Helios 77M-4; Zenitar-M; Helios 44M-7. Love the Helios 44-2? Here are 3 higher-rated lenses to try.

[@CableWrestler]

I know it's a good day when Simon uploads another high quality masterpiece.

[@garlandpoolfredpool]

I recently got the Helios 44M-4. I'm pretty new to the world of film and such...but learned of the interesting look of the Helios and, knowing it wouldn't cost an arm and a leg...I got one. About $120 and, seeing the results...I'm glad I did! Now I'm really starting to look into vintage lenses as a way to access variety and intrigue without spending thousands.

[@AI3Dorinte]

Just got myself a 77M-4, unreal character, love this lens and got it for 65$ :)

[@torvaldalexander1996]

Thank you for this contrast post, I love my Helios 44. Also loved all the different 50mm lenses you compared which allowed me to decide on two old Pentax lenses. Best & thanks.

[@joelee24]

Thanks for the detailed review, I used the 44 long time ago before digital, frankly I don't like it much due to the low contrast and color saturation, but it was a very sharp lens. There's one thing may sound strange is that, I am one of the very few that do not like swirly bokeh, it gave me headache ! so that I like the Zenitar more, and the one I no longer have got a very unusual 4 blade square aperture.

[@genebrown2580]

I really enjoyed your video. You got me thinking about some really old Nikon lenses I haven't used in decades. I got some out and used them in the same way you used the ones above. Thanks for the great idea!

[@brysimm404]

Thanks for this! Positive reviews steered me towards the Zenitar several years ago, but I was disappointed that it under performed against my Helios 44-3 (less sharp, flatter color). I still want to like it; but as you’ve shown here, results are results. I’ve also often wondered how the 44M-7 & 77M-4 compare head to head. Now I know 👍

[@nickykodak7536]

But do you? We live in a digital age, so different lenses on different cameras with different onboard and post-exposure software edits (which are the profound carriers of image quality variables) will shift what anyone "knows" into numerous divergent variables. A single - and very short - KZbin movie cannot show any person "fact" so nobody can "know!"

[@billkabb]

I own the zenitar lens and i confirm CA wide open and Flaring is an issue , it looses contrast under day light even with the hood on , if use it carefully contrast is ok .. Bokeh is great and i find my copy razor sharp even wide open , i shot always at 1.7 and f2 and ia have never seen any evidence of softness.. It is a great lens for some occasions but i agree not an every day all purpose lens .. although i love the images it produces ... great review simon .. thanks

[@brucehull2455]

Excellent reviews/vids! I own a few Helios 44s and a couple of 85s. I did not know about the 77s. After this comparison, the price of the 77s will probably go up 🤣. Please keep up the good work! We appreciate it!

[@garydiamondguitarist]

Hi Simon, Very informative video, thank you! Genuinely enjoyed watching that, including the lovely dreamy bokeh example photography; tastefully done. This next part might sound mean-spirited, but it's not: I'm glad someone else understands the pain of trying to fix vintage lenses if you've never done it before. I enjoyed the stories in the few of your videos I've seen, so let me tell you one of mine. Years ago I owned a fairly decent example of the 44M-2 sold to me with a Sony A7s by a wedding photographer, always liked it, but ended up selling a big bundle of lenses and things with the camera due to fiscal concerns in the pandemic. Then I had the opportunity to pick up a vintage lens and camera job lot for £30 (an old Zenit and all the lenses were M42, 3 primes and 1 zoom) and one of the included lenses that drew me to it was the Helios 44M-4 - a little poorly, I thought, as the focus ring had trouble finding purchase but not something I worried about at the time. I gladly paid my money and took my choice. The next day, in better light, I started doing some example macro round the house testing, and was incredibly impressed with the deep contrast, rich colours and minimal if any aberrations I was seeing on my test shots with a humble EOS 4000D - everything I loved about the 44M-2 and more, apparently. Sadly as I was taking some cafetière related macro shots, the whole lens fell apart in my hands. I was lucky I didn't drop the optics barrel. To get it back to usable condition required a complete disassembly and reassembly to make all the parts to screw together again properly, then I realised when refitting the aperture actuator rotary mechanism I had it 180º due to assuming the part it connected to needed to be tightly fit to the ones beneath (not actually true). I joked to myself that shooting video was now not the only time I had to 180º something (usually shutter now aperture), a much needed bit of comic relief after 3-4 hours of trying to get tiny little flathead screws back in, straight and flush and resisting the urge to scoop everything up and hurl into the bin. Anyway, success! A lens worth saving, in case especially when mounted to an APS-C crop sensor DSLR which tidies up the sometimes extreme bokeh I used to have with the 44M-2 while retaining much of the goodness shooting wide open. I've found it's also quite lovely for taking clear, sharp product pictures for my freelance side business, trading in miscellaneous technology when stopped down to ƒ8 to keep items in a reasonable focal plane sharp while dispensing with most of the extraneous background detail. I believe it still needs a regreasing as the focus ring still slips (and perhaps I tightened up the 3 screws around the focus barrel just a touch too much although it does help with fine-grained critical focus control when zooming in) a little but wow, what a difference, and what a usable lens. I used to keep the 18mm-55mm kit lens as the "grab and go" which lives on the camera, but now the 44M-4 fulfils that role. ...erm, perhaps this should have gone into an email, it certainly reads like one. 🙈 Gary

[@Simonsutak]

This such a fun/great story! Those tiny little flathead screws are so fiddly. I found that rubbing the screwdriver head against a magnet on our fridge helped to magnetise the screwdriver and this has proved invaluable for picking up and positioning tiny screws in their holes! Having said that, I have one Helios where I had to give up and it only has two rather than three screws in place. I found tightening up the screws around the barrel helps to prevent slipping, so maybe it does need regreasing. The Helios 44M-4 really is an excellent lens. I was very surprised at just how good is it after using a 44-2 for a few years. And so solid! Thank you so much for sharing this. Kind regards, Simon

[@arcanics1971]

I'd never even heard of the Helios 77 M! I'm not seeing a need for it when I already have the 44-2- especially at the prices I have just seen. Still, it's nice to know it's out there. And not seeing a need doesn't *necessarily* mean I won't end up buying one! :)

[@LeNs-ye2ci]

I found the right screwdriver. It works !!! Thank you so much!!!

[@fretless05]

Great video. I heard so much about the swirly bokeh, I bought a Helios 44 when I got into vintage lenses. I like it, and find it takes good images. As for the question of what's best... well, there is yet another Helios lens that might be worth trying and comparing to the two you've already tested, the Helios 81. It's a 50mm f2 that was produced as a kit lens for the Kiev cameras (essentially Nikon F-mount).

[@rodcummings3606]

Thank you for another excellent and informative video. Especially appreciate that went to the effort of capturing images of the same subject and lighting with the three different lenses on evaluation. This is such a helpful comparison. While just how pleasing the results are is very subjecting - I definitely have a bias for the so called distracting artifacts. Consequently I do like the images from the '77', and this is a lens that I knew very little about until your postings. However, I already have an early '44' with 13-blades and this currently filling that need. The fact that Helios 77M-4 only has 6 blades is a bit of a show stopper for me these days.

[@Simonsutak]

Many thanks Rod. I especially appreciate your kind words about the comparison images. They are quite a lot of work!

[@meta4101]

After watching your video, I did my some late night testing. The Zenitar is single coated and does flare a bit wide open (improves as you stop down) -- less than my 44-2 and more than my 44m-4. Surprisingly, my copy is quite sharp wide open (as is the 44m-4) with excellent contrast/micro-contrast and with minimal aberrations (even in the corners). I should note at this point that the corners are simply amazing wide open (best in class) -- the acutance, aberrations and vignetting are all well controlled -- far better than my 44m-2, and even a bit sharper than my SMC 55mm Tak 1.8 or any of my other 1.7s from that era. The bokeh is pleasing wide open, but the character in general is not distinctive like a sonnar or Helios 44, but -- as you say -- it is smooth and pleasing if not stopped down. (I am not a fan or hexagonal bokeh.) Finally, the Zenitar is built like a tank -- it is without doubt the heaviest and largest 1.7 from that era -- heavier than many of my f1.4 lenses and about as heavy as my Canon LTM 1.2 (which has literally twice as much glass under the hood). My copy of the Zenitar has somewhat stiff focus and the handling overall is mediocre. The Zenitar is a versatile lens that takes beautiful images, but if I were to buy one or two lens at this price point, I would recommend either 44-2 or the Pentax Takumar SMC 55mm f1.8 - depending on what you are looking for. You've covered the 44-2 in many videos and it is rightfully a legend. The Tak has the best coatings from that era, is famous for its smooth bokeh (though no swirls), is about as fast and nearly as sharp as the Zenitar, has far superior handling/build quality and is far lighter and more compact than the Zenitar. Love your videos ...

[@LasseMalmgren]

Nice review, i own a couple of the Zenitar, one with english texts and one with russian. I find them very sharp and bought them because of their reputation. I'm not much of a daytime photographer, i try to do astro-photo. So i'm interested in lenses sharpens, CA, distortion and coma. Looks like i have to hunt a 77M-4 and compare it on the starts to the Zenitar :)

[@selkiemaine]

I have a 44/2 and a 77. While your tests are far more thorough than mine, I got basically the same results you did. Apparently, I got lucky - both my lenses feel essentially new and functioned beautifully as received, and I think I got lucky on the price! I prefer the 77 to the 44/2, but it's a close thing - the optical differences are subtle enough that I could use either with a smile. The defining factor, for me, is the standard control setup on the 77. The double aperture rings on the 44/2 are just less convenient for me.

[@PixPete]

I think you must have got a faulty Zenitar. I bought this lens specifically because I HATE HATE HATE (just personal preference) the swirly bokeh of my Helios lens, but I love anything coming out of KMZ. My Zenitar is wayyyy sharper than my Helios. Bitingly sharp. Your bokeh results are consistent though, it is a very creamy blur and the flares are lovely. I also rate the Zenitar for giving that "3D Pop" effect which some people dispel as a photography myth.

[@MD-wk3gj]

Simon your passion for vintage lenses has 100% inspired and motivated me. I bought a Helios M44 based on one of your earlier videos. I plan on making videos (under a different screen name) and want the cinematic look that these vintage lenses offer. Would you consider creating a video with your recommendations for a selection of vintage lenses for making cinematic videos? Right now I’m looking for the Helios M77, Auto-Takumar 55mm F2.2 and the Gorlitz Oreston 50mm f/1.8 based on some of your videos but would love to hear your thoughts. Thank you for all you’ve offered, it truly is extremely helpful and appreciated.

[@jianchenglu6584]

Oreston is great, but its heavy for me

[@joaomellin]

was waiting for this!

[@gregreesman]

Genius review. Thank you

[@powerlurker]

recently i got a rollei 50 1.8 qbm mount, it replaced my Minolta 50 f2 as most use daily lens, it perform around 8/10 in almost every aspect, only weakness is antiflare

[@perin99]

Great video. I don't think that you've got a typical copy of the zenitar though. Your findings are quite different from my copy (with the Cyrillic writing) as I found it to be incredibly sharp but with excessive CA and very poor flare control. I use mine exclusively in the studio, where it really shines. I recall reading that there was a difference between home market and export lenses. Maybe that's true. I agree with you on the Helios 44 though. I own one of those too and love it.

[@billkabb]

i agree ..mine also is the one with the cyrillic writing and it is razor sharp even wide open .. i have mine de-yellowed under sun light and it has great colors also , CA is there but i use it mostly for closeup , macro and low light photography and it performs great.

[@perin99]

@@billkabb maybe the export models are different then. It's strange that Simon's one doesn't appear to be like ours at all.

[@nickykodak7536]

Old gear varies, and old gear varies a lot when it comes from some sources of factory production. One KZbin movie test on one lens is therefore never going to prove anything. At most, it'll just review a single lonesome lens. Outcomes can never be anything other than being a basic and simple opinion, not firm fact.

[@sebastiang7183]

I own a copy of the Zenitar. I don't think yours is the best. Mine is sharp from wide open and then it only gets more brutal. It does have more CA than the Helios lenses, which is annoying. Although, the Helios lenses are pretty exceptional when it comes to CA. It's one of my best portrait 50's. Yes, it is due to the creamy bokeh. Yes, many lenses have creamy bokeh, but not many vintage 50s. At least not until you go to around 55-60mm. However, the focus falloff from in focus to out of focus is very fast. You can be at f/2.8 and not have both eyes in sharp focus. This makes it a very dimensional rendering lens. The Helios lenses are not flat rendering lenses, but the Zenitar is more dimensional.

[@GrzesiekBe-sq2zm]

I heard that often in Zenitar fumes from grease stick on lenses and kills sharpness and colours giving that cold tone

[@ChillOutTurkey]

Thanks for this detailed review.. My vote goes to 44M-7.. 🤘🤓

[@Ni5ei]

3:05 I have several cheap M42 adapters from eBay that have a ridge inside the mount which pushes the pin when you screw the lens on. Ideal if a lens doesn't have an auto/manual switch.

[@jeghedderhenrik]

Simon Utak , have you tried with and without lenshood comparison, as with other vintage lenses, a lenshood do a big diffence in colours and sharpness and contrast

[@Simonsutak]

There is one ‘with and without’ hood example in the video, but I should do a separate video with a range of lenses on this subject perhaps.

[@patriziodalessandro1693]

Hi. I cannot say much about the coating of Zenitar-M (probably single coating), but a multicoated MC Zenitar-M exists, with no auto/manual button, but instead a pin like the other two lenses you are showing here (which works perfectly for me). I suggest you consider the MC version if you prefer a lens with a better contrast and less flare problems. Personally I hate the scottish tartan bokeh produced by the ME1 two blades version (use Photoshop for a more pleasant effect, if you really like it that way) and cannot understand the crazy price people sometimes ask for this version (let them keep it). Talking about crazy prices, I see that the prices offered to European eBayers for Zenitar-M (not MC) and for Helios 77M-4 range from 100 to 200$: I cannot understand or explain them. Not a very long time ago I paid about 25€ for the MC Zenitar-M in good conditions (needed some internal lens cleaning because of dust) and about 75€ for a Helios 77M-4 in excellent conditions (in a shop, but you can find a lens in decent decent for less).

[@williamkazak469]

I have a 44-3. I use it on Nikon DSLR. It will focus to infinity. Fun to play with.

[@julianprzybysawski8543]

I had a 77m-4 briefly, which I bought before I ended up inheriting my uncle's 44-2 (a curious example with a 44-3 housing design but earlier lilac / blue tinted coatings). I ended up selling the 77 quite quickly. I didn't like that it seemed to have a lot more chromatic aberration, and only 6 blades in the aperture.

[@giklab]

Somewhat off-topic: I've owned a good dozen Helios 44 models, from 2 to 7. I have owned a -2, -4, -6 and -7 simultaneously at one point, and could not for the life of me find any meaningful difference between them. I am sure I might have just gotten a poor M-7 or a godly -2, but for all the hype about the -5, -6, and -7, I cannot confirm it personally. Ended up keeping the 44K-4 for its K mount. The rest went up for sale, and the M-7 and M-6 went quite quickly. I've been in this long enough to take internet opinions as a guide. In the end, it always comes down to the one particular lens you end up holding in your hand.

[@Simonsutak]

Fair enough, but strip away the hype and the later Helios 44 series lenses do perform better (sharper) on on-line published bench tests, and they do have better MC coatings that help colours/contrasts. I own four 44/44-2s and the 44M-6 and 7 and my copies match these facts. But, and this is a big but, in terms of "wonderful/godly" lenses, the early silver 44 13-blades lens takes some beating!! (off-topic!).

[@tompanoname3579]

..indeed... i have 44K-2 and 44K-4...good video!

[@ДмитрийЯрыш-ф1н]

You forget about Zenitar m2s 50/2 - it's something like the last version Helios 44. It uses the same optical design and is the sharpest of them all.

[@Simonsutak]

I remember when you could pick up Zenitar M2s up for very little money...and I didn't ;) They're quite expensive now (to buy from the UK).

[@ДмитрийЯрыш-ф1н]

@@Simonsutak I can help you with that, if you want. Now, I'm in Georgia and I can order things from Russia, they are very cheap there. When, sent to you. If you interested tell me how can I contact you. I can say the same about any Soviet lens. You can look at the prices by yourself on "Avito" (Russian Еbay), but best to search in Russian. "Зенитар", "Юпитер", "Таир", "Гранит", "Индустар", "Мир", "Волна". A lot of good lenses were made in the USSR, I can even advise you on some not very famous ones. Only payment for the lens will have to be made in cryptocurrency, because, you know, Swift isn't working for Russians.

[@jeghedderhenrik]

Simon Utak, are you familiar with the konica hexanon 50 1.8, its superior to lenses above in colour and smooth blur, it got a very personal bokeh look, not to busy, not to boring, but so pleasing to the eye.. i got the 44 m 7, 44-2, 44 2 eary blank alu version of the helios, many industar, takumar versions and so on, but if i could only own one, i would always go for the hexanon, even its not rare, expensive or anything, i recommend it. btw, the konica 50 1.7 is supposed to be the best, but owning that too, i says allways go for the 50 1.8 version, it got a better multicoating giving an amazing handling of flaires...

[@Simonsutak]

Hi Henrik, Many thanks for your comment and recommendations. Yes, I do follow the Konica Hexagon 50/1.8, as a well some other exceptional (and more expensive) lenses such as the Topcor Re Auto 58/1.8 and the Leitz Wetzlar Summicron-R 50/2. I thought long and hard about using the phrase "top rated" in the title for this video - given the strengths of other lenses, old and new. What I was trying to say in the video is that some people argue that these three lenses (the Helioses and the Zenitar) are top rated in their experience. And I wanted to see/show how good the lenses are, as stand alone lenses, not in comparison with the best of the best. The reason why I don't buy, try, own and/or review some of the very best old lenses out there, including the Konica, is that I deliberately stick to M42, Exakta and K mount lenses (old lenses that is) simply to contain my LBA!!! Having said that...one day.... Simon

[@jeghedderhenrik]

@@Simonsutak and your conclusions in your videos matches my own very well, so i use them as a guide before buying. its interesting to learn about opions on lenses i own myself. funny thing is, i own the 44 m7 and early 44 silver and the plain 44-2helios but i allways ends up choosing and using the ordinary 44-2 , it got that ,,secret spice,, , that little extra, that cannot be defined but makes it better

[@jeghedderhenrik]

@@Simonsutak i get the choice to stick with m42, but i bought some feew cheap ,,dummy,, ebay adapters for several mount system, and then let them sit permanently on a lens.. but yes m42 lenses are many and easy to change on adapter.. to me the slimmer konica - sony adapter made me look into konica, unfortunaly m42 adapter are bigger, and makes a lens look less compact than a konica

[@Saahil.Rahman]

Hi Simon, I have a 77M4 with infinity focus issue, could you please tell me how to fix it ? Thanks

[@tummassimonsen3212]

I really enjoy your videos

[@somegeezer]

The 77s are for people who want a 44, but are weirdly stuck in needing an even 50mm, instead of the barely different 58mm. I say let them spend the silly extra money for the cost, and leave the 44s numerous and cheap for the rest of us. =D

[@jameshotten]

A bit late to the party. I have a 44m-4 and the Zenitar M, (with the Cyrillic text) and i find ky Zenitar to be very sharp indeed. However, I have never really checked edge sharpness. So I might try that out of curiosity. Both of my lenses are keepers though.

[@ТимофейСухов-г4я]

Отличный обзор. Сам недавно купил Зенитар и почти сразу продал, скучный объектив, а самое главное на чуть прикрытых диафрагмах пила получается вместо гаек. А так мои любимчики это: Гелиос 81н, Гелиос 44-3, Гелиос 77м-4, Волна 9, Мир-1В, Юпитер 37а. Два раза покупал Юпитер 9 и оба раза продал - не советую ни кому. Спасибо за видео.

[@Simonsutak]

Благодарю! Я также заметил, что эти уродливые формы пил от лезвий слегка остановились. У меня была хорошая фотография форм. Я должен был включить его в видео. Спасибо, что указали на это. (Надеюсь, перевод сработает!).

[@ТимофейСухов-г4я]

@@Simonsutak Я очень рад что вы ответили мне, перевод отличный. Рад что в другой стране есть любители старой оптики. Очень внимательно просматриваю ваши ролики. Спасибо за вашу работу!!!!

[@yuyu3850]

Тоже имею Гелиос 44-3, Гелиос 77м-4. Однако мой любимчики на М42, уже долгое время, радиоактивный Pancolar 1.8/50 и Oreston 1.8/50 зебра. С волной, миром и юпитером к сожалению пока не знаком.

[@jianchenglu6584]

Simon, Plz try zenitar m2s, because its both cheap, great lens, very good optics, despite its ugly as heck

[@raay411]

I have kept all three

[@globally123]

All very lovely,but I think I will stick to my early silver 40,cheers.

[@GrainOnTheGo]

Surprised to see such good performance on the 77M-4 from Valdai, that factory has a horrendous reputation with some of the Helios series lens, so seeing such good performance on 77 type lens was rather interesting. Maybe you got a good lens, or perhaps Valdai produces good models for their 77 types. Maybe someone in the comments has some input here.

[@yuyu3850]

In Russia, the Valdai lens is valued more than the Vologda lens. He believes that he has better enlightenment and works better with backlight. It also gives warmer colors.

[@GrainOnTheGo]

@@yuyu3850 well yes for the 77, but what about with 44, they’re horribly produced for that model right?

[@yuyu3850]

@@GrainOnTheGo Right, but I would like to clarify something. The Valdai plant made Helios-44M the most accessible and most mass-produced lens in the USSR. The factory produced almost a million lenses a year for almost 20 years. Almost all amateur SLR cameras "Zenith" were equipped with this particular lens. Kit lenses are cheaper and of lower quality. 77M-4 was also used as a whale. But this is a newer lens (1984), it was not so massive and was made with better quality.

[@limitless6216]

awesome, thank you

[@TTLVID]

I don't have any of these but I've got a helios 44m and it's probably my favourite lens for portraits, I prefer it over the 44-2 versions and I sold my 44-2 lenses including the silver version with the 400 blades or however many it's got? I prefer the contrast from the 44m lens and the photos are definitely sharper. I'll keep an eye out for one of the later 44m lenses and if I get one and prefer it I'll keep that and get rid of the older one. I used to hang on to all my lenses but now I just keep the ones that I use, like or have a unique character because it's pointless having loads of lenses that aren't getting the use.

[@MichaelRusso]

Can't lose with any of these lenses. All my Helios 44 variations do great.

[@piotrko.4086]

77 seems to be optimal choice... its surprising, that the 44m7 is little worst...

[@raay411]

Yeah I have all three

[@jaymichaels5187]

The Zenitar lens OOF background images are very (Ultron design?) Takumar lens like.

[@marcinos303]

Zenitar M 1,7/50 - sharp as f..k!

[@ensozen]

I always thought that 77m4 is the best soviet 50mm, and exavctly from Valdai (Jupiter) factory, like you have, not the KMZ one, it is kind of trashy and boring, coatings is worse. But as handling of the lens - it is not very good experience, if we compare it to takumars (my favorite lenses). And 150$ is straight robbery - i bought it 2-3 times, in perfect condition with case and factory sheet, for no more than 80$.

[@0x00000101]

Странно жаловаться на состояние объективов, когда вы их, скорее всего, купили задешево. Пока я не досмотрел видео до конца, могу предположить, что линзы в объективе/объективах в масле, из-за чего упадет резкость. На 11:00 видно, что линзы грязные Translation: It's strange to complain about the condition of lenses when you most likely bought them cheaply. Until I watched the video to the end, I can assume that the lenses in the lens / lenses are in oil, which will cause the sharpness to drop. At 11:00 you can see that the lenses are dirty

[@Simonsutak]

The condition (regarding the grease) is well known. It's true that I didn't buy copies from sellers who had recently stripped, re-greased and cleaned the lenses. But I'd hardly call either of my Helios lenses cheap. And aside from the grease issues they are in great condition.

[@0x00000101]

@@Simonsutak What do you mean by "the condition is well known"? Here in Russia those are quite cheap. I wouldn't say that your 77m4 in great conditon, just look at bokeh circles. Lenses inside of it are definitely dirty. Appreciate you work anyway. Good content

[@Simonsutak]

@@0x00000101 Many thanks for your comments, much appreciated. I think we're on the same page: if you want to buy one of these lenses buy one from a seller (with excellent ratings) who has CLA'd the lens first!! And I don't disagree with your comments about great condition - I was really comparing the condition to some of my other beaten up old Helios lenses (a consequence of how the owners looked after them).

[@zacharyo_connor]

I shot a short film primarily with the Helios 44M (not the 7, but still a similar lens), I love the swirly backgrounds, and the flares it gave me are beautiful. kzbin.info/www/bejne/f5m7o5utp5J8e9k&ab_channel=CricketFlims Other shots were taken with a 28mm SMC Takumar and a 135mm SMC Takumar f2.5 (6 elements version). They all have a slight swirly effect. I love the 77's look, and perhaps one day I'll pick on up!

[@jakasampuna30]

I have Helios 77M-44 buy from Ebay

[@christopherward5065]

They are good enough but, the ugly bokeh effects where the subject of the image is swamped with bokeh discs seems to work against normal image-making goals. The haze increased from centre to edge and that would have to be addressed in post production. I am loathed to say that I would choose or recommend any of these offerings without caveats. They are good value but too prone to frustrating distracting artefacts.

[@evrythingis1]

Didn't think those were top rated, or rare....