I’ve actually lost sales because of this belief: that KMZ-made Helios lenses are the only good ones, and anything from Valdai isn’t worth buying.

I’ve serviced dozens of these lenses over the years — and I’ve always questioned that reputation. 

Honestly, I think it’s based more on internet myths than real-world testing.

So I decided to find out for myself. 

I bought 10 Helios-44-2 lenses — some from KMZ, some from Valdai, some from MMZ — and I put them through five real-world tests.

I tested sharpness and contrast using a proper chart. 

I looked at lens flare, veiling glare, and highlight blooms under backlight. 

I tested for swirl in the bokeh and image shift when pulling focus.

Is KMZ actually better? Is Valdai really as bad as everyone says? Or have we all been judging lenses by the wrong thing?

INTRODUCTION

The Helios-44-2 is probably one of the most well-known vintage lenses out there. 

It’s popular for its swirly bokeh, low contrast, and that soft, dreamy look that a lot of filmmakers really like.

But here’s the issue — not all Helios lenses are treated the same. 

Some people believe certain factories made better versions, while others think some factories produced nothing but junk.

The truth is, a lot of these lenses have been through decades of unknown use. 

Most don’t have any service history. 

Some were taken apart by previous owners. 

Some sat in a drawer for 30 years collecting haze.

So just knowing which factory made a lens doesn’t always tell you the full story.

A lot of people say KMZ-made lenses are the best — they’re supposed to be sharper, better built, and more reliable.

Valdai lenses, on the other hand, get a bad reputation. 

People say they’re soft, poorly assembled, and inconsistent. 

And MMZ? Most people barely talk about them.

The thing is, most of these opinions come from people who’ve maybe only owned one or two lenses. 

A lot of it is just passed around without real testing.

I restore and service these lenses for a living. 

I’ve handled dozens of them — from all the major factories — and honestly, what I’ve seen on my desk doesn’t really match what people are saying online.

I’ve had buyers back out of a sale just because the lens was made by Valdai — even when it was clean, sharp, and fully serviced.

So I wanted to find out what actually matters.

I bought 10 Helios-44-2 lenses from KMZ, Valdai, and MMZ, and tested all of them side by side.

First, I tested them in the condition they arrived, just like everyone else.

Then I fully serviced every lens: cleaned the elements, relubricated the helicoid, cleaned aperture blades. 

After that, I ran the exact same tests again.

I tested sharpness and contrast using a technical test chart. 

I checked how each lens handled flare and veiling glare when backlit. 

I looked at swirly bokeh. 

And finally, I tested image shift to see if any of the mount play complaints actually matter.

The goal is simple: to find out whether the factory logo actually means anything — or if we’ve all been judging these lenses for the wrong reasons.

TESTING BEFORE SERVICING

Test 1: Sharpness & contrast

I started with sharpness and contrast, and to keep things consistent, I used an industry-standard ISO 12233 test chart.

The setup was simple: consistent front lighting, a tripod, and identical camera settings shot at f2 across all 10 lenses. 

That way, I’m not introducing any outside variables — it’s just the lens doing the work.

Then, to get a sense of contrast, I used a color value picker and sampled the same black square on each image. 

The idea is simple — the darker the black, the better the contrast. 

So, a lower Luma value means stronger contrast.

This gave me a consistent way to compare how each lens rendered detail and black levels — without relying just on feel or perception.

The Luma values told an interesting story. 

The question was whether those numbers lined up with the factory logos.

Some lenses gave deep blacks in the test chart — values in the mid-50s, which is what I’d expect for good contrast.

But others drifted into the 60s… and one went all the way to 78, which is way too high for a clean black.

The real question now was: did that outlier come from one of the ‘bad’ factories… like Valdai?

Test 2: Lens flare and veiling glare

For this test, I wanted to evaluate how each lens handles strong backlighting — specifically flare and veiling glare.

I used a basic interview-style lighting setup: the subject faces the camera, and there’s a light source positioned behind them, at the corner of the frame. 

This creates a controlled environment to see how each lens responds to direct light hitting the front element.

A well-controlled lens will maintain contrast across the image and keep highlight areas clean — meaning there’s no blooming around the light source, and no noticeable veiling glare washing over the image.

This test helps show how effective each lens is at managing internal reflections and preserving contrast in challenging lighting situations. 

What I’m looking for is whether any of the lenses stand out — in either direction — and whether those differences are consistent across factory logos.

The flare test gave me some pretty mixed results.

A few lenses handled the backlight really well — no noticeable veiling glare, and the light source stayed clean and sharp.

Others? Not so much. 

Some had visible bloom around the light, and a few showed that soft, washed-out glare across the frame.

The question is: did you already guess which factory those came from?

Test 3: Swirly bokeh
One of the most talked-about features of the Helios-44-2 is the swirly bokeh. 

Some people even choose a copy based on how strong the swirl looks in sample shots.

There’s this idea floating around that some versions swirl more than others — that certain factory logos give you better swirl.

But here’s where things get interesting. 

That swirl isn’t a feature — it’s actually a lens imperfection. 

It comes from spherical aberrations and other design flaws.

So do we really want more swirl — which means more optical flaws — or less swirl, which technically makes it a better lens?

Since all Helios-44-2 lenses use the same optical formula, the swirl should, in theory, be the same across all copies — if everything is manufactured consistently.

So I wanted to see if the swirl really changes from lens to lens — or if we’ve just been looking at differences caused by lighting, distance, or framing.

After running the swirl test, I looked at all the footage side by side — and honestly, the swirl pattern was nearly identical across every lens.

No one lens stood out as having more or less swirl. 

The backgrounds reacted the same way, the blur was consistent, and the signature ‘Helios look’ showed up in all of them.

That makes me wonder — by this point in the video, have you spotted any pattern that ties back to a specific factory?

Test 4: Image shift
When people talk about lens build quality online, they often mention things like “loose lens mount” — they’ll twist the lens a little and say it’s loose or poorly built. 

But does it tell you anything?

What’s more useful — especially for filmmakers — is looking at image shift. 

That’s when the whole frame moves slightly as you pull focus from one distance to another.

This kind of shift usually happens because of mechanical play inside the lens. 

It’s not something you’d notice in photography, but for video, especially with follow focus motor, it becomes a problem.

A lot of people assume KMZ lenses are better built and more precise — so in theory, they should show less image shift.

But it’s worth pointing out that the Helios-44-2, and many other still lenses, was never designed for filmmaking in the first place. 

So small shifts in framing weren’t really an issue back then.

So for this test, I set up a subject and pulled focus from the background to the foreground, watching to see if the frame shifted.

Some of the results were predictable… and a few were kind of frustrating.

You’ll see what I mean.

But still, it raises a fair question…

Were those three problem lenses from the same factory?

When I ran the image shift test, most of the lenses behaved fine — but a few didn’t.

Two lenses showed visible image shift. The frame nudged slightly as I pulled focus from background to foreground — not dramatic, but definitely noticeable.

And one lens… just froze. The focusing ring was so stiff that even a follow focus motor couldn’t move it. 

That one wouldn’t survive a real shoot — and yet, someone might have judged it to be ‘well-built’ just by looking at the logo on the front.

And by now, I’m curious — based on everything you’ve seen so far, have you identified which lens belongs to which factory?”

The Reveal

After the first round of tests, the results were all over the place.

There wasn’t any consistent pattern that ties to a particular logo.

I knew the test, as it was, didn’t actually show much.

I would be doing a disservice to you, if I conclude the test at this point.

These lenses are over 40 years old. 

Yet people still test them like they’re brand new, like they just came off the factory floor last week.

When I bought my first few Helios lenses on eBay, I assumed every lens have the same performance.

I didn’t know how much condition, or servicing, or even previous handling could affect lens quality.

But after working on so many of these lenses over the years, I’ve learned that the real problem is usually something else.

That’s why I knew I had to service every lens properly before retesting anything — especially if I’m going to stand behind these lenses and sell them to fellow filmmakers.

I took each one apart completely, cleaned every optical surface, relubricated the helicoid not only with fresh grease, but also ensure that focus shift is kept minimum.

I didn’t modify anything. I just restored the lenses to the condition they should’ve been in when they left the factory.

Once everything was cleaned and calibrated, I ran the same tests again — with the exact same setups.

And now, the real question was: after all the lenses were properly serviced… would a KMZ logo finally start to stand out?

Right away, the results were more consistent.

After servicing, the contrast was noticeably better across the board.

Most lenses were now hitting low-50s in luma values — clean blacks, solid contrast.

A couple still sat in the high 50s but overall, the variation shrunk a lot.

Flare control improved noticeably after servicing.

The highlight bloom I saw earlier was greatly reduced across most lenses — 

likely because the coatings were finally able to do their job once the oil and evaporated grease were cleaned off.

These issues aren’t always visible during a casual inspection, but they can seriously affect how a lens handles harsh light.

Interestingly, the veiling glare — which some of my customers actually want for its dreamy look — was less visible on the lenses from so-called ‘better’ factories.

So imagine the surprise when someone pays a premium for a ‘quality’ lens, expecting glow and character… 

and ends up with something that looks too clean.

Swirl in the bokeh? Still there — and still about the same across all lenses. 

As expected, that didn’t change with servicing, and it didn’t match up with any specific factory.

Some of the lenses that showed image shift earlier were completely fine after proper relubrication.

The issue wasn’t just stiff or uneven focus — it came down to subtle differences in mechanical tolerance inside the lens.

It’s not something just anyone can fix — but after working on so many of these, I’ve learned where to look and how to dial it in properly.

Once the lenses were cleaned, serviced, and working properly, the differences between them were so small, I had to look really hard to find them.

And the differences I did see didn’t line up with any specific factory. 

In the end, it came down to one thing: condition. Not the logo on the barrel.

TAKEAWAY

So if you’re judging a Helios-44-2 purely based on the factory logo, you might be missing the bigger picture.

This test showed that performance had very little to do with which factory made the lens.

What really mattered was how well the lens was serviced — and whether the person doing the work actually knew what they were doing.

That’s exactly why I take the time to restore, service, and cinemod these lenses properly before putting them into anyone’s hands — because I’ve seen firsthand how much it matters.

If you’re serious about using vintage glass for real-world work, don’t let a logo be the thing that decides for you.

Earlier in this video, we talked about swirly bokeh — and how some people choose a Helios lens based on how strong that swirl looks.

But most people don’t actually know what causes swirly bokeh — or why it sometimes shows up, and sometimes doesn’t… even with the same lens.

In the next video, I’ll break it all down: what swirly bokeh really is, how it works, and how to get more of it — on purpose.