Video well done again. I've just received the Domiplan this morning. After some shoots in the garden, I am extremely blown away by the quality of my copy. The color rendering, the bubble boket, and the sharpness are stunning. Very well fit on the Fuji XT1. Thanks for your advice on this video. It's a real pleasure to discover such a beautiful treasure. I admit that I prefer the character of a vintage lens over the new one from today. To be continued.

Yep, not a Tessar. The Domiplan is triplet and as such brings the characteristic bokeh

Nice video as ever is! Great work Nigel! We appreciate your magnificent contribution. Concerning the Helios 44-3, I have one of them from Belomo factory. I have the Helios 44-2, 44-6 as well. I have also tested some 44-4 and 44-5. I love all of them, but it seems it depends the quality of each unity. Same factories produced same Helios model, KMZ, Valdai, Belomo/MMZ. My 44-3 its a great lens! I prefer the click lenses to the preset because it's easier to use in photo. Anyway as I said it seems the difference of the factory it's not the only fact but the quality of each production period. There are many bibliography and internet opinions about but I always had a great Helios. I don't like so much the 44-4 because its construction, for me its the less good, even if its nice. The 44-5 its almost the same as the 44-6, one of the best. I had sold the 44-5 because of that. I'm looking for the rare Helios 77 f1,8, the only real 50mm before the Zenitar!

I'm pleased you like the Helios 135. It's a lens which has been practically ignored on KZfaq, but it's so nice! Lovely contrast and colours with enough character to make it stand out. I like it as much as my Jena 135. Best of all I got it for free with a 44-2 I bought. Thanks for another great video.

Some amazing bargains there. You can have lots of fun shooting with these old lenses and not break the bank. I have a few old lenses including a Hanimex 135mm f2.8 on old Fuji X Mount which is surprisingly good and of course a Tessar 50mm f2.8, amazing quality. I use Olympus E-M5 MkII and there are lots of adapters for the M43 system. Thank you for showing these lenses and images to match, great video. Take care and have fun with those lenses.

Thank you so much for this nice video once again. I kind of share you feeling about the Helios 44-3... One may read on the internet that it is the best version among all but I have never really felt this way though. I've got a much better impression of the very first version, the Helios 44. Very nice that you could find the right words to express my feeiinf about the Helios 44-3...

Hello and thanks for a great episode :) enjoyed it. Would you happen to have a recommendation for a 135 mm 2.8? I like the Pentax smc look but they can be little expensive. I'm looking at a few different lenses, petri, pentagon and cosinon. Cheers

Another great video, thank you. Just eBayed a Domiplan (c/w a bit of fungus for £8 :) to add to my collection. I've got 2 x 1.8 Orestons, both render colour really well. One is sharp (razor sharp, even wide open) however the other is a bit softer, as per your copy. Thanks for all you do, really got me hooked on vintage lenses especially the 44 Helios. Btw the MOG Orestegon 29mm f2.8 is definitely worth a road test if you haven't already given one a go.

Thanks for this. That Helios135 f2.8 at first glance reminds me of the Minolta Rokkor 135 f2.8, one which was made in the era of Leica-Minolta cooperation. I don't have it with me at the moment and I miss it.

Just watching this again. Lovely presentation, renews my enthusiasm. I had this lens on my first Practica until my much loved grandad passed and left me his Pentax SIa. Well both cameras were loved and revered, of course I still have Pentax with its 50mm 1.8 Takumar. For me, the saturation was the first thing I noticed you cannot explain the feel of these old lenses. The Domiplan felt cold hard and workmanlike the Takumar, moody soft and giving. So where next? A Nikon Photonic F with F2 Nikor,r so here we have a high contrast “machine” for serious press photography. Which did I like best? Well I still have the Takumar. I later acquired what I consider a real keeper the Zeiss Pancolar. All three lenses remind me of what I love about photography and why I never became a painter, in the “immediate” photos are an interpretation, real, but just how you see it and, the lens repeats your feeling on that day, in that moment.

Thanks a lot! I have been binging your videos for the last week. I just got my first vintage but actually cane without any caps. Any advice on any ways or alternatives to protect the lens when not in use? Thanks

Hi Nigel, my experience with the Helios 44-3 was the similar to yours, my copy was not very sharp wide open and it was prone to loose contrast easily. It really surprised me since the lens is MC and I found some pages claiming it was a great version in the Helios family... At the end I sold it and parted ways with it. Probably my favorite version of the Helios lenses is the very early Helios 44 with Start bayonet (KMZ). I have 2 of them converted to Canon EF mount and I found them to be quite sharp and quite swirly wide open.

I actually own Meyer-Optik Görlitz Domiplan 50mm f/2.8 taken of made in mid 70s Praktika camera (with some personal story attached to it) and just bought M42 adapter. Initial tests do not render that sharp of images, I need to play with it more. It seems to be the same glass you as you reviewed a newer perhaps improved version "Meyer Optik Domiplan 50mm f2.8" (and if not mistaken there is a typo on description). And thanks again for great review.

Interesting. I bought a film camera last year and it came with a Helios 135mm f2.8 lens which has sat on a shelf ever since. (I use my Nikon 105mm f 2.5). But your video piqued my interest and I have to say I agree with all you've said. I'm going to give it a lot more use! I don't know if mine is different from yours though. The f stop numbers on mine are painted white and the aperture ring ring turns the opposite direction. F 2.8 on my aperture is at the same end as f 22 on your aperture ring.

Hello Nigel, The Domiplan is not a Tessar design, it is a simple Cooke triplet optik. The earlier, Meyer Optik 'Q1' branded lenses are sometimes said to be superior in optical quality, than the later, unbranded examples, such as the example shown, but I cannot confirm this.

Domiplan is a Cooke Triplet design. One of the oldest lens designs in Camera History. I would not pay a lot for one. I think I paid 10 or 15 US dollars for mine. Not a bad lens, considering it is a three element design.

Great Video as always,,, Have you tried the Jupiter 37a it is in my world one of the best overlooked lenses, shooosh.. Thank you for all that you do..

Just love the way you chastize your close up cam for not focussing. Always makes me laugh... Never miss these. A wealth of info : )

Hi there!, thank you another great video. I love your channel and already bought a lens following your advices. One question, is the Helios 44M also suitable to do this revers-lens hack? I learned from another russian guy, that depending of the fabrication year ( 80´s) it is not possible because of the lack of space Thanks and all the best

Hi Nigel, I really enjoyed the video today, I have several of the lenses in question including seven Domiplans, all are Exa/Exacta fit, and all but one came with one Exa/Exacta model or other that I bought as non-working, some were as cheap as 6GBP + postage. This was two years ago or more ago when analogues were largely overlooked :-) the question from me is, I would like to to use several of my M42 lenses on the Exacta's, i bought a current adapter which was difficult enough to find in the first place, which was totally useless as the focussing is way off at infinity or so it appears? surely when they produce these adapters they take into account the revised mounting position ? or have I bought a load of........?

The original Helios 44 (M39-mount) is truly a great lens, albeit a bit tricky to adapt (you may need to buy old Soviet macro rings to get the correct flange distance for focus to infinity, probably only possible on mirrorless). I find its' sharpness and contrast a tad better than the 44-2, while maintaining the great swirly bokeh, which seems reduced by the 44M-4/-5/-6 models. Highly recommended!

My first camera was a Praktica Nova with the Domiplan zebra lens, I remember it was soft with slide film and negative film now this was in the late 60s/70s. Now with Digital, I have a feeling that legacy lenses work better on digital and are rending images better than film. I've been using Tamron lenses on my Olympus OMD 1 mk2 and getting excellent pictures. Now I'm considering the Sony A7II full frame so I can use my collection of Minolta MD.

I'm a big fan of the Helios lenses myself. Really love the swirly bokeh look. The 13 blade m39 one has been on my watch list for a while, but it' a bit rare here in the states so people tend to over charge for it. Recently I picked up a 35mm Super Takumar lens for 38USD (probably around 20 pounds,) I've been really impressed with this lens, especially for how cheap it's going. Not compatible with full frame DSLRs but works fine with Crop sensor DSLRs and mirrorless cameras. It's made a wonderful little 70mm telephoto lens for my M4/3s camera.

You might like the Helios 44-M4. It's as dreamy as the 44-2 but with stronger contrast.

I'm surprised by your Helios 3 experience. But then not so much, pink and orange coatings? the smiley face logo helioses ,always cerillic, tend to be alright. Kmz tombstone are best. And avoid the bow and arrow through head. However helios coating appear to be almost a random selection, the colour range increasing as they get younger. I have about 40 of them! I aimed for several examples of each type. I also have a 3 marked up as a 2 , and some other odd one outs. A standard Helios can be outshone by special example earlier model. Glad I got most of mine when they were more or less worthless , more recently attempting filling in the gaps of my collection wasn't exactly pocket change.

The 2.8 Domiplan is a Cooke Triplet (first patented in the UK in 1993) and wide open can do really nice bubble bokeh.

Great video and photos sir. I recently bought Helios 44-2 not "MC", but also Valdai factory, Cyrillic name, same shape as your Helios 44-3! Weird!

hi hope you are well, could you recommend a vintage lense for portrait like the fuji 85mm for my xpro 2 it would be better if it was auto thanks

Domiplan is the lens at the top of my "want" list! It's one of the cheapest Cooke triplets. I'm looking for something with soap bubble bokeh to complement my Lydith.

I agree with your comments about the Oreston that is a lovely lens. Mine has a problem with that bit your supposed to press that's connected to the aprture ring so i have to fiddle with it to get the iris to close or open but again I didn't pay much for it.

Can't go wrong with the Meyer Optik Gorlitz Oreston 50mm 1.8. My first Meyer... Close focus spoiled me :) I chased bokeh swirl for a while so I've tried Domiplan, Primoplan, Helios 44-2, Orestor as well as a few projector lenses... All of them are unique and worth while but guess which one is still in my camera bag??? :)

Hello I have a Canon EOS 600D and I use only Canon lenses but I'm really interested in the Meyer Optik ORESTON, what must I buy to convert EXAKTA to EOS ? Thank you for your very informative video and your response.

I know you appreciate suggestions for future videos so I thought I'd give you my idea: A video detailing which vintage lenses are and are not suitable for DSLR cameras. Maybe I am the only one left shooting an old DSLR- and I do intend to get a mirrorless shortly- but I've found that most of the vintage lenses so far work fine (except the FD one) but I am a little nervous each time because I know that some simply won't work properly on a DSLR. It would be great to have a better handle on which ones I can get and which to avoid. Though, obviously I can understand if there simply isn't enough call for such a video. But there's no harm in my suggesting it.

I would love to hear your thoughts on the Helios 44M. My Helios 44M was from the KMZ factory & it is my favorite portrait lens.

Check out Jupiter-11A 135mm f/4. So the 11A, not the 11. It's not fast, but it focuses surprisingly close and then there's some other nice things... If you get one you'll see :)

I'd love for you to get your hands on a Helios 77m-4!

44-3 is basically a 44-2 with Multicoating. It’s my preferred Helios actually because the coating is rather good (Atleast on my copy)

Hi Nigel! I have a Helios 44-2 58 mm f2.0 with a serial number starting N71xxxxx (the N is calligraphic). Do you know how old this lens could be? I actually write a list of my vintage lenses and want to sort them finally by their age. I think it will not be possible to determine also the month of production, but it would be nice to know at least the year of production. Thanks!

Literally thinking about the helios 135 all day and then you show lovely examples in this. Thanks

Your Helios 135 f2.8 appears identical in construction and equal in performance to a similar early 1970’s lens from Vivitar, which I purchased used for my Olympus OM-1. They are the same down to the sliding lens hood, which I whimsically thought of as a foreskin. I too was surprised to find this lens sharp and reasonably contrasty wide open! I believe they were both made by Tokina, but I wouldn’t bet the family jewels on it!

When I read the title I thought the Domiplan was going to be the lens one should never buy. It's the only one I ever threw out. My experience was that it produced decent images of subjects near to the lens but horrible images of subjects that were further off. I also have a Helios 44-3 that I got with a Zenith mount requiring 8 hours of filing, more or less, with Chinese files on Russian steel, the best I could find in Bangkok. Though I've had 2 44-4s and a 44-6, the 44-3 is my favorite and well worth the time and trouble needed to make it compatible with m42. The 44-4 I've kept may be a tad sharper but the 44-3 has a je ne sais quoi that recommends it. Also, I've seen a report that the 44-3 is sharper in the corners than the 44-2 which was borne out by images provided, though there is always sample variation, so . . . Thanks for the videos, Nigel. Cheers!

Nigel, love the videos. How many of these lenses do you actually own? You must have a house just store the glass.

I really like [and want to like] my Helios 44-3 [MMZ], but have to admit that my 44M-4 [KMZ] is slightly sharper with better contrast wide open.

The Domiplan suffered a lot from item variance. Many complain of softness and aberration, but mine is perfectly fine. I have a Helios 44-K in the drawer, which has not yet been mounted to my Pentax. Must get around to that, sometime. Nikon freaks can keep their eyes open for the 44-N, which was originally designed for the Russian SLR that used the F mount, I unrecall what model it was.

Nigel, thanks for another enjoyable video. TOE were importers of Soviet cameras to the UK. Later they applied the Helios brand to some cheap Japanese imported lenses. That 135 2.8 gets a wide range of review results from great to dreadful, maybe different batches or manufacturers. Or maybe some expect too much :-)

hi when using adaptors to explore different lens's, are cheap adaptors o.k? Or can they be troublesome?

So now I'm wondering how the Oreston compares with your "Gold Standard" vintage 50mm Pancolar?

Pentacon is Oreston. But you do have newer versions with different coating and quality check standards, those Multicoated ones give slightly different bokeh and colour, but it's still extremely close (difference is not bigger than the difference between different Helios variants). Early Pentacons are absolutely the same lens, they just rebranded it when they merged the factories. First Pentacon version is even called Oreston (Pentacon Oreston). Later they just changed the name and barrel colour. What every single version have in common is the optical design, that never changed. Don't mix Pentacon with Prakticar 50mm 1.8, that's something entirely different. When I compare MOG Oreston and Pentacon Auto (non-mc) I see no difference at all.

I was also very disappointed in the Helios 44-4 images vs the 44-2. Good to see other people are experiencing the same and I didn't just get a bad copy.

That Helios 135 wow

Back in film day,s there were only a few 3rd party lenses worth considering, Tamron, Vivitar and possibly Sigma. Any chance of a review Nigel, how they perform on mirrorless?

For me, the Jupiter 8 shot with a Zorki was kind of disappointing. It takes great pictures at Stop down at infinite but when I tried a closed-up and wide open, it quite didn’t know where to focus. Maybe I need to calibrate the focusing. Will try it again but no Bokeh effect at all, He Боке!

Before I start to watch this video I've read the video description - Domiplan 30mm 2.8, all the sudden I was like "WHAT?!" and ready to take my credit card and go for a hunt :D But, :), a typo, unfortunately. Domiplan 50mm is amazing triplet lens with the aperture construction flaw (easy fix), well worth of every cent/penny/dime

I have a Tokina 135 which is similar to the Helios 135

I have a couple of the lenses you feature here, Nigel, but a man can't have too many lenses, can he? I really like the look of the Helios 135mm, I might just have to have a look for a good example.

That Helios 135mm F2.8 looks identical to the Minolta MC Tele-Rokkor 135mm F2.8, I suspect they are the same lens (6 elements in 5 groups)

I can remember My mentor from the 1950/60s telling me that I should avoid the Domiplan at all costs if I was to purchase a Praktica Nova body as it was one of the poorest image quality lenses available for the m42 Mount cameras☹️ Well the pandemic came along and with my poor health and being pretty much house bound curiosity finally got the better of me, and I hunted down that very lens it came on a Praktica Nova body at a bargain price and it surprised with it amazing bokeh when tested with some small led lights in the background. It’s a fun lens to use and build quality compared to some of today’s plastic fantastic is superior build wise if not optically. It’s a keeper for me along with my Pancolor Flektogon Pentax Fujica CZJ and dozens more of m42 lenses.mirrorless has bought so many of these old optical masterpieces out of mothballs

Pentax super Takumar 55mm f1. 8. The best m42 that I have. I have a Helios 58mm f2 44 2 which I like as well. Makes mesmerising bokey.

Love those old lenses; the Görlitz 50mm looks almost exactly like the 50mm I had on my old Praktika LTL, my first ever SLR. Am I hearing things or did you actually call the 80-200mm zoom a "Sirius" lens? And you wonder whether or not that Helios 135mm might have been manufactered by another party, while it clearly states "made in Japan" on the lens barrel, so I guess yes :-)

Its not so precise to judge russian/belorussian lenses only by having one copy. I just tested 2 44-3 and one was softer than the other. One of them has amazing 3d pop effect. 44-3 were made in Minsk Belomo factory, which was good reputation.44-3 is updated 44-2 with improved body design added little bit of multicoating but retaining legendary swirl. Also I have tested 3copies of 44m , 44M-4 MC, 44M-4. Talking about sharpness is negotiatible. Multicoating on 44M-4MC does its job, and images have more contrast. Talking about sharpness the best lens from these I have is 44m, but its due to exact copy I own and nobody can guarantie the one will be as sharp as the other.

What are your thoughts about anamorphic lenses?

Just caught this on my third viewing of this video: In the description box, you have the Domiplan listed as a 30mm.

The 135mm looks very similar to a CZJ lens. The A/M switch near the back is the same and the sliding lens hood is very similar to the CZJ 135/3.5

Just got my hands on a domiplan in good shape for 5.90£ I must say I was surprised of it's performance

That Helios 135 looks a lot like my Vivitar 135... a common, but very well-made and useful telephoto from the 70s.

Maybe not Valdai, but Vologda as origin of Helios-44? The other company is BelOMO, Bel standing for Belarus.

This question is unrelated to the video, but I thought I's ask anyway. I own a Zorki 3, and occasionally there will be a light leak but most of the time everything is fine. There are no light seals in the back, not even a remnant or evidence of a light seal. Are they supposed to have light seals.?

Great video Nigel! The Domiplan is a clone from the 2.9/50 Trioplan, also produced by Meyer Optik Görlitz. I got mine (with Exakta mount) for 5 Euros from a junk box in a camera store because the pin on the mount was missing. It is a triplet, whereas the Tessar has 4 elements. It seems a bit weird to me that the Trioplans both 100mm and 50mm are so hyped and overpriced whereas the Domiplan could never reach by far the same fame.

.75 meter! (not cm). but thnks for yet another intriguing chapter on vintage glass.

Hi Nigel, thank you, very interessting lenses! Please check out the following lenses if you have them: Canon FD 5.6/100-200mm (also the FDn version) and the Minolta MD 3.5/35-70mm and the Minolta MD 4.0/70-210mm (or its Leica counterpart). They can be had for little money and they are worthwhile, too. Best wishes, Ralf

The Dominant has the same optics as the famous Trioplan 50 2,9

Helios : is not valdai, is MMZ

I have a Domiplan and it's bloody awful, I don't know if it's been dropped or a Friday afternoon job or possibly serviced by a drunkard, I suspect all three. I only bought it because some American was raving about it's bubble bokeh! I mentioned I had got one to a long standing pal who when I told him he said 'why' ? I can't remember how much I payed for it but it was very little so it doesn't owe me anything and I have thought about getting another to see if they are all that bad. It might even be the first lens I have considered throwing in the bin. It does get better as it's stopped down. Mine has the 'Zebra crossing' aperture and focus rings and is marked Meyer Optic. I don't want to out anyone off getting one though LOL!

This domiplan, it REALLY looks identical to my Pentaflex - Color 50mm 2.8, very very similar in design

Oh no no no! Now Domiplan will rise in price too :D

Older Helios models usually have a more archaic construction and with worse optical coating (or even lack thereof). The manufacturing process haven't yet went through simplification back then. Quality control also used to be much better. So, the newer models are usually technologically superior, but were more cheaply made with more lax quality control. The best specimens of newer Helios 44 are sharper than older ones and handle colors better, but it is much harder to find a really good one. Older versions, like M39 ones, "white" or "zebra" are more consistently good and feel vastly better in hand IMO. So average "white" Helios-44 is a better lens than average "black" Helios-44-something or 44M-something and vastly better than pretty much any Helios-44 variant made in nineties.

Looks like a Sigma zoom

When wide open is f/4.5, I would hope a lens WOULD be “very sharp wide open”.

The Helios 135 is nowhere to be found on ebay...

The 80 to 200mm is a sigma lens.

The Domiplan was a race for the bottom, so common these days, sorry to say.We call quality these days overengeering. So, I totally get this presentation, because often the faults subjectively, make the characteristics we so fondly love. Softer, kinder, saturated, giving. I get it.

I bought and sold these lenses on eBay for 8 years. My findings based on multiple examples (single example tests of used lenses are not reliable): Domiplan: a triplet. Quality control very poor and the glass is very soft and easily scratched. Most I've tested have been pretty rubbish, but very occasionally I'd get a good one that was almost as sharp as a Tessar. Sirius 80-200: almost impossible to find old zoom lenses without fungus and they are almost impossible to clean. I've thrown away 99 for every good one I've sold. Never tested this one consequently. Helios 44 (all models): Russian version of the Zeiss Biotar reformulated for Russian glass with a different refractive index. Brilliant lens, well worth the money. Later models with more sophisticated coatings give better contrast. Probably a rare poor example tested in this video. Oreston: Great lens, but I do prefer the later Multi Coated Pentacon version. Helios 135mm 2.8: Marketed by the UK importer of Zenit cameras. Not a Russian made lens, there were multiple versions from various Japanese and Korean makers. Generally pretty good surprisingly.

The 80-200 may have been made by Sigma in its early days

The domiplan is the worst vintage lens I ever used, I sold it on as soon as I could, but some people love them.

?sigma 80-200

Get a Nikon 50mm non ai

The Domiplan 50 / 2.8 is probably the worst Meyer Optik lens ever produced. The constructors themselves admitted defeat after many years (unofficially). This lens is incorrectly corrected, just miscalculated, flawed. Currently, it is used by many people because of its disadvantages that can be used to take a specific photo. Personally, I avoid these lenses from a distance, it's just scrap.

The best lenses are made with thorium glass. Radioactive. When the decay occurs its tints the glass amber.

Stop acting.