The Zenitar that doesn't exist

themoleman342 · Expire: 2013-01-24

I know many of you are not quite as invested into Soviet optics as I am but maybe this is of some interest.

A very brief background: The zenitar-M 1.7/50mm was a single coated (very distinct gold/purple reflections) lens coupled with the Zenit 19. Mechanical construction is very similar to the Helios 44m. 6 bladed aperture. Production of these ranged from around 1979 to 1987. There were ~122,000 units produced but because the Helios 44m was also an option, I imagine the number the zenitar-Ms was lower.

The MC zenitar ME-1 was a multi-coated lens coupled with the Zenit 18. The "E" denotes an electronic connection to the camera for aperture priority operation. To make this system quicker and more reliable the aperture was designed with 2 blades that when stopped down create a unique square/diamond opening. Production spanned 7 years from 1980 to 1987 but only 7001 units were made.

To my knowledge the lenses follow the same optical design, an ultron type. Where here is the interesting part: I found a multi-coated Zenitar-M. No electronic contacts, 6 blades. The nameplate is authentic. The coating is certainly different. It has a green reflection. Check the literature. It doesn't exist there. It was made in 1986, perhaps one of the last before the Zenit 19 production ceased? I believe I have the right to call this one "rare." But please if anyone has additional information, I would love to hear.

~Marc

Minolfan · Joined: 30 Dec 2008 Posts: 3439 Location: Netherlands

I am sorry to tell you that my Zenit 19 (82042301) came with a Helios 44M (8 blades aperture 8216233), no Zenitar to report Crying or Very sad

.

dimitrygo · Joined: 01 Apr 2009 Posts: 561

themoleman342 · Expire: 2013-01-24

Actually I'm aware of the difference in the optical scheme drawings. There is a little bit of contention whether or not they are accurate: http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/55021-anybody-heard-zenitar-50mm-1-7-a.html

The M and ME-1 are exactly the same dimensions...so the elongation of one drawing discredits it in my mind.

The MC Zenitar M does have a A/M switch, yes.

How is the MC Helios 44m working out for you? Did it perform up to your expectations?

Here is an example of the difference in coatings:

dimitrygo · Joined: 01 Apr 2009 Posts: 561

themoleman342 · Expire: 2013-01-24

Several months ago I found someone on ebay selling another MC Zenitar M. This was the only one, other than mine, that I've seen in 6 years of diligent collecting. Needless to say I was excited. The listing appeared to have information about this particular multi-coated variation so I was interested in what the seller actually knew about the lens. Although dishonest, I felt it was prudent to not divulge that I owned another copy. I felt this might be the best way to get information.

I wanted to present the unedited exchange between us. I have waited several months to post this because I did not want to interrupt the sale in any way.

So here it is:
The original listing text:
I bought this version of the Zenitar 1.7/50 lens at a small professional optical show in Germany organized by KMZ (Krasnogorskiy Mekhanicheskiy Zavod) factory. This lens was made especially for this show as a special high resolution normal lens and it was the only one. Unfortunately, the direct costs for these lenses were 12 times higher than the regular serial lenses. As a result, these lenses did not go into mass production. The very small amount of lenses that were produced got into the hands of the factory employees. The MC coating is a series of several very thin clear layers of coating that are composed of precious metals. The more layers of coating the lens has, the better its technical characteristic. This lens also gives a sharper image on the corners of the field of view and also makes the image evenly lit throughout the field of view. At f1.7, it delivers excellent sharpness resolution and outstanding color rendition, closing down to f5.6, it's fantastic! As a result, if you focus the lens just right, your images will be of extremely high quality.

1st Question:
Out of curiosity, do you know how many were actually produced? You say "Unfortunately, the direct costs for these lenses were 12 times higher than the regular serial lenses." Can you expound on this at all? Are you saying the "MC Zenitar 1.7/50mm" cost 12x as much as the single-coated "Zenitar 1.7/50mm"?

1st Response:
They only made 14 of them. At that time at KMZ, it was very difficult technically to apply more than one layer of coating on a lens, and even more difficult to do so on both sides of the lens. The Asahi Pentax company was best at this technology. For this, the factory needed to develop new technology, machinery, and processes. Aside from this, they also needed to change the optical design of this lens. While they were able to create this, the cost for them was 12 times more than the regular lens, which only had one layer of the coating. As a result, the retail price of the lens would have been so high, that hardly anyone would buy them. However, the multi coating resulted in a product that was more durable and of higher quality than the coating on the Pentax lenses, even though it was a different color. This was confirmed by parallel testing at KMZ and in Germany. Right now, the price of this lens is determined not only by its high optical characteristics but also it's collective value. After this auction, the information will be known on the Internet and it's value will only increase because you can use it on digital cameras too.

2nd Question:
I really appreciate that response. I do however, with all due respect, have several issues with that explanation.
The problem I have is that there actually was an MC Zenitar. It was the ME-1 ("E" denoted an electronic coupling) version produced for the Zenit 18. Production spanned from 1980 to 1987 and 7001 units were made. These were expensive cameras no doubt but they were not 12x the amount of a typical single-coated Zenitar + Zenit 19.
Now I understand that this is NOT that lens, and truly yours is an uncommon one, but to say that multi-coating processes were not available to or difficult to implement for KMZ in 1986 (when your lens was produced) while the MC Zenitar ME-1 had run for 6 years prior just doesn't sit well with me. There were also several MC Helios' versions prior as well.
I am quite interested. I just would very much like you to address my statements. You seem to know quite a bit on the subject which I greatly respect.

2nd Response:
Before 1996, I got a chance to consult with many optical specialist from many Soviet factories like LOMO, FED, BELOMO and KMZ, (by profession, I am a mechanical and optical engineer) so I know the real stories of the Zenit 18 and its Zenitar ME-1 lens and also Helios, Variozenitar and other soviet cameras and lenses well. All MC coatings at that time had no more than two or sometimes three coatings since there was no other technology at the time. The factories did not even try to coat them with more layers as it wasn't profitable. This would have greatly increased the cost of the lenses, which were mainly produced for photo amateurs. The Zenitar-M 1.7/50 had the highest resolution and lowest distortion, so this model was chosen for enhancement and for an actual multi layer coating for professional and scientific purposes.
The SMC coating is a series of several very thin clear layers of coating that are composed of precious and rare metals, metallic and chemical elements (platinum, gold, lanthanum, etc.). Special factory equipment is used to administer this coating to the lenses. The more layers of coating the lens has, the better its technical characteristic. Only 14 of the experimental MC Zenitar-M 1.7/50 were made. If this model was released for mass production, they would have had to add another designation to "MC" (similar to SMC in Pentax). The production cost of this lens really was 12 times higher but it was calculated based on the production size of the experimental set. The production costs would have obviously greatly decreased with mass production, but even this production cost would not have been profitable for the USSR market.
I apologize if it seems as though I am not giving you full answers, but it is difficult to describe and answer all of these important questions within short emails in the boundaries of this auction. It would be best to deal with these question in other forms of more personal communication.

3rd Question:
That's a very complete answer regarding the coatings and cost. Thank you.
I'm sure you are rather sick of me by now and I do apologize for that but it is quite rare for me to find someone knowledgeable in Soviet optics to talk with. So I do hope you wouldn't mind a few more brief questions. I've seen one MC Zenitar before on the mflenses.com forum. The serial number reads 866913. I was always under the impression that the first two numbers denoted the year and the rest indicated the production number. Am I wrong? This obviously puts the difference between yours and the other sample at 1960, certainly more than 14. I'm just curious because KMZ had a long tradition of creating large numbers of preseries lenses. I'm wondering why they chose to not use this 000xxx, 00xxxx, 0xxxxx serial system again, if they knew it was an experimental batch?
I imagine that last question would be very difficult for anyone but a KMZ director to answer but maybe you can speak to the serial number issue a little bit. Thanks in advance.

3rd Response:
You are correct, the numbering system within all optics in the USSR did, in fact, have the first two numbers as the production year. Therefore, if item was produced in 1986, then the first two numbers of the serial number were 86. Experimental factory batches or other enhancements of other already-produced numbers usually included many details from mass-produced items. There was no reason for them to make additional engravings just for traditional numbering system. The main purpose of the Soviet production was to be economical. Therefore, when producing experimental items, the numbering system did not follow tradition. The most important things in a lens are the lenses, the optical design and precision of assembly. The serial numbers are secondary. Aside from this, they did not always follow tradition in naming the camera. The Kiev 20 was released much earlier than Kiev 19. I have a lot of Soviet optics and cameras with different engravings that do not follow tradition. Among them, I have experimental models and prototypes. I have a Geopol camera, which was based on a mass-produced model. It also has engravings that differ from the tradition. You can see this camera here:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:PCfU1xY08ZoJ:www.novacon.com.br/odditycameras/geopol.htm+GEOPOL+CAMERA&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a&source=www.google.com
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:hM69MNOUIZgJ:ussrphoto.com/wiki/default.asp%3FWikiCatID%3D76%26ParentID%3D1%26ContentID%3D119%26Item%3DGeopol+GEOPOL+CAMERA&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a&source=www.google.com
This is one of my cameras that I still have.

The person was without a doubt the most accommodating seller I've had the pleasure of communicating with. They were very very quick to respond. My personal opinion is that the seller received some misinformation years ago. The lens is uncommon but only 14 copies seems unlikely. I'd really like it to be true but it doesn't add up for me. Anyways, I hope this was an interesting read.
~Marc

IAZA · Joined: 16 Apr 2010 Posts: 2587 Location: Indonesia

I have non MC one and I like it.
Since you have both, why don't you compare both lenses?
I would love to see the comparison

Kram · Joined: 06 Feb 2010 Posts: 1344 Location: Portland, OR

martinsmith99 · Expire: 2013-11-18

Pancolart · Expire: 2013-11-18

Hey Marc, try Allegro.pl for Zenitars. There were many a year ago when i was kicked from site (i didn't comply with too many preposterous shipping fees from sellers).

Jeff Zen · Joined: 17 Jun 2009 Posts: 262 Location: Northwest USA

Don't know how I missed this post.

I have owned two 1985 copies of this fine lens (with the auto/manual switch) and I am am astonished to see your MC version! I remember asking advice about it's sharpness before I bought my first one and being told that it was nowhere near as sharp as Takumar 50mm f1.8 and not to bother with it. I bought it anyway and it was better than Tak. I can attest to it's very high resolution. I use this lens on my macro bellows because it outperforms all of my other lenses for this use.

Thank you Marc for very informative and interesting post. I think that greenish multi-coating is the very best on Russian lenses. (just my opinion)Congratulations on such an excellent find. Who knows? Maybe there are only 14 copies. There's no way to tell. I am jealous of your rare find!

dimitrygo · Joined: 01 Apr 2009 Posts: 561

I can believe this story only partially. I can believe these lenses were made for some special event like that show. I can even believe there were only 14 lenses made. I don't believe the SMC story, optical difference and price.
I believe the Zenitar-M 50/1.7 manufacturing was abandoned in a favor of Helios-77 50/1.8 lens that probably had lower production cost. This is why its production was never moved to other optical factories and it wasn't produced in MC version like Helios-44 and 77 lenses.

themoleman342 · Expire: 2013-01-24

aspen · Expire: 2014-02-20

dimitrygo · Joined: 01 Apr 2009 Posts: 561

themoleman342 · Expire: 2013-01-24

Double post.

themoleman342 · Expire: 2013-01-24

cbass · Joined: 27 Jul 2019 Posts: 450

Did you ever compare the MC version to the non-mc version? Sample pictures.