Brief gallery note with sample photos on MC HELIOS-77M-4 50mm 1: 1,8.
Examples on Helios-77-m-4
Examples in the gallery below the photographer Natalya Ova received with Canon EOS 450D and Soviet lens MC HELIOS-77M-4 50mm 1: 1,8.
Gallery
Natalya kindly provided examples of work especially for readers of Radozhiva. I just imprinted the name of the author, the name of the lens and camera on which the photograph was taken at the bottom of the photos.
Many more examples of photos from Natalia can be found at the following links:
- Profile at 35photo: http://35photo.pro/lisakolbasa/
- VK profile: https://vk.com/id8250609
- An interesting interview with the author: https://vk.com/wall-87413036_1254
MC HELIOS-77M-4 50mm 1: 1,8 quite rare, so I decided to find practicing photographers who use it in their daily work and asked them to share their photos and impressions. This is the third gallery note dedicated to the Soviet MC HELIOS-77M-4 50mm 1: 1,8, still wonderful examples with portraits on this lens can look here.
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
awesome pictures! I enjoyed viewing, which is rare, because 99% of the pictures on the Internet have nothing
Is this an advertisement for a photographer? Or what?
All images are processed, and often processed quite tightly, optics are in place here.
Everything else is helios and helios, the detail is dull, the sharpness is so-so, the colors behind the PC are not particularly visible ...
No, this is just a note with sample photos on Helios. By the way, these photo in TOP of all the photos on this Gelik on a fairly well-known site there are 35 photos, so I can only add that the photo often depends on subjective perception.
Well processed, yes. In this case, the person calls their works “works”. IMHO, "without processing" is applicable only to one genre - reportage. Not even staged. When you just fix some things, but fix them during sporting events, conflicts, volcanic eruptions and so on. When the image itself carries value - historical, documentary, scientific in the end. Even a photo for catalogs is processed for specific purposes. To be proud of the lack of processing on photographs without composition and plot, when detailing, color (no, COLOR !!!) or DRAWING (!!!) is taken as the basis for comparison. Well, for this they are not imprisoned yet, but I would forbid propaganda.
good evening! I'm the author. all photos were retouched. but only color and light. I really love Helios for their "drawing". and I appreciate the lenses first of all for that. I didn't ask to advertise myself or the lens. and we don't need it :-)
Garno yak!
Simple and tasteful.
The pictures, of course, are good and impressive.
But for the third time in a row, create Helios-77 ads on this reputable site?
As if the much more common and affordable Helios-44 cannot shoot the same quality footage.
On Flickr and on Sony-club there are wonderful works with much less markups in Photoshop.
So they need to be shown so that novice photographers understand that you can take cool pictures with very inexpensive optics.
Well, for this you must at least not be afraid to fall on your belly, and to shoot a flower in the dew, go out early to catch this dew. Then think - what will happen if you shoot a flower, wait for a snail, figure out how the light falls, make a shot, another, third, thirtieth, if necessary, until the result is satisfied with the magnification. And how to get this into the head of ever-beginning photographers ...
You can share the links. That you perceive it as an advertisement. My task was to contact real users of the lenses and get material from them, show it to readers. Everyone responded to Helios-77m-4, that's why I am posting the third (and not the last time) pictures from it. Or do you really think that this is an advertisement or that I will have something from this? Rave.
A selection of photos from Helios-44 on Flickr looks very expressive and no worse than with Helios-77.
https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=Helios 44
And the cost of the 44th is 5 times less, and finding it on our open spaces is very simple.
The 77th was released in smaller quantities. Only this is its value. And yes, a successful shot from the 44th with post-processing looks no worse than the shot from the 77th. There is no mega-exclusivity in the 77th.
The bar of these photos is three steps below, presented by Arkady)
Thank you
Dear Arkady, this is a great idea - to publish thematic articles on various lenses, do not listen to those who always start something like “processed” (Adams wrote directly - a photograph should not be taken, but taken!), The lens is not visible (no comment! ), the colors are not the same (do it yourself and send it, and Arkady will publish it), the detail is not enough (Sharpness is a philistine prejudice, - Cartier-Bresson). And most importantly, thanks to the author of the photographs, we do not stop her and do more of such works, and in a few years to release an album of her best works. By the way, this lens is not so cheap, it is impossible to find it for less than $ 100, but in excellent condition it costs $ 150.
Wonderful work for Natalia! If I still have work with this lens, I’m happy to see. I don’t see any advertising. All shot on one lens, and the work is different for 3 authors. Everyone does not like advertising, but they themselves try to make out everything in it :-)
Everyone is so used to lens reviews that they can’t just look at sample photos. People, do not transfer your expectations to reality.
Photos are good.
Processing - for an amateur.
Is it possible to recognize in these photographs precisely the 77th Helios, hardly.
Is it possible to take such photos with another lens, yes.
Do these examples of photos add to the cost of the lens - probably not, than yes.
Whether the authors of these photos receive advertising, perhaps. I think that they did not feel it.
Whether their work became more expensive after posting here, no.
Sample photos on this Helios here https://www.flickr.com/groups/1375520@N25/pool/ и https://www.flickr.com/groups/4415480@N20/pool/. Try to find there at least something more or less similar to what you were given to look at Radozhiva. This, by the way, is also a question of the cost of the lens.
Andrey, I completely agree with you, as an example, a very worthy article! In general, Arkady has a very interesting site, that's who is outraged here. I will say this: guys find a better site for a review of photo equipment. Especially in Soviet optics. It is clear that if a person has enough money, he will take more expensive optics. Especially if it's a pro. But when we all start with a small and simpler one. What I would wish Natalia is to study, study and study, not to dwell on the results. I see that Natalya is very capable, I still feel the mood. I think Natalia will succeed.
In fact, Natalia has already reached a level that many have never dreamed of. These works are pretty old. Can you imagine what she is shooting now :)
Cool photos! :)
But what are you all attacking Arcadia, he has to do with it. I will not say that I liked the work, but they are not bad, but they are similar! It seems that a lot is removed and personality is lost from this. As an example: this is more than enough, but in Top, I wouldn’t put them, sorry. How to say, so as not to offend the author, they are neither good nor bad, but they look beautiful. How would I rate them? I would be out of 5 points, I would give them a solid 4, but not 5! Well, and considering that this is work, but there is no creativity here! Pleasant pictures, especially those who love nature and have not been in the forest for a long time. I personally liked the mushroom. There is a mood here, but I didn’t like the light, it is scattered and the volume decreases due to this. Plus, there are a lot of gray tones, we don’t have many sunny days, and looking at the gray color is already boring. But again, this is my personal opinion. I agree with many, of course, photos must be processed, but this must be done correctly.
It's a pity you can not put likes / dislikes on the site under the comments. Immediately it would be seen hu from hu.
And the pictures are really good, fire) And in general, photography is the case when the result is important. What the viewer sees, and not what the matrix saw at the time of shooting
I like. The author has a style. Both in color and compositional solutions. A very worthy series.
Despite the presence - lack of processing, the work of the photographer is visible. Well-chosen angles, the shape is served very tasty. Immediately to blame are my own mistakes related to this aspect of shooting.
So, I think, even beginners have something to learn.
Although I would have looked with interest in making, it is a pity that this practice is less common for photographers outside of special publications.
Thank you for the article.
I like the whole series. It's just that the work of the artist (photographer) is visible here, and not the technique. I shot on a cheaper helios, of course it’s fun, but nikkor 50 1,4 does everything better. And I shoot a lot on the d3100 and 18-55, too, due to a good increase in the lens, everything turns out fine. I put a little on 35photo.ru, because I am pleased to receive a monetary reward for my work, but on the shutter many people hang on the first page in popularity with this particular link, so I’ll tell people to create, and not chase helios.
I wonder what Nikkor 50 1.4 does better.
He sometimes does not feel the volume, as if you are taking pictures on a soap dish. In low light conditions, it blurs the contour too much, even at 2-ke. That structure. which needs to be emphasized - eyelash hair in low light simply “sticks together”, like a regular cheap lens.
IMHO, of course, maybe I just didn’t find an approach to half a gain.
The only and biggest benefit for me was autofocus.
Still, having tried Canon, it seems to me. that Nikon doesn’t succeed artistically. Firstly, an adapter with a lens spoils the picture. Secondly, on Canon, the manner of Helios to soften the picture and beautifully draw is fully manifested.
Alterations to Nikon are great, but still. It is better to use either 81H or the native manual Nikkors.
I myself changed the shank so that there are no adapters, so that there is infinity. But nikkor 50 1,4 is still better. (and what does the fotik model for the manual lens do not understand)
I dont know.
No, the concept is better, worse.
All people have different tasks and different visions of the beautiful.
50 1.4 modern autofocus lens. It is sharpened for working with low light, can be relatively independently focused in dynamic scenes.
Old manual optics were sharpened under bw and better reflects differences in illumination. But it can be a little less sharp depending on circumstances, such as lighting, it can be more capricious.
If 50 1.4 is more suitable for your tasks, then I will not insist, then this is the best lens for you. Perhaps, in order for him to realize himself one hundred percent, you need to select the ideal lighting so that the subject retains its shape and details, and is not a cardboard picture against the background of blurred “Wallpaper”.
As for the camera, I did not understand the question. Well, the working segment. You yourself wrote about this that you were remaking the shank.
I am not a professional, I don’t understand how to conduct technical tests, compare sharpness by the number of lines, etc.
It just feels like what I received on different cameras from the same lens is significantly different.
Well, probably, because the technique is different, it has its own nuances and features.
Someone more savvy can either confirm or refute my feelings)))