The Helios 44-2 58mm F2 is probably one of the most famous vintage lenses around, and most of that fame comes down to one thing:

Swirly bokeh.

You’ve probably seen the photos before. The subject sits in the middle of the frame while the entire background seems to twist and wrap around it.

So naturally, when I finally took my Helios 44-2 out for a proper test, I expected the swirl to just… happen.

It didn’t.

At least, not immediately.

What I discovered is that the Helios can definitely produce that famous swirling background, but you need to give it the right conditions.

Once I figured those conditions out, getting the swirl became much easier.

One of the first things worth knowing is that simply shooting a Helios 44-2 at F2 doesn’t automatically create swirly bokeh.

During my first outing with the lens, I took it to a classic car show.

There were plenty of interesting subjects and backgrounds, but I struggled to get the really obvious swirl I was looking for.

The closest I came was this photograph of a group of Vespas.

The background looks like it wants to swirl.

You can see the shapes towards the outside of the frame beginning to bend into a circular pattern, but the effect isn’t especially strong.

That made me realise something:

The lens wasn’t necessarily the problem.

The setup was.

So I went home, grabbed one of my 3D-printed mannequin heads, and started experimenting in the backyard.

That’s when the swirl finally appeared.

The first thing I found was that the swirl is much easier to create when the lens is wide open at F2.

As you stop the Helios down, the bokeh starts becoming more controlled and you lose some of the characteristics that create the circular effect.

So if your main goal is swirly bokeh, start at:

58mm – F2

My own Helios has a slightly unusual problem because the aperture scale was apparently reassembled backwards during a previous service.

When mine says F22, it is actually wide open.

Thankfully, once you know that, it’s easy enough to work around.

This was probably the biggest thing I learned.

The Helios likes chaos.

Branches, leaves, small highlights, patches of light and lots of little details all seem to help create the swirl.

A plain wall behind your subject probably isn’t going to do much.

A tree full of leaves, branches and bright highlights is much better.

In my backyard tests, the most successful backgrounds were filled with small overlapping shapes.

The busier the background became, the stronger the circular effect appeared.

If you’re struggling to get your Helios to swirl, this is probably the first thing I would change.

Find the messiest background you can.

The second big ingredient is subject distance.

For my mannequin-head tests, I was probably somewhere between half a metre and one metre away from the subject.

Getting close creates much stronger separation between the subject and background.

That means the background is thrown further out of focus, giving the lens more opportunity to create that distinctive bokeh pattern.

If you stand too far away from your subject, the background starts becoming more defined and the effect becomes much less obvious.

You want to be relatively close to the subject, while still leaving plenty of distance behind it.

This goes hand-in-hand with shooting close.

Your subject needs some breathing room behind it.

If the subject is standing directly against a tree, wall or bush, the background won’t blur enough for the Helios to really do its thing.

You want the subject close to the camera and the background further away.

The exact distance will depend on your location, but the general idea is simple:

Close subject + distant busy background = much better chance of swirl.

This was something I noticed before I managed to get the full swirl.

In several of my photographs, the out-of-focus highlights near the edges of the frame started taking on a cat-eye shape.

A comment left on one of my previous videos summed it up nicely:

“Catseyes towards the outside are always a sign of swirlyness….”

That seems to line up pretty well with what I found during my own testing.

I also found the effect easier to see when shooting in landscape orientation.

The reason is fairly simple.

A lot of the swirl happens towards the outer areas of the image.

Shooting horizontally gives you more space around the subject and allows those distorted outer areas to become a bigger part of the composition.

That doesn’t mean portrait orientation won’t work.

I also tested the setup with a person, and the background started visibly wrapping around their head.

But if you’re specifically trying to experiment and see how much swirl your lens can produce, I found landscape orientation easier.

If you just want the short version, this is the setup that worked for me:

• Shoot at F2
• Use a very busy background
• Get approximately 0.5–1 metre from your subject
• Leave plenty of distance between your subject and the background
• Look for branches, leaves and small bright highlights
• Try shooting horizontally so you can see more of the outside of the frame

That’s basically it.

If you’ve tried photographing with a Helios and you’re not getting the famous effect, there are a few things I would check.

Your background is too simple

A smooth wall or evenly coloured background doesn’t give the lens much to work with.

Look for leaves, branches, lights and small details.

Your subject is too far away

Get closer.

The more separation you can create between your subject and background, the more obvious the bokeh becomes.

The background is too close to your subject

Move your subject further away from the background.

Even a very busy background won’t help much if it’s almost in the same focus plane.

You’re stopping the lens down

Start at F2.

You can experiment with smaller apertures later, but wide open is the easiest place to start.

You’re looking only at the centre of the frame

The swirl becomes much stronger towards the outside.

Pay attention to what the bokeh is doing near the edges.

No.

And that’s actually one of the things I like about the lens.

The Helios 44-2 is famous for wild bokeh, but it can also produce incredibly smooth backgrounds.

For example:

These were taken with the same lens, but the background looks completely different.

Instead of swirling around the subject, the bokeh becomes soft and creamy.

So the Helios doesn’t really have one single “look”.

Its character changes dramatically depending on how you use it.

I think so.

Part of the fun of using vintage lenses is learning how they behave.

Modern lenses are often designed to remove optical quirks.

The Helios is interesting because those quirks are exactly what make people want to use it.

Once I figured out the combination of F2, close subject distance and a busy distant background, getting the swirl became much less mysterious.

It still won’t happen in every photograph.

But now, at least, I know how to give the lens what it wants.

And once everything lines up properly, the Helios really does produce something special.

The Helios 44-2 58mm F2 is one of those lenses that has achieved almost mythical status among vintage lens photographers.

Mention the Helios and one thing usually comes to mind:

Swirly bokeh.

That was certainly one of the reasons I bought mine. Then, like so many lenses in my collection, I put it on a shelf and promptly forgot I owned it.

So it was time to finally take it off the shelf, put it on a camera, and find out whether the Helios 44-2 deserves its reputation.

My copy is a Valdai-made Helios 44-2, probably dating from around 1969.

And as I quickly discovered, there is quite a bit more to this little lens than just the swirl.

The Helios 44 series is based on the Carl Zeiss Biotar 58mm F2.

Following the Second World War, lens designs and machinery from the Zeiss factory in Jena made their way to the Soviet Union. The design eventually ended up with KMZ — Krasnogorsky Mekhanichesky Zavod — where it was modified and eventually became the Helios 44.

Over the years, Helios lenses were manufactured by several factories, including KMZ, Valdai and BelOMO.

That is one of the reasons there are so many different versions of the Helios floating around today.

If you’re trying to work out which version you own, I have a separate guide covering the different Helios factories, logos and manufacturer markings.

The Helios 44-2 has:

• 58mm focal length
• F2 maximum aperture
• Six elements in four groups
• Eight aperture blades
• 49mm filter thread
• A fully de-clicked aperture

Physically, it’s a relatively small lens.

The focus ring on my copy is surprisingly smooth, and I particularly like the raised ridges around the lower section of the barrel. I almost wish that design had been carried through the rest of the lens.

Then we get to the aperture control.

And mine is slightly… special.

The aperture ring on the Helios 44-2 is tiny and completely de-clicked.

That isn’t necessarily ideal for still photography, but it can be extremely useful for video.

My particular copy has another quirk.

The aperture markings are backwards.

When the lens says F22, it’s actually wide open.

When it says F2, it’s stopped down.

Apparently the lens had been serviced before I bought it, so I’m guessing something went slightly wrong when it was reassembled.

It doesn’t stop the lens from working, but it does make testing exact apertures something of a guessing game.

Rather than photographing the same plants in my garden again, I wanted to give the Helios something a little more interesting to work with.

Luckily, there was a classic car show nearby.

Old cars and old lenses seemed like a pretty good combination.

Most of the following images were probably taken somewhere between F2 and approximately F4, although the backwards aperture ring makes exact settings difficult to confirm.

The first thing that surprised me was just how sharp the Helios can be.

Take this photograph of a vintage Fiat 600.

At 100%, there is a slight halo around some of the brighter areas, but I don’t find it particularly unpleasant.

If anything, it gives the image a subtle glow.

The second photograph is another good example.

At 100%, there is enough detail to clearly see scratches in the window.

But the interesting part is actually happening behind the subject.

The background contains strange bright highlights that almost resemble little stars, while the highlights towards the edges start taking on a distinctive cat-eye shape.

That becomes important once we start talking about the Helios swirl

One thing I really enjoy about my Helios 44-2 is how useful it is for photographing smaller details.

For example, this close-up of the chrome grille work:

There isn’t much of the famous Helios swirl here.

Instead, the lens produces beautifully soft background blur.

The same thing happens in this photograph of a green GMC truck.

You can see small cat-eye highlights in the background, but some also have a bright outer edge that almost gives them an onion-ring appearance.

Looking closely, the bokeh balls aren’t completely uniform inside.

There is also some visible chromatic aberration around the brightest reflections — or, as I tend to call it, a little bit of purple gunk.

It’s technically imperfect.

But behind all that chrome, I think it looks fantastic.

One of my favourite photographs from the day was this Bentley.

If you’re wondering why part of the car appears to be missing, no, I didn’t use AI to generate half a Bentley.

This was photographed using the Brenizer Method.

I use this technique occasionally when I want to create a large stitched image while keeping an unusually shallow depth of field.

At 100%, the chromatic aberration becomes considerably easier to see around bright highlights.

I also suspect this was photographed wide open, which probably contributes to the slightly soft, dreamy appearance.

And honestly?

With a lens like the Helios, that isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

Now we get to the reason most people are interested in this lens.

The swirl.

At the car show, the closest I managed was this photograph of a group of Vespas.

The background isn’t producing an obvious circular vortex, but you can almost see it trying.

The shapes towards the outside of the frame begin bending in a way that suggests the swirl is there — it just needs the right conditions.

So naturally, I went home and started experimenting with a 3D-printed mannequin head in the backyard.

That was where things became interesting.

And I think I finally figured out what the Helios wants.

Getting the famous Helios swirl isn’t completely random.

You just need to give the lens the right conditions.

1. Use an Extremely Busy Background

And I mean extremely busy.

Branches, leaves, highlights and lots of small details seem to work particularly well.

The more visual chaos behind your subject, the more material the lens has to turn into that circular pattern.

2. Shoot Wide Open

The effect was considerably easier to produce at F2.

Stopping the lens down reduces many of the characteristics that help create the swirl.

3. Get Close to Your Subject

For the mannequin tests, I was probably somewhere between half a metre and one metre away.

The closer subject distance helps create stronger background separation.

4. Leave Space Behind Your Subject

Your background still needs to be a reasonable distance behind whatever you’re photographing.

If your subject and background are too close together, the effect becomes much harder to see.

5. Landscape Orientation Helps

I also found the swirl easier to see while photographing horizontally.

You simply get more of the outer part of the image, which is where the effect becomes most obvious.

I later tried the same setup with a portrait, and the background visibly started wrapping around the person’s head.

Once you understand what the lens wants, producing the famous Helios swirl becomes considerably less mysterious.

Someone once left an interesting comment on one of my videos:

“Catseyes towards the outside are always a sign of swirlyness….”

That actually seems like a useful clue.

In several of my Helios photographs, the bokeh highlights gradually become more cat-eye shaped towards the edges of the frame.

When you combine enough of those stretched highlights with a busy background, the overall pattern begins creating that characteristic circular appearance.

It also makes me curious about some of my other vintage lenses.

My Yashica 50mm F1.9, for example, produces plenty of cat-eye bokeh.

I may have to put it through exactly the same backyard test

The strangest thing about the Helios is that a lens famous for chaotic bokeh can also produce something incredibly smooth.

The background is extremely soft and creamy.

The same thing happens with this close-up photograph of a leaf.

There is virtually none of the craziness people normally associate with the Helios.

And I think that’s one of the things I underestimated about this lens.

It doesn’t have one single bokeh style.

Depending on the subject, distance and background, it can go from wild and circular to surprisingly calm and smooth.

Colour straight out of the camera is also quite pleasing.

Reds still look red and greens still look green without anything particularly strange happening.

The Helios does feel slightly lower in contrast than a modern lens.

But considering its age, that isn’t particularly surprising.

Personally, I don’t mind it.

That slightly softer rendering is part of what gives vintage lenses their character in the first place.

Chromatic aberration is definitely present.

You’ll notice purple fringing around strong reflections and high-contrast highlights, particularly when shooting wide open.

It’s especially visible in photographs such as the Bentley panorama.

For technically perfect photography, that might bother you.

For a lens like the Helios, I’m much more forgiving.

You’re probably not buying one because you’re looking for clinically perfect rendering.

You’re buying it precisely because it has character.

I was expecting the Helios to be considerably worse when it came to flare.

During normal shooting, however, I didn’t encounter anything particularly nasty or distracting.

I’m sure you could provoke it by deliberately pointing the lens directly into strong sunlight, but during my normal walk-around testing it behaved surprisingly well.

Testing the stopped-down performance of my particular lens is difficult because of its backwards, de-clicked aperture ring.

Trying to determine exactly where F8, F11 or F16 sits becomes something of a crapshoot.

What surprised me, however, was how long the lens retained visible background separation as I stopped it down.

Even somewhere around what should theoretically be F8 or F11, there was still noticeable background blur.

It’s only towards the very end of the aperture range that the background really begins losing its character.

Wherever F16 actually happens to be on my lens.

I don’t normally test vintage lenses extensively for video, but the Helios seemed like an obvious exception.

The completely de-clicked aperture makes much more sense in this context.

More importantly, some of the swirling characteristics are visible while the image is moving.

Even when the background itself isn’t moving very much, you can see that circular character sitting behind the subject.

In other shots, the out-of-focus areas become considerably more chaotic.

It constantly feels as though the lens is trying to drag the background into a swirl.

Sharpness is also surprisingly respectable.

Even using 1080p footage from my Canon 6D, the lens resolves a decent amount of detail.

If you’re interested in vintage lenses for video, the Helios makes a surprisingly strong case for itself.

I genuinely enjoyed walking around with it.

It’s small enough that it doesn’t become annoying after several hours, and I never felt as though I was fighting the lens.

Manual focusing obviously takes more effort than using a modern autofocus lens, but the smooth focus ring on my copy makes the experience pleasant.

I did notice some slight vignetting towards the edges in a few photographs.

Again, though, that’s hardly a deal-breaker for a lens like this.

For me, yes.

The Helios is a legend for a reason.

It can be temperamental if your sole objective is producing that famous swirling background.

You can’t simply photograph anything at F2 and expect a vortex to magically appear.

But once you understand the conditions it likes, creating the effect isn’t particularly difficult.

More importantly, the Helios 44-2 isn’t just a one-trick lens.

It can produce:

• Sharp images
• Smooth, creamy bokeh
• Wild swirly backgrounds
• Close-up detail shots
• Pleasing portraits
• Interesting video
• Plenty of vintage character

That makes it far more versatile than I expected.

I already own far too many lenses around the 50mm mark.

The Helios therefore has plenty of competition.

What I don’t own are many lenses specifically known for this kind of swirling bokeh.

Combine that with the Helios’ ability to produce extremely smooth backgrounds when conditions change, and I think it earns its place.

I’ve always wanted a Helios 85mm F1.5, largely because of its reputation for dramatic swirling bokeh.

After finally learning how to get the 44-2 to swirl, I’m starting to wonder whether I actually need one.

Although knowing me, that probably isn’t going to stop me.

The Helios 44-2 58mm F2 is one of those rare vintage lenses that manages to live up to much of its reputation while still having a few surprises.

Yes, it can produce the famous swirly bokeh.

But it can also be surprisingly sharp, beautifully smooth and remarkably versatile.

I’d happily use it for portraits, detail photography, as a general walk-around lens or even for video.

It’s a jack of all trades… but strangely enough, a master of a few.

The Helios-44-2 58mm f/2 is one of those lenses that seems easy to identify at first glance. It says Helios on the front, it says 44-2, and it looks like every other Helios you’ve seen online.

Then you start looking into the history of the lens.

Different factories, different logos, different body styles, Latin text, Cyrillic text, red markings, white markings, zebra bodies, black bodies — and suddenly identifying your Helios becomes an absolute nightmare.

Fortunately, there is an easy way to at least identify where your lens came from. We are not going too deep into the nitty gritty here. This is not about identifying the exact coating, the exact year, or who assembled your lens on a specific Tuesday afternoon.

Although, if you are lucky, maybe it was Sergei. Dmitry also knew what he was doing. Ivan, on the other hand, kept disappearing for smoke and lunch breaks.

The easiest way to identify a Helios-44-2 is to start with the factory logo.

Helios-44 lenses were produced by several factories, including KMZ, MMZ / BelOMO, Jupiter / Valdai, and later Zenit / Vileika.

The factory mark is usually printed on the front name ring of the lens, close to the lens name and focal length information.

For most people, this is the most useful starting point:

An arched logo, almost like a curved roof or bridge

A horizontal line with a circle and arrow-style symbol

A prism-like logo, sometimes with an arrow-like line through it

A prism-like logo, sometimes with an arrow-like line through it

Usually a wordmark or branding, more common on later lenses

Once you know the factory, you can start looking at the smaller details: whether the name is written in Latin or Cyrillic, whether the body is black or zebra, whether the aperture markings are red or white, and whether the lens has later coatings.

For a broad identification, though, the factory logo is the best place to start.

I hope this little guide helps shine some light on which factory your Helios came from.

Hello and welcome to Out of the Box, the show where we take a look at the modern side of lenses, or as it’s also known: “Wow, he actually has lenses from this decade!

This is the TTArtisan 100mm f/2.8, also known as the “bubble bokeh” lens. For those who don’t know, this lens is essentially a copy of the Meyer-Optik Görlitz Trioplan 100mm f/2.8, an incredibly legendary camera lens.

As you would probably expect if you’ve been watching my channel for a while, you’d suspect I owned one—maybe even two—of the originals. Nope. I don’t have one. I would love to, but considering what they go for these days, it’s a bit out of my reach for now.

So, why did I buy this lens? Originally, I wanted it very badly. I remember looking at reviews and thinking, “I must have this lens; the bubble bokeh looks incredible.” Then I bought it… and it hasn’t really seen much use until now.

The lens comes in this nice little black box with a diagram of the lens on it, which I really like.

Originally announced in 2023, this lens has a focal length of 100mm and a closest focus distance of 0.9m. It is designed for full-frame cameras and uses a 49mm filter thread. It features a maximum aperture of f/2.8 and a minimum of f/22. With 13 aperture blades and a Trioplan optical design (3 elements in 3 groups), it’s built for character.

The lens comes in an M42 mount, making it easy to adapt to a multitude of cameras. The official TTArtisan spec sheet lists the weight at approximately 307g, but on my scale, it comes out at 329g.

It’s quite hefty for such a small lens; the all-metal design is proof of that. It even comes with a metal screw-cap for the front and a metal M42 rear cap. The aperture ring is at the front, and the focus ring is at the rear. The focus feels smooth—which I would hope for, considering it’s still a relatively new lens!

Personally, I love how the 13 aperture blades look when you’re stopping down. It’s a real treat to see.

One weird thing: every time I attach this lens to my M42 adapter, it sits upside down. Maybe it’s my adapter, but this isn’t the first time it’s happened with my M42 lenses. If anyone knows why the indexing is off, let me know, because I’ve got no clue.

As the name implies, this is a bubble bokeh machine. With high contrast and specular highlights in the background, the lens produces distinct bubbles. You can see that the bokeh likes to overlap, and to my eye, it looks slightly like “onion ring” bokeh. That doesn’t bother me, but your mileage may vary.

One thing I noticed is that the raw photos can look very washed out and lacking in contrast. Fortunately, you can fix this easily by sliding the Dehaze slider up.

This is to be expected with a lens that copies the Trioplan formula. As I like to say: vintage lenses come with vintage problems, even if they were made in 2023.

The bokeh wide open is interesting, but there’s a trade-off. You get a ton of halos, especially at f/2.8. If you look at this 100% crop of the berries, there is a lot of “glow” around them, and it’s quite soft.

But here is the interesting part: stopping down to f/4 removes most of the problems. The halos are significantly reduced, and while you still get some “purple gunk” in the form of chromatic aberration, that’s standard for such a simple optical design.

The surprise? The bubble bokeh stays mostly the same.

Take these two photos: one shot wide open (mg7907) and the other at f/4. Yes, the bubbles aren’t quite as wild, but you get a very usable background without everything looking like you smeared Vaseline over the front element. That’s a win in my book.

Another example is this photo of the cherub. Wide open, the background is a bubble explosion, but it feels soft and glowy. At f/4, you still get a wild background, but the subject is much sharper and more detailed.

The “stop-down test” shows this in action; you can actually see the bubbles persisting even as you approach the minimum aperture of f/22.

Flaring and Color

The only time I encountered bad flaring was during specific testing. It can completely wash out the photo—here is an example with Dehaze at 0 and then at 50.

I also noticed something strange while writing this review: from around f/8 onwards in my stop-down test, a specific flare starts forming. I didn’t move my spot, so I wonder if light is reflecting off the aperture blades themselves.

As for color rendering, it feels “okay.” Straight out of the camera, the colors can be a bit muted, but you can easily bring them back in post. It’s exactly what you’d expect from such a simple construction.

On my Canon 6D, the lens felt natural and balanced. On smaller mirrorless bodies, it might feel a bit front-heavy, but for me, it was a joy to use. My personal sweet spot is definitely around f/4.

As the name implies, this is a bubble bokeh machine. With high contrast and specular highlights in the background, the lens produces distinct bubbles. You can see that the bokeh likes to overlap, and to my eye, it looks slightly like “onion ring” bokeh. That doesn’t bother me, but your mileage may vary.

One thing I noticed is that the raw photos can look very washed out and lacking in contrast. Fortunately, you can fix this easily by sliding the Dehaze slider up.

This is to be expected with a lens that copies the Trioplan formula. As I like to say: vintage lenses come with vintage problems, even if they were made in 2023.

The bokeh wide open is interesting, but there’s a trade-off. You get a ton of halos, especially at f/2.8. If you look at this 100% crop of the berries, there is a lot of “glow” around them, and it’s quite soft.

But here is the interesting part: stopping down to f/4 removes most of the problems. The halos are significantly reduced, and while you still get some “purple gunk” in the form of chromatic aberration, that’s standard for such a simple optical design.

The surprise? The bubble bokeh stays mostly the same.

Take these two photos: one shot wide open (mg7907) and the other at f/4. Yes, the bubbles aren’t quite as wild, but you get a very usable background without everything looking like you smeared Vaseline over the front element. That’s a win in my book.

Another example is this photo of the cherub. Wide open, the background is a bubble explosion, but it feels soft and glowy. At f/4, you still get a wild background, but the subject is much sharper and more detailed.

The “stop-down test” shows this in action; you can actually see the bubbles persisting even as you approach the minimum aperture of f/22.

Flaring and Color

The only time I encountered bad flaring was during specific testing. It can completely wash out the photo—here is an example with Dehaze at 0 and then at 50.

I also noticed something strange while writing this review: from around f/8 onwards in my stop-down test, a specific flare starts forming. I didn’t move my spot, so I wonder if light is reflecting off the aperture blades themselves.

As for color rendering, it feels “okay.” Straight out of the camera, the colors can be a bit muted, but you can easily bring them back in post. It’s exactly what you’d expect from such a simple construction.

On my Canon 6D, the lens felt natural and balanced. On smaller mirrorless bodies, it might feel a bit front-heavy, but for me, it was a joy to use. My personal sweet spot is definitely around f/4.

So, in the end, does it really matter? Okay, jokes aside—was this lens worth it? Yes.

It’s not terribly expensive, the build quality is great, and the character is undeniable. It’s a solid “Modern Vintage” lens. If you want that tactile feel and the “soap bubble” look without the risk of buying an old lens that has more fungus than a mushroom farm, this is a great alternative.

I love that we are seeing these replicas. Given how expensive the original Meyer-Optik is, this is a fantastic way to get that look with a guarantee of pristine optics.

Where does it fit in my collection? I can definitely see myself pulling this out when I want that specific look, now that I know the magic happens a few stops away from wide open.

If you’re interested in bubble bokeh, want a brand-new lens, and don’t want to navigate the minefield of the used market, I highly recommend it.

I’m really looking forward to the future of these modern vintage lenses. I know there’s a TTArtisan 75mm f/1.5 (the Biotar clone) that I want to get my hands on, but that’ll remain a dream until I save up some more gear money!

Hello and welcome to New Old Glass, a short little show where I take a look at the vintage lenses I’ve recently picked up, or as my justification calls it: a “valid business expense.”

Today, we’re looking at the Olympus Zuiko 50mm f/3.5 Auto-Macro. This is a bit of a rarity for me, as I don’t have many macro lenses in my collection.

My only other one is the Canon 100mm f/2.8 L, which has been my workhorse for years.

Originally, I was eyeing a different Olympus lens in an auction, but the price went absolutely ballistic.

Fortunately, I managed to scoop this 50mm Macro for a decent price.

I’ve been looking to expand my Olympus lineup lately, as I don’t have nearly enough OM glass in my collection.

• Release Date: Originally introduced in 1975

• Optical Design: 5 elements in 4 groups

• Aperture Blades: 6 blades

• Filter Thread: 49mm

• Weight: 221 grams

• Mount: Olympus OM mount

The build quality is exactly what you’d expect from vintage Olympus, featuring a solid metal body and a rubber focusing ring.

The focus ring on my copy is surprisingly smooth for a lens that’s nearly 50 years old.

The aperture ring is quite small and sits right at the front of the lens.

It’s an interesting design choice, as I usually prefer the ring at the back near the mount, but it’s certainly not a dealbreaker.

Honestly, this lens has given me some of the most fun I’ve had with vintage glass in years.

On the camera, the lens feels great. It’s light and easy to carry all day.

The focus ring is nice and large, which is helpful because the focus throw is about two football fields long!

As the name suggests, the macro capability is impressive.

Shooting wide open at f/3.5, the performance is reasonably good; your subjects stay quite sharp while the background melts away.

But stopping down for true macro work is where this lens really shines.

Take a look at this Hoverfly, for example. I think I shot this around f/8 or f/11.

Looking at the 100% crop, the detail is fantastic, especially around the eyes.

I definitely stopped down here because the background is more visible, yet the fine details are much crisper.

Another great example is this Zebra Blue butterfly.

At a 100% crop, you can see the tiny dots on the antennae, the texture of the wings, and even what looks like fine little hairs.

When it comes to the bokeh, things get interesting.

In close-up macro work, the background is incredibly smooth.

You don’t get much of that “vintage character” like bubble bokeh or busy specular highlights.

But when you use this for portraits, that changes.

You get these beautiful little “bubble” bokeh balls in the highlights.

It almost looks like someone took a bubble brush and painted the background.

However, a word of caution: while you can use this for portraits, you have to get uncomfortably close to your subject to get any real background separation.

It works for family and friends, but I wouldn’t use this for a paying client.

There are far better vintage lenses for dedicated portrait work.

The color rendering is another standout.

I noticed during editing that the colors are very deep, the greens especially are rich and dark.

Look at the edges of the mushroom in the samples; the rendering is just striking.

So, was it worth it? Absolutely.

Even though my Canon 100mm L is my professional workhorse, the Olympus 50mm has actually become my favorite of the two for pure enjoyment.

It’s made me want to take macro photos again, which is something I haven’t done in a long time.

Where does it fit in my collection?

I would say for now, it’s my go-to for macro photography and videography.

Because it can handle portraits in a pinch, it’s a perfect “walk-about” lens.

You can capture the tiny details and the larger world without switching lenses.

If I had to choose one, get the Olympus if you’re looking for a manual focus macro lens, and get the Canon 100mm f/2.8 L if you’re looking for a workhorse that can do macro and portraits equally well.

I’d recommend the Olympus Zuiko 50mm f/3.5 to anyone who finds a good copy at a fair price.

If you have any interest in macro or just want a sharp, portable lens that can shoot anything, this is a fantastic choice.

Thanks for reading, and I will see you next time!

Hello and welcome to New Old Glass, a short little show where I take a look at some of the “new” old glass I’ve picked up. Or, as I like to call it: my badly planned retirement plan.

Today, we’re looking at the Soligor 135mm F2.8 in the M42 mount.

The Soligor 135mm was actually one of the lenses that originally ignited the spark that turned into a full-blown vintage gear wildfire. Unfortunately, I didn’t know much about optics when I first got it.

The front element wasn’t secured properly, and as you might know from my other videos, I don’t have the best track record with repairs. This lens is a prime example of that, it’s currently tucked away while I use this working copy for the review.

Soligor didn’t actually build their own lenses, they were a distributor that contracted Japanese factories. I actually have two versions of this lens.

My original one, the one that’s currently in pieces, has a completely different body style. Looking at the serial numbers, I found out why: that one was made by Sun Optical, while this working copy was made by Tokina.

It’s one of the quirks of the Soligor brand, you never quite know which Japanese factory’s character you’re getting until you check the code.

• Aperture: 12-blade design

• Optical Construction: 4 elements in 4 groups

• Filter Thread: 55mm

• Weight: 410g

• Mount: M42

The build quality is pretty solid. The entire body is metal, including the focus ring.

The focus ring is still nice and smooth, which is a massive plus for me considering this glass is probably 60 years old. Then we have the aperture ring, which is a bit of an oddity.

The aperture ring looks like it runs both ways. Going to the left it runs from F2.8 to F22, and it goes the same way the other way, from F2.8 to F22.

I have never seen an aperture ring like this, which is a real oddity for me.

The lens produces some nice rendering, though it isn’t quite as “wild” as some other vintage glass I’ve reviewed. It feels a bit more subdued compared to the extreme “bubble bokeh” lenses out there.

There are some bubbles, but they tend to stay tucked away in the background. Looking through the test photos, I didn’t experience much flaring, except for one specific shot.

In that one, a flare looks almost like a massive bubble. I actually really like the look!

As is usually the case with vintage glass, you’ll see those defined bubbles most when the background is very busy. The color rendering looks great.

The reds are punchy and saturated, and the yellows come across very well too. As you’d expect, once you stop the lens down, the images sharpen up significantly.

On the camera, the lens feels good, even if it is a bit hefty. On a modern mirrorless body, it might feel a little bulky compared to a DSLR, but it balances well enough.

So, in the end, was it worth picking up another Soligor 135mm F2.8? The honest answer is: maybe.

I have a lot of 135mm lenses in my collection because it’s a focal length I truly enjoy. But even though this model inspired my love for vintage glass, I’m not sure how often I’ll reach for it.

It will always have a special spot in my heart for starting this journey, but optically, it feels very middle-of-the-road. It’s not bad, but it’s not world-changing either.

Who would I recommend this to? If you’re looking for a fast, affordable 135mm lens with that “all-metal” vintage feel, go for it. There are much worse ways to spend your money than on a Tokina-built classic like this.

If you’re trying to figure out who actually manufactured your vintage Soligor lens, matching Soligor serial numbers to specific manufacturers isn’t always straightforward.

However, thanks to extensive research by lens enthusiasts, a reliable decoding system has been uncovered for several confirmed manufacturers.

To keep things accurate, this guide only lists manufacturer codes that have been firmly confirmed, skipping the guesswork.

For standard numerical serial numbers, Soligor utilized a simple three-digit date and manufacturer code system. You can read it by looking at the first three digits of your lens’s serial number:

• First number: Indicates the Maker/Manufacturer.

• Second number: Indicates the Decade.

• Third number: Indicates the Year.

Check the first number or letter prefix of your serial number against this table to identify the manufacturer.

Soligor lenses were widely rebranded and sold under many different names depending on the distributor or region. If you have a lens with one of the following brand names, it may actually be a Soligor:

• Reflex
• Super Carenar
• Prinzflex
• Weltblick
• Mirage
• Infotar
• Hanimar
• Flexar
• Elicar
• Derek Gardenar
• Porst
• Bushnell (Bausch & Lomb)
• J.C. Penny
• Pallas
• Berroflex
• Aetna

Hello and welcome to “New Old Glass,” a little show where I take a look at some of the new old glass I’ve bought. Or, as my impulse control calls it: “What’s that one?”

Today, we are looking at the Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar 50mm F/2.8.

Now, some of you might think this is my first Carl Zeiss lens, but it’s actually my third. I’m fortunate to own two other lenses in the Carl Zeiss Jena lineup, specifically the 50mm F/2.8 Tessar “Red T” version and the Carl Zeiss Jena Triotar 135mm F/4 “Red T” version, both in the Exakta mount.

Originally, on the site where I buy most of my lenses, there was a camera with this Carl Zeiss lens on it for sale, but I didn’t have the money at the time.

Fortunately for me, the camera and lens later went on auction without a reserve, and I was able to scoop up both for quite cheap.

This version was introduced around 1966 and came in both the Icarex mount and the M42 mount. Here are the quick technical details:

• Mount: M42 (my copy)

• Optical Design: Classic Tessar (4 elements in 3 groups)

• Aperture Blades: 5

• Build: Solid, all-metal construction

The lens feels great in the hand, and the aperture ring itself is nice and smooth.

I wasn’t sure where to drop this in, but I think right before the photos is the perfect spot. At the time of this review, I actually don’t know how to get the lens to stop down.

When I was out taking photos, I thought the aperture was working. I was happily stopping down, going “Wow, it has great bokeh even stopped down!” It was only during the stop-down test I realized something was up.

Holding the aperture lever down doesn’t engage the blades, and pushing in the M42 pin at the back does, well, even less.

A quick Google during the writing of this post shows me this is a pretty common problem with this version of the lens. I suspect I might need to try and repair it, but considering my history with that, I’m a bit reluctant. So for now, this lens is stuck at F/2.8.

Onto the photos and the bokeh, all taken at F/2.8, obviously. The lens loves to make bubbles in the background, especially when close-focusing. And considering it was stuck wide open, the photos are still pretty damn sharp.

Bokeh-wise, I love how it renders the background. With a lot of specular highlights, you will get a ton of those “bubble” bokeh balls. Now, depending on your taste, you’ll either hate this or love it. For me, I really like the character and the bubbles you get with these older lenses.

But, you can also get some nice smooth bokeh in a background without too much movement or highlights. So the lens is able to do both: nice smooth bokeh and wild, crazy bubble bokeh, all depending on the background.

Flaring-wise, I took photos in bright sunlight, and I didn’t see much flaring, if any. I think this is probably due to the front optical element being so recessed, it acts like a built-in lens hood.

The color rendering of the lens is pretty good, in my opinion. I know with another lens I tested on the same day, the reds came out almost pinkish on my Canon, but on this Zeiss, they look pretty good and natural.

It feels good on the camera. Due to its light weight, it’s a very easy walk-around lens. Something I didn’t mention earlier is that you can focus incredibly close with this lens.

I was really surprised. I stood at my usual distance for these types of lenses and then realized I could get much, much closer.

So in the end, was it worth it to buy the Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar 50mm F/2.8? I would say yes. Even though it’s not one of the more sought-after Carl Zeiss lenses, they are still pretty desirable, well, to me, anyway. Even if the aperture doesn’t work, I think it has a nice place in my collection.

As to who I would recommend it to, I don’t know. With a non-functioning aperture, it’s difficult to say. But I love the bokeh and I love the rendering you get with this lens. How it performs stopped down, I have no idea.

It is a classic vintage lens with vintage problems

Hello and welcome back to Shelf to Mount, the show where I take a look at the vintage gear I’ve bought and promptly forgot I ever owned.

Or, as my bank account prefers to call it, “The Ongoing Financial Crisis.”

Today, we are looking at the Yashica Yashinon-DS 50mm F1.9. It’s quite a mouthful to say, and honestly, it’s a lens that leaves me with more questions than answers.

The biggest one being: Why did I buy this?

Looking at my shelf, I see I already own the Yashinon 50mm F1.7. Compared to this F1.9 version, the 1.7 is significantly heavier.

I have a vague memory of wanting the DS model after watching a video from Simon’s Utak, but for the life of me, I can’t remember exactly which video sparked the urge.

Despite my memory gaps, the specs on this piece of glass are quite interesting for those who love the technical side of things:

• Mount: M42 screw mount

• Optical Formula: 6 elements in 5 groups

• Aperture Blades: 6 blades

• Weight: A featherlight 203 grams

• Filter Size: 52mm

Back to the lens itself. Originally announced in 2014, here is what is going on under the hood:

• Optics: 14 elements in 11 groups.

• Special Elements: Two Aspherical elements and one Low-Dispersion element.

• Aperture: 7 aperture blades.

• Weight: 240 grams.

With its entirely plastic body, that feather-light weight makes perfect sense.

The build of the lens features a rubberized focus ring. Usually, on lenses of this age, these rubber rings dry out or loosen up, but this one feels surprisingly tactile.

The focus throw on my copy was a bit stiff when I first picked it up, but it’s smoothed out nicely with use. It’s dampened, but responsive.

The aperture clicks distinctly from F1.9 all the way down to F16. The aperture feels smooth and clicky, which is always a plus in my book.

When shooting wide open, this lens has a habit of rendering “cat’s eye” bokeh towards the edges of the frame. However, once you stop it down, those highlights turn into distinct hexagons.

It’s interesting for me because with a lot of modern lenses, we usually look for backgrounds which are not busy and will give a smoother appearance.

But with vintage glass like this, I actually prefer finding backgrounds that are busy and filled with specular highlights. I find it helps to bring the lens to life, whereas flatter backgrounds will deliver a more boring result instead of giving you a bokeh festival.

Speaking of the bokeh, there is something unique happening here I didn’t see when I was originally taking the photos.

If you look at the curve of the tree and the texture on the right in some of these shots, that almost looks like swirling bokeh.

It’s not quite a Helios 44-2, but there is definitely something giving it that swirl effect. I noticed an odd curve on some frames where the tree looks distorted on the left side.

I am tempted to go back to where I took these and see if it’s just my imagination or if the area is just like that. Let me know in the comments what you think, do you see it too, or am I just imagining things?

On the flaring front, it’s interesting. At certain angles, you get these surprisingly straight lines of light.

I suspect this is internal reflection bouncing off the straight edges of the aperture blades. I kind of like it, it’s very weird, as I don’t think I have seen flaring like this before.

In terms of sharpness? It punches above its weight. Wide open at F1.9, it’s surprisingly usable.

Yes, you can see the Chromatic Aberration, specifically the purple fringing around the subject, but the focal plane itself is sharp. As you’d expect, stopping down cleans up that fringing and sharpens the frame significantly.

So, in the end, was the Yashinon-DS F1.9 worth digging out of my lens collection and taking for a spin?

On the whole I would say… maybe. It renders beautiful imagery, and for a “walk-around” lens, the light weight is fantastic.

However, with the other glass at my disposal, I’m not sure this is the one I’d grab first if I was looking for a vintage lens to take with me on a walkabout or a holiday.

But, if you are just getting into the world of vintage lenses and want that specific rendering you get with older glass, this is a solid entry point.

The real question for me remains: how does it stack up against its big brother, the F1.7? Does that fraction of a stop in aperture actually make a difference? I think we need a shootout or a review video to decide.

That was the Yashica Yashinon-DS 50mm F1.9, a vintage lens with a lot of vintage character.

Let me know in the comments, do you prefer the clean look of modern glass, or the character of these old lenses? Or are you like me and you prefer both, as both have a place in the world?

Thanks for reading, and I will see you next time!

Hello and welcome to Shelf to Mount!

This is the show where we dig out a lens that’s been gathering dust to figure out if it’s a hidden gem or just gathering dust for a good reason.

Or as my lens addiction calls it, “step one is admitting you have a problem.”

Today’s winner is this little guy, the Canon EF-S 10-18mm.

I honestly can’t remember the last time I used it, so the big question is simple. Have I been sleeping on a brilliant, affordable wide-angle, or is there a reason it’s been stuck on the shelf?

Let’s find out.

I honestly can’t remember why I bought it years ago.

I already had a few wide-angle lenses in my collection, so I think the original idea was to use it for landscapes.

But looking at my collection of photos tagged with this lens, I have barely anything with it.

Which is odd, since I’ve had this for a long time now. I’m wondering if my software just isn’t picking it up from the EXIF data.

The lens comes in the Canon EF-S mount. Now, if you don’t know, Canon’s old EOS line had two mounts.

There was EF for full-frame camera bodies, and EF-S for crop-sensor bodies.

EF stands for Electronic Focus and EF-S stands for Electro-focus short back focus.

I don’t know why, but I kind of feel bummed out by that. I mean, sure it makes sense, it’s just bland.

But those of us who have been taking photos for years know the real meaning behind EF.

It actually stands for “Effectively Broke.”

And EF-S? That just stands for “Effectively Broke, Slightly cheaper.”

Back to the lens itself. Originally announced in 2014, here is what is going on under the hood:

• Optics: 14 elements in 11 groups.

• Special Elements: Two Aspherical elements and one Low-Dispersion element.

• Aperture: 7 aperture blades.

• Weight: 240 grams.

With its entirely plastic body, that feather-light weight makes perfect sense.

For a plastic lens, it’s not bad.

Granted, you won’t be winning any awards for build quality, but its light weight makes it easy to carry along in your camera bag.

The focus ring is quite small, but it makes up for that by having image stabilization. This is incredibly odd, considering how wide this lens can go.

I think it makes the most sense for video work, especially if you need to run-and-gun with the widest view possible.

I can see it being useful for skateboarding videos or similar action shots where you need a stabilized wide-angle lens.

As you would suspect, this lens is a bokeh monster.

Just kidding. I couldn’t keep a straight face writing that.

No, you would be lucky to find any bokeh here.

For those who don’t know, bokeh is determined by a few factors, with lens speed and focal length being two parts of the equation.

Given this lens is incredibly wide and not very fast, bokeh is off the menu.

Surprisingly, I didn’t see any flaring on the photos I took, which I definitely expected considering how wide this lens is.

Now, I did notice something a little weird with the colours.

But a quick heads-up, I’m adapting this Canon lens onto my Fuji camera.

My editing software was throwing a bit of a fit with the RAW files, making them look a bit odd straight out of the camera.

I’m 99% sure that’s a quirk of my specific camera-and-adapter combo, not the lens itself.

Just wanted to mention it in case any other ‘Frankenstein’ shooters out there see something similar.

Anyway, back to performance. To get the most detail, I made sure to stop down to f/16 on some shots.

The lens is so lightweight it was a breeze to carry along with me on my walk.

Now, for those who don’t know, I love taking panoramas, and this lens is pretty much built for landscapes and panos.

Panoramas with this lens are quite nice.

At a 100% crop, the images are somewhat soft, but when you view the whole image, it looks great.

I don’t think this lens was made with super high-resolution sensors in mind, as even at f/13, the images aren’t perfectly sharp.

But again, scale the image down to half-size, and it looks pretty good.

So, if you’re thinking of getting this lens, just know it probably won’t resolve perfectly on a brand new, high-resolution sensor.

Lastly, you don’t realize just how wide 10mm is until you use it.

To put it in perspective, take the view from a normal 18mm lens. Now imagine it being so wide that if you’re not careful, your own feet will end up in the shot.

It’s really wide.

So in the end, where does the Canon EF-S 10-18mm fit in my collection?

The honest answer is, it doesn’t, really.

Between my pro-grade L lenses and all the vintage lenses I’ve collected, it’s become redundant for me.

BUT, and this is a big but, that doesn’t mean it’s a bad lens.

Far from it.

I know exactly who this lens is for.

If you’re shooting with a Canon crop-sensor camera and you want to get into those epic ultra-wide shots for landscape, or even real estate, without completely destroying your bank account?

This lens is an absolute no-brainer.

It’s lightweight, the image stabilization is surprisingly useful for video, and you can find it for a great price on the second-hand market.

It might not have a place on my shelf anymore, but it’s the perfect ‘step one’ lens for anyone diving into the world of wide-angle photography.

So that was the Canon 10-18mm, a wide-angle for the masses, as they say.