Do you have questions?
Write us! We will be happy to answer your questions within 12 hours!
Your question
Have a good day!
Helios lens

Brief photo review of Zenit-E M39 N68117993

Zenit-E is a camera that is hard to have in a collection.

The seven millionth circulation and the indestructible design always contribute to the sufficient supply of these devices in good condition at a low price. So, it seems, I did not plan, but +1 somehow happened by itself.

On the other hand, it is boring to have a lot of Zenith-E in the collection. With more than 20 years of production, but at two factories, there are at least differences between the models. Monotony.

Perhaps that is why various kinds of export versions of Zenit-E, which were produced under unusual names, are popular with collectors. There were a lot of them: Revueflex-E, Phokina, Phokina-XE, Kalimar SR200, Prinzflex-500E, Spiraflex, Delta 1, Meprozenit-E, Diramic-RF100.

But for some reason I am calm about the export versions. I would have something of the technical differences.

There is, however, in the Zenit-E model range one more or less tangible technical difference - a change in the thread standard for optics - from M39 to M42.

Zenit-E has been produced since 1965 and for the first few years these devices had an M39 thread with a flange distance of 45.2 mm, similar to the first Soviet DSLRs from the first Zenit model and further along the Zenit-3M.

In 1968, the thread was changed to M42 with a flange distance of 45.5 mm. This format, firstly, was compatible with Western optics, and secondly, it provided more opportunities for creating domestic high-aperture systems.

So, Zenit-E with M39 thread, I decided to get it. And got it.

True, there are almost no visual differences again. It even saddens me a little

Again, I will compare the new thing with the widespread version of the device with the Olympic symbols of 1980. I had a basic overview of the Zenit-E apparatus earlier. Here is just a short comparison of the two modifications.

The hero of the review has the number 68117993. The first two digits of the number in this case mean the year of manufacture, the difference in the age of the devices is 12 years.

What are the differences?

It can be seen that the texture of the soft pasting is different.

In the 1968 copy, the accessory bracket is removable. In this case, it simply does not exist.

The shape of the trigger foot is different. On the 1968 model, the foot is more compact and serrated.

The button that disables the shutter when rewinding the film in the earlier version is metal. The late ones have plastic.

The earlier version does not have a screw head on the front left.

Well, of course, the optics mounting thread is different.

That, in general, is all.

The picture of minimal differences is complemented by the lens. Visually - the usual "zebra". But the lens is interesting enough.

I honestly expected to see a white Helios-44. Although, it is known that it was with the release of Zenith-E that the optics became black. This was done so that the light does not reflect from the lens and does not blind the built-in exposure meter.

Black lenses may not appear immediately, but my 1968 copy is one of the last with M39 threads. Therefore, everything is logical.

But I have not seen the black Helios-44 before. Not Helios-44-2 with M42, of which there are many, namely the black Helios-44 with M39. It turns out that there are such.

Lens number 8034861

In general, Zenit-E with M39 thread can be a good option for those who want to shoot on film through white optics with M39.

The range of lenses with this mount is very good, and it is believed that the picture quality of such optics is better than that of the later versions with M42 thread.

True, Zenit-3M or Crystal is much easier to find. But they have a sticky mirror. For me, this is somewhat inconvenient.

Zenit-E's light meter will most likely lie, so we don't take its presence into account.

Here are some larger photos.

That's all for me. Do not be ill

Made on