The Helios 135 is nowhere to be found on ebay...
Back in film day,s there were only a few 3rd party lenses worth considering, Tamron, Vivitar and possibly Sigma. Any chance of a review Nigel, how they perform on mirrorless?
Sigma made their own optics usually and Tamron and Vivitar use other companies' lens designs. I think they are all worthy of looks.
Tokina were also worthy lenses.
I have Tamron 24mm and 28mm f2.5's and a Vivitar 35mm f2.8 that give excellent results on both Sony full frame and Fuji
Hi Nigel, thank you, very interessting lenses! Please check out the following lenses if you have them: Canon FD 5.6/100-200mm (also the FDn version) and the Minolta MD 3.5/35-70mm and the Minolta MD 4.0/70-210mm (or its Leica counterpart). They can be had for little money and they are worthwhile, too. Best wishes, Ralf
By the way, a week ago I used two more very nice lenses: the Non-AI-Nikkor 3.5/28mm and the Non-AI-Nikkor 4.0/200mm. They are also quite cheap on the used market. My proposal: Ich could send you some sample images made with mit Nikon Z6 if you wish. Please contact me.
Hey Ralf, nice to hear from you again and thanks for the suggestions - I need to get some more lenses right now so I'll bear these in mind. And please do send the images made mit the nikon, I'd be interested to see them!
hi when using adaptors to explore different lens's, are cheap adaptors o.k? Or can they be troublesome?
The cheap ones are fine - all I ever use in fact!
@@zenography7923 thanks : )
The K&F are well made and very reasonable
The 80 to 200mm is a sigma lens.
The Domiplan was a race for the bottom, so common these days, sorry to say.We call quality these days overengeering. So, I totally get this presentation, because often the faults subjectively, make the characteristics we so fondly love. Softer, kinder, saturated, giving. I get it.
That's it!
@@zenography7923 good to hear from you and thank you for your great work. I hope one day you will do a workshop for my group. You are a gifted presenter.
Love those old lenses; the Görlitz 50mm looks almost exactly like the 50mm I had on my old Praktika LTL, my first ever SLR.
Am I hearing things or did you actually call the 80-200mm zoom a "Sirius" lens? And you wonder whether or not that Helios 135mm might have been manufactered by another party, while it clearly states "made in Japan" on the lens barrel, so I guess yes :-)
I had the same question on the 80-200 lens. I could swear it read "Sigma" on the barrel when the lens is in close-up, not "Sirius", even though the print looks to be worn down on the lettering. I could be wrong...
?sigma 80-200
The 80-200 may have been made by Sigma in its early days
what is the name of this lens? "serious"?I don't find it
The domiplan is the worst vintage lens I ever used, I sold it on as soon as I could, but some people love them.
Get a Nikon 50mm non ai
The Domiplan 50 / 2.8 is probably the worst Meyer Optik lens ever produced. The constructors themselves admitted defeat after many years (unofficially). This lens is incorrectly corrected, just miscalculated, flawed.
Currently, it is used by many people because of its disadvantages that can be used to take a specific photo.
Personally, I avoid these lenses from a distance, it's just scrap.
I know what you mean, but I can't help liking it in spite of - or perhaps because of - its faults!
@@zenography7923 I know😊
It is true that I do not use Domiplan, but I love the Meyer Optik Pentacon 30 / 3.5 (Lydith).
I also like Russian / Ukrainian lenses. I use MIR 24N 35/2, which does not perform well against the light, which is its obvious disadvantage, similar to Helios or newer Zenitars, but in this case the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.
The best lenses are made with thorium glass. Radioactive. When the decay occurs its tints the glass amber.
Stop acting.
That Helios 135 looks a lot like my Vivitar 135... a common, but very well-made and useful telephoto from the 70s.
It wouldn't surprise me!