Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • 5 months later...

I finally got my adapter and am starting to like this lens.
 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a Helios 44-2 for a couple of weeks now. The bokeh is crazy!  Sharpness is ok a little stopped down. An example :

 

Lotje, my doggie. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

An experiment with the Helios, reverse mounted on my A7riii: 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 10/26/2018 at 4:55 PM, Lescatalpas said:

Mine was 15euro +postage ?

A few years ago I spoke to one of the sales staff at KEH, an avid collector of and expert on normal lenses. He said this lens can be very good but most of the examples on the market are not. If you want an example that performs as it really should, you may need to buy several before you find it.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, thefsb said:

A few years ago I spoke to one of the sales staff at KEH, an avid collector of and expert on normal lenses. He said this lens can be very good but most of the examples on the market are not. If you want an example that performs as it really should, you may need to buy several before you find it.

 

You may be very right, but there is not a lot to complain for €15. By the way, the Helios 44-2 58mm is a Russian copy of  the Carl Zeiss Biotar.  My copy is sharp, look at the eye of my doggie in the first photo I posted in this chapter. Maybe I was first time lucky? ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Posts

    • Hola, parece que estan agotados, saludos Felipe 
    • I'd suggest you start by running a simple test.  Take pictures of a typical scene/subject and each of the JPEG settings your camera offers.  Then compare them in the output that you normally produce.  You may or may not see a difference.  I normally shoot at the highest JPEG level and save that file -- but make a smaller file (lower resolution) for normal/typical use. There's plenty of editing that you can do with JPEGs on your computer -- depending on your software -- and there are features in your camera that can help out, as well.  That depends on your camera.  Put them together, and it might meet your needs.  For example, your camera probably has several bracketing features that will take the same shot with different settings with one press of the button.  Then you can select the best JPEG to work with on your computer.  I frequently use this feature to control contrast.
    • If you set up some basic presets in your processing software and use batch processing, you don't need jpeg at all. I shoot RAW only, use (free) Faststone Image Viewer which will view any type of image file to cull my shots, and batch process in Darktable. I can start with 2000-3000 shots and in a matter of a few hours have them culled, processed, and posted. A handful of shots, say a couple hundred from a photo walk, are done in minutes.  This saves card space, computer space, and upload time.  The results are very good for posting online. When someone wants to buy one or I decide to print it, I can then return to the RAW file and process it individually for optimum results.  I never delete a RAW file. Sometimes I'll return to an old shot I processed several years ago and reprocess it. I have been very surprised how much better they look as my processing skills improved.  
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...