Alexander Limberg gave me an interesting lens - AF MC HELIOS-44M-4 58mm 1: 2.
This is original MC HELIOS-44M-4 58mm 1: 2 [plant 'Jupiter', Valdai, 6 petals], crossed with the original Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm 1: 1.8, MKII version.
Appearance
Features
- Nikon F mount
- optics from MC HELIOS-44M-4 58mm 1: 2
- automatic accurate and fast focusing (with the ability to focus to infinity) with any Nikon camera that has a focus motor
- filter thread 52 mm
- MDF approx. 60 cm, maximum magnification ratio approx. 1: 8
- seven aperture blades
- auto iris control
- automatic metering exposure to any Nikon central brake call center and ZK (except for the D3400 / D3500). Metering problems exposure no
- diaphragm ring lock locked
- in terms of the Nikon system it FX, AF, NON-D, NON-G lens, and even with a gold 'professional border
- в EXIF you need to take into account the correction of the number F by about a quarter step
- weight is exactly 200 grams
In its work, the lens is like two drops of water similar to Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm 1: 1.8 with the only significant difference - the output is a classic Helios-44-like picture. Once again: functionally this is the original fifty dollars Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm 1: 1.8 with optics from MC HELIOS-44M-4 58mm 1: 2.
Sample Photos
Examples of photos on this lens I periodically add to separate gallery at 500px. There, next to each photo, you can see EXIF with all the basic shooting options.
Below are examples of photos on this lens and on the camera Nikon D700, Nikon D500, Nikon D90, Sony NEX-3N:
Alteration master: Alexander Limberg, his group on faceboook, Youtube channel, VK profile, Facebook profile and email oldlensess@yahoo.com.
Reviews for the Helios-44 2/58 lenses:
- Helios-44 2/58 [KMZ, 13 petals, M39, silver, No. 0220423]
- Helios-44 2/58 [KMZ, 8 petals, M39, silver]
- Helios-44 1: 2 F = 5,8 cm П [KMZ with replaced lenses, No. 0007220, review of the lens from the reader Radozhiva]
- HELIOS-44M 2/58 [KMZ, 8 petals, serial number 7843528]
- HELIOS-44M 2/58 [Jupiter plant, Valdai, 8 petals, serial number 8027170]
- HELIOS-44-2 2/58 [plant 'Jupiter', Valdai, 8 petals, serial number 83052779] + autofocus review
- MS Helios 44-3 2/58 [MMZ, 8 petals, 8619437, 9167912]
- MC Helios-44M-4 2/58
- Helios-44K-4 58mm 1:2 [KMZ, 6 petals, Pentax K]
- MC Helios-44M-4 58mm 1: 2 [plant 'Jupiter', Valdai, 6 petals] + autofocus review
- MC Helios-44M-5 58mm 1: 2 [Jupiter plant, Valdai, 6 petals]
- MC Helios-44M-6 58mm 1: 2 [plant 'Jupiter', Valdai, 6 petals]
- MC Helios-44M-7 58mm 1: 2 [plant 'Jupiter', Valdai, 6 petals]
- An article about most of the major modifications of the Helios-44 series
- Gallery of pictures on MC Helios-44M-4
- Look at modern the lenses 'Helios' can at this link
- A lot of Helios of all varieties can be found on ebay this link
Original 'Carl Zeiss Jena Biotar 2/58 ':
- Carl Zeiss Jena Biotar 1: 2 f = 5,8cm T [17 diaphragm blades, M42]
- Carl Zeiss Jena Biotar 2 / 58 T [12 diaphragm blades, M42]
- A lot of Biotars of all varieties can be found on ebay this link
Look at modern the lenses 'Zenitar' и 'Helios' can at this link.
Comments on this post do not require registration. Anyone can leave a comment. Many different photographic equipment can be found on AliExpress.
Material prepared Arkady Shapoval. Training/Consultations | Youtube | Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | Telegram
Only one question: why 44m-4?
And not 6 and not 7,
This is not clear to everyone.
I made other versions. 44m4 Ms is the middle ground in the 44 Helios line. Good sharpness and torsion.
Arkady, a slight discrepancy:
“[Plant 'Jupiter', Valdai, 6 petals]”, and it has 7 petals
Well, did Valdai produce 44m-4 with 7 petals?
Ah, the diaphragm from Nikkor, of course)
The most interesting thing is how much money?
Look how much autofocus costs, at least a planar)))
YN 50 / 1.8 - AF, planar)
Yes 24 / 2.8 - 40 / 2.8, too, according to the planar scheme, it seems.
Here I have a helios 44 (13 petals, m39) from the early ones. A thoughtful thought came to mind. But it’s a pity for the glass ... But does it make sense to introduce “average” quality Helics into Nikon's ”frames? Is there a gain in quality? A very, very controversial point ...
The number of successful shots with af is many times higher, and the iris control is a very pleasant trifle. This ultimately leads to an improvement in the quality of the final product in the form of finished images.
Oh oh far from a fact.
Seriously?
Of course, phase one does not have it) And Bresson somehow managed
Let us recall that in the 18th century the head of the portrait was fixed with metal clamps, because the shutter speed was in the region of several minutes. After all, they somehow managed, or they come up with high ISOs and shoot with short exposures.
aha and came up with a small format - why? unclear)
I do not argue that technology greatly simplifies the work of the photographer. Pulsed light, stabilization, etc. But if you look at the pictures again from the 19-early 20c and what is fashionable now, I will probably vote for the first ones. The only AF technology with which I unconditionally agree that it gives results is the new AF technology in the eyes. Well, again, depending on what to compare with - sigma art lenses, which after one smear, but cost like used cars or otus, for even more money. I would choose the second one.
It's just human jealousy. You can shoot with a lens without autofocus, it just became more universal.
That's what most of the shot with non-autofocus Helios - flowers and other slag.
There are geniuses who shoot on film. There are geniuses using old lenses. But even they experiment more and work with what is more convenient. And most of the "lovers of leisurely shooting" before them ...
Yes, but there are some “geniuses” who shoot like a machine gun on d5 and then don't find a single successful shot)
How would the lack of autofocus help them?
So we're not about how to teach a monkey photography. And that if there are no brains, then neither autofocus nor any other technologies will help. Which supposedly give "The number of successful shots with af is several times higher" and "This ultimately leads to an improvement in the quality of the final product in the form of finished shots." That is why I wrote - it is far from the fact that af leads to this.
The manual cult sect pulled itself up. Encroached on their manual manual, that’s burning. They can only do the manual, and d5 with af for them is worse than torture.
And what does the monkey have to do with it, it was about normal people. And the phrase “The number of successful shots with af is several times higher” may be unpleasant for lovers of manuals, but it is defining for the vast majority of modern subjects in the modern world.
Remember, taking a leisurely shot of people paying money is an illusion. In our time, without you - this is nonsense. Maybe even beginners believe in the simplicity of the manual, but experienced ones take pictures on af.
And phase one, a watering can and otus do for beginners aha)
Also "heard enough" in due time. There is no doubt that there are good lenses among manual lenses, including Helios. But always use - thank you. The efficiency is too low. Does anyone really believe that the above-mentioned masters take a picture at once? Or do they choose from tens, hundreds and thousands?
Someone believes. Also, you need to remember that from the era of manuals there were many amateur photographers who made successful, in their opinion, shots in their old days. And if it turned out then on the manual, then why come up with something else? Because often Henry is mentioned, because he did it.
Not only Henri, I think all the photographers whose books you studied (if, of course, you read them) were shot with manuals. I am by no means claiming that the manual is online or that the af is evil. But I know for sure that technology is by no means the most important thing for a good shot. And it is far from the fact that they help or are the key to success, or, as you put it, reduce the number of marriage at times, improve quality, etc. For example, I envy artists. There are generally no af, iso and the “burst rate” is equal to one frame per year can. But it will be a “frame” that you want to watch, not terabytes of garbage that no one ever watches. I hope I explained it clearly.
If we take AF, then this technology helps a lot. If you disagree with this, then perhaps you are considering only one direction of photography. I see you are talking about artists and related topics. So, modern photography, and even not very modern photography, has many other genres and tasks, and in the overwhelming majority of cases the presence of AF helps and does not interfere. More than once I have come across people who chanted the manual and did not believe in af, and in 99% of cases it turned out that they were “too lazy to deal with af”. After all, the ability to work with AF also does not come immediately and it is easier to talk about the spherical achievements of manual operators than to learn how to work with AF.
Also, this topic, namely “AF versus manual”, is as old as light. A common topic for “talking”. Everyone will remain the same, few people want to look at the picture of the world from different angles.
Hmm, I'm talking about the warm, and you're talking about the soft.
You do not agree that af reduces the amount of marriage in terms of focus:
What else can I talk about further? Therefore, it turns out a congress on warm and soft.
If a staged and non-dynamic frame, then the main part is sighting frames. Light, framing, exposure. When everything is lined up, you take the main frame, check the focusing accuracy and that's it.
Series are in the reporting where you do not control what is happening, it is important and tenacity-accuracy AF, and rate of fire-length of the series.
But even the optional autofocus does not negate its convenience. One less headache in the process, especially if you hold the camera with one hand - framing and switching between focusing points, and with the other light, for example, or a reflector - not everyone has assistants, especially amateurs.
Among the photographers who shot with old cameras, I saw few such adherents. According to my subjective observations, on the contrary, beginners with af and digital cameras are fond of manuals. Those. movement is more "in the opposite" direction. But this is subjective, of course
They want to save on lenses or just try what it is.
You won’t save much now, except on helios-jupiters. Hype on the manual is some kind of mad. What is not a lens, it’s a legend and they sell at the price of autofocus copies or a little cheaper. Here are many who have tried for some reason and become adherents of manuals, drawn in
Well, here it is in modern standards for the release of a quality product.
Bresson was a pure water artist. He could wait for hours for successful shots. And no one will tell us how many frames he left in the trash because geniuses are very demanding of themselves.
Not all Bressons and not all artists. Most people are taking photos now:
1) as a hobby, carve out a miserable hours on him and do not want the whole long-awaited session to go to waste;
2) professionals for whom quality in a short time and at low cost is very important, and even the competition is hellish, there are increased requirements for PC parameters during processing, there are no lenses.
Win in usability relative to manual helios and a fabulous picture that Arkady likes)
I would not say that I really like her. Even for the usual half-odd 50 1.8d (or its earlier versions), a quite decent result is obtained. I have a couple of galleries on it, here is one of them https://500px.com/arkadiishapoval/galleries/nikon-d70-nikn-501-8-af-mkii
It's just that somewhere you mentioned that you are "ambassador" Helios), that's why I thought that you like the picture from him
Where? I don’t remember this, maybe there was a joke. I can only ambition to intent on a good photo, not pieces of plastic and glass.
Well, yes, it was ironic) In general, the gift is gorgeous: a personalized lens, handmade, all that ...
But there is simply no autofocus analogue)
There are on the same ibeya many times cheaper than yours.
Do not share the link?
Well, you need to rape the old lenses, that's right.
In that sense. That Nikon 50 mm itself is not bad. And if you "chicken" it, then no less than under the "Trioplan") _))
Trioplan is an ordinary triplet with an optical scheme of three lenses. Doubtful sharpness and an ordinary triplet side. Helios are optically more advanced and have a more complex optical scheme. It is worth it not because of doubtful quality, but due to the fact that this is the most common lens , it was released a huge number in various versions.
One question - why?
The unfulfilled dreams of Soviet amateur photographers leaked into the real world.
You had such a fantastic article many years ago. Maybe you remember? It turned out not to be a fantasy))
There was Helios-81N
I did 81 arsat in autofocus, and 81H still lies, I don't really want to do it….
How much is poured out ... And praise the master for this?
And the main thing was forgotten - do you know a lot of autofocus lenses 58 / 2.0? And even for such a price? Maybe on FF he is not very much and is needed, but on the crop he has a “correct” portrait angle. How many cropped portrait lenses does Nikon have?
Yes, master respect
Thank you)
for what "such" price then? do you know the price of this alteration? so that the master says “I will do it without any problems, in the order queue, in 2 months yours will be ready? ahh! not taken! probably because for the cost of the alteration you can buy Nikon's 58 AF.
I do not think that there is difficult work. Have you seen the price of 58 autofocus Nikon? 1500 Baku at a discount. And there are no other autofocus like under this mount.
Oh, wait for the author of the alteration. Or do you really think that the cost of rework exceeds 1000 dollars?
It would be nice if Alexander announced the cost of the rework. If this is a secret, then it is not so interesting. If she does not undertake to do it, it will be good if she does so. I was already zadolbali in PM asking about the cost.
With manual focus in full, you can successfully shoot, and this makes the photographer think. But unfortunately it is quite tiring when you need to shoot a lot during the day. In addition, this lens still has the possibility of manual focus, so that fans can twist this lens too suitable.)))
In my seventh grade I had Viliya-auto ... The exposition was set automatically with a photocell without a battery, and the focus was just by the footage ... We took pictures with girls and boys almost every day and every day I printed pictures with a photo enlarger, baths, developer and fixer ... And now I have more than one hundred photos in albums ... Nobody thought about efficiency, but clicked on a couple of films every other day ... And I don't remember that at least one was blurry ... And I made masks and "layers" when printing ... About that time, photography was the most pleasant memories ... And now autofocus and stabilizers and multi-zone metering, you click and sit in Photoshop like a fool ... Either Tamron's right is blurry, then Sigma did not get into focus, then Nikon took him to Moscow for adjustment service ... Madhouse Sunny ... What kind of efficiency can we talk in photography ...? About the efficiency of wedding Nutcrackers ...? Yes ... the efficiency is 200 percent, but the artistic side is completely zero ... And such wedding Nutcrackers are the majority ... 98 percent ...
And in the 11th grade there were a lot of girls, too, not what they are now, yeah.
I love that.
In Soviet times, there was no 11th grade.
It was 10.
And not everyone thought about the girls.
Yah? Look for school reforms in 1958 and 1989.
And what prevents you from continuing to photograph her?
And at the expense of not sharp - on what aperture did you shoot? Even at minimum 4 it's hard not to hit the girls and boys.
What does the diaphragm have to do with it ...? I'm talking about a large number of defects among lenses of any manufacturers ... As for the alignment, I had how many Nikon zooms, I had to take everything to the service for alignment ... Only the fixes were normally adjusted ... But in the service in Moscow they did such eyes ... maybe we have all the lenses pre-configured from the factory ”... But in fact, you need to take the cameras and zooms to the service immediately ... But Tamron and Sigma are out of the question ... From the store counter immediately to the service ... None of them get there ...
And I'm talking about Vilya's huge depth of field ...
It's one thing to shoot for yourself and for your own pleasure. Taking responsibility for filming is another matter. Until you shoot a dozen weddings, you can insult weddings as much as you like, until the first demanding client. As it was sensibly noticed here, you can still shoot with Viliya-auto and you can come to a responsible shooting with Viliya-auto. Here's just one trouble - don't come, no one wants to.
Yes, if the wedding Nutcracker comes across a demanding client, he will be left without money at all ... How many weddings I know with friends and relatives, no one has liked at least the bulk of the photos ... Everyone says - well, what can you do now - let them lie ...
Now it’s clear where such an attitude comes from.
An overly demanding client runs the risk of being left without photos.
It looks like you are the only person here who understood my idea)
I have film cameras and I shoot them. The problem is not that autofocus or digital photography is not as good as the old film. The thing is, film and manual focus were taught to think before pressing the shutter. A photographer who knows how to think , autofocus is grace to help. And for the thoughtless and Af will not be of much use)
But for some reason, most of the old film frames are staged or posing. Only a few managed to capture the moment. Do you think the pros did not click the film by the meters? We were thinking about taking a picture or, well, three frames left ...
I read experienced ones when the figure was not yet distributed, and a 1 GB card seemed like a dream, they also saved on volume. And AF didn’t bother them.
you can find a shot from the Olympic Games, where the photographer stands with an assistant, who charges him with a second camera (while one is being filmed), and next to two open suitcases - one with the filmed film, and the second with raw.
And this does not apply to technology at all, it concerns the photographer directly. The same can be said about any area of life and about any job. Who forbids thinking with AF? Or does AF immediately fit into the mind of the photographer and turn them off? I will say more - AF allows you to think more about the very “real photo” that many people here remember.
Not being distracted by the need to monitor whether the eye got into focus when the model twitched a little, yeah. The more you solve technical issues, the more you follow aesthetic ones. How and to whom autofocus forbids to think - I can’t imagine.
Well, the whole history of photography seems to suggest otherwise. The more technology develops, the fewer frames you want to watch. Nikon has an ambassador who shoots extreme sports. So he just says so - I always shoot with an open aperture, in aperture priority mode. Indeed, the fuck about thinking about grip, light, exposure, etc. Let the engineers think about it. Open hole at 1.4, aperture priority and shutter speed 1/32000. Fuck what else to bother about.
And what, does the ambassador have good pictures or not? And then everything was turned upside down - you seem to be drowning for artistic value, but in fact, again, the same technodroerstvo is simply with a minus sign: you are not discussing the content of the picture, but its data - aperture, shutter speed and metering mode. Autofocus also comes in here. But what difference does it make, even if he takes pictures in "auto", even on a film "vigilant", if only the pictures are good.
Fiercely plus.
Neither bad nor good. But just the same.
And why should he think about anything other than a successful shot? Thanks to the engineers, now he can not bathe with focus and catch interesting moments. This is not enough of art, more of craft, but nevertheless has the right to be. Strongly, he would photograph fast-moving cars with daguerreotypes.
Please be more polite. Once again, if I see rudeness, I will beat you.
Now there are very, very many excellent worthy shots. The question is in a person - if he does not want to see - he does not see.
Here is the last thing I added to my favorites at 500 pixels: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 etc.
Oksana and Katya are just class. Taking off my hat
What class? If the grandmother was hanging out her trousers and the grandfather was sitting on the bench with a stick, for example ... And so, there is no life in the picture. Neat young girls against the background of a wrecked barn imitate everyday life ... I don't believe it!
7th photo, interesting, creative approach.
Also staged do not really like.
beauty)
How can I ban on a site that does not require registration?) This is, firstly, and secondly to health, I was disappointed in this resource and there is no desire to go here anymore.
Good riddance !, as the French say
Banning is as easy as shelling pears, you can't see the site from the administrator's side. It's easy to write “disappointed”, but it was probably even easier to write what you shouldn't have written.
24.08.2019/11/37 at 20:XNUMX Roman began to be rude. They pointed him to this. Now he is disappointed. He is touched even more by the fact that the photographs shown, excellent photographs that no one here, no Roman / Anonymous ever take in life, begin to suck. And Nuka Roman and the rest, show your grandmothers with drawers! With life! With the feeling, with the same awesome color that makes Evgeny Freyer with XNUMX million views. This is kapets guys. Full kapets.
NEO, they're great, but they don't catch me. Everyone has their own taste and preferences. That can change over time. Now I like “moments” and landscapes more.
Thinking helps those who understand what they are doing.)
yeah. the film taught me to think, yeah. go to VK, to any group of the class “filmed for a zenid!” or even more fun - "hand-held optical printing".
trash insanity and waste. And everyone assures that 36 frames make you think. More often than not, they seem to make their parents think about whether they really needed to save on a condom.
And in Ukraine, is there anyone who does this? Alexander doesn’t really want to do this.
If there is, reset the contacts, the topic is interesting.
Alexander is not against doing this. But it is difficult and not promising, it takes time and accuracy for such work. And as they say, the skin is not worth the dressing. Therefore, these are mainly such modifications either for himself or for good people)) as a gift.
Buy their AFs and remove each other TPP xDDD
Bgggg. Instagrams and flickers.
Hello, Alexander.
Please tell me, is it possible to send you your Helios (for example, 44-2) and that you would remake it for auto focus on canon?
I do not do on other systems, although it is possible. Nikon is more convenient for such modifications. This is just a hobby)
First, congratulations on your gift! Secondly, praise to the master! It's nice that someone is doing such a thing, I personally will order one next year, or maybe 77m. It would be interesting to remake Fuji 55 / 1.8, or Fuji 55 / 2.2 which comes in a terribly fragile case but with an interesting picture and bokeh, if this is possible at all ...
Redoing the EF mount with autofocus? I would order.
Sorry, I did not see the answer of the master. The question is cleared.
Are you the same Paul or not? If one, then why do you need autofocus?
We are not even namesakes))
Here are the disadvantages of not registering - figs you will understand with whom you communicate, especially if the interlocutor is missing something to write a nickname.
Uh ... Why so angry?
This is how I will now, so that they will not be confused with other “Pauls”))
Let me remind you who wants a personal avatar in the comments, you can attach it to http://ru.gravatar.com/
It was not by chance that the author of the alteration chose the Nikon screwdriver for the transplant - it is easiest to install a lens block from anything into it. It is more difficult to make a "jump" aperture.
But this will not work on a kenon - you can replace the lens unit by taking something old, film for alteration - there are solid mechanics. But the control of the diaphragm “on the knee” cannot be done.
Well, in general, only relatively optically simple lenses lend themselves to such a transplant, those where focusing is performed by moving the entire lens block.
Not optically simple lenses, but optical schemes with a fixed focal length (fixes). For lenses with zoom, otic schemes are of course different. But I don’t see the point of converting manual zoom to autofocus, why *? ,,,)))
A bit wrong. Not all fixes are focused by moving the entire lens block. There are those where, when focusing, groups of lenses move in different directions, the CRC system, this is macro optics and some widths.
Nominal and conceptual, one might say, a gift. Bravo!
I have not seen in any textbook on photography that autofocus is bad, that you need to immediately stop using it, otherwise nothing good will come of it, or at least something similar to it. Poke your nose, where is it written?
ehh, and I was thinking that there is someone in Ukraine, like, "Digital M42"
:(
Coming soon. We solve this issue.
Intrigue))
fine. I have so many interesting glasses, cheap, it's a sin to dust them on shelves))
But the beautiful case is sharpening))
turning aluminum on a turning is not difficult. Of course it’s beautiful when it shines) But I honestly didn’t notice any otically correct actions by this master. An excellent specialist live next to me (not an advertisement), I don’t know who he could make lenses and coating for them. Setting up telescopes in the Vatican, optical work in Switzerland Adriano Lolli. But also does not focus on autofocus.
I talked online with Evgeny Belyaev.
With all due respect to him and to what he is doing, he’s never a master corps (or what are the specialists who design and make lens cases?), But a highly skilled turner))
After asking him if he could carve out a new body for the mirror Jupiter-9, since the native body for ergonomics is squalor, I heard in response questions like “why?”, “do you need it?”, “why does the old building not suit you?” etc.
It is clear that the person wanted to be engaged in a familiar, well-established business that generates income, and not to fulfill the orders of some "crazy professor", albeit for a good bribe.
In short, I thanked him then for the time spent on me and stopped the conversation.
"Belyaevskaya" topic is now closed for me))
This is also me))
Inspiration is important to the photographer. If he feels that the lens, working with him, inspires him, he will get the result. These are lenses for inspiration.
Regarding inspiration (I hope Arkady will excuse me for offtopic).
There are lenses that cause, with their appearance and the picture they create, an acute and constant desire to shoot mainly on them. The lens under discussion, it seems to me, is one of them.
I don’t have such a lens and never will, because I'm not a nikonist :(
But a similar sensation arises when you pick up Jupiter-9 (mirror or rangefinder), Jupiter-12 or Jupiter-8-1.
I spoke about the "magic of imperfection", the old manual glasses in the majority have it. So it remains only in a good way to envy the owner of the old-new autofocus Helios.
PS The edging is super!
Brass and chemical etching, engraving. Name lens.
Why are there no pictures taken with this lens?
They will be a little later, because the reasons are indicated in the text.
Comrade readers!
From 25/08/2019 for commenting a prerequisite is the indication of the name and e-mail. First of all, this is intended to simplify the discussion.
Let me remind you that everything is the same Radozhiv does not require any registration. Peace, Labor, Freedom.
According to the ancient commandments of Radozhiva, which are already over 10 years old, and information about which is here https://radojuva.com/about-radojuva/#comments meaningless, offensive and obscene comments are deleted, please do not litter the site. The topic of politics is strictly prohibited.
If you want the comments to display avatar (for example, as I have in this comment), and not a randomly created picture, just attach your e-mail to en.gravatar.com. It's a little complicated, but quite affordable.
Thank you for your understanding.
Well now, at least it’s clear Hu from HU))))
They didn’t say materstso!
By the way. Following the example of Arkady Shapoval, I will accept the gift of autofocus Helios, Jupiter, Zenitar, etc. with Sony A mount, fuji X
In this case, there are no problems with this.
I can give you a lip seaming machine ... 😂
who's who who is who, according to our Hu from XY. And not otherwise)) For sony A, fuji X such lenses are not expected, only Nikon and Canon.
Yes, they have closed protocols 🙁 so that all Ketayans do not rivet autofocus lenses under their systems.
all have closed protocols. This is not the case at all.
As a token of gratitude, I sent my photobook to the master '100 lenses / 1 photographer'
Thanks, we are waiting)))
The question - “in EXIF, you need to take into account the correction of the F number by about a quarter of a stop” - why?
Example: when the camera thinks that shooting is at full aperture at F / 1.8 and writes this aperture to EXIF, the shooting is actually at F / 2.0. The difference is approximately 1/4 step.
Aperture values are from donor Nikon 50 / 1.8. But the optical design and the real diaphragm remained from Helios. Metering and shooting at different apertures is correct (mutual compensation), but real values are written to EXIF with a small error.
Thank you very much!