| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
lumens pixel
Joined: 27 Feb 2019
Posts: 871
Expire: 2021-06-25
|
 Posted: Tue Apr 05, 2022 8:18 pm Post subject: Soviets |
 |
|
lumens pixel wrote:
Considering an old project of purchase of a set.
I am wondering about Kaleinar 100 2,8 Helios 81 or Arsat 50 and Mir 24.
Any experience with these knowing that they will be compared to Canon or Minolta equivalent without disappointing.
_________________
Lumens Pixel
-------------
Minolta SR mount: 16 2,8; Sigma SuperWide 24 2,8; 28 2,5; 28 2,8; 28 3,5; 35 2,8; 45 2,0; 50 1,4; 50 1,7; 50 2,0; 58 1,4; 85 2,0; 100 2,5; 100 4 Macro; 135 3,5; 135 2,8; 200 4; RF 250 5,6; 24-35 3,5; 35-70 3,5; 75-150 4; 70-210 4
Canon FD mount: Tokina RMC 17 3,5; 28 2,8; 35 2,8; 50 1,8; 50 3,5 Macro; 55 1,2; 135 3,5; 135 2,5; 200 4,0; 300 5,6; 28-55 3,5 4,5; Tokina SZ-X SD 270; 70-150 4,5; 70-210 f4; 80-200 4L; Tokina SZ-X 845
Tamron Adaptall: 28-80 3,5-4,2 (27A); 70-210 3,8-4 (46A); 60-300 (23A); 90 2,5 (52B); 35-135 3,5-4,5 (40A)
Tamron SP: 20-40 2,7-3,5 (266D) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
blotafton
Joined: 08 Aug 2013
Posts: 1618
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 06, 2022 10:28 am Post subject: Re: Soviets |
|
|
blotafton wrote:
I have a Helios 81. It compares best with other Helios lenses. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
D1N0
Joined: 07 Aug 2012
Posts: 2530
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 06, 2022 10:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
D1N0 wrote:
It depends on what you want to achieve. They are different lenses. From what I have seen the Kaleinar is a bit boring, Helios 81 looks interesting it is largely identical to the Arsat 50/2. I like what I have seen from the mir 24 and will probably get one at some point. I always forgot about it and they are not very common. There is also an Arsat 50/1.4 (Helios 123) I personally don't like it's bokeh. fuzzy bubbles.
_________________
pentaxian |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lumens pixel
Joined: 27 Feb 2019
Posts: 871
Expire: 2021-06-25
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 06, 2022 11:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
lumens pixel wrote:
Interesting thank you both.
Since I am a Canon FD Minolta MD shooter I focus in the Leica direction, not the Zeiss Nikon Pentax. But some lenses seemed interesting like the Mir 24 and the Kaleinar but I have to justify (to myself) a set of lenses with Zeiss Nikon focusing direction to avoid mixing focusing directions in a set. Hence looking for the best soviet fifty focusing in that direction. That may sound irrelevant and I might feel not so bad with a focusing mix but I did not try yet.
Well, not exactly since I bought a Canon FD mount copy of a Sigma SuperWideII which extraordinarily focuses in the Nikon direction. I have red on Pentax forums that Sigma issued a small number of this stupid lens and I did not pay attention when ordering on ebay (excellent lens a part from that).
So I have a mixed set but I did not dare use the Sigma yet by reason of a mental block of sorts.
Working on that.
_________________
Lumens Pixel
-------------
Minolta SR mount: 16 2,8; Sigma SuperWide 24 2,8; 28 2,5; 28 2,8; 28 3,5; 35 2,8; 45 2,0; 50 1,4; 50 1,7; 50 2,0; 58 1,4; 85 2,0; 100 2,5; 100 4 Macro; 135 3,5; 135 2,8; 200 4; RF 250 5,6; 24-35 3,5; 35-70 3,5; 75-150 4; 70-210 4
Canon FD mount: Tokina RMC 17 3,5; 28 2,8; 35 2,8; 50 1,8; 50 3,5 Macro; 55 1,2; 135 3,5; 135 2,5; 200 4,0; 300 5,6; 28-55 3,5 4,5; Tokina SZ-X SD 270; 70-150 4,5; 70-210 f4; 80-200 4L; Tokina SZ-X 845
Tamron Adaptall: 28-80 3,5-4,2 (27A); 70-210 3,8-4 (46A); 60-300 (23A); 90 2,5 (52B); 35-135 3,5-4,5 (40A)
Tamron SP: 20-40 2,7-3,5 (266D) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
D1N0
Joined: 07 Aug 2012
Posts: 2530
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 06, 2022 12:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
D1N0 wrote:
Have you considered the Zenitar-M 50mm 1.7? Excellent 50
_________________
pentaxian |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lumens pixel
Joined: 27 Feb 2019
Posts: 871
Expire: 2021-06-25
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 06, 2022 1:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
lumens pixel wrote:
| D1N0 wrote: |
| Have you considered the Zenitar-M 50mm 1.7? Excellent 50 |
Yes Leica focusing direction though.
_________________
Lumens Pixel
-------------
Minolta SR mount: 16 2,8; Sigma SuperWide 24 2,8; 28 2,5; 28 2,8; 28 3,5; 35 2,8; 45 2,0; 50 1,4; 50 1,7; 50 2,0; 58 1,4; 85 2,0; 100 2,5; 100 4 Macro; 135 3,5; 135 2,8; 200 4; RF 250 5,6; 24-35 3,5; 35-70 3,5; 75-150 4; 70-210 4
Canon FD mount: Tokina RMC 17 3,5; 28 2,8; 35 2,8; 50 1,8; 50 3,5 Macro; 55 1,2; 135 3,5; 135 2,5; 200 4,0; 300 5,6; 28-55 3,5 4,5; Tokina SZ-X SD 270; 70-150 4,5; 70-210 f4; 80-200 4L; Tokina SZ-X 845
Tamron Adaptall: 28-80 3,5-4,2 (27A); 70-210 3,8-4 (46A); 60-300 (23A); 90 2,5 (52B); 35-135 3,5-4,5 (40A)
Tamron SP: 20-40 2,7-3,5 (266D) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manichaean
Joined: 03 Oct 2013
Posts: 70
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 06, 2022 2:09 pm Post subject: Re: Soviets |
|
|
Manichaean wrote:
| lumens pixel wrote: |
Considering an old project of purchase of a set.
I am wondering about Kaleinar 100 2,8 Helios 81 or Arsat 50 and Mir 24.
Any experience with these knowing that they will be compared to Canon or Minolta equivalent without disappointing. |
I have the Mir-24H and love it. It is one of my favorite 35mm (and I have many). I also have Helios-81H (the same manufacturer as the Mir and Kalienar). It is also good but I would not say something exceptional in comparison to Rokkors or Hexanons. I had it some years before and sold it (do not remember why, but probably due to the long MFD) but recently bought it again. Still not enough time to form the second opinion on it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blotafton
Joined: 08 Aug 2013
Posts: 1618
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 06, 2022 2:54 pm Post subject: Re: Soviets |
|
|
blotafton wrote:
Every lens I have focus in the wrong direction  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lumens pixel
Joined: 27 Feb 2019
Posts: 871
Expire: 2021-06-25
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 06, 2022 4:16 pm Post subject: Re: Soviets |
|
|
lumens pixel wrote:
| blotafton wrote: |
| Every lens I have focus in the wrong direction |
 
_________________
Lumens Pixel
-------------
Minolta SR mount: 16 2,8; Sigma SuperWide 24 2,8; 28 2,5; 28 2,8; 28 3,5; 35 2,8; 45 2,0; 50 1,4; 50 1,7; 50 2,0; 58 1,4; 85 2,0; 100 2,5; 100 4 Macro; 135 3,5; 135 2,8; 200 4; RF 250 5,6; 24-35 3,5; 35-70 3,5; 75-150 4; 70-210 4
Canon FD mount: Tokina RMC 17 3,5; 28 2,8; 35 2,8; 50 1,8; 50 3,5 Macro; 55 1,2; 135 3,5; 135 2,5; 200 4,0; 300 5,6; 28-55 3,5 4,5; Tokina SZ-X SD 270; 70-150 4,5; 70-210 f4; 80-200 4L; Tokina SZ-X 845
Tamron Adaptall: 28-80 3,5-4,2 (27A); 70-210 3,8-4 (46A); 60-300 (23A); 90 2,5 (52B); 35-135 3,5-4,5 (40A)
Tamron SP: 20-40 2,7-3,5 (266D) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lumens pixel
Joined: 27 Feb 2019
Posts: 871
Expire: 2021-06-25
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 06, 2022 4:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
lumens pixel wrote:
Manichean wrote:
| Quote: |
| I have the Mir-24H and love it. It is one of my favorite 35mm (and I have many). I also have Helios-81H (the same manufacturer as the Mir and Kalienar). It is also good but I would not say something exceptional in comparison to Rokkors or Hexanons. I had it some years before and sold it (do not remember why, but probably due to the long MFD) but recently bought it again. Still not enough time to form the second opinion on it. |
That is nice to read regarding the Mir 24. The website Radojuva was praising the Helios 81 / Arsat as being one of the best soviet fifties hence my question. Additional comments on this lens if you use it in the near future would be interesting.
_________________
Lumens Pixel
-------------
Minolta SR mount: 16 2,8; Sigma SuperWide 24 2,8; 28 2,5; 28 2,8; 28 3,5; 35 2,8; 45 2,0; 50 1,4; 50 1,7; 50 2,0; 58 1,4; 85 2,0; 100 2,5; 100 4 Macro; 135 3,5; 135 2,8; 200 4; RF 250 5,6; 24-35 3,5; 35-70 3,5; 75-150 4; 70-210 4
Canon FD mount: Tokina RMC 17 3,5; 28 2,8; 35 2,8; 50 1,8; 50 3,5 Macro; 55 1,2; 135 3,5; 135 2,5; 200 4,0; 300 5,6; 28-55 3,5 4,5; Tokina SZ-X SD 270; 70-150 4,5; 70-210 f4; 80-200 4L; Tokina SZ-X 845
Tamron Adaptall: 28-80 3,5-4,2 (27A); 70-210 3,8-4 (46A); 60-300 (23A); 90 2,5 (52B); 35-135 3,5-4,5 (40A)
Tamron SP: 20-40 2,7-3,5 (266D) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
D1N0
Joined: 07 Aug 2012
Posts: 2530
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 06, 2022 5:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
D1N0 wrote:
| lumens pixel wrote: |
| D1N0 wrote: |
| Have you considered the Zenitar-M 50mm 1.7? Excellent 50 |
Yes Leica focusing direction though. |
Ow I get it those lenses were made for Nikon so they focus to the left from infinity. Must also be the reason I have none of them. Nikon is not easily adapted to Pentax.
_________________
pentaxian |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manichaean
Joined: 03 Oct 2013
Posts: 70
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 07, 2022 11:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
Manichaean wrote:
| lumens pixel wrote: |
Manichean wrote:
That is nice to read regarding the Mir 24. The website Radojuva was praising the Helios 81 / Arsat as being one of the best soviet fifties hence my question. Additional comments on this lens if you use it in the near future would be interesting. |
Helios 81H is no doubt a fine lens. But there is a numer of Soviet lenses in the standard focal range that are at least as good. I tried and liked quite a lot Volna-1 (K-mount, rarely M42), Volna-9 (macro lens M42) and Helios 44-3 (made in Minsk). Helios 77 and Zenitar-M 50mm 1.7 are also said to be among the best. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jamaeolus
Joined: 19 Mar 2014
Posts: 2965
Location: Eugene
Expire: 2015-08-20
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 07, 2022 4:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
jamaeolus wrote:
Quality control on Russian lenses is not top tier IMHO.
_________________
photos are moments frozen in time |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manichaean
Joined: 03 Oct 2013
Posts: 70
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 08, 2022 9:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
Manichaean wrote:
| jamaeolus wrote: |
| Quality control on Russian lenses is not top tier IMHO. |
Depends very much on the model, year of production and the manufacturing plant. The quality of the lenses I quoted was rather stable since they were mostly produced by one (well reputed) plant during rather limited number of years.
Only when you talk about mass produced lenses like Helios 44-2, the sample variation is a big deal. It was produced during large period of time by many different manufacurers.
Of course, sample variation due to age (wear and tear) exists but just like in any other vintage lenses. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
