Is there a reason Helios are the 'go-to' for adapting?

[mapachebasura]

Basically I was looking at various adapted lenses - manual-tilt on an adjustable bellow (like a Lensbaby 2.0) and a 'anamorphake' with what is basically a filter installed. I don't see a whole lot of other lenses getting this sort of treatment as a pre-made or with a kit being sold to do so. Why is there? There are plenty of cheap Canon FDs and such out there that could use some taking apart I imagine!

 

[Rol Lei Nut]

I haven't heard of them being "go-to", but they're relatively inexpensive and can deliver really weird bokeh.

I don't really like the look, but some do and some things become trendy...

 

[ProfHankD]

Basically I was looking at various adapted lenses - manual-tilt on an adjustable bellow (like a Lensbaby 2.0) and a 'anamorphake' with what is basically a filter installed. I don't see a whole lot of other lenses getting this sort of treatment as a pre-made or with a kit being sold to do so. Why is there? There are plenty of cheap Canon FDs and such out there that could use some taking apart I imagine!

Well, USSR lenses are known for their mechanical simplicity. M42 is a lot simpler than FD or FDn, so taking the back apart is easier. They're also seriously high-production items, so plenty are available cheap.

However, I wouldn't say there's really anything all that special about them....

 

[Tons o Glass]

Do you mean the Helios 44-2 along with its older/younger siblings, specifically? It's always been a fun lens, but I would say the internet, and probably more specifically the YouTube cinematography/videography crowd, is to blame for how popular it's become. Prices have steadily risen with this increase in popularity, but they're still arguably very cheap and very accessible as there are millions of them floating around.

I see it as a "go-to" for someone looking for lenses with many deficiencies (character/flaws) that even slightly more modern lenses will have under better control.

Swirly bokeh is its claim to fame and that is what gets mentioned most often, but I find the bokeh to be pretty nice near the center of the frame or when the conditions for swirl aren't met.

It has low contrast which may help the bokeh some, but this also helps videographers retain shadows/highlights during capture and some of them simply like the look. It flares/glares easily and some videographers seek this out -- the coatings are simple and lens edges near the aperture are either not well blackened or not blackened at all.

I think it's plenty sharp in the center. Sharpness falls off pretty quickly away from center wide open, and while this obviously improves as you stop down, it happens to a lesser extent than on even slightly more modern fast fifties.

As mentioned in previous posts, they're easy to work on.

The sometimes odd bokeh, low contrast, propensity to flare, sharpness falloff, price, availability - it has a lot going for it in the mind of a budget cinematographer. Add to that its serviceability - now it's a perfect candidate for the "anamorfake" mods as real anamorphic lenses share some of those traits or at least behave similarly.

You also may come across some ruined ones, not just converted/modded ones...

Dear lens police, please confiscate their Dremel.

As seen here in this dumpster fire of a listing: https://www.ebay.com/itm/363260760623

 

[mapachebasura]

Why would they do that though...? What

 

[petrochemist]

Basically I was looking at various adapted lenses - manual-tilt on an adjustable bellow (like a Lensbaby 2.0) and a 'anamorphake' with what is basically a filter installed. I don't see a whole lot of other lenses getting this sort of treatment as a pre-made or with a kit being sold to do so. Why is there? There are plenty of cheap Canon FDs and such out there that could use some taking apart I imagine!

They are far from being the 'go to' though they are certainly popular In Europe where they are very cheap. This value, added to the fact they are solid & can give unusual bokeh makes them a good starting point. Things are somewhat different in the States where I believe they tend to be quite a bit more expensive.

For mounting via a free-lensing type bellows I find enlarger lenses are ideal. You can get a range of focal lengths in the same M39 mount & the longer ones give larger image circles & more space for flexibility in moving.

Back in 2010 I used a short section of MR2 steering gaiter to provide the bellows the flange that came with one of my enlarging lenses simple slipped inside this, so the cut down gaiter prevented stray light & dust getting in while I could position the 50mm or 75mm lenses as desired. This link will take you one of my Flickr shots of the set-up. I think an extra section of the gaiter would have been preferable for the 75mm but it could easily be stretched enough for portrait shots.

Unlike adapting SLR lenses it will be possible to use this approach (at least with 75mm & longer lenses) on DSLRs and still cover a FF sensor with movements employed. The 50mm worked fine on my APSC DSLR.

Here and here are a couple of portraits with this set-up that both show the idea but missed the focusing point or plane I was aiming for - in the first I wanted the eyes not the top of the head, in the second I wanted the ground all the way to the bottom of the tower but ended up going too low.

 

[SQLGuy]

I think because M42 is easy to adapt (long enough registration to fit on Canon EF), and because Helios lenses are pretty solid, pretty useful (almost normal focal length, interesting rendering, and pretty fast), and very common.

I paid all of $5 for mine, in basically mint condition, at a camera swap meet a few years ago.

Adapting lenses has been around before mirrorless, but mirrorless opened up a whole new swath of possibilities. Before mirrorless, though, M42 and Leica R were the main "other" lenses that could be adapted. Leica R being the only one with a long enough registration to adapt to Nikon F, but M42 being really common with a lot of decent, sometimes even excellent, lenses, that could be used on both Canon EF and Sony/Minolta A bodies. So, IMO, some of the Helios popularity comes from the pre-mirrorless adaptation momentum that M42 had.

 

[Lightshow]

It's often recommended because it's IQ is respectable, they are mechanically simple and therefore easy to work on , they are cheap and plentiful, well they used to cheap, they have become more expensive over the years, but still good value. Sure there are better lenses out there, you'll just have to pay more(most likely) for them.

 

[Tons o Glass]

Why would they do that though...? What

Regarding the monstrosity I linked to, I'm wondering the same thing. The adapter on it is inscribed with a now dead webpage (www.FunkyFotosGroup.com) - maybe they're the ones who made this... thing. With a PL mount attached they're surely catering to the video crowd.

There are a few possibilities that come to my mind

• They wanted a flare machine - it would surely make funky fotos.
• They wanted the lens to look 'really cool' regardless of what it would do to IQ
• The lens as linked to above is a partial/unfinished "rehousing" project or cine conversion and the filed/milled/lathed/Dremel'd surfaces were going to be mated with focus gears, external shells, baffles, faceplates, etc.