Helios 44-2 vs. Carl Zeiss Jena Biotar 58mm f2. Like father, like son? Which is better?

This video presents side-by-side comparisons of two Biotar design lenses from 1950 and 1975 to discuss which is the better lens.

Here are time links to different sections:

00:00 Introduction
01:06 Carl Zeiss Jena Biotar 58mm f2
02:03 Helios 44-2
03:19 Swirls and sharpness
07:37 Colours, contrasts and flares
10:44 Minimum focus distances
11:55 Conclusions

[gabriesl]

Now this is a video i was expecting for a long time

[barrycohen]

Helios wins in the area "Bang for the Buck" for certain. My first 44-2 developed severe oil on the blades after two years of ownership. I paid $45 US for that one. I was so impressed with the lens, I bought a second copy. This time, I purchased it from a "Lens Tech." He had CLA'd it and also re-greased it with modern silicone-based grease. For this one I paid $75 US

[Knallchote]

If you set the aperture on the Helios to 16, you can steplessly adjust the aperture using the ring. For example, if you only set the aperture to 4, you can switch between aperture 2 and 4 steplessly. This allows you to set the desired maximum aperture and quickly switch between them; that's why I love the Helios!

[ravajaxe]

I enjoyed your comparative video very much. I'm surprised there is not much of a difference in terms of sharpness and bokeh Between the biotar and Helios. For the drawbacks you have spoke of, there are later bigger Biotar versions, which have 49mm filter ring diameter (instead of yours 40.5mm). The next version solves the issues you are mentioning : it adds a preset mechanism on the diaphragm ring, and a longer helicoid, for a minimum focusing distance of 0.50m.

By the way, according to my Carl Zeiss Jena production documentation, the serial N# of your Biotar gives a date of may 1949, so it is older than your depicted date. Again, here you have the first M42 version of this venerable design.
Cheers!

[FoxtrotMikefm]

I got a 'Red T' Biotar a couple of years ago during lock-down. It is a later, M42, silver version with a ten blade, preset aperture mechanism. I have had serious trouble getting it off of my Sony ever since! I also have two Helios 44-2 lenses made by MMZ (Belomo); a 1969 'Zebra' version & a green focus scale index example from 1973. I finished up using the green scale version for my tests.

It was the festive season & a very hot summer. I would briefly slink outside, fire off a few shots & scuttle back inside in the late afternoon, as the temperature dropped below the mid forties. I shot close-ups of peeling tree bark & the like, as ants marched, in single file, up & down the shaded side of the trunk. As usual, I aimed my camera in the general direction of the sun hoping to capture the heat haze. My results were similar to yours in that I did not notice any big differences between the German & Soviet versions of this optical design. I would note that my less historic Biotar does not show a brown cast. I did notice that one lens might show better contrast in certain conditions. I had similar feelings regarding colour rendering, sharpness &c. My general feeling was that, on the whole, the Biotar balanced these various & sometimes competing factors, better. I also have not been able to shake off the feeling that this may simply be a bias for the much venerated name 'Zeiss!' We all have to answer, somewhere, for the expenditure on umpteen copies of what essentially amounts to the same optic... I have lost count of the number & types of Industar-22 lenses sequestered in drawers in my 'studio!'

Finally, young Simon, I have two words for you: HELICOID ADAPTERS! They are available in most mounts & you do not need to remove the lens & change in another part to gain that extra bit of bellows extension. One of my favourite Soviet era optics is a 1954 Industar-22 designed for the very first Zenit SLRs. Essentially, a rangefinder objective which has been modified for the extra flange distance of the mirror box, it only focusses down to 1m. With my cobbled together adapter; an arrangement of a shorter, sturdy helicoid, m42-m39 adapter & an m39 extension tube, all stuck together with blue loctite, I can seamlessly focus from infinity down to about 30cm. The only other requirement was a couple of spots of red nail varnish to mark the infinity setting on the helicoid. There are m42 helicoid adapters which do not need these modifications, but they have the wrong flange distance for my m39 Zenit lenses & tend to flex & feel a tad flimsy with some of my heavier lenses. I am sure your little Biotar would be right at home on one of these. Ciao mate, 😉

[rodcummings]

Thank you. A really fascinating comparison. After reading your title, first reaction was that this would be another lens to add to my collect. However, it was quite surprising just how similar the results were. Had you not labeled some of your images, it was not possible to tell one from the other. Sure, the lenses look and handle differently - and that can certainly be important. I own a Helios 44, early M39 silver version and the 13-blades really sets it apart from many of my other lenses. Main takeaway from your review and the comments is that I should replace my current M42 adapter on the Helios with a focusing helicoid. Thanks again, always appreciate your informative reviews, given your expertise with vintage lenses.

[GeorgeK]

I actually have my Helios 44/2 from back in the day, when I bought my Zenit EM from T&OE (Technical and Optical Equipment) in Praed Street, London in 1974.
T&OE took apart every camera and lens before it was sold in the UK market to ensure reliability, and indeed the years that I had my Zenit EM it performed faultlessly. I sold on the body to another photographer as a spare but he didn't want the lens so I hung onto it, and now, 49 years later I'm glad that I did.
This lens is a joy to use, so much so that I have in my collection pretty much all of the other Helios 44 variants (except the /7)
Looking at these images, Simon, I cannot really differentiate between the CZJ and the Helios in any meaningful degree, both produce pretty much the same sort of image, and both need pretty much the same "helping hand" in post processing.
I love your channel on here, it's great to see lenses that we haven't used personally tried out by you.

[bram]

I recently picked up a sony a6000 and some vintage lenses. Been enjoying your channel, it's been very informative. Can you make a video about cleaning and/or repairing vintage lenses?

[willlund]

Great comparison. I have that same 44-2 and use it for video work often. Have you any experience with vintage lenses that have been re-housed in cinema bodies?

[Plusmonkey]

The color rendering from the Zeiss is much better. Amazing color.

[Kinematographer]

I think you didn't mention it in an earlier video, but its important where the Helios are made. There are manufacturers symbols on the lens, basically the dot with a barbed arrow is the Belarus factory and the worst. Ideally you want the Krasnogorsk factory. But even the Belarus ones work if stopped to f4. You will get the famous swirl! It's normal to find them for 5 euros. 20 would be top dollar (well...euro!)

[zoltankaparthy]

Thank you for the info of the CZJ vs Helios. Nit having a standard M39 distance is a deal-breaker for me. And with the hysteria over the Helios now the CZJ is quite a bit cheaper.

[campbellsups]

always love these interesting and informative videos!

[x]

Спасибо за обзор. Как по мне, изображение у Carl Zeiss более контрастное. Это можно заметить по деревьям на фотографии с жёлтым фонарём. Это вполне объяснимо, так как у советского объектива нет MC. Недавно обнаружил, что у Гелиос 44м есть версия с МС. Будете ли вы делать обзор на эту версию объектива?

[dimitrigrunhauser]

Very nice comparison. One thing however - none of the optical glass lenses are hand blown

[cvijax]

Thanks for a video. Interesting comparison Simon. The one I wanted to see for a while. My experiences are quite similar. In general most Biotars (specially later versions ( preset, semi automatic and automatic) have better T coating than Helioses. I know that talking about micro contrast is king of off, but, Biotar is one of those lenses that have that sense of volume more present. On color side, my Biotars are quite colder than Helioses. But, in a nice gentle way. All later version have respectable 0.5 meter MFD, so Biotar made same year as your Helios 44-2 have same MFD, proper preset mechanism, better coating. They used to be cheap, and are still cheaper than CZJB. I never use plain m42 or plain exacta adapter but one with additional helicoid. That make long MFD of 0.9m less dramatic. Both are great lenses but, for me, the only real advantage of Helios is price.

[ridealongwithrandy]

Really enjoyed this video. I have a Helios 44M on my Olympus EM1mk2 and enjoy it a bunch. Cheers!

[SpaklesDr]

I'd love one of these type of lenses. Very cool.

[Skipsul]

My Biotar (a later Exakta mount one with fewer blades and a clicky aperture) flares less, but it’s a newer one, while the contrast on my Helios (a late cheap one without a clicky aperture) always made things look washed out.

[dlyon]

Thank you for this interesting and informative review. I am fortunate to have both lenses and like them both. I really enjoy well crafted lenses -- even when they are not necessarily superior optically -- and thus particularly enjoy using the Zeiss, and appreciate its smaller size for carrying purposes. The Helios is for me a more "normal" 35mm film camera type lens -- I grew upon a Minolta SRT101 -- and thus very comfortable and familiar to use. I'm happy with both lenses optically, and am pleased that the generally very affordable Helios, as well as many other Russian lenses, performs so well.