MFlenses - A new life in a digital age
MFLenses 2026

Manual Focus Lenses Forum

Explore the world of vintage lenses through repair notes, real test shots, and detailed archive threads packed with images.

Explore the world of vintage lenses through repair notes, real test shots, and detailed archive threads packed with images.
logovectorizer.com
Spotlight

Featured partner placement for the forum front page.

zenit IR 1.5/100 night vision lens - any good?
Post new topic Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  


Post
Posted: Sat May 07, 2011 2:19 pm
Post subject: zenit IR 1.5/100 night vision lens - any good?
Reply
Post
Posted: Sat May 07, 2011 2:19 pm
Post subject: zenit IR 1.5/100 night vision lens - any good?
Reply
as i was hunting for a cyclops lens, i came across this lens - zenit IR 1.5/100. is it any good for photographing? does it have m42 mount? how good is it compared to cyclop 85/1.5? thanks for replies guys:)


Post
Posted: Sat May 07, 2011 2:31 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Sat May 07, 2011 2:31 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Crappy.


Post
Posted: Sat May 07, 2011 6:56 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Sat May 07, 2011 6:56 pm
Post subject:
Reply
thanks for info. i somehow thought it wouldn´t be a hidden gem:)


Post
Posted: Sun May 08, 2011 8:02 am
Post subject: Re: zenit IR 1.5/100 night vision lens - any good?
Reply
Post
Posted: Sun May 08, 2011 8:02 am
Post subject: Re: zenit IR 1.5/100 night vision lens - any good?
Reply
berraneck wrote:
as i was hunting for a cyclops lens, i came across this lens - zenit IR 1.5/100. is it any good for photographing? does it have m42 mount? how good is it compared to cyclop 85/1.5? thanks for replies guys:)


All depends on the price I suppose. If it's ridiculously inexpensive then it's worth a punt I would have thought. You might get the only copy in the world that isn't rubbish Smile


Post
Posted: Mon May 09, 2011 4:51 am
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Mon May 09, 2011 4:51 am
Post subject:
Reply
Won't mount on an SLR (register distance too short, may have M42 mount and a really long sticking rear element). Will fit a mirrorless cam. Resolution is mediocre (enough to resolve a low-res sensor of these night vision devices, but hardly better than that).


Post
Posted: Wed Sep 04, 2013 7:05 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Wed Sep 04, 2013 7:05 pm
Post subject:
Reply
berraneck wrote:
as i was hunting for a cyclops lens, i came across this lens - zenit IR 1.5/100. is it any good for photographing? does it have m42 mount? how good is it compared to cyclop 85/1.5? thanks for replies guys:)


Did you buy any of these then?

Pancolart wrote:
Crappy.


Did you test any of these on camera? i heard cyclop monoscope is very good. This zenit monoscope is different?

aoleg wrote:
Won't mount on an SLR (register distance too short, may have M42 mount and a really long sticking rear element). Will fit a mirrorless cam. Resolution is mediocre (enough to resolve a low-res sensor of these night vision devices, but hardly better than that).


so i could not mount this m42 monoscope on my k01?



Post
Posted: Thu Sep 05, 2013 11:51 am
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Thu Sep 05, 2013 11:51 am
Post subject:
Reply
noone with experience?


Post
Posted: Sat Sep 14, 2013 10:31 pm
Post subject: Re: zenit IR 1.5/100 night vision lens - any good?
Reply
Post
Posted: Sat Sep 14, 2013 10:31 pm
Post subject: Re: zenit IR 1.5/100 night vision lens - any good?
Reply
martyn_bannister wrote:

All depends on the price I suppose. If it's ridiculously inexpensive then it's worth a punt I would have thought. You might get the only copy in the world that isn't rubbish Smile


I must've just found that rare gem then Smile

I read nothing but negatives across the web about the potential of this lens for photography...but I did also find some photos taken with it from a couple people on flickr:
http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=zenit%20100mm%201.5

Some of those flickr images aren't very good, but I was intrigued enough from what I could see that I decided to give this lens a shot.

Here's one I just took with the Zenit 100mm 1.5 - no post production, direct from my camera!


Since this lens does actually have a built in aperture, it was stopped down slightly for this photo.


Post
Posted: Sun Sep 15, 2013 10:07 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Sun Sep 15, 2013 10:07 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Because I know that someone will be curious eventually...

Here is some confirmation about what my lens looks like. It has 10 aperture blades. Yes, it has the same blue coating as they all do (the lighting in the photo below makes it a little less obvious).



Here's the mount. It's doesn't stick out like the Zenit IR-2 85mm The rear element will hit the flange on most M42 adapters so I am awaiting an adapter with no flange to make use of the full range of focus. I have not yet confirmed yet whether there is any risk of hitting the mirror for some cameras. It doesn't go too far....here it is focused at infinity:



Post
Posted: Mon Sep 16, 2013 4:33 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Mon Sep 16, 2013 4:33 pm
Post subject:
Reply
I just compared the length of the rear element to the Helios 44-2. The Zenit 100mm is perhaps 2-3mm longer.

Since some cameras have problems with the Helios 44, this Zenit lens could surely make contact with the mirror on many cameras using a flange-less M42 adapter. So, anyone thinking about trying that- take caution.

There is excess metal that could be grinded down to make it shorter.

My first experiment will be to use spacers with a flange-less adapter to ensure the lens does not reach into my camera any further than the Helios 44-2 which I know to be safe with my camera. Then I'll see what kind of focal range I can get from that setup.


Post
Posted: Mon Sep 16, 2013 5:31 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Mon Sep 16, 2013 5:31 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Thanks for the infos!


Post
Posted: Tue Sep 17, 2013 8:32 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Tue Sep 17, 2013 8:32 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Is it really crappy Question Because the lens looks good...


Post
Posted: Tue Sep 17, 2013 10:17 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Tue Sep 17, 2013 10:17 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Mark wrote:
Is it really crappy Question Because the lens looks good...


Ultimately, I think that depends on the application the lens is used for, and each photographer's own expectations and demands.

I have confirmed this will not hit the mirror on my Canon 600D.

I'll go over some of the main flaws of this lens:

It has a pretty limited focus range. It will reach infinity on my camera- but then the closest focus is about 5 or 6 meters away and that is way too far to be useful.

So, I'm currently using a simple black hair-tie as a spacer so that I can focus on things much closer with the trade off of not being able to focus to infinity. I recommend a small spacer like this for most shooting because it's much more useful and you can always stop down the aperture if there is something further away that want in focus without needing to remove the spacer.

Even though it's fairly compact, it is pretty heavy. About 25oz.

There can be lots of chromatic aberration and blue glow, particularly in strong light unless stopping down the aperture.

Shooting toward the sun or strong light gives distinct, oval-shaped, blue flares.

You can see most of these issues in the photos I found on flickr:
http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=zenit%20100mm%201.5

Of course, all of these "flaws" can be used for artistic expression for the right compositions, but on the other hand, these are some of the qualities that lenses made for professional photography usually try to free of because more often they are "annoying" and get in the way of the photos you are trying to take.

It all comes down to personal preference as well what you can create with this lens as a tool. And budget of course, if you would really like to own a 100mm 1,5 but you can't afford the alternatives. Smile

I'll post some more photos soon, particularly some shots wide open at f1.5 in low-light.


Post
Posted: Wed Sep 18, 2013 1:13 am
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Wed Sep 18, 2013 1:13 am
Post subject:
Reply
These were all taken at f1.5:

All four were 1/80 second.
Top two photos (vertical) were ISO 500
Bottom two photos (horizontal) were ISO 800
The room light is one 40 watt incandescent light bulb.


_______



Post
Posted: Wed Sep 18, 2013 5:30 am
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Wed Sep 18, 2013 5:30 am
Post subject:
Reply
Thanks for the clarification! It lacks contrast, otherwise looks good to me. Rendering is certainly kind of "retro" in good lights.


Post
Posted: Wed Sep 18, 2013 1:15 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Wed Sep 18, 2013 1:15 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Yes, I forgot to list that earlier. Wide open it doesn't have much contrast.

Contrast improves a quite a bit as you begin to close the aperture down some.

I assume the lack of contrast is mostly related to the blue night vision coating on the lens?

The Cyclop 1.2 and Cyclop 1.5 lenses that have the blue coating are also pretty low contrast.


Post
Posted: Wed Sep 18, 2013 2:39 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Wed Sep 18, 2013 2:39 pm
Post subject:
Reply
significantimagery wrote:
Yes, I forgot to list that earlier. Wide open it doesn't have much contrast.

Contrast improves a quite a bit as you begin to close the aperture down some.

I assume the lack of contrast is mostly related to the blue night vision coating on the lens?

The Cyclop 1.2 and Cyclop 1.5 lenses that have the blue coating are also pretty low contrast.


I think it's something you see in many very fast lenses when used wide open.


Post
Posted: Wed Sep 18, 2013 3:54 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Wed Sep 18, 2013 3:54 pm
Post subject:
Reply
caspert79 wrote:

I think it's something you see in many very fast lenses when used wide open.


Yeah, you're right, that's definitely the largest part of the equation.

I was also thinking about how different lens coatings may produce better or worse contrast at large apertures.

This popped in my head as I thought about my experience with the difference in contrast between the older/better version of the Cyclop 1.5 and the blue-coating version of the Cyclop 1.5 ....that's not an entirely fair comparison due to the difference in rear lens elements...but the difference in the lens coatings does play a role.
Post new topic Reply to topic
Page 1 of 1