Russian lenses... are they worth it?

[DocFrankenstein]

Now, I understand this is the canon forum. As much as I'd like to go directly to L glass and get a wide angle, portrait and short tele primes as well as some zooms, I just can't justify spending so much.

I could afford a cheap canon plastic zoom for 300 CAD and 50/1.8... and it's gonna be a long time before I'll be able to afford any of the other lenses.

On the other hand, I could go the russian way and get some good stuff. It's better to have an ok lens, then not have one at all.

I would imagine it would still produce a pic and I'd have more tools to artistically express myself (whatever that means) :wink:

That's the positive wishful thinking.

The con is that Russia's tech industries have been steadily going downhill since USSR fell. And even when soviet lenses were at it's best, they still lagged a few decades behind.

[/code]

[DocFrankenstein]

http://www.rugift.com/photocameras/canon_cameras_lenses.htm

This is the store. I'll probably go for 50mm, 35mm and 85 mm for sure at the beginning. Then maybe 135 and 200 or some wide angle.

Anybody have reviews or sample images taken with canon dSLRs?

[DocFrankenstein]

And I don't quite get it... What mounts are offered with these lenses?

Did russia start manufacturing EF mount lenses (with mf focus of course) or did they just made an adapter which allows focusing to infinity?

[jyrgen]

The mount is called M42, also universal screwmount or Pentax screwmount. Adapters are cheaply available for most other mounts, including EOS.

Instead of new Russian lenses you might consider used lenses by better makers that were produced some 20-40 years ago. The best lines are probably Carl Zeiss Jena and Pentax Takumar. Look for MC (Zeiss) and SMC (Pentax) versions, that are newer and multicoated. There is a lot of them always available at ebay, in fine condition, ranging from $10 to $300. Do a search for "M42 lens" for example.

[blackviolet]

the m42 to EOS adapter simply lets you mount the lens on the body. you focus using the focus ring on the lens. on the camera, you can use AV mode and it will compensate the shutter speed accordingly. the adapters run about 15 bucks here locally.

[rdenney]

The mount is called M42, also universal screwmount or Pentax screwmount. Adapters are cheaply available for most other mounts, including EOS.

Instead of new Russian lenses you might consider used lenses by better makers that were produced some 20-40 years ago. The best lines are probably Carl Zeiss Jena and Pentax Takumar. Look for MC (Zeiss) and SMC (Pentax) versions, that are newer and multicoated. There is a lot of them always available at ebay, in fine condition, ranging from $10 to $300. Do a search for "M42 lens" for example.

I generally agree with this assessment, though not that many of the Zeiss Jena lenses for 35mm are wonderful. (Their medium-format lenses for the Pentacon Six mount--a widely used mount in the Second World--are another matter and include some truly world-class optics such as the 180mm f/2.8 Sonnar.) The Jena lenses were made to go on the low-cost Praktica 35mm cameras. Praktica was really the inventor of the 42mm screw-mount, and Pentax just helped to establish what was a de factor standard up through the 60's or so.

But there are some interesting lenses in the Russian line that are hard to duplicate in other lines.

My first choice of the Russian lenses would be the fisheye wideangle lenses. The USSR seemed to get fisheye right, and the Zenitars are excellent. The 30mm Arsat fisheye (Ukrainian, not Russian) for medium format is also outstanding, espcially considering its competition is a $6000 Distagon. I have a 16mm Zenitar that is very nice.

The Jupiter 9 85mm F/2 lens is a Sonnar design and is really superb. It has an old-world look to it that you won't get even with the Canon 85mm f/1.8. I'm probably going to pick up one of these just because it's so different from anything made in Japan. This lens has appeared in rangefinder mounts for the Leica screw-thread Fed and Zorki cameras, in addition to the Contax-mount Kiev rangefinders, where they have developed a strong reputation for making those cameras-de-junque worth owning.

The 1000mm MTO mirror lens is a Maksutov-Cassegrain design that is as good as it gets in mirror lenses. Probably not fun to focus on a 10D, but f/10 isn't any slower than a fast 500 with a converter, and you'll have a hard time matching it even from the old Pentax lineup for the coupla hunnert that it costs.

I'd take the f/8 500mm Rubinar over any of the other cheapie 500mm mirror lenses any day. That lens has been adapted for medium-format use, and it is actually quite good even on a 6x6 frame. The 5.6 is faster and easier to focus, but those in the know among the users of Soviet stuff prefer the f/8.

The ex-Soviet multicoatings are quite good--on a par with the state of the art of perhaps ten years ago. Their lenses are classic designs, and you won't find aspherical elements, UD glass, computer-optimized designs or any of the other innovations we now expect from Japan. But they are mostly prime lenses while these new techniques mostly benefit zooms.

But most of the other lenses will not compete with old Pentax Takumars.

For utility primes in the range of 28 to 135, I'd take an old Takumar any day (except for the 85mm Jupiter). But I'd prefer the Canon 50mm/1.8 in a heartbeat over any of the 50mm competition, and it's cheap enough for any budget.

Rick "who adapts that 180mm Sonnar to his Pentax 645" Denney

[DocFrankenstein]

Kool :lol:

I didn't know that pentax and zenit with zeiss had the same mount.

So, for telephoto and wide angle, it's better to go with russian primes. Intermediate primes are better from pentax. Or zeiss?

What do pentax and zeiss call their mounts? M42 also?

This is real kool. I focus manually most of the time anyways. Canon isn't getting my money :twisted:

[rdenney]

Kool :lol:

I didn't know that pentax and zenit with zeiss had the same mount.

So, for telephoto and wide angle, it's better to go with russian primes. Intermediate primes are better from pentax. Or zeiss?

What do pentax and zeiss call their mounts? M42 also?


The 42mm screw thread is commonly called M42 by everybody, even if that company had a pet name for it. Lots of cameras used it. Praktica started it as I recall, but it was used by Pentax, Mamiya, Sears (by whoever made their cameras), and bunches of others, in addition to the Russians. Note that there is not always total compatibility between the stop-down pins of some camera/lens combinations. The Zeiss lenses were the step-up lenses for the Prakticas, with the Meyer-Gorlitz (and similar) brands make the low-end lenses. And even those aren't always bad. But generally speaking I'd rather have a Takumar than a Zeiss Jena lens.

I wouldn't say there is a code to what is good and not good in the ex-Soviet lenses. You have to take it on a case-by-case basis. The Jupiter 9 is a Sonnar design and excellent. The fisheyes are excellent. The mirror lenses are quite good, especially for the money. But the rectilinear wides and the mid-range telephotos are not so good. These focal lengths depend more on superior construction and alignement, which is not a strong point in the Russian photo industry. The normal lenses are pretty good, too, they just aren't cheap enough to blow away the normal lenses from Pentax (or Canon), which are also pretty cheap. And forget the Russian zoom lenses.

Rick "who owns lots of Russian lenses in medium format" Denney

[karusel]

I'm impressed with all that...

Rick 'who seems to have been living in Russia doing photojournalism also in the medium format realm' Deney :mrgreen:, what do you think about the f/3.5 8mm Peleng lens? Just theoretically, would one in general be slightly happier spending another 200 bucks for f/4.0 Sigma 8mm which, as we know, comes with autofocus?

[rdenney]

I'm impressed with all that...

Rick 'who seems to have been living in Russia doing photojournalism also in the medium format realm' Deney :mrgreen:, what do you think about the f/3.5 8mm Peleng lens? Just theoretically, would one in general be slightly happier spending another 200 bucks for f/4.0 Sigma 8mm which, as we know, comes with autofocus?

I can't say. I've never talked with anyone who used the Sigma, and I don't own a Peleng, though I know folks who do (I'm on a Russian camera forum as well). They like their Pelengs, but then they are also on a Russian camera forum and may be biased.

I would not pay 200 extra dollars just for autofocus for an 8mm lens. Hyperfocal wide open is about a meter or so--you hardly even need to focus the lens. An autofocus lens would not have to do much work, because the camera would think the lens had achieved focus at infinity at any setting probably between 3m and infinity.

I do own the Jupiter 9, the Jupiter 12 (35mm), and the Industar 61 (50mm), but all in Leica thread mount. The 12 is "not bad", the Industar is decent (but not much cheaper and not as good as the Canon 50/1.8), and the 9 (85mm/f2) is outstanding. I've also shot images on the 10D with an Arsat 80mm/2.8, a Zeiss Jena Biometar 120/2.8, and a Zeiss Jena Sonnar 180/2.8, all of which are medium-format lenses, with an adaptor. A Jupiter 9 in m42 with an EOS adaptor is definitely on my buy list at the moment.

I'd never buy this stuff if I lived in Russia, heh, heh. No self-respecting Russian photog buys their own junque.

Rick "thinking an f/2 is easy to focus even on the 10D" Denney

[karusel]

Rick 'who changed my mind, since I realized that with 8 mm Peleng I would need to crop the shot because I would not get a full circle and a handicapped circle is kind of ugly, so I'll be aiming at the 16 mm Zenitar instead' Denney: thanx!

:mrgreen:

[rdenney]

Rick 'who changed my mind, since I realized that with 8 mm Peleng I would need to crop the shot because I would not get a full circle and a handicapped circle is kind of ugly, so I'll be aiming at the 16 mm Zenitar instead' Denney: thanx!

:mrgreen:

Here's a preview of what you can expect:

http://www.rickdenney.com/scratch/st_helens_zenitar_johnston_ridge_extreme_lores.jpg
Mount St. Helens, 2003. Canon 10D, 16mm Zenitar fisheye.

The fisheye effect is there, but it is not at all obvious. If lines that must be straight go through the middle of the frame, they will remain straight. Because of the subject matter, I didn't have to worry about that in this case.

Here's the same photo at full resolution (but highly compressed jpeg). It's about 675K, I think, so be warned. You'll see that this lens is pretty sharp to the corners of the 10D frame.

http://www.rickdenney.com/scratch/st_helens_zenitar_johnston_ridge_extreme_hires.jpg

Angle of view is similar to a 14mm rectilinear lens on the 10D (and a 21mm rectilinear lens on a full 35mm frame).

Not bad for $150, huh?

Rick "who still, though, prefers the medium-format version of this photo taken on a lowly Kiev 60 with an Arsat 30mm fisheye" Denney

[DocFrankenstein]

pretty f'n great for 150 bucks

[Persian-Rice]

rdenney, thats pretty damn solid.

So let me get this straight.

You can get:

-MC Zenitar-M 16mm 2.8
-MC Jupiter 9 85mm 2
-Rubinar 500mm 5.6
-M42 Ring

All that for about $375, and equal to the optics of that mt. st helens picture? Where do I sign? ahahaha

What a good umm 150-250 area prime m42 to add to that list?

Cheers.

[DocFrankenstein]

Don't buy it off too fast, or they're gonna raise prices :wink: :lol:

[ilya]

You'll like this site - its the factory that produces the entire line of Zenit optics and cameras, including Mir, Zenitar, and Moskva and Zorky, etc. Do click on the Museum link...


http://www.zenit-foto.ru/english/index.htm

[karusel]

Damn you Rdenney and your beautiful shot, now I have to buy that 16mm russian piece of art, I already placed a pretty high bid on e-bay and if all goes well I'll be posting some example shots in less than 2 weeks... ;) Seriously though, thanx again. 8)

[msvadi]

I'm seriously thinking about the Fisheye lens for IR shots. I have a few simple questions. I hope that one of you, guys, can help me.

Did anyone use it for IR? I believe that there is no anti-infrared coating, so no hot spot. Is it correct?

Does it have IR index? I know focusig is manual, but I understand, I still have to make focus adjustments for IR.

It looks like it takes some non-standard filters. Does it have a front thread? What size? In any case, I think I can use the Cokin universal adapter, right?

[karusel]

I think the filter thread is somewhere in the back and it's 26,5mm. I will also get an IR filter for this one, if it works...

[DocFrankenstein]

I'm seriously thinking about the Fisheye lens for IR shots. I have a few simple questions. I hope that one of you, guys, can help me.

Did anyone use it for IR? I believe that there is no anti-infrared coating, so no hot spot. Is it correct?
I have no idea, but it would seem so.

The lens is actually designed for use with film cameras, which are insensitive to IR...

So it wouldn't make much sense to give it anti IR properties.

[karusel]

I have a question... a few days after getting the 16mm Zenitar I realized that it could not focus to infinity, also, the warranty was expired, and I didn't want to ramble with the e-bayer and besides I remembered someone mentioning such a problem, so google it was. After unscrewing some screws I adjusted the focusing ring and it worked, now I just am not sure how well it worked and if it needs re-adjustment, in other words:
how do I know it is properly focussed, since it is quite softer than my other lens?

[jyrgen]

I believe you can check infinity focus on a device called collimator, but I have no further knowledge.

[TomKa]

The Zenitar 16mm has an IR-Index.

I use the Peleng 8mm for 360 cubic Quicktime panoramas like on www.panoramas.dk - 6 pictures around, 1 up and 1 down, stitching with PTGui and PanoTools to 3500x7000 pixel, works like a charm. The Sigma 8mm has better quality especially when working against the sun.

[wolf2000]

Now I feel better about the Zenitar fish eye lens I purchased on ebay :roll:

[Andy_T]

Sorry to bring the old thread back to life ... even RDenney posted in it, must have been some time ago :lol:

But I'm currently looking at some Carl Zeiss lenses and would like to know if somebody could give me some feedback on those whether they would be worthwile on a 20D with a manual adapter:

- MF Sonnar 2.8/180 in various qualities
... 'Olympic' (no Coating, maybe 1940's),
... the 'Zebra' version (no MC)
... and the later MC version
- MF Sonnar 300/4.0
- M42 Sonnar 200/2.8
- M42 Tessar 200/3.5

Best regards,
Andy