Helios 44-2 58mm F2 Russian Lens for Sony E NEX (for E-mount cameras)

Product Information

I had the 44M and the 44-4 versions, but I wanted the 44-2, because I am a sucker for peer pressure. Speaking of versions with a more “modern” optical signature, I have used with satisfaction the Helios-44 in PK mount with Pentax DSLR cameras, both APSC and FF.

The Helios is a lens made for film cameras, so it requires manual focus when used on a digital camera. But why would you want to mount an ancient screw thread lens made decades ago on a newer film or digital camera? If you don’t have a high precision caliper do the sanding a little at a time, testing each time if the infinity is reached.The early Helioses (like the one in this review) have 13 aperture blades (that’s 5 more than the later 44-2) and also have an M39 mount rather than M42. Perhaps 58mm has something to do with the production method or other technical reasons, but I have not found any reason for that particular number, so if you have something to add, give me a holler. There is a cool feature on the lens, that allows you to lock the range, in which you can change the aperture. A stunning place to be when it comes to testing new (or vintage) photography and videography equipment.

there are 3 sub-versions of the silver Helios-44 M39, the earliest one with 13 aperture blades and the aperture range 2-22, then the one that you reviewed, with the aperture range 2-16 and the last one with 8 aperture blades. Next up we have a set shot with the equally talented, amazing and lovely Danni - shot with the same Spotmatic F but everything else is different!They don’t, far from it actually, and they can be a lot of fun on APS-C cameras where you’re cropping for only the best parts of the lens.

In terms of overall sharpness, I’ve yet to get an image that has blown me away as I get with the Fujinon 56mm f1. I've seen that the Carl Zeiss Biotar has more of a "pop" but it hasn't translated to this soviet copy. Day Two in France would be a true test to see if the Helios could replace either of these iconic pieces of photography equipment moving forward. you talk about »rip-offs« without reason, ignoring the fact that many of the zeiss lens designs were improved on by soviet developers in later years and decades.The follow-up versions of the reviewed lens but with 8 or 6 aperture blades, with lens coating though, the later the version the better coating. The issue with soft edges is less pronounced the further away the subject is from the lens, as greater distance results in increased depth of field at infinity. They are reportedly named according to the lens mount, and the optical resolution; with the M standing for a lens with an automatic diaphragm.

They are (as you and others) know three lens with very different physical characteristics from the ‘toy like’ feel of the Ricoh through the classic feel lof the Pentax to the hefty weight of the Helios. You have to work hard to find the right compositions, background and light to get those swirls but when you do, the results are wonderful.Little side note – its flare resistance is low even with sidelight, with serious contrast loss on all frame so use blend or just compensate with PS. It sounds a little far-fetched, if they had difficulties to get the lenses in standard dimension how on earth could they make an exact match camera? The beauty of bokeh is in the eyes of the beholder and it seems that it looks quite pretty and attractive in quite a number of people’s eyes.