Helios 44-2 Identification

[Luz Ignasiak]

Im looking at getting a Helios44 of some type. I see the Carl Zeiss Biotar 58/2 on which the Helios 44 is modeled as listed on the UV lens sticky and that a couple of members have reported the Helios 44 does transmit at least some UV.

I'd like to know whether the Helios 44 was tested and was excluded from the list due to some performance shortcoming or is not on the list because it has simply not yet been tested rigorously enough. If it has been excluded is the exclusion considered global (e.g. all Helios 44 are no good for UV) or perhaps just some models poor performers (e.g. the newer multicoated versions)?

I wouldn't expect all lenses to be tested. Too many lenses our there for that. In this case however the Biotar 58/2 "doner" lens was tested and rated good enough for the list with bonus points for minimal focal shift.

Please remember that only lenses marked with "БТК" (BioTar Krasnogorski) may have been assembled from Zeiss optical elements and are optically similar to Biotar. Later lenses were re-calculated for Soviet glass, used different coatings, and are definitely different from German Biotar. How big are those differences is another question. Besides, there were many different variants of Helios-44 so you have to be specific.

Yes, thank you I saw that post. The author mentioned 44-2 which does narrow it down a bit. Still these lenses are known for developing oil on the apeture blades. If a little of this oil transferred to the optics it could show up as a haze under UV yet otherwise look OK could it not? Is it safe to assume the author took this into account?

I'm interested in the Helios because it is a much lower cost clone of a known "good" lens with minimal focus shift. All else being equal I'd rather get a Helios and have something left over for a good filter than spend everything on a Zeiss Biotar. But only if all else is equal or reasonably so. If there are compelling performance or ergonomic reasons to go with the Zeiss over the Helios I'm all ears.

If you are specifically interested in a lens within the 50's range of focal-lengths, and a relatively "faster" aperture (brighter than F/3.5), then may I suggest scouring around Ebay for a Weltblick 55mm F/2.8?

So, in effect, even though this lens may be just a pinch slower than the Helios with the F/2 aperture (on paper), if you factor in that the Weltblick transmits so much deeper than the Helios, then the resulting "speed" of the F/2.8 will actually turn out to be faster than the F/2 on the Helios, when shooting in UV. Think about what I just said here. :D (More UV-throughput contributes to "faster" results, too.)

These are fairly rare, but they pop up on the German Ebay site on an average frequency of about 2 per month, and prices are often quite reasonable (below $50 USD). It took me about a year or so, to build up a stockpile of 9 copies of my own (7 Weltblicks, and 2 Beroflex's).

Vigilant Ebay searches, day-in and day-out, without ever taking a single day off from ongoing searching. Not only Ebay USA, but also Ebay Canada, Ebay Germany, Ebay Austria, Ebay UK, Ebay Italy, Ebay Spain, Ebay France, and Ebay Australia. Yes, one has to search each country's dedicated Ebay url, separately, because changing the "world-wide" search options in your OWN native country's Ebay search parameters doesn't always bring up all of the available items. This is due to sellers who do not list properly, but there could be other reasons, such as shipping-range preference restrictions by the seller ... although some can be coerced to make exceptions, if you are persistent (and polite). I don't mess around, as you can see.

Or, if focal length within the 50's is not so important, but rather the "swirley-bokeh" that you covet so much as well as super-fast aperture, then may I suggest the Wollensak Velostigmat 1" (25mm) F/1.5 Cine lens? (This will fully cover a Micro-4/3 camera sensor with absolutely no vignetting). It transmits UV quite deeply, as well. Down to about 325 to 330nm, or so.

I was the one to actually discover this gem's incredible UV-suitability ... and this makes it a killer combination, given its very fast aperture and relatively wider-angle focal length. Some of my discussion of this lens can be found here: __1#entry4048

The only downside of this lens is that it CAN fetch a fairly sizable price, even used. (Ebay sellers these days seem to demand anywhere from $100 to $350 for it. I almost regret reporting on this lens for UV suitability, because prices for this lens were usually around the $50 to $75 range, before I went public with this information on this lens's "accidental" UV-capabiltiies. Coincidence? I'm not so sure. ;))

Oh, that double-edged sword which comes with releasing knowledge to the public, but also sometimes paying dearly for it in the process. :( (But then, we should blame the price-gougers for this, and no one else.) I'm also glad that I've used those few years time, after my discovery (but before my post concerning this lens) to buy up 6 copies of it.

Thank you Col, that is helpful. You seem to have a more modern version of the lens. The fluorescing lens cement is a bit worrisome but as we discussed on another thread it is likely possible to remove the cement and use a more UV friendly substitute if so desired. I'm not sure what adhesive those crazy commies used but its my understanding Canadian Balsam tends to yellow with age to become UV opaque but some time under a strong UV light will bleach it back to transparency. Might be worth a shot anyway if you like the lens and want to see how far you can take it.

Your prior quote of my post shows me that you just missed my updated edit to my post. I added some vital information to it, but here it is below (so that you do not have to scour through the entire post, again):

Also, Lost Cat, if you do take a stab at the Wollensak Velostigmat 1" (25mm) Cine lens (you would not regret it), please be aware of what you have to look for (as explained in my referenced link, above). This is because some later models may be heavily coated, and this could change their UV-capability.

The later versions (all chrome colored), particularly the 'Raptar' versions, tend to use more suppressive coatings, and therefore are not UV-capable like the earlier variant which I have referred to. If you spot a logo or stamp anywhere on the lens , marked with a small "w" inside of a large "C" (which means "coated Wollensak"), then this is a dead giveaway that this is NOT the one which I have found to be UV-satisfactory.

(In fact, this early Wollensak Velostigmat has no coatings at all! It is bare glass. But flare is still well-controlled, given the fact that the front element is deeply recessed inside the hood-like front barrel.)

The earlier variant has a dark copper-colored front hood component, in contrast to the remaining chrome body. And, it has the statements "WOLLENSAK 1 INCH f/1.5 CINE VELOSTIGMAT" stamped all around the perimeter of that front, dark copper-colored segment.

Finally, given its relatively small image circle, it will only fully cover the sensor of the Micro-4/3 camera format (Panasonic / Olympus), or any crop sensors even smaller than that. But not so sure about most APS-C cameras (except perhaps Sony NEX / E-series mirrorless? I haven't tried yet), and DEFINITELY not for DSLR APS-C bodies or Full-Frame (unless you like that "porthole" look. Hah.)

3a8082e126