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

Request: Zenitar-M vs Zenitar-ME1 1.7/50
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2017 6:10 pm    Post subject: Request: Zenitar-M vs Zenitar-ME1 1.7/50 Reply with quote

So a lot of discussions on this topic exists all over the internet and it has spiked my curiosity. The coating and aperture construction are obviously different, the glass composition may or may not be. But as far as an actual side by side comparison I have not been able to find a single one.
As an owner of only the normal M version, and seeing the prices of the ME1 I will most likely not have the chance to compare them myself.

If anyone have both lenses and some free time, I'd be really happy to see a test! Maybe the ME1 is worth the extra cash.


PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Unless you have one of the Soviet cameras designed to work with the lens' auto aperture feature, or just like square bokeh "balls" save your money and be happy with your already excellent-if not unreasonably expensive-Zenitar-M.

http://allphotolenses.com/lenses/item/c_400.html

"The distinctive feature of the lens is its 2-balde electronic diaphragm forming square aperture when stopping down.

Correspondingly, the image generated by the MC Zenitar-МЕ1 50 mm f/ 1.7 has a specific bokeh. Circles of confusion at f/1.7 are perfectly round; while stopping down, they take the form of squares with rounded corners of different degrees, and from f/8 onwards they take the form of a virtually perfect square."


PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 9:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm not that interested in the square bokeh. More the optical quality wide open, and stopped down on a subject with a homogeneous background that will hide any squares.
Just to see if there is any difference in image quality, like sharpness, flare, contrast. Multicoating should be better, but look at the MC Volna 3. Bad flare resistance and low contrast.

As a side note I recently received a second version of the Zenitar-M. I thought my first copy was under preforming, based what other have said. But the second one was at the same level. Maybe bad luck. It seems most of my japanese 50's are better, even my helios 44's.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 10:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

blotafton wrote:
I'm not that interested in the square bokeh. More the optical quality wide open, and stopped down on a subject with a homogeneous background that will hide any squares.
Just to see if there is any difference in image quality, like sharpness, flare, contrast. Multicoating should be better, but look at the MC Volna 3. Bad flare resistance and low contrast.

As a side note I recently received a second version of the Zenitar-M. I thought my first copy was under preforming, based what other have said. But the second one was at the same level. Maybe bad luck. It seems most of my japanese 50's are better, even my helios 44's.


Nope - same experience here.
Bought one on the widespread recommendation of internet reports, and found it to be very ordinary.
Not in the same league as my Japanese nifty fifties, most of which cost less, and not as good as my Helios 44 either.
I very quickly moved it on, and it has not been missed.
The only Russian 50 I have kept is my copy of the Zenit Helios-44M-6, a 58mm f2 from Valdai which is multicoated.
An excellent lens
Tom


PostPosted: Fri Sep 15, 2017 6:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Regarding contrast - don't have high expectations for any USSR "MC" tech. I wouldn't really chase the ME-1 version.

I use my Zenitar-M with a deep hood only. It helps a lot.


PostPosted: Fri Sep 15, 2017 7:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oldhand wrote:
blotafton wrote:
I'm not that interested in the square bokeh. More the optical quality wide open, and stopped down on a subject with a homogeneous background that will hide any squares.
Just to see if there is any difference in image quality, like sharpness, flare, contrast. Multicoating should be better, but look at the MC Volna 3. Bad flare resistance and low contrast.

As a side note I recently received a second version of the Zenitar-M. I thought my first copy was under preforming, based what other have said. But the second one was at the same level. Maybe bad luck. It seems most of my japanese 50's are better, even my helios 44's.


Nope - same experience here.
Bought one on the widespread recommendation of internet reports, and found it to be very ordinary.
Not in the same league as my Japanese nifty fifties, most of which cost less, and not as good as my Helios 44 either.
I very quickly moved it on, and it has not been missed.
The only Russian 50 I have kept is my copy of the Zenit Helios-44M-6, a 58mm f2 from Valdai which is multicoated.
An excellent lens
Tom


Then either we got lemons or some like it for what it is. My favorites are Helios 44-2 and Helios 103.



Quote:

Regarding contrast - don't have high expectations for any USSR "MC" tech. I wouldn't really chase the ME-1 version.

I use my Zenitar-M with a deep hood only. It helps a lot.


This is why we need a test! And whenever someone asks we can refer them to this thread. If a hero steps up Like 1 small


Yes I think USSR MC stands for Many Color-flares Wink


PostPosted: Fri Sep 15, 2017 7:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

blotafton wrote:
Oldhand wrote:
blotafton wrote:
I'm not that interested in the square bokeh. More the optical quality wide open, and stopped down on a subject with a homogeneous background that will hide any squares.
Just to see if there is any difference in image quality, like sharpness, flare, contrast. Multicoating should be better, but look at the MC Volna 3. Bad flare resistance and low contrast.

As a side note I recently received a second version of the Zenitar-M. I thought my first copy was under preforming, based what other have said. But the second one was at the same level. Maybe bad luck. It seems most of my japanese 50's are better, even my helios 44's.


Nope - same experience here.
Bought one on the widespread recommendation of internet reports, and found it to be very ordinary.
Not in the same league as my Japanese nifty fifties, most of which cost less, and not as good as my Helios 44 either.
I very quickly moved it on, and it has not been missed.
The only Russian 50 I have kept is my copy of the Zenit Helios-44M-6, a 58mm f2 from Valdai which is multicoated.
An excellent lens
Tom


Then either we got lemons or some like it for what it is. My favorites are Helios 44-2 and Helios 103.



Quote:

Regarding contrast - don't have high expectations for any USSR "MC" tech. I wouldn't really chase the ME-1 version.

I use my Zenitar-M with a deep hood only. It helps a lot.


This is why we need a test! And whenever someone asks we can refer them to this thread. If a hero steps up Like 1 small


Yes I think USSR MC stands for Many Color-flares Wink


Hahaha - yes maybe.
I will give mine another workout to see if it really does flare, but I have no recollection of it doing so.
Often photographers will blame a lens for poor camera technique, when the photographer has not taken care in the shooting.
I try not to blame my tools until I am sure that it is not me that is at fault, but the lens
Tom