Prime Comparison M42: Pentacon 50/1.8 vs KMZ Helios 44M vs Yashinon 50/1.4 DS-M: Adapted Lens Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review (2024)

All lenses at 2.0 and adjusted for slight inequalities in FL.

Pentacon 50/1.8 Auto

KMZ Helios-44M 58/2.0

Yashica Yashinon 50/1.4 DS-M (radioactive)

These samples may represent sample variation, but all four Helios' act the same.

Sorry, but I can't make any sense of your post - title talks about a 3 lensescomparison -Pentacon, Helios and a Yashinon. But you then mention that "sample variation may have an influence - all four Helios lenses behaved the same".

I really have no idea what your trying to show us. A bit more info please?

John Michael Winterbourne wrote:

Sorry, but I can't make any sense of your post - title talks about a 3 lenses comparison - Pentacon, Helios and a Yashinon. But you then mention that "sample variation may have an influence - all four Helios lenses behaved the same".

I really have no idea what your trying to show us. A bit more info please?

It's simple. I have one Y, one P and 4 Helioses. Since I don't own more Y and P lenses, I can not claim that their image quality is typical.

joe6pack wrote:

I don't get it. I suppose you took the pictures wide open. With subjects being so close, most parts of the subjects are out of focus. What do you want to show exactly?

All lenses are set to 1/2.0.

I wanted to show different out of focus rendering, color bloom and sharpness. This differences can be clearly seen if you care to look.

Jura S wrote:

joe6pack wrote:

I don't get it. I suppose you took the pictures wide open. With subjects being so close, most parts of the subjects are out of focus. What do you want to show exactly?

All lenses are set to 1/2.0.

I wanted to show different out of focus rendering, color bloom and sharpness. This differences can be clearly seen if you care to look.

I beg to differ.

With a razor thin DoF, how do I see sharpness? Or even OoF rendering? As far as color is concerned, did you set the white balance? I don't even know if the exposures are done the same as the image is reporting 1/10000 sec.

joe6pack wrote:

I beg to differ.

With a razor thin DoF, how do I see sharpness? Or even OoF rendering? As far as color is concerned, did you set the white balance? I don't even know if the exposures are done the same as the image is reporting 1/10000 sec.

1. Check the pictures at 100%.

2. Same, but that was not my intention.

3. YES!

4. Different adapters report different nonsense.

1

Jura, nothing against the effort you put into the task of trying to compare old lenses like this, but I have always been of the opinion that tests such as this are rather a waste of time. Mainly for the following reasons.

• Tests like this are never done in a completely controlledenvironment where the tester has scientifically calibrated equipment and can guarantee through documentation that absolutely no factors have changed during the testing

• And, more importantly, it is impossible to factor in sample variation. Tests like this would need a control group of dozens ofcopies from each one tested to even get a base line on what a given lens is capable of.

That second issue cant be stressed enough. My Helios 44M has had a completely different history of use and or neglect/abuse then your Helios 44M. Yours may have a decentered element, or mine may have glass separation or any number of things wrong with it that would make the results from out to lenses different, especially where sharpness is concerned.

I always cringe when I see someone post up a 'comprehensive' test of several different lenses where they have taken a picture of a brick wall over and over with each lens at different apertures and then proudly declare one lens as the 'winner' and superior to the others. No, no, no....that is just the results that tester got with those particular lenses on that particular day. It has nothing to do with the copies of the lens I may own or what I am able to create with it.

It is far, far better to use these lenses to create beautiful and breathtaking works of art to showcase what they are capable of. Because it is only through this creation process that the true capabilities of a lens can be explored. At the end of the day a skilled photographer should be able to pick up any of these lenses you have listed and create compelling imagery with them, regardless of what an impromptu test may show. To often people get caught up in the technical aspects of statistics and forget that inspiration, skill and vision are far more important to the image creation process then a piece of glass ever will be.

Goethe wrote:

Jura, nothing against the effort you put into the task of trying to compare old lenses like this, but I have always been of the opinion that tests such as this are rather a waste of time. Mainly for the following reasons.

• Tests like this are never done in a completely controlled environment where the tester has scientifically calibrated equipment and can guarantee through documentation that absolutely no factors have changed during the testing

• And, more importantly, it is impossible to factor in sample variation. Tests like this would need a control group of dozens of copies from each one tested to even get a base line on what a given lens is capable of.

That second issue cant be stressed enough. My Helios 44M has had a completely different history of use and or neglect/abuse then your Helios 44M. Yours may have a decentered element, or mine may have glass separation or any number of things wrong with it that would make the results from out to lenses different, especially where sharpness is concerned.

I always cringe when I see someone post up a 'comprehensive' test of several different lenses where they have taken a picture of a brick wall over and over with each lens at different apertures and then proudly declare one lens as the 'winner' and superior to the others. No, no, no....that is just the results that tester got with those particular lenses on that particular day. It has nothing to do with the copies of the lens I may own or what I am able to create with it.

It is far, far better to use these lenses to create beautiful and breathtaking works of art to showcase what they are capable of. Because it is only through this creation process that the true capabilities of a lens can be explored. At the end of the day a skilled photographer should be able to pick up any of these lenses you have listed and create compelling imagery with them, regardless of what an impromptu test may show. To often people get caught up in the technical aspects of statistics and forget that inspiration, skill and vision are far more important to the image creation process then a piece of glass ever will be.

I conceptually agree about everything.

I just don't understand the logic that I've somehow tried to make absolute test of everything. It's just comparison of my own samples. Nothing else. Which is clearly stated in my original post.

I've mentioned Zenith's Helios because 3 out of 4 exhibit almost equal properties.

That's about it. Nothing more.

Jura S wrote:

Goethe wrote:

Jura, nothing against the effort you put into the task of trying to compare old lenses like this, but I have always been of the opinion that tests such as this are rather a waste of time. Mainly for the following reasons.

• Tests like this are never done in a completely controlled environment where the tester has scientifically calibrated equipment and can guarantee through documentation that absolutely no factors have changed during the testing

• And, more importantly, it is impossible to factor in sample variation. Tests like this would need a control group of dozens of copies from each one tested to even get a base line on what a given lens is capable of.

That second issue cant be stressed enough. My Helios 44M has had a completely different history of use and or neglect/abuse then your Helios 44M. Yours may have a decentered element, or mine may have glass separation or any number of things wrong with it that would make the results from out to lenses different, especially where sharpness is concerned.

I always cringe when I see someone post up a 'comprehensive' test of several different lenses where they have taken a picture of a brick wall over and over with each lens at different apertures and then proudly declare one lens as the 'winner' and superior to the others. No, no, no....that is just the results that tester got with those particular lenses on that particular day. It has nothing to do with the copies of the lens I may own or what I am able to create with it.

It is far, far better to use these lenses to create beautiful and breathtaking works of art to showcase what they are capable of. Because it is only through this creation process that the true capabilities of a lens can be explored. At the end of the day a skilled photographer should be able to pick up any of these lenses you have listed and create compelling imagery with them, regardless of what an impromptu test may show. To often people get caught up in the technical aspects of statistics and forget that inspiration, skill and vision are far more important to the image creation process then a piece of glass ever will be.

I conceptually agree about everything.

I just don't understand the logic that I've somehow tried to make absolute test of everything. It's just comparison of my own samples. Nothing else. Which is clearly stated in my original post.

I've mentioned Zenith's Helios because 3 out of 4 exhibit almost equal properties.

That's about it. Nothing more.

My apologies Jura, I didn't really make myself clear. I wasn't saying that you tried to do an absolute test. Yousimply provided some samples as you say. I just feel that tests or sampleslike this in general are somewhat futile. But I do cringe at the more 'comprehensive' attempts to draw conclusive results frombrick walls and such like. Clearly your post was not one of those.

The Lumix S9 is Panasonic's newest full-frame mirrorless camera. It allows users to create their own custom looks for out-of-camera colors and is the first full-frame Lumix camera aimed squarely at social media content creators.

The Sony a9 III is the world's first full-frame mirrorless camera to feature a global electronic shutter with simultaneous readout. After extensive testing of this 120 fps sports camera, to see what you gain (and, perhaps, lose).

Fujifilm has announced the X-T50, a mid-range 40MP APS-C mirrorless camera that gains image stabilization, subject recognition AF and a host of high-res video features.

The Fujifilm X100VI is the sixth iteration of Fujifilm's classically-styled large sensor compact. A 40MP X-Trans sensor, in-body stabilization and 6.2K video are the major updates, but do they make the camera better?

The Panasonic Lumix S5II launched the second generation of Panasonic’s full-frame mirrorless camera system and was the first Panasonic to feature phase detect autofocus. As our review reveals, it’s a heck of an all-around camera for both still and video shooters.

What’s the best camera for around $2000? This price point gives you access to some of the most all-round capable cameras available. Excellent image quality, powerful autofocus and great looking video are the least you can expect. We've picked the models that really stand out.

What's the best camera for travel? Good travel cameras should be small, versatile, and offer good image quality. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for travel and recommended the best.

If you want a compact camera that produces great quality photos without the hassle of changing lenses, there are plenty of choices available for every budget. Read on to find out which portable enthusiast compacts are our favorites.

'What's the best mirrorless camera?' We're glad you asked.

Above $2500 cameras tend to become increasingly specialized, making it difficult to select a 'best' option. We case our eye over the options costing more than $2500 but less than $4000, to find the best all-rounder.