Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!

SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

KMZ MC Zenitar M2 / M2s
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Mon Aug 11, 2008 6:25 pm    Post subject: KMZ MC Zenitar M2 / M2s Reply with quote

Zenitar M2s MC 50/2



Zenitar 2 series was developed as a successor of Helios 44 series. One year before launch of the last Helios 44 (44M-7 MC), S.B. Byshkin won selection procedure of new optical design and a few years later the first Zenitars (K2 nad M2) went to production. The first batch of K2 versions had resolution slightly over 70/45 (>double the 44-2!) and resolution of later batches had to be slightly lowered, because film didn't manage it very well. Resolution of final batches differs form 60/30 to 68/44.

E.Y.Rybnikova was responsible for the nice plastic design (it corresponded to plastic body - Zenit 412)

I've just recieved this gorgeous jewel. Despite it's ultra-cheap design and low price, this lens shines. Not only the resolution, but even it's bokeh seems to be better than on Helios... Shortes focusing distance is 35cm (1:5).

All samples are 1:1, untouched by photoshop, just converted from RAW via SPP2.5 (sharpness set to 0)


f/8




f/7.1




wide-opened:



PostPosted: Tue Aug 12, 2008 2:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I had once one but sold it. Mainly for its plastic construction and the 46mm filter thread. I bought instead my M42 Porst body and 135mm Porst lens (heavy metal Very Happy ).
Yes, it has a very good resolution and , being new I liked how smooth the photographer can focus with the lens.


PostPosted: Tue Aug 12, 2008 11:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

yes, the build quality has kept me away from this lens for a long while. The pictures look impressive but it's just not 'beefy' enough for me. I have heard the internals are metal though. Maybe it's more robust and reliable than I previously imagined.

~Marc


PostPosted: Wed Aug 13, 2008 6:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

some f/2 samples:



100% crop:







100% crop:





PostPosted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 1:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I just got one!
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ssPageName=STRK:MEWNX:IT&item=150307443558

I figured it might make a great replacement for the Industar 50-2 when I need a small, sharp lens that's a little faster. Hope I made a good buy. What does everyone think about the price?

~Marc


PostPosted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 4:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
resolution of later batches had to be slightly lowered, because film didn't manage it very well


I find this statement very interesting. I can't say I've ever heard of a lens being too sharp. Can anyone explain why film couldn't handle it and what the effect would be?


PostPosted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 6:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't know, but some sources tells this - photographers didn't like it. Maybe cheap Russian films from early '90 were too grainy and such a sharp lens caused harassing results...

Anyway, it's still a sharp lens and $5 + shipping is excellent price!


PostPosted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 10:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Got a Zenitar f1.7 50mm might see if I can pick an f2 up, its intrigued me for a while Smile and I already own a 46-49mm step up for the lomo 1.8 so what am I waiting for Shocked Seriously though any idea how it compares to the Zenitar 1.7?


PostPosted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 1:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I wish I could tell you. I've always wanted the f1.7!


PostPosted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 2:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

50/1.7 is the fastest Zenitar made for M42. There is even a 50/1.4, which is available with Pentax mount, but I think there's no M42 version of this lens. The same for 85/1.4 Zenitars Confused


PostPosted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 4:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes I have the lomo volna 1.8 in Pentax mount but I've never seen the other 2 though I know they exist, I think they were all made for the Almaz, but when it died so did they, at least very few were made, which is a pity as the lomo is good and the 25-45 Variozenitar is excellent. Still there is maybe an obscure shop in Kazakhstan that has all the stock Very Happy Very Happy , can always hope anyway Laughing Laughing


PostPosted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 4:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Which one is the best in your opinion:

Volna 1.8/50
Helios 1.8/50
Helios 2/58
Zenitar 1.7/50
Zenitar 2/50

Zenitar 1.4/50 for Pentax K? I would love to have that!


PostPosted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 5:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here is a picture and some details:

http://www.optyczne.pl/749-CCCP_MC_Zenitar-K_50_mm_f_1.4-specyfikacja_obiektywu.html


I have Helios 58/2, Helios 50/1.8 and Zenitar M2s 50/2. Both Helioses are very similar, sharpness depends on version (there are many versions of 58/2), but majority of them is less sharp than 50/1.8 (only 58/2 44-6 and 44-7 can be sharper). Zenitar 50/2 is quite different. It hasn't biotar/helios-like bokeh - OOF objets are rendered differently, but the results are good. Sharpness depends on exact copy, mine is very sharp in center, but edges are not as good - I've seen pictures from other samples, which were more uniform from center to edges.


PostPosted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 5:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for the link! I have Volna 1.8/50 and several Helios 2/58. Volna has smoother bokeh. For some reason russian lenses seem to have better colors than japanese. Is it because of the coating?


PostPosted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 6:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

In terms of all round performance and value the Helios 44's have it hands down, whichever version, there is no better standard lens for the price paid, but personally I would rate the Zenitar 1.7 above them, and the Volna slightly better than that- mostly for the bokeh, as Riku says, but also for sharpness and colour. Very Happy Cool polish web site btw djekuje bardzo pan Laughing


PostPosted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 7:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The lomo volna does come in screw mount since there was a almaz camera with m42 mount. It is rare. I don't think your likely to ever find the Zenitar 1.4/50mm because as far as I can tell it was never put into full production. I believe the 1.7/50mm is the fastest standard the soviets ever put past the prototype stage.

Can you elaborate on the "different" rendering the zenitar 2/50 does in comparison to the helios'?


PostPosted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 7:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

themoleman342 wrote:
The lomo volna does come in screw mount since there was a almaz camera with m42 mount. It is rare. I don't think your likely to ever find the Zenitar 1.4/50mm because as far as I can tell it was never put into full production. I believe the 1.7/50mm is the fastest standard the soviets ever put past the prototype stage.


I'm not sure, which lenses on this list went into production, but I believe at least one did Smile

Jupiter-3 50/1.5
ERA 6M 50/1.5
Volna 4 50/1.4
Volna 8 50/1.2
Orchid 3 50/1.5
Rekord 4 52/0.9

themoleman342 wrote:
Can you elaborate on the "different" rendering the zenitar 2/50 does in comparison to the helios'?

My English isn't good enough to describe these nuances, so shortly: Zenitar lacks the significant radial bokeh and typical OOF lights of biotar/helios design. It's bokeh is smoother, closer to later optical designs. I wouldn't like to draw further conclusions, I didn't make any test on the exactly same scene with both lenses, so my findings can be a bit subjective.


PostPosted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 8:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'll amend my statement and say the f1.7 was the fastest SLR standard lens ever put into full production (of course I realize the difference between 1.7 and 1.8 is indistinguishable). The Jupiter-3 was indeed faster but for rangefinders. The other lenses you mention were all prototypes.

Not sure why they never were produced on a large scale...maybe they were beyond the means for some of the soviet plants. Though I can't imagine if they were about to produce to helios 40 they couldn't produce a standard of the same caliber.


PostPosted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 8:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Is there anything what prevents to use M39 Jupiter-3 on (D)SLR via adapter?


PostPosted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 8:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

No, but the register distance is different so the Jupiter would effectively become a macro lens.


PostPosted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 8:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well. This lens is for M39 28.8mm (rangefinder M39). But there are some Russian M39 45.2mm lenses (SLR M39?). Is there any list of them or any way to distinguish them?


PostPosted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 11:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.commiecameras.com/sov/35mmsinglelensreflexcameras/lenses/index.htm

The m39 and m42 tabs are on the side there. They aren't all there but the most common ones seem to be.

~Marc


PostPosted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 4:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

My FS-12 kit came with one of these (a bit of a surprise, I was expecting another H-44)

It doesn't have an A/M switch, though, so I can't use it except wide open on the Pentax, since the adapters don't have a flange to hold the pin. Is it easy to modify this lens to be a manual lens? Or should I just get an adapter with a flange and use it on the Canon (no IS) or Oly (smaller crop)?


PostPosted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 10:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm not sure how the pin mechanism is set up exactly. There is always the permanent solution of gluing it down.


PostPosted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 12:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

i have just bought mc zenitar-M2 what is the difference between M2 and M2s?