| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
enzodm
Joined: 11 Sep 2010
Posts: 350
Location: Italy
|
 Posted: Fri Nov 26, 2010 6:07 pm Post subject: Volna or Vega? |
 |
|
enzodm wrote:
As per subject: to (cheaply) satisfy some absolutely unjustified desire for a P-six/Kiev lens in the portrait focal length, which between Volna 3 and Vega 12B is better?
Thanks.
_________________
Canon 60D, Tamron 17-50VC, Canon 55-250IS, Sigma 50-150/2.8 plus:
Wide: Mir 20/3.5, Kenlock 24/2.8, Tamron 28/2.5, Yashikor 35/2.8, Mir 37/2.8
Fifties: Voigtländer Color Ultron 50/1.8, Pentacon 50/1.8, Zenitar 50/1.9, Leica Summicron 50/2, CZJ Pancolar 50/2, CZJ Tessar 50/2.8, Industar 50/3.5 , Rikenon 55/1.4, Petri 55/1.8, Helios 58/2
In the middle: Cyclop 85/1.5, Nikon 100/2.8
135s: Tamron 135/2.5, CZJ Sonnar 135/3.5, Jupiter 135/3.5, CZJ Triotar 135/4, Tamron Twin Tele 135-225
Tele: Soligor 200/2.8, Pentax Super Takumar 200/4, Hanimex 400/6.3, Makinon 500/8
Various: Schneider-Kreuznach Componar 135/4.5, Tominon 105/4.5, Vest Pocket Kodak meniscus, Wray Supar 2"/4.5
Sony Nex 6 plus:
Industar 69 28/2.8, Fujian 35/1.7, Rokkor 50/1.4, Jupiter 50/2, Cosmicar 50/2.8, Industar-22 50/3.5, Leitz Elmar 90/4, Canon Serenar 100/4
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
std
Joined: 09 Feb 2010
Posts: 1826
Location: Bulgaria
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 26, 2010 7:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
std wrote:
Vega should be better.. but the 'B' in Cyrillic (actually it reads as V in English) means it is Kiev/Salyut mount not P6. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joosep
Joined: 25 Jan 2010
Posts: 305
Location: Estonia, Tallinn
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 26, 2010 8:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Joosep wrote:
Volna has a very different bokeh rendering.
I like my Vega.
If you are chasing a P6 mount, then the russian B is like a 6.
_________________
The future is analogue.
23 cameras, 25 lenses and counting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
themoleman342
Joined: 21 Oct 2007
Posts: 2190
Location: East Coast (CT), U.S.A.
Expire: 2013-01-24
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 26, 2010 9:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
themoleman342 wrote:
I'm partial to the Vega as well. Both of mine are in Kiev 88 mount. One is an earlier make from 1975. It has copper blades (beautiful!), a lacquered black finish, and full click stops. The later version from '81 has your more typical aluminum grey blades, matte black finish, and half click stops.
Although the Vega is single coated I've found it to be much better with flare than the MC Volna, which is counter-intuitive. I suspect because the front element of the Vega is more recessed into the body and the Volna has a DOF lever and that opening allows light to spill into the lens. They are variations on the same optical design (biometar): Vega - http://araxfoto.com/lenses/vega-12/ Volna - http://araxfoto.com/lenses/arsat-standard/
Remember also that the Vega is a 90mm lens vs. the Volna which is 80mm. Both focus to 0.6m but because the Vega is slightly longer it will give you an edge in close focusing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Attila
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 57865
Location: Hungary
Expire: 2025-11-18
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 26, 2010 9:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Attila wrote:
I had Vega only, very good lens.
_________________
-------------------------------
Items on sale on Ebay
Sony NEX-7 Carl Zeiss Planar 85mm f1.4, Minolta MD 35mm f1.8, Konica 135mm f2.5, Minolta MD 50mm f1.2, Minolta MD 250mm f5.6, Carl Zeiss Sonnar 180mm f2.8
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
enzodm
Joined: 11 Sep 2010
Posts: 350
Location: Italy
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 27, 2010 5:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
enzodm wrote:
Thank you. I'll try to focus on Vega. As additional info, how much I lose in quality vs. the praised Jupiter 85/2 (obviously speed)?
_________________
Canon 60D, Tamron 17-50VC, Canon 55-250IS, Sigma 50-150/2.8 plus:
Wide: Mir 20/3.5, Kenlock 24/2.8, Tamron 28/2.5, Yashikor 35/2.8, Mir 37/2.8
Fifties: Voigtländer Color Ultron 50/1.8, Pentacon 50/1.8, Zenitar 50/1.9, Leica Summicron 50/2, CZJ Pancolar 50/2, CZJ Tessar 50/2.8, Industar 50/3.5 , Rikenon 55/1.4, Petri 55/1.8, Helios 58/2
In the middle: Cyclop 85/1.5, Nikon 100/2.8
135s: Tamron 135/2.5, CZJ Sonnar 135/3.5, Jupiter 135/3.5, CZJ Triotar 135/4, Tamron Twin Tele 135-225
Tele: Soligor 200/2.8, Pentax Super Takumar 200/4, Hanimex 400/6.3, Makinon 500/8
Various: Schneider-Kreuznach Componar 135/4.5, Tominon 105/4.5, Vest Pocket Kodak meniscus, Wray Supar 2"/4.5
Sony Nex 6 plus:
Industar 69 28/2.8, Fujian 35/1.7, Rokkor 50/1.4, Jupiter 50/2, Cosmicar 50/2.8, Industar-22 50/3.5, Leitz Elmar 90/4, Canon Serenar 100/4
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
themoleman342
Joined: 21 Oct 2007
Posts: 2190
Location: East Coast (CT), U.S.A.
Expire: 2013-01-24
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 27, 2010 11:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
themoleman342 wrote:
How much you'll lose?
Probably not a great deal. That being said, medium format lenses typically do not offer the highest resolution on smaller formats because they were simply designed for a bigger film which would deliver much better detail regardless. Though truthfully the difference would not be THAT striking.
Here are some examples from member Joosep: http://forum.mflenses.com/vega-12b-t26064,highlight,vega+12b.html
These are some of the best examples that I've seen from this lens (used on a smaller than designed format). Really amazing IMHO.
There are some other aspects to consider: The Vega 12 has a 6 bladed aperture, the Jupiter has 16. When stopped down, highlights will take these shapes. The Jupiter is a Sonnar design and the Vega is a double-gauss biometar design. These each carry their own set of optical characteristics. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
enzodm
Joined: 11 Sep 2010
Posts: 350
Location: Italy
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 01, 2010 9:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
enzodm wrote:
So, I'm hunting for a Vega, thanks.
By the way, in almost the same price category I also crossed Kaleinar 100 2.8 (Nikon mount): is it any good?
_________________
Canon 60D, Tamron 17-50VC, Canon 55-250IS, Sigma 50-150/2.8 plus:
Wide: Mir 20/3.5, Kenlock 24/2.8, Tamron 28/2.5, Yashikor 35/2.8, Mir 37/2.8
Fifties: Voigtländer Color Ultron 50/1.8, Pentacon 50/1.8, Zenitar 50/1.9, Leica Summicron 50/2, CZJ Pancolar 50/2, CZJ Tessar 50/2.8, Industar 50/3.5 , Rikenon 55/1.4, Petri 55/1.8, Helios 58/2
In the middle: Cyclop 85/1.5, Nikon 100/2.8
135s: Tamron 135/2.5, CZJ Sonnar 135/3.5, Jupiter 135/3.5, CZJ Triotar 135/4, Tamron Twin Tele 135-225
Tele: Soligor 200/2.8, Pentax Super Takumar 200/4, Hanimex 400/6.3, Makinon 500/8
Various: Schneider-Kreuznach Componar 135/4.5, Tominon 105/4.5, Vest Pocket Kodak meniscus, Wray Supar 2"/4.5
Sony Nex 6 plus:
Industar 69 28/2.8, Fujian 35/1.7, Rokkor 50/1.4, Jupiter 50/2, Cosmicar 50/2.8, Industar-22 50/3.5, Leitz Elmar 90/4, Canon Serenar 100/4
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aoleg
Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Posts: 1387
Location: Berlin, DE
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 01, 2010 12:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
aoleg wrote:
| enzodm wrote: |
So, I'm hunting for a Vega, thanks.
By the way, in almost the same price category I also crossed Kaleinar 100 2.8 (Nikon mount): is it any good? |
It's a damn nice portrait lens with perfect colors and rendering, but prone to flare in contra-light. Unfortunately, it's hard to come by in pristine condition as many (most?) samples were disassembled and vigorously cleaned, which left lots of tiny scratches on internal lens surfaces. I had four (4) samples, and only one was scratch free (it was also the only New In Box sample I had). Most Russian/Ukrainian sellers will never mention the scratches.
_________________
List of lenses |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
