Related Links:
Kiev 60 Lenses (Ralf Radermacher) [3/2001] (table lenses, filter sizes, weight..)
Medium Format PC Shift Lenses (homebrew..)

Notes:

See the original article for lens testing procedures and standards information. This lens is the Olympic Sonnar, weighs in at 3 pounds, is 3 1/2 inches in diameter, cost $185 back in 1964 (new), and covers the full 6x6cm frame. While just "acceptable" wide open, it turns in a very respectable performance when stopped down, especially by f/8 and beyond.

The above graphics are derived from data reported in an excellent review in Popular Photography magazine of July 1998 (p. 112)"SLR" column by Mr. Herb Keppler titled "The Incredible German-Ukrainian Budget-Priced 2 1/4 SLR Connection". The four lenses were the Arsat B 80mm f/2.8, the MC Volna-3 80mm f/2.8, the Carl Zeiss Jena 80mm f/2.8, and the Schneider 80mm f/2.8 for the Kiev 88 SLR. You can see how each lens performed at each f/stop, both center (e.g., Arsat-c line) and edge (e.g., Arsat-e line).

The Arsat lens rated excellents both in center and edge performance from f/8 to f/22, while the CZJena and Schneider 80mm rated all excellents (center and edge) from f/4 to f/22. The older Volna-3 was marginal (perhaps a bad sample?), but even it produced excellent ratings at f/16 and f/22 in both center and edge. However, the Arsat and Volna lenses scored significantly lower overall than either the Schneider or Carl Zeiss Jena 80mm f/2.8 lenses.

So you can see, by examining the above graphic, why the Carl Zeiss Jena and Schneider lenses are so highly regarded (especially at the low price of the CZJena lenses!). You can also see why many Arsat owners are happy too, provided they wisely use the lens at f/stops above f/4 or so. However, I caution that you really need to test your own lenses to ensure you have a good one, and how to use it for best performance.

Just for fun, I have added a pair of tables of comparisons of the Schneider and Carl Zeiss Jena 80mm f/2.8 versus the Hasselblad Zeiss 80mm f/2.8 lenses, both the C and F series (leaf shutter and focal plane variants). The Hasselblad lens tests are from Modern Photography of June 1977 and July 1980. More current lenses may do as well or better. Except for one low score wide open on the Carl Zeiss Jena lens (possibly a glitch?), all of these lenses will provide excellent results in serious amateur or professional use.

[Ed. note: Mr. Small is a noted expert/author on Zeiss and related optics]
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 02 Dec 1999
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] CZ Jena and Ukranian Lenses -- How Good for MF

John Coan wrote:

>There are plenty of East German Carl Zeiss Jena medium format lenses on the
>market that sell for about a tenth of what an equivalent new Rollei or Hassy lens
>would sell for.  Adaptors for these lenses (the mount is a Pentacon Six style)
>are available for mounting on modern MF SLR cameras.

Hell, I regularly SHOOT with these guys. I have a bunch of Postwar CZJ lenses -- some in LTM, some in Contax RF BM, one on an Automat, Type 3, and a 2.8/18cm Olympia Sonnar converted to Hasselblad mount for my 2000 FC/M. Others on Pentacons and Prakticas. A set (4.5/4cm Tessar, 2/5.8 Biotar, 2.8/8cm Tessar) for my Contax D. Lovely lenses.

My spin (others dispute this) was that the rapid seizure by the US Army of the top Zeiss brass left some really good designers behind. That is, the Army told Zeiss' management, "bring your best and come west". The guys who were left behind felt left out of things and had a chip on their shoulder. Hence, they busted their guts for thirty years to outdo Oberkochen, and they certainly did some remarkable things -- for instance, they beat Oberkochen to the marketplace with both the Biometar and Flektogon designs (same as the Zeiss West Planar and Distagon). Where they hurt was with materials: they had to use aluminium where Oberkochen used brass or steel, glue instead of lubricants, and so forth.

Kiev lenses are just fine. I've HEARD horror stories, but I've owned a slew of this stuff over the past decade, all used Soviet gear, nothing "export", and never had a serious problem. Good cameras, good lenses. Still have a Kiev-88 I like a lot.

Marc

[email protected]

Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999
From: "Michael Liczbanski" [email protected]
Newsgroups: de.rec.fotografie,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Experience using Kiev 60 MF lenses on M42 threadmount 35mm?

I did use many East German lenses for Pentacon Six on a Practica with the M42x1 mount. The quality varied from so-so to OK for the Sonnar (CZ Jena) 2.8/180 and Oerstegor (sp?) 4/300. I really liked the Biometar 2.8/120. It was sharp and contrasty even on a Practica, although the quality of these lenses varied considerably from sample to sample. The 180 Sonnar wide open made a great "dreamy" portrait lens - very likeable if you are into photographic kitsch.

All TTL function on a Practica PLC worked with these lenses, but I have no idea about the TTL system of Mamiya 1000.

And yes, the 30mm lens will stay 30mm regardless of format.

Michael

>Hi,
>I am enquiring to see if anyone on this newsgroup has experience using Zeiss
>Jena or Ukrainian (Russian) lenses from the Pentacon 6/Kiev 60 medium format
>cameras on a threadmount Praktica/Pentax Universal M42 mount 35mm camera
>(with the adaptor that can be purchased).
>
>What is the quality like?  Does a 30mm Arsat fisheye lens become a 17mm
>fisheye when adapted?  Will I still have the use of my CDS meter (TTL) on my
>Mamiya 1000 DTL?
>
>If you have any comments or experiences to share, please let me know what
>type of 35mm SLR and what type of lens was used.
>
>Thanks,
>Omar

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 1999
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] CZ Jena and Ukranian Lenses -- How Good for MF

Hi John,

Read "The Kiev Kronicles" which is a multi-part series beginning in the January issue of Shutterbug. We tried to cover all of this in some depth.

> There are plenty of East German Carl Zeiss Jena medium format lenses on the
> market that sell for about a tenth of what an equivalent new Rollei or Hassy lens
> would sell for.  Adaptors for these lenses (the mount is a Pentacon Six style)
> are available for mounting on modern MF SLR cameras.      

All of these are late model all-black versions with multicoating.

> Along the same lines, the Ukranian lenses for the Kiev 60 share the same mount.
> Reading past Internet postings, these seem to be decent performers, for the
> price.  Again, dirt cheap in medium format terms.
> Have any of the RUGgers tried these out?  How well do they work?  Is it a
> reasonable way for a non-pro to go.  I'm talking about $250 or so for a nice used
> CZJ 180/2.8.  About the same price for a brand new Ukranian 30mm fish eye.

Kiev lenses can be great and the can be crap. No quality control. So if you get a good one you have a really good lens, if you get a bad one you have a pretty paperweight. If you buy from someone who gives a warranty and will let you return bad ones, they can be great buys. The 150mm f/2.8 is really great as a portrait lens. Avoid the 250 since it has a fragile diaphragm mechanism and if it breaks I know of no one who can fix one.

There is a fellow named Hartblei in the Czech Republic who takes the Kiev cameras and strips them down and rebuilds them from the ground up. I have one of his rebuilt Kiev 88 cameras sitting here on my desk at the moment. After some brief testing it looks like he really does make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. The one I have has been recovered with the most godawful fake snakeskin you could ever see, but it works smoothly, and has a permanently attached film advance crank which is a work of art. He also redbuilds all the lenses and converts two of the wide angles into shift lenses. His stuff is sold by Kalimex in Prague. They seem reliable but slow to fill orders.

The fisheye is an exceptional lens, particularly when you can pick them up brand new for under $ 200. I've toyed with the idea of having one reworked around a Rollei 6000 series shutter.

BTW, word we get out of Kiev is that the last production of the Kiev 60 was in 1996 and they are just selling warehouse inventory, so the supply may dry up. Same goes for some of the lenses. My advice is buy now if you want them.

Bob

Date: Sat, 04 Dec 1999
From: tintypemegsinet.com (Peter Mikalajunas)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Kiev 88 lenses for Minolta?

[email protected] (Raul Franco) wrote:

>tintypemegsinet.com (Peter Mikalajunas) wrote:
>
>> The native Russian glass is not bad either.  I especially like the
>> Jupiter 250mm f/3.5.   The 30mm Arsat fisheye is a great buy for under
>> $200 on eBay.
>>
>> In addition you can get adapters to use these same lenses on the
>> Mamiya 645 and Nikon 35mm.
>
>Just wondering if you could comment on the of optics of the 30mm?  Are
>there two versions of this (I thought I saw two names)?  Is it sharp?
>Good color?                                  

There is/was the Arsat and the Zodiak. I believe the difference is in the coating or lack there of. However, I could be wrong.

The stated resolution is 60 lpm center, 14 lpm edge. I have no idea what aperture that is for, as I have never seen one stated. The edge softness is a result of spherical aberration, which is to be expected with this type of lens.

Looked at another way, enlarge the 645 to 11x14. IF the center on the original is actually 60 lpm, then you will be getting 10 lpm on the enlargement. Which would be considered sharp by just about anyone's standards. Beyond that, and it will become very subjective.

As with any lens, there will be variances. The best advice is to find a dealer who will give you a 30 day return policy. Test the lens yourself to see if it meets your needs.

I have used mine with both Velvia and Tmax 100. I found the results acceptable when enlarged to 11x14. I used it on a Mamiya 645.

This is not a lens you want to walk around with on your camera all day. It weighs over 2 lbs. and the front glass is very exposed because of the curvature. Having said that, with a little care, it is a lot of fun to use.

I used it for a shot of the Picasso sculpture at the Civic Center in downtown Chicago. I was standing about 10 feet in front of this 50 foot sculpture composing the shot. A well meaning on-looker stopped to let me know that I would have to take my picture from across the street if I want to capture the entire work. In reality, I got the sculpture and the 20 story building behind it all in the frame. To get some idea of the size:

http://www.bluffton.edu/homepages/facstaff/sullivanm/picasso/picasso.html

>Also, do you know anything about the adapter for Mamiya 645?  Does it
add
>extension or have glass elements?

Yep, I use it all the time :-)

You lose auto aperture with it ( always working stopped down ). It is a simple metal ring, that is milled to fit on the 645 and accepts the Kiev, Pentacon, Zeiss, Exakta lenses. You gain the reliability of the Mamiya 645 system by using it. With an M645, M645J or M645-1000 the Kiev lenses make for a great combination.

Peter Mikalajunas

Photo links
http://www.megsinet.com/tintype

Date: Sat, 4 DEC 99
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Kiev 88 lenses for Minolta?

Peter Mikalajunas tintypemegsinet.com writes:

>The stated resolution is 60 lpm center, 14 lpm edge.  I have no idea
>what aperture that is for, as I have never seen one stated.   The edge

My sources also give the same lpm resolution figures for this lens without quoting the aperture used.

Same source shows the 45mm to be 45/16lpmm (equiv to 24mm on a 35mm camera), 65mm lens to be 42/18 and the Kiev 150mm lens to resolve 45/18lpm. Bearing this in mind, the 30mm edge resolution doesn't look bad.

However, another source gave the "on print" needed resolution for "exhibition" quality prints to be 8 lpm will "professionally exceptable" is 6 lpmm on print.

This would seem to limit the above lenses to 3-1/2 by 5 inch prints. *However* I peersonally have used the Mir 45mm lens for large band shots enlarged to 20x24 and received no complaints from the customers. BTW, tese were shot at F11.0 and shot side by side with an old model F8.0 Schneider SuperAngulon at f11. The on neg results showed that the Mir had only slightly less edge resolution, slightly less contrast than the S.A. ---- but here's the kicked --- I used the Kiev negs for the final 20x24's because using the same film, the color rendition of both sky and grass was better with the unfiltered Kiev lens than the polarized 47mm Schneider lens.

Back to the original question: lines per millimeter ----- I have no idea what it means in the "real" world.

Wayne Catalano 504-271-1507 (voice and fax)

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Mon, 06 Dec 1999
From: Jan B"ttcher [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] CZ Jena and Ukranian Lenses -- How Good for MF

John, here' s my experience: The Fisheye is ok (spent 240,- DM on mine), but not stunning. I got a 4/50mm Felctogon MC, that other people praise a whole lot, used it on my Pentacon Six and sold it again. (around 300,- DM) since I was not amused. The Biometar 2.8/80 passes on the Pentacon Six, but is no match to a TLR's Planar or Xenotar (available for Pentacon Six / Exacta 66 mount too).

The 2.8/120MC is a nice lens on the Pentacon Six, but gets outclassed by the 2.8/135 Sonnar, when used with an (well actaully three) adapter on my SL35E (in the above line you can find the Rollei-connection!) (or by the Apo Macro Elmarit 2.8/100 on the Leica R). Think I paid 280,- DM. The 2.8/180 MC (250,- DM) is really nice! (though it gets outclassed by the 2/180 Summcron on the Leica R) And I like the 4/300 MC (380,-DM). (Zeiss Jena all, not to be confused with the Meyer G"rlitz lenses).

The Pentacon 5.6/500 I'm trying to sell, since it's not really that great, and a bit heavy.

I still have to compare the 2.8/180 to the Rolleinart 2.8/80-200, but I think the 2.8/180 Carl Zeiss Jena will be wel lworth it's money (don't spend more than $200 on a nice "MC" one with caps)

Jan B"ttcher ([email protected])

....

Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999
From: "e M e L" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Pentacon 500 f5.6 multiple versions?

Some East German lenses longer than 120 mm, for instance the 180 Sonnar, were made in 2 versions (different "look" for Practica and for Pentaxon Six), but most Pentacon (earlier marked as East German Carl Zeiss Jena) lenses were made with interchangeable mount to fit Pentacon Six, Practica (M42-1 screw mount) and sometimes Exakta (Exakta bayonet with an external aperture coupling.)

The interchangeable mount would preserve in many cases the auto aperture operation.

Examples of such lenses are (some were sold as "Pentacon" ):

Biometar 2.8.120 (auto)
Sonnar 2.8-3.5/180 (auto)
Sonnar 4/300 (?)
Orestegor 4/300 (manual pre-set lens)
Pentacon 5.6/500 (?)

Michael

Date: 26 Oct 1999
From: [email protected] (FLEXARET2)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Pentacon 500 f5.6 multiple versions?

from : [email protected] (Sam Sherman) 10-25-99

The 500M Lens is actually an Orestegor made by Meyer Optik (later absorbed into Pentacon) good but not as good as Zeiss. It is a $500 lens though.

It is intended for 2 1/4 - Pentacon 6. But other mounts including 35MM - Praktica 42mm screw were made. If the 42mm mount is the only one and not an adapter over the Pentacon 6 mount - you cannot remove it and find the Pentacon 6 mount underneath. While the 42mm mount may remove, finding the Pentacon 6 mount somewhere will be difficult to near impossible - I have tried.

However, some machinist may adapt a Pentacon 6 Extension tube to it for you as a mount.

FYI - these lenses have been adapted for Pentax 67 for use by commercial fashion photogs shooting models in bathing suits on the beach. The lens would cover 6x7cm and the results were good enough for reproduction in ads and expensive slick magazines.

- Sam Sherman

[Ed.note: Horizon/t panoramic cameras are also made in USSR/Russia, Ukraine..]
From Panoramic Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999
From: Marco Pauck [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: New inferior lens for Horizon 202?

Today I got a new Horizon 202. (My third one, the first two had problems with light leaks and film transport.)

Beside some other minor differences, I noticed that the lens is very reflective, i.e. it has a bad coating. The diaphragm is hardly visibly behind the reflections!

I know that the coating quality of e.g. the Kiev/Arsat lenses varies considerably from production run to production run, so maybe this is also just a 'monday morning problem'. However, what make me suspicious is that the designation "MC" has been dropped from the lens' label.

Does anyone know more about this or other changes for the recent production? (hi WJ ;-)

The serial number is 990790. My earlier models were from 1996 and 1998.

Marco

--
Marco Pauck - WMD GmbH Hamburg, Germany - http://www.pauck.de/marco/

Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000
From: Gary Sanford [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Kiev 88 - experience ? opinions ?

tintypemegsinet.com (Peter Mikalajunas) wrote:

snip.....

>As for the choice of lenses, I have compiled the following for the
>Kiev cameras.  (Really do need to get this up on my site.)

The Schneider and Zeiss Jena lenses are commonly only in the Kiev 60/Pentacon/P6 mount Some comments on the ones I have.

>Prime
>FL           Stop
>30mm     F3.5   Zodiak Fisheye Lens

Stunning lens, the only lowbuck way to fisheye in MF. I f you want panoramas, just crop the top and bottom.

>40mm     F4      Schneider Curtagon
>45mm     F3.5   Mir-26
>50mm     F4      Zeiss Flektagon

I have the late MC version and it may be the best P6 lens of the bunch. Possibly better than an equivalent western Zeiss.

>60mm     F3.5   Schneider Curtagon
>65mm     F3.5   Mir-38
>80mm     F2.8   Volgna

I have the later MC Arsat. It's a nice sharp normal lens that can have some light leaks into the stopdown lever at close focus. Not machined as well as the Zeiss but optically it's equal or better.

>80mm     F2.8   Exakta
>80mm     F2.8   Zeiss Biometar
>80mm     F2.8   Scneider Xenotar
>120mm   F2.8   Vega
>120mm   F2.8    Zeiss Biometar

I haven't used this lens that much but as many have said it should make for a nice portrait lens

>150mm   F2.8   Vega
>150mm   F4      Schneider Tele-Xenar
>180mm   F2.8   Zeiss Sonar
>250mm   F5.6   Schneider Tele-Xenar
>250mm   F5.6   Telear
>250mm   F3.5   Jupiter
>300mm   F4      Zeiss Sonnar

A big honking beautiful fast telephoto lens. Very sharp, even wide open. I use it a lot.

>300mm   F4.5   Telear
>500mm   F8      Exakta
>500mm   F5.6   Arsat Macro
>500mm   F5.6   Meyer
>500mm   F8      Cambron
>600mm   F8      Telephoto (Telear?)
>1000mm F11    Zeiss Mirror Lens
>
>Tilt / Shift
>45mm     F3.5  Hartblei Shift
>55mm     F4.5  Arsat Shift
>55mm     F4.5  Schneider Super Angulon Shift Lens
>65mm     F3.5  Hartblei Shift
>
>Zooms
>
>75-150mm    F4.5 Schneider Variogon
>140-280mm  F5.6 Schneider Variogon
>
>Extras
>1.4X Arsat Teleconverter
>2X Schneider Teleconverter
>2X Arsat Teleconverter
>Pentacon Bellows
>Arsat 20mm extention tube
>Arsat 40mm extention tube
>Arsat 19+48mm extention tube
>Pentacon made a series of tubes from 20mm to 60mm I believe.
>
>Adapter rings
>K60 -> M42
>K60 -> Nikon bayonet
>K60 -> Mamiya 645
>K60 -> Minolta AF
>K60 -> Reverse mount - for macro use
>
>K88 -> M42
>K88 -> Nikon
>K88 -> K60
>K88 -> Mamiya 645
>
>
>Peter Mikalajunas
>
>Photo links
>http://www.megsinet.com/tintype

Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000
From: tintypemegsinet.com (Peter Mikalajunas)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Kiev 88 - experience ? opinions ?

Gary Sanford [email protected] wrote:

>>tintypemegsinet.com
>>(Peter Mikalajunas) wrote:
>
>>As for the choice of lenses, I have compiled the following for the
>>Kiev cameras.  (Really do need to get this up on my site.)
>
>The Schneider and Zeiss Jena lenses are commonly only in the
>Kiev 60/Pentacon/P6 mount Some comments on the ones I have.

This is true. It is also possible to get a K88 to K60 adapter, so that the P6 mount can be used on a K88.

Peter Mikalajunas

Photo links
http://www.megsinet.com/tintype

Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000
From: tintypemegsinet.com (Peter Mikalajunas)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Kiev 88 - experience ? opinions ?

.....

A totally other option. Pick-up a used Mamiya M645 and put a Kiev 60 adapter on it. The M645 sells used for about $250-$300. This opens the door to a whole range of lenses, including those only available in the Kiev / Pentacon / Exakta mount.

As for the choice of lenses, I have compiled the following for the Kiev cameras. (Really do need to get this up on my site.)

Prime
FL           Stop
30mm     F3.5   Zodiak Fisheye Lens
40mm     F4      Schneider Curtagon
45mm     F3.5   Mir-26
50mm     F4      Zeiss Flektagon
60mm     F3.5   Schneider Curtagon
65mm     F3.5   Mir-38
80mm     F2.8   Volgna
80mm     F2.8   Exakta
80mm     F2.8   Zeiss Biometar
80mm     F2.8   Scneider Xenotar
120mm   F2.8   Vega
120mm   F2.8    Zeiss Biometar
150mm   F2.8   Vega
150mm   F4      Schneider Tele-Xenar
180mm   F2.8   Zeiss Sonar
250mm   F5.6   Schneider Tele-Xenar
250mm   F5.6   Telear
250mm   F3.5   Jupiter
300mm   F4      Zeiss Sonnar
300mm   F4.5   Telear
500mm   F8      Exakta
500mm   F5.6   Arsat Macro
500mm   F5.6   Meyer
500mm   F8      Cambron
600mm   F8      Telephoto (Telear?)
1000mm F11    Zeiss Mirror Lens

Tilt / Shift
45mm     F3.5  Hartblei Shift
55mm     F4.5  Arsat Shift
55mm     F4.5  Schneider Super Angulon Shift Lens
65mm     F3.5  Hartblei Shift

Zooms
75-150mm    F4.5 Schneider Variogon
140-280mm  F5.6 Schneider Variogon

Extras
1.4X Arsat Teleconverter
2X Schneider Teleconverter
2X Arsat Teleconverter
Pentacon Bellows
Arsat 20mm extention tube
Arsat 40mm extention tube
Arsat 19+48mm extention tube
Pentacon made a series of tubes from 20mm to 60mm I believe.

Adapter rings
K60 -> M42
K60 -> Nikon bayonet
K60 -> Mamiya 645
K60 -> Minolta AF
K60 -> Reverse mount - for macro use

K88 -> M42
K88 -> Nikon
K88 -> K60
K88 -> Mamiya 645

Peter Mikalajunas

Photo links
http://www.megsinet.com/tintype

Date: 08 Aug 1999
From: [email protected] (FLEXARET2)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Few Kiev88 related Qs

from: [email protected] (Sam Sherman) 8-8-99

I own an earlier version of the 250MM f3.5 lens in mount for Kiev 60. It is a sharp and excellently made lens.

I had the opportunity to use and test several of the 250MM f5.6 lenses and they are extremely compact and take sharp photos, but in my opinion no better than the 250MM f3.5 at the same apertures.

However, I must say that the 250MM f5.6 is a piece of sheer junk mechanically. It will not hold up and its mechanical design is atrocious. It has a long internal rod linkage between the stopdown pin and the diaphragm mechanism. This rod gives if the aperture blades stick slightly and there is give in the system which will eventually break.

I would not want to own one if I was given one for free if I promised to use it!.

While the optics are good the barrels and mounts are also sloppily made on the samples I have seen. While the 250MM f3.5 I own is a precision lens with well made barrel and mechanics in addition to optics.

I think the 250MM f5.6 lens should be converted to a preset lens without any internal stop down mechanisms, which would allow it to get even smaller- then it would be a good, compact design.

- Sam Sherman

Date: Mon, 09 Aug 1999
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Few Kiev88 related Qs

....

Hi Sam,

My 250 Telear is no poorly made than my 250 Jupiter, and is definitely sharper. As far as the linkage on the Telear being longer, it's not enough longer than the jupiter's to worry about. You must have had extremely bad versions of the Telear. Both of my lenses work just fine.

Regards,

Kevin Kalsbeek

Date: 09 Aug 1999
From: [email protected] (FLEXARET2)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Few Kiev88 related Qs

Dear Kevin,

Re the Ukranian 250MM lenses-

The quality control is all over the place. If you have good samples so much the better.

Be aware that all auto lenses can have the diaphragm blades bind due to the vaporizing of the helix lubricant. Then the blades have to be cleaned by a pro who can open the lens. If the blades bind this will transmit a problem to the stop down linkage.

Of course, this may never happen.

At the price these lenses can be good bargains that can take sharp pictures if you have good samples.

I will stand by my opinion that the 250MM f5.6 has a terrible mechanical design, as does the 45MM wideangle. In contrast, the 150MM and 30MM are well made lenses optically and mechanically.

In the former soviet photographic world, taking an overview of all of the cameras and lenses we are able to see in the West, there is a crazy mix of what is good and what is poor. Most of this makes little sense to us, but in the former world of communism and how things were produced, it certainly makes sense to someone.

- Sam Sherman

Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Pentacon 6 Lenses on a Kiev 88 ?

....

> Unless I read it incorrectly, KievUsa shows ( in their web price list )
> a kiev 60 to kiev 88 lens mount adapter. I think they price it at $175.
> If I'm correct, and at that high a price, they must have to do some
> optical tricks ( negative lenses and such ) to make it work. Wonder how
> that would affect the picture quality?
>
>                             Bill Martin

Hi (again) Bill!

Due to the longer registration distance of the K88 lenses, NO optical element is required, but you DO wind up with a COMPLETELY manual lens. The Identical adapters sell in Europe for $30-50, which is a good clue how K/USA rips you off. While the K88 lenses will adapt to the K60, they do NOT lock to the adapter in the way they are supposed to to (but don't always do!)on the camera body. Kalimex says this adapter is sort of for emergency use only. This doesn't really detract from it's usefulness.

Regards,

Kevin Kalsbeek

Date: 11 Aug 1999
From: [email protected] (FLEXARET2)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Pentacon 6 Lenses on a Kiev 88 ?

Dear Bob,

While I am always trying to get sharp single focal length lenses for certain purposes, I am not beyond experimenting with making lens converters or chaining together as many as will still cast an image.

I remember getting up to 3000MM plus and 4000MM plus.

I once shot a great photo of the setting sun with a plane horizontally disecting the large orange orb. It was so stopped down that eye damage was avoided.

I have also converted a Minolta 2x converter to 39MM screw front mount that would take Kilar lenses and magnify their images.

One of the best 2x converters I have used is the Vivitar Matched multiplier for some special lens or other, which I don't have. It works just fine with many other lenses.

One interesting converter was made by Tamron (Tasei?) as part of the lens formula. This is the Spectra Duo-focus which is 140MM f4.5 or 230MM f7.9. It is a very tiny lens for its focal length and I have taken extremely sharp photos of the buttes at California's Red Rock Canyon with it. I just added a Minota converter to its Exakta mount and used stop down metering and off I went. This is my favorite small traveling lens.

- Sam Sherman

Date: Sat, 22 May 1999
From: tintypemegsinet.com (Peter Mikalajunas)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Pentacon/Exacta/Kiev 60 to Pentax 6x7 adaptors

KLIN [email protected] wrote:

>Does such an item exist? Are there any cameras that will accept my
>pentacon six lenses?

Oh yes! The lenses are directly interchangable with the Kiev 60 and the Exacta.

There is also an adapter made that will allow you to use your existing lenses on a Mamiya 645. Brooklyn Camera usually has the adapters in stock. They also occasionally appear on eBay.

I picked up a Zeiss 180mm Sonnar for a song (compared to the same lens in a Hasselblad mount) and use it with an adapter on a Mamiya 645.

Peter Mikalajunas

[Ed.note: from our Lens adapter FAQ]
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: [email protected] (Mike G)
[1] Kiev or Pentacon lenses on Mamiya 645
Date: Fri Mar 27 1998

Kiev or Pentacon lenses on Mamiya 645 how to do it, where to get the gear.

A little while ago I posteed a message to this group requesting information on this topic. A few of you emailed me to let you know what I found out, so here is the info !

It is possible to get an adaptor to fit these lenses on to Mamiya 645's, any model. It retains infinity focus, but not automatic diaphram control. Any Kiev 60, Pentacon 6 or Exacta 66 lens can be mounted, opening up the possibility of using some very nice Zeiss, Schneider or Rissian lenses on these cameras.

The adaptors can be obtained in the States from:

Brooklyn Camera Exchange - [email protected] for $159 or Kiev USA - [email protected] for $145 These adaptors are probably German in origin.

In the UK and Europe you can get then from:

SRB Film Service - [email protected] for #99.95. These are hand made to order.

Lenses are pretty widley available, but some very cheap Soviet optics are available in the U.K. at present. For example the 30mm f3.5 fish eye is on sale for #145 ($240)

Try these places if you are interested, all in the UK, sorry no email for them.

Global Cameras Int +44 181-427-7492 SRS Trading +44 1923-226602 Chiswick Camera Centre +44 181-995-9114

The places are all selling the new production 'Ansnat' lenses at the above price. I hope this is useful to someone.

Mike Ganley

From Contax Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000
From: "Bob Shell" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Hassy/Pentacon fish eyes WAS:Re: [CONTAX] 350mm/f4 for 645

Glad to hear that Herwig has gotten his adapter ready. I'm sure he will find it a very popular item. If I get a Contax 645 this would be first on my list so I could use my collection of CZJ lenses.

You may just be surprised if you compare the 30mm Zodiak (now sold as Arsat) to the Hasselblad lens. We've compared them at Shutterbug and there is damned little difference other than that the Arsats show typically lax Ukrainian quality control. Get a good one and no one could distinguish the photos from ones taken with the Zeiss.

One point, though. These lenses were both designed for 6 X 6 format, so won't be 180 degree fisheyes on 645 format.

Bob

From Contax Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000
From: "Bob Shell" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Hassy/Pentacon fish eyes WAS:Re: [CONTAX] 350mm/f4 for 645

- ----------

>From: John Coan [email protected]
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: Re: Hassy/Pentacon fish eyes WAS:Re: [CONTAX] 350mm/f4 for 645
>Date: Thu, Apr 13, 2000, 11:48 AM
>
> Not only that, but you only need one adaptor for multiple Pentacon lenses.
> So, I'l be able to use the $350 CZJ Sonnar 180/2.8 I have vs buying the
> Contax 140/2.8 for $2000.  I intend to get a Flektogon 50 as well.

You will like the 50 Flektagon. I've shot magazine covers with mine. It is super sharp. Better than the original 50 Distagon for Hasselblad.

> And one other thing that occured to me a few weeks ago.... See if this is
> workable.  How about using the cheap Pentacon extension tubes and bellows
> once you have the adaptor?  You are still using the Contax body's TTL
> metering system so you won't have to fool around with compensation factors.
> Seems like it would work just fine in theory.

I'm using my CZJ lenses on Mamiya 646 Pro and did exactly that. I got the Kiev extension tube set (something like forty bucks) and put the tube between the lens and the adapter. Works just fine. I have not seen a bellows from Kiev, though, and have not seen a Pentacon one for years. I had one ages ago and don't recall just what became of it. Wish I still had it.

The short extension tube is great with the CZJ 180 and 300 which don't focus as close as I would like.

Bob

Date: 23 May 1999
From: [email protected] (FLEXARET2)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Kiev 60/88 side by side lens tests.....

I saved your comparison chart, it was very interesting. I have been using/experimenting with former-Soviet/Ukranian/Russian cameras for many years now.

My results - the optics are very good to excellent. The K-60 and K-88 Lenses are the same with different mounts. All of these products suffer from poor quality control and it is possible to get a poor one or an excellent one, everything must be thoroughly tested. The 45MM wideangle suffers from a poor auto stop down mechanism, capable of failure at any time and hard to improve even though the optics are good. The 250MM f5.6 compact tele is okay optically but the entire barrel system is sloppy on many I have seen/used. The auto stop down mechanism is a nightmare! The heavy 250MM f3.5 tele is excellent optically and mechanically far better than the f5.6 style, which is small and compact, while the other is heavy but better built.

The 30MM wideangle is a Superb lens optically and well built mechanically. The 120MM and the 150MM lenses are optically and mechanically tops.

I would say that these lenses in excellent samples can equal or surpass other similar lenses of any manufacture, but good samples are the key words.

I have found the K88 cameras to suffer from too much wind stress with the metal shutter curtains.

I have seen that an old idea of mine- cloth curtains have now become a reality. The K88 as the models evolved went from steel to brass gears in the slow speed mechanism, which had far less chance of jamming up the camera. The earlier models had a hill and dale wind knob the later model have a notched wind knob, which indicates the improved brass gear models.

I have had much success with the K60 cameras, which are sturdy have a solid wind mechanism and should work well for many years. The mount is not exactly the same as the Pentacon 6/ Praktisix mount and not all lenses and accessories will work on K60 and Pentacon cameras.

I did a lens comparision between good to better samples of the 80MM Mulitcoated Carl Zeiss Jena f2.8 Biometar and the 80MM Volna. While the Volna was a good lens and I have done excellent work with it, the Biometer had the edge on sharpness by 15% to 20% at least. Again, remember that is the samples I tested. There can be better or worse samples.

Something else little known - The Soviet lenses with copper diaphragm blades, the K88 with brass colored shutter curtains, have these items coated with an anti-reflection coating - they do not caused glare or are supposed to not cause it. The 90MM normal lens for the K6C (earlier version of K60) is a superb sharp optic that focuses close, looks uncoated, but is in reality sharp and almost flare free.

In the 1980s there was an importer in KC of the K88 cameras, Anthony's Cameras, who claimed the Russian lenses to be of superb high contract and sharper than similar Zeiss and Japanese designs. He did all kinds of tests and sold huge blowup photos made with the K88 and those lenses.

- Sam Sherman

Date: Sun, 23 May 99
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: addendum to: Kiev 60/88 (add Zorki) side-by-side lens tests....

Spencer Childs has been gracious enough to grant his permision to post the following letter that he sent to me via e-mail.

He has helped to fill in some of many blanks regarding Zorki lenses compared to Western equivalent optics.

I also was surprised on the observations about the 50mm F4.0 Zeiss Jena for the Pentacon/Kiev 60....If this is the Flektagon, I had always heard good things about this lens, but wide-open performance was not mentioned (as I recall) and again, this could have been third-(or more)hand info.

I hope more folks come forward who have actually done this type of 1st hand comparisons on Kiev's and Zorki's.

Quite interesting:

"Hi I thought your article very interesting but have never had the money to get any lenses other than the Zeiss Jena lenses for the Pentacon 6. I have the 50mm f4, the 80mm f2.8, the 120mm f2.8 and the 180mm f2.8. They are all in the late (1985 ish) multicoated versions. I think that they are all quite exceptional lenses but can't comment on them with reference to more expensive models. The only one that is slightly imperfect is the 50mm wide angle whic is very soft in the corners at full aperture (I've had two samples and they both were). But, a couple of stops down and it is amazing!

I have also been playing with the range of lenses on a Zorki 35mm camera. They are QUITE EXCEPTIONAL too.Compared to my contax G lenses, they have a very similar resolution but the contrast is much less. Using the old fashioned "back to the sun" rule though and it is very hard to see the difference!! Sure knocks the hell out of any Nikon wide angle lenses assuming favourable lighting for the Zorki of course. The 85mm f2 is quite brilliant and the 50mm f2 likewise. I get most of my trouble with flair when I use the 35mm f2,8 but the underlying optics of that one is fantastic. I imagine with a flash indoors it would equal anything. Quite amazing since the one I have was made in 1951 to a Zeiss design.

I'm familiar with the prejudice you are experiencing but (in the case of the Zorki) I guess flare and lower contrast is an issue which can't be ignored. I wish I could have all these old lenses multi-coated - then we would see :)

I have a Nikon 20mm f2.8 AF lens. It is very good but the aberrations near the corners and even the edges lead me to compare it with the Zorki. The Nikkor has beautiful contrast though.

The Contax G seems to top them all Zeiss designed lenses (like the Zorki) but with fantastic coating.

Anyway, my Pentacon 6 crop of lenses are all multicoated and are great but I don't know how they would compare with a Blad so I guess that is why I found your article very interesting though not completely relevant to my kit."

all best

Spencer

Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000
From: John Coan [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.marketplace.medium-format
Subject: Re: WTB Lens for Kiev 60 Penatcon 6

I'm not selling mine, but..... I recommend the Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar 180/2.8. You can get a nice multicoated version for $350 or so. Hint, if it has chrome/silver focus and aperture rings it isn't MC. The single coated version isn't bad, but the MC version is an outstanding optic. It should say either "Carl Zeiss Jena DDR" or "aus Jena" with an "MC" on the filter ring. It comes with a tripod ring, and was sold with a round leather case, shade, and caps. Rumor has it that those with 4 or 5 digit serial numbers were the last production models made. But I don't know why they are any better than the MC versions with a 7 or 8 digit number. Hint: this lens doesn't focus quite close enough for a frame filling head shot. Extension rings are plentiful and cheap.

The Flektogon 50/4 is also outstanding in its MC version. It was not sold originally with a shade, but did come with case and caps. Same deal with the serial numbers and legend on the lens. MC models generally sell for a little less than the Sonnar.

Try ebay, or http://home.earthlink.net/~rreinke/card.htm

Mark Blackwell wrote:

> Looking for a longer lens (only have the 80mm) for the Kiev 60 I just
> bought.   Also might consider a wide angle but don't need a fisheye. Would
> prefer Zeiss but would consider other brands.  Email with what you have an
> how much.   Thanks Mark

Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000
From: John Coan [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Kiev quality...

Darin,

I'm not a professional but I'll tell you what I did in this regard. I have the Contax 645 system. I bought an adaptor from Zoerkendoerfer in Munich for $200 that allows mounting of the Pentacon Six lenses on the 645. The only new lens I use with the 645 is the 80/2.0 it came with. I use three other lenses (Carl Zeiss Jena 180/2.8, CZJ 50/4.0, and Kiev 30/3.5) with the adaptor. In the case of the fisheye, the price is $180 brand new vs $6000 for the CZ fisheye. If I were a pro perhaps I could justify the difference in cost. But for me, all these other lenses work just fine with excellent results. On my particular camera, the focus confirmation indicator still works, as does average and spot metering, and aperture priority automation. I focus wide open then stop down for the exposure, so the viewfinder image is a little dimmer. Other than that, not much of an inconvenience at all.

John

Darin wrote:

> I'm a wedding photographer and two weeks ago I used a borowed 30mm fish
> eye lense (Hasellblad) to shoot  some of the  wedding highlights. The
> result was very good, so I decided to do  some research regarding these
> lenses. To spend $6000 for  a lense, is out of the question, so I wonder
> if a Kiev setting, (88 or 60) with a fish eye lense will  do the
> trick...I'm planning to still use my Hass. for the  shooting, I think to
> use the Kiev  just for few   shots. Ex:  back of the church, available
> light,  bride and groom exiting the church,  candids  on the dancing
> floor. Can somebody help me  put more light into this picture?  Thanks!

From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000
Subject: Re: Kiev Cameras

My Arsat 30mm fisheye lens was just delivered yesterday. =)

The finish is quite nice and the focusing is smooth. Again, there's some dust between the elements, but I figure that it shouldn't compromise the image quality much, if at all. (I still remember how nice and sharp my old 4x5 Kodak Ektar lens was despite having two air bubbles within the glass itself)

It does make the camera pretty front heavy -- that is one MAJOR front lens element! But I'm looking forward to having some fun with it this weekend. I haven't felt this excited about going out and taking pictures in years!

From: "John Doe" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000
Subject: Re: Kiev Cameras

Get a good used Mamiya 645 and a Pentacon adapter $45. You get the modern reliable Japanese mechanics with the option to use good cheap inexpensive Russian and German Optics.

Went that route after giving up on the K88, the Pentacon Six (winder problems and others), Kiev 60 very cheap inexpensive but requires some significant fine tuning to get spacing, shutter speeds, metering but 200-250 for new, or 110 used. Russ Hippert's manual or service to fine tune is probably recommended.

....

Date: Thu, 26 May 1994
From: Robert Svensson [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: MF systems

Hi there!

At first I want to tell you how I found your page: I used YAHOO! and just typed in KOWA since I was curious about the system. Not far down the list of hits I found you.

Your "lens envy" homepage is large, why I have not totally made it yet. I find it very intreresting and there are a lot of sense in there.

However, I saw some discussions about MF systems. First: I agree that 80% or more I use the 80 mm "normal" lens. I use two systems. An old Hassy system, one 500C and one 500 ELM. I also use KIEV and here I have one ZODIAK 30 mm fisheye. This lens I purchased for USD400. The Hassy 30 mm ZEISS costs approx. USD 8,000. Probably the Hassy have outstanding properties, especially on full opening. Stepped down the ZODIAK is excellent.

I have used it for some commercial works where the customers "discovered" that they got a somewhat different results with me and my ZODIAK compared to most other pics they have seen in catalogs, brochures etc. I also use it for crazy dog photography. Still, most pics are shot with the 80 mm.

My point is that in a MF discussion the KIEV systems should be mentioned since it is impossible to get so much pic quality for so little bucks. The optical quality is very good, but the mechanical quality of the K88 is somewhat unreliable. The K60 is better.

I have a lot of pics on my domain:

http://www.photography-art.nu

Technical data are given. There is also a link to my official univ. page. I appreciate comments and critics on my site.

All the best,
Robert

Dr. Robert Svensson
http://www.chl.chalmers.se/~term

From Kiev 88 Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000
From: "jan de Monchy" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Kiev Lenses or Pentacon Lenses? This is the question!

This subject is discussed intensively in the 'Kiev Report' the delpi forum on Russian/Ukrainian camera's $ lenses!!

http://forums.delphi.com/kievreport/messages/

>From: "Titus" [email protected] >Reply-To: [email protected] >To: [email protected] >Subject: [Kiev88] Kiev Lenses or Pentacon Lenses? This is the question! >Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 22:11:03 -0400

...

From Kiev88 Mailing List;
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000
From: "bdmphoto" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Old CCCP vs Ukrainian lenses

Hello Guy
this is Mike Fourman
from Kiev Camera.

During 80tees all lenses were made:

Arsenal: 80mm, 250mm, 30mm

Uman 45mm, 150mm, 120mm

300mm tair was made somewhere in Russia.

Right now ( late 1999 and up)

Arsenal makes:
30mm, 80mm, 250mm,shift and tilt :55mm, 65mm

They will make:

600mm mirror late January

new design 45mm late June ????

150mm late March ????

Everything else right now is made by " independed contractors" who is stealing part from bankrupt Uman factory.

Please be very careful when you buying "brand new" 45mm lens and 150mm lens .

I will recommend to buy them from:

Kalimex

Russian Plaza

Kiev USA

and .. Kiev Camera.

at least they have been tested and checked and tested

I hope it will clear the issue

Regards
Mike

...

[Ed. note: some compliments to Kevin for his tips...]
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000
From: Sergio Ramirez [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Kiev cameras, Kiev lenses and Mamiya 645 lenses

Hi Robert:

First, I wanted to thank you for maintaining your excellent medium format pages. I have used many times to find information about my hobby (medium format).

Until now, I had nothing to contribute, but now I believe I should share the following two experiences with your readers.

The first, is related to the kiev 88 film magazine loading. I have always complained about the uneven spacing in the magazines. Some of the magazines I owned separated the frames too much which led getting only eleven photos on a 120 roll of film. Other magazines had the opposite problem (two little spacing) which led to loosing shoots because of frame overlap. That situation stayed until one day I read the article by Kevin Kalsbeek at your site on how to properly load the kiev 88 magazines.

http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/mf/kiev88back.html

Since then, I haven't had a problem at all with any of the magazines I own. In fact the magazine is so precise that I consistently get thirteen exposures per 120 film. Later I read more carefully the manual provided by the Arsenal Factory and I found out that the instructions there are also clear, I guess many people which complain about the Kiev 88 magazine have the same problem that I had, essentially that we do not follow instructions.

On the dissapointing side, I did send two of my magazines (I own four) to Kiev USA for "fixing" and they charged me $100.00 for probably doing nothing to the magazines since I believe they were in working order. Given that experience,and a couple of other bad experiences with them, I wouldn't recomend dealing with Kiev USA to your readers.

The second experience is with the Kiev 88 lenses, I recently did a series of photos with my Kiev 88 camera with a 80mm Arsat lens, and I also shot the same scenes with a Mamiya 645 camera with a 80mm f2.8N lens, the same day, the same film, under the same lighting and exposure conditions. To my surprise, the corner resolution of the Kiev lens is far better than the Mamiya lens and the center resolution is the same or the difference is unnoticeable under a 10x magnification loupe. In one scene, there is a structure which has very fine lines which you can really distinguish in the photo taken by the Kiev lens but not in the photo taken with the Mamiya lens (it seems like the Mamiya lens has some astigmatism).

I went and checked the results that Popular photography had published about both lenses, and in their tests Pop Photo reports better center resolution of the Mamiya lens but comparable edge resolution for the Arsat lens. What struck me is the interpretation of the results, at some apertures the corner resolution for the Kiev lens is better than the Mamiya lens however the Kiev lens result is reported as good while the Mamiya is reported as excellent. This made me conclude that Pop Photo and probably other magazines tend to report more optimistically and be more enthusiastic about products which have high advertising budgets (such as Mamiya) while other companies, which might provide good products but have not big pockets are judged very harshly. I guess from now on, I will read these test reports very carefully and, most important, arrive to my own conclusions.

I wish there was a web site where the modulation transfer functions for each available lens were available in graphic form as well as raw data so that one could make a comparative plot between various lenses. I wish I could do it with the lenses I own or I have access to but unfortunately I neither know how to perform these tests (I know how to interpret results but that is different) or have the necessary equipment if I knew how to.

Ok, that is all for now. Please keep with the good work. Thanks again and regards

Sergio Ramirez

Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000
From: "M P Brennan" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: where to upgrade from my broken hasselblad copy?

"David Grabowski" [email protected] wrote

: I don't see the sense in all this when older Mamiya glass is already
: priced fairly reasonably,  just go with all used Mamiya 645 or 1000S
: and save the hastle of the adapter.

David:

I think the Ukrainian glass is quite a bit less expensive. eBay and KEH seem to have the Mamiya 150/3.5 going for about $325 to $395. You can buy a 150/2.8 for $170 from KievCamera.com

I, personally, don't mind having to manually stop down the lens, especially to get such a fast piece of glass for so little money. A Kiev 80mm/2.8 is only $50.

Plus, my 30mm fisheye lens was only $190. Incredible by any standard.

And Mikail Fourman (KievCamera.com) told me that he is fairly sure that lenses will be forthcoming, from Kiev, that will mount directly to the 645 and automatically stop down. He's hoping they'll be available in about 4 months.

My primary kit consists of two Hasselblads. My Mamiyas are for carrying to the beach or throwing in my luggage for a trip. I wanted minimal investment and worry while getting maximum performance. This route really seemed to work for me.

-Mike

From Kiev88 Mailing LIst:
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000
From: "Franka T LIEU" [email protected]
Subject: Re: removing and mounting the lens on Kiev88CM

I've seen 2 kind of P-6 Mount Kiev-88 Body. The procedure are follow

A. the type with a rotating collar Breech Lock. You would see a small handle sticking out on the front of the lens mount flange around the 12 O' Clock to 2 O'Clock position. The lens is locked by this collar. To remove, firmly rotate the handle to 12'o Clock position, and lift the lens out straight. To put in a lens. Align the P-6 Index Pin with the small notch on the mount at the 12'o Clock position. Place lens , and rotate the collar to the close position ( around 1 or 2'o clock )

B. the type with a fixed flange, and a lens release button on the front of the camera. This one easy. like 35mm, push button and rotate lens counter clockwise to release. to put lens on, Align index dot with red index mark or index notch on flange, rotate to lock

> Really a dumb question but here it is: I have just acquired a Kiev 88CM. My
> first step to medium format (it came with a spot TTL prism btw). My question
> is how do I remove and mount the lens? It is the pentacon mount and I don't
> want to force it fearing I might cause harm. The manual is Russian so it was
> not much help. I appreciate any help.
>
> best regards,
> Erdem

[Ed. note: the DOF lever on the older pentacon lenses may block the mounting on newer Kiev bodies (-88..); a fix is..]
From Kiev 88 Mailing LIst:
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001
From: Eef sluiter [email protected]
Subject: Re: Kiev88CM

Hi Gary,

What you can do is removing the depth of field switch on the site of the lens. Remove the mount of the lens and remove that little thingy. complete with the little spring. and it works fine.

I have the same supplier as you and mine was delivered last monday.

Greetings from Amsterdam

Eef Sluiter

--- Gary Kieffer [email protected] wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> Just received my Kiev88CM from Paval (Usatas). Seems
> to be okay. Looks far
> better than my old one. However I too am having
> problems mounting a good
> number of my Pentacon lenses. Can anyone tell me how
> I can remove the step
> down levers on my lenses, or modify the mount to
> make these things work
> easier?
>
> Also, there is no way that my 500 f/5.6 Meyer will
> work. The handle on the
> mount hits the back ot the lens. Any help there
> would be greatly appreciated.
> Looks like I will have to continue using my Kiev 60
> for the longer glass.
> Gary

From Kiev88 Mailing List;
Date: 19 Jan 01
From: Gary Kieffer [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Re: [Re: Kiev88CM]]

Kelvin,

The MLU had a problem with the mirror as it hit older Biometer 80mm lens, also the stop down levers on some of the Pentacon lenses rubbed against the mount. Roskam Optics cut a small notch in the body to accomodate the lever.

However, now with the 88CM I have just started to remove the levers from the lenses. Did so on my Flektagon 50mm. Works just fine thak you. It seems aas though I'm not the only one having problems with some lenses though.

I have read other notes from folks in Kiev groups with similar problems. Major ones seem to be the large bodied 150, 180, 300, and 500mm lenses. I have the 150 and 500 and there is no way they will mount on either of my 88s.

The 65 I have doesnt work either. But actually I'm going to be selling that lens soon anyway, as I hardly ever use it. Also my older Biometer will go on the auction block as well, as I am expecting a newer Exakta 80mm soon.

Thanks for your interest. Anyone else have an idea of what to do to make the lenses fit?

Gary

From: [email protected] (FLEXARET2)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 14 Feb 2001
Subject: Re: Pentacon 6 vs Pentax 67

While I have stated in this thread that the Pentax 67 System is better than the Pentacon 6 System, I generally meant the camera is better.

I have used Carl Zeiss Jena lenses for years and for their era, they are generally excellent.

That is both in lenses for 35MM cameras and 6x6 reflexes. I have not heard of bad quality control on these lenses as exists with former Soviet cameras.

A adapted a preset 180MM Carl Zeiss Jena f2.8 Sonnar to Bronica S2A and the quality from that lens is excellent. In 35MM lenses I have found the 135MM Sonnar and 35MM Flektagon and 50MM Pancolar to also be top lenses. Many pro photographers have used Zeiss Jena lenses for years with top results, including Life Magazine.

As for Pentacon 6, with careful handling I have gotten excellent results and particularly like the 80MM f2.8 Biometar (Multi-coated) and 120MM Biometar for portraits.

From: [email protected] (FLEXARET2)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 15 Feb 2001
Subject: Re: CZJ - good, bad, or that's Life? ;-) Re: Pentacon 6 vs Pentax67

It is not to say that their aluminum mounts and focusing lubrication did not leave something to be desired. Or that they did not grade lenses as to prime quality and lesser quality. The poorer quality products being sold or traded off more cheaply, where they were less liable to be evaluated. In the early 1950s certain East German cameras with Carl Zeiss Jena first quality lenses were sold by their official importer (Ercona) for list prices of $250 to $475. The same cameras of lesser quality with Carl Zeiss Jena lenses of lesser quality were sold in the US by Sterling Howard, brand-new, for half of their official prices. The Primar-Reflex II became the Astraflex II, the Contax S became the Astra 35, or Hexacon as sold by Peerless Camera Stores - not first quality goods.

However, in the late 1940s and through the late 1950s, these were lenses of choice for many cameras. The post war Contax IIA and IIIA cameras while made in the Western Zone of Germany, were sold in many cases originally with some Carl Zeiss Jena lenses - especially focal lengths not made for the new Contaxes.

Really inferior lenses from Germany of the same period include - Ludwig Victar, Schneider Radionar, Ludwig Meritar and others from Meyer Optik.

The Zeiss Jena optics were the quality optics of that time and many are still excellent. Both British and US photo magazines ran tests on Carl Zeiss Jena lenses and gave many of them high ratings.

However, form follows function and the product fits the use. Even an awful Ludwig Victar lens in Exakta mount can be adapted to Minolta XE-7 and be used for the quality of its soft images and not the razor sharp images of better lenses.

Further - nobody is under any obligation to use these lenses as the great bargains they can be or otherwise. One can buy what he wants and use what he wants and not disparage another person's choices.

From: [email protected] (FLEXARET2)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 15 Feb 2001
Subject: Re: Pentacon 6 vs Pentax 67

A fair question as to where I learned about Zeiss Jena lenses being used by Life Magazine.

Answer-

1) Popular Photography had an article on the camera department of Life Magazine and it showed them using Praktina cameras with Carl Zeiss Jena lenses.

2) Ralph Fuerbringer who is famous for adapting wide vision large format cameras. He worked in the camera department of Life Magazine and told me they were one of the first to adapt the 180MM Carl Zeiss Jena f2.8 Sonnar to the Hasselblad 1000F

3) Ylla a famous wild animal photographer whose work was published in Life and other national magazines was covered in Popular Photography and showed her kit of Primarflex II cameras with Carl Zeiss Jena lenses being taken to Africa.

4) Life Magazine photographers and others used Contax II cameras with Carl Zeiss Jena lenses.

5) SHOOTING STARS - interesting 1998 book showing celebrities taking photos - showed Tony Curtis taking some excellent photos with Contax II with Carl Zeiss Jena lenses.

6) The first post World War II (as well as most of the prewar) Rolleiflex cameras - which developed the great following for Medium Format photography (pre great Japanese optics and pre Hasselblad) all had Carl Zeiss Jena lenses.

this goes on and on........

rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: [email protected] (FLEXARET2)
Date: Mon Mar 12 2001
[1] Re: KIEV 88 Lens

The Ukranian derivative of the 120MM f2.8 Zeiss Jena Biometer is a fine portrait lens.

Want a cheaper bargain-

Look up the 90MM f2.8 normal lens for the Kiev 88 Predecessor known as Salyut. This is close focusing and at wider apertures is excellent for portraits and nobody wants these lenses - many of the earlier cameras were upgraded with the later 80MM lens.

From Kiev88 Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001
From: [email protected]
Subject: Kiev 88CM users- Good News

There have been problems using the Zeiss Jena lenses in Pentacon 6 mount on Kiev 88CM cameras. At least I have had these problems, and some others have also had them.

There are various lenses and extension tubes in Pentacon 6/Kiev 60 mount which will not fit into or lock onto the Kiev 88CM. My 80MM f2.8 Biometar (later MC model) has a stopdown lever which intrudes into the camera mount and will not allow it to close. Longer focus lenses have these stopdown levers far in front of the camera mount.

My 120MM f2.8 Biometar (late 60s type) and 180MM f2.8 Sonnar (early 70s type) have stopdown pins which are havily spring loaded and push into the camera stopdown button and from this push the mirror out of proper alignment.

Both lenses have adjustments inside to shorten the length of this stopdown pin. Doing that has apparently worked to make these lenses compatible with the Kiev 88CM and the lenses will still work on Pentacon 6 and Kiev 60.

All of this means that most Kiev 88CM users might want a good camera technician to align their Zeiss Jena (P6) lenses to their Kiev 88CM cameras. It is best not to touch the camera stopdown pin and extend it with washers. It might also be worthwhile to have him double check his new lens adjustment to see if the lenses will still work properly on Pentacon 6 and Kiev 60 if the user also owns those cameras. I advise not changing the stopdown adjustments in the Pentacon 6 and Kiev 60, if those cameras have been working fine all along up to now. If one does not own those cameras, just have the lenses adjusted to work on the Kiev 88CM - that is all.

- Sam Sherman

From: [email protected] (Hartmut Krafft)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 8 May 2001
Subject: Re: experience on The Arsat 3,5/30 fishey

"Klaus" [email protected] wrote:

> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

You'd better turn this (and the below HTML stuff) off...

> I wonder, if I should buy the russian Arsat 3.5/30mm fishey lens for my Mamiya 645. Does
> someone have experiences with this lens?

I've got one for some years no (in Kiev 88 mount, can't tell about Mamiya adaptation). The optics are _very_ good in my lens, but as always with Ukrainian products, this may vary a lot, so I'd recommend to either buy at a source where you may test for one or two weeks or (like I did) buy that cheap that it won't matter much (got mine for about 75USD on a flea market). It's sharp, contrasty, and shows little flare even with the sun in the picture.

If you get yourself some Widelux panorama 7x7 frames, you can cut appropriate chromes made with this lens and have panorama photos without panorama hardware, too.

Disadvantage is the weight and size of this lens: as you tend to carry it around rarely, and the motives matching that kind of lens are not that common either, you'll probably end up taking not very many photos with it. But if you happen to have it with you at the right time and place, great photos can be made with it.

[cut a lot of HTML garbledygook :-( ]

Regards

Hartmut

From Zeiss Interest Group Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 28 May 2001
From: [email protected]
Subject: "Primarqualitat" Symbol

Does anyone know if there is REALLY any difference between Carl Zeiss Jena lenses marked with the "Primarqualitat" symbol and those without it? I have some lenses with the symbol, others with a "1" in a triangle, and others with no similar mark at all. I cannot see or feel any difference between them. Was it just marketing hype?

Thank you. Bruce Sherman

From Contax Mailing List;
Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] Russian wide angles

> From: "Irakly Shanidze" [email protected]
> Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 
> Subject: Re: [CONTAX] Russian wide angles
>
> Bob, are you referring to the 35mm fisheye for MF? Mine is also a bit  softer
> than I would want it to be, although it takes shooting directly into the  sun
> reasonably well. I've heard that the same lense, but multicoated by  Russian
> guys at Kalimex is much better. Have you seen it? People also complain  about
> 3.5/45 Mir for MF, but mine is all right.

Sorry, typo time again. I was referring to the 45mm MIR for medium format. I've tested three of them and all were truly awful. I only keep one so I can say I have one of each Kiev lens in my collection!

The Zodiak or Arsat fisheye can be super sharp or mediocre depending on the sample you get. I had one which was not super sharp so I sold it and bought another. The second one is exceptionally sharp.

Kalimex doesn't do any multicoating, or much of anything else. They just sell the stuff.

Bob

> I just shot a roll of Provia 100F with Mir and a fisheye, and I will be  able
> to tell the audience how does it do at 11x14.

From Kiev 88 Mailing List;
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001
From: Kevin Kalsbeek [email protected]
Subject: Re: 88 - P6 converter true?

Jeff,

There has been such a beast for some years now. Unless things have drastically changed, the lens doesn't lock onto the adapter and the diaphragm is totally manual. The dealer selling it (Kalimex), when I inquired, did not really recommend it for other than emergency use.

Regards,
Kevin

[email protected] wrote:

> I found this on another list:
> "'Photo Arsenal' of Germany offers a lens adapter ring that allows
> using
> standard Kiev 88 lenses."
> Jeff

From Kiev 88 Mailing List;
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Ring adapter for Kiev 88

Kelvin,

Since the lens to film distance on a normal Kiev 88 is longer than for the same on a Pentacon 6 - that explains why the Kiev 88CM uses a recessed lens mount to get the Pentacon 6 type lenses deeper into the body.

If one adds a Pentacon 6 adapter to a normal Kiev 88 B screw mount, the lens will be further away from the film than the same lens on a Kiev 88CM. So, the lens cannot focus to infinity and can generally only be used for closeups - or closer distances than the focusing ring indicates. You will see a sharp image in the finder and although the lens may read infinity the actual distance to the subject may be 5 feet (only a guess). You can make a new handwritten distance scale based on what foot from subject distances the finder shows as sharp with the adapted lens.

I would say that a Pentacon 6 to Kiev 88 B mount adapter would be most valuable to adapt a Pentacon 6 bellows unit to the standard Kiev 88/Salyut camera. I enjoy using that bellows with Pentacon 6 and many unsuual barrel lenses.

Was there ever a bellows unit for Kiev 88? There may have been at least a Novoflex model for Hassy 1000F.

Interesting note: The stopdown pin on a normal Kiev 88/Salyut-C automatic lens is at the same exact place that the stopdown pin is on a Pentacon 6 or Kiev 6C/60 lens.

hy? My guess: When Arsenal went from the first Salyut lenses (which will not work on Salyut-C and Kiev 88) to the automatic lenses which are standard on Salyut-C and Kiev 88 - they put the stopdown pin at the same exact place as on the lenses they were Already making for Kiev 6C (like Pentacon 6) so that they would only have to make one line of lenses and just replace the rear mount for Salyut-C (and later Kiev 88) or Kiev 6C series.

Contrary to what you have read about early Salyut (not C) lenses - while they can screw onto a Kiev 88- they cannot easily be used as manual aperture as the aperture ring cannot turn unless you move the stopdown spring lever, which is clumsy to do and does not always allow the lens opening to be set. Since the early Salyut lenses have a stopdown hook at the bottom of the camera chamber (not the side) it would be very difficult to convert them for Kiev 88 use.

-Sam

Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001
From: "eMeL" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: MF lens on 35mm camera

Ralf R. Radermacher [email protected] wrote

snip]

> Having said this, I strongly encourage you to try it, especially with
> the mentioned Sonnar. The results are simply amazing. Mind you, the
> Sonnar is an excellent lens with MF. Now imagine what will happen if you
> only use the very centre of the glass. By all means do try it. It'll
> knock your socks off. BTW, you may treat it as a 2.0/180 mm, in these
> circumstances!

[snip]

Actually, there have been many versions of the East German 180 "Sonnar" lens, but neither could be considered "2.0" with 35 mm film as you are reporting.

Some versions were marked "Carl-Zeiss Jena Sonnar 2.8", but at close focusing distances become f/3.5 (even the aperture ring would turn to f/3.5...) Newer versions (of the more-less multicoated variety, often marked "CZ Jena Sonnar", "CZ Jena S" or "Aus Jena S") were marked as constant 2.8, but (since the lens hadn't been recomputed) behave more like f/3.5 at all focusing distances.

Moreover, buying East German optics is a crap shot, since there was no quality control to speak of in East Germany. One's chances of getting a decent lens are as good/bad as the chances of getting a rather expensive paperweight. Hence, all East German optics should be field-tested before committing one's hard-earned money.

In my own experience with 3 different specimens, one (early 80s vintage) was total crap (soft and not contrasty), one (around the same vintage - bothmarked "S" instead of "Sonnar") was OK and one (early 70s, single-coated) was simply outstanding.

Michael

From Kiev88 Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001
From: "olivier" [email protected]
Subject: zeiss for kiev .

hi jeff ...

every zeiss lens with P6 mount can fit the Kiev p6 mount ... i have the 180 2.8, zeiss jena a very nice and sharp zeiss jena 50mm ... i hope find some more zeiss lenses and the quality is the same than my Hasselblad carl zeiss version ......

BUT all the arsats are so goods (i have the 30mm,65mm,80mm,120mm,150mm and recently the 3.5 250mm ...)

for the jena zeiss version The only difference with the west version is one zero less in the price ....

the russian are very very good people ...

Olivier

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Tue, 1 May 2001
From: Dale L Dickerson [email protected]
Subject: [Rollei] 2.8B Biometar

Here is link to the p-6 mount 2,8/80 Biometar specifications:

http://www.page.sannet.ne.jp/tsoka/pentacon/b80_28/spec_e.html

Compare that lens with the lens specifications for the Rolleiflex:

http://www.foto.no/rolleiflex/Rollei-9.html

To me, the Xenotar looks closer then the Planar design to the p-6 Biometar. I would think the Rolleiflex version of the Biometar would be like the Xenotar.

Dale

From: "eMeL" [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Kiev 88  -  Wow.
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 

I'm not arguing the quality of design of lenses from the commie factories -
after all a Sonnar is a Sonnar is a Sonnar - but the quality of
construction, manufacturing, QA  and the lack of meaningful manufacturing
and quality assurance standards at the Jena factory.  And - as I have
already pointed out in other messages - I'm mainly concerned with the period
ranging from the erection of the wall to the mid-to-late '80s.  Before 1961
and after the (say) 1988 the Jena factory was IMO doing just fine in the
quality department.  But if you get a Jena lens made - say - in 1972 (or any
of the "zebra" lenses), you can never be sure about its optical and
mechanical quality without testing it first.  One specimen can be soft and
"soapy" - another sharp and contrasty.  One can be build like a tank and
another could be not aligned and with loose rings or optical elements.  One
just couldn't be sure... OTOH I have no problems buying a
Zeiss Oberkochen lens of the same vintage - in fact I did own a number of
"chrome" Zeiss lenses while shooting with Hasselblad equipment - and they
were all great - with no exceptions!  It tells me that QC at Oberkochen was
far better than in Jena.

Sooo... A Sonnar is indeed a Sonnar as long as it is build to tight
tolerances using the optical design and materials specified by the designer.
If the tolerances are not met - it becomes either a lousy Sonnar or not a
Sonnar at all.  I do postulate that in many a period the standards for
manufacturing tolerances and materials were NOT met at the Jena factory,
hence a large percentage of  "aus Jena" duds.

Moreover, it appears to me that the place of the original purchase of the
lens can give a pretty good idea about its quality:  apparently the commie
Germans were sending the worst specimens to the eastern European countries,
selling better ones on the domestic market and exporting the best ones to
"the west."  So, if your lens was originally purchased in England (the E.
Germans were selling lots of stuff over there) chances are that it is
decent.  But if you happen to stumble upon a lens originally sold in
Poland - it may be a crap shot in terms of quality.

Granted, my experience is based only on a relatively small sample of lenses
(several of each type I did own myself, plus a few dozen owned/used by my
coworkers and friends) but in any event I have probably used more optics
made at the Jena factory than a lot of Jenean pundits here :-)
(Note to Ralph - should you need to quote the last sentence, please quote it
in extenso.)

I intimately know a number of Jena lenses:  For Pentacon Six - Flektogon
4/50, Biometars 2.8/80 and 2.8/120, Sonnar 2.8-3.5/180, Sonnar 4/300,
Oerstegor 4/300.  For the 35 mm cameras with the M42x1 mount - Pancolar
1.8/50, Flektogon 4/20, Tessar 2.8/50, Sonnar 135, etc.  Some specimens were
good, some not so good, some ugly as sin... The quality was all over the
map.  That's my point...

So, if one is on the market for a second-hand E. German lens,  make sure
that one knows its origin, its approximate vintage and that you have an
iron-clad money-back guarantee.  Of course if you are paying peanuts the
above conditions are not applicable.  You *may* end up with a pretty and
inexpensive paperweight but for a few bucks it is worth a try...  I use a
Biometar 2.8/120 sans its glass as a pencil holder at home, and a partially
"deglassed" Canon FD 135 mm lens for the same purpose at work....Both are
very functional this way :-)

Good shooting!
Michael



FLEXARET2 [email protected]> wrote...
> from: [email protected] (Sam Sherman)  11-7-01
>
> Carl Zeiss Jena was the original Zeiss optical factory from its inception until
> it stopped making lenses - or it still may do so.
>
> US authorities were quick to take both optical and camera experts from
> Carl Zeiss (the optical factory in Jena) which survived the WWII bombing
> and Zeiss Ikon (affected by the bombing) in Dresden and nearby towns
> to the Western Zone of Germany in 1945 as Germany was being partitioned into
> Western (the Western/Allied) and Eastern Zone (the Russians). I think that the
> Western Zone was originally US, French and
> English Zones - all to become one Western Zone. The seat of the
> Carl Zeiss Siftung (foundation) was moved to Heidenheim in the
> Western Zone.
>
> All of this was a big political football as the Russians, who had been
> allied with the West against Germany during WWII, slipped into their
> own Cold War world and years of antagonism with their former Western allies
> began.
>
> At the same time the Western Zeiss enterprises in the old Contessa-
> Nettel factory in Stuttgart and other work in Oberkochen began slowly and as
> their initial optics were limited or poor, Zeiss West was forced
> to purchase new lenses from both Schneider and Carl Zeiss Jena.
> The antagonisms over the Zeiss trademarks started in the 1950s
> and lasted onward until Zeiss West purchased Carl Zeiss Jena after
> the reunification of Germany.
>
> The use of the original (Eastern Zone) Zeiss trademarks must have lasted until
> the mid to late 1980s or even into the 1990s - as there was a "Zeiss" optical
> company in London, based on the Eastern Zeiss name and products until the
> 1990s, and may still be in business. Furthermore, Carl Zeiss Jena used their
> name and trademarks on various zoom and other lenses made in Japan by Sigma
> with mounts for Nikon, Minolta and other
> brand cameras.
>
> As for Carl Zeiss Jena lenses, sure there are a few that could be less than
> perfect. But, I have used their lenses for over 30 years in
> 35MM and 6x6cm cameras and I have never found a bad one.
> I have a Rolleiflex TLR camera dating from the late 1940s (Made in the
> Western Zone of Germany) with the original Carl Zeiss Jena "T" coated
> f3.5 Tessar lens and it delivers very sharp results.  As the 1950s rolled
> on Zeiss West produced Zeiss "Opton" Tessar lenses for these cameras.
> My experience with these lenses is that they were good very stopped down and
> very soft wide open and out of focus on the sides.
>
> Wake up and smell the flowers-
>
> The Cold War is over - anybody can use Carl Zeiss Jena lenses without
> being suspected of being a member of the communist party.
>
> Ask anybody with a history of using these lenses how good they are.
>
> In Shutterbug Magazine, both Bob Shell and Jay Abend praised the
> Carl Zeiss Jena lenses in Pentacon 6 mount, as professional quality
> lenses producing professional results.  Yes, they were produced by the original
> Carl Zeiss Jena factory to original Carl Zeiss Jena forumulas-
> if these are not "Zeiss" lenses, then whatever they are they are still
> very good.
>
> Caveat - Those not wishing to use these lenses are not forced by
> me or anybody else to read this post or use these lenses. Those persons
> are certainly free to pay 10 times the amount for Carl Zeiss lenses
> currently made by Zeiss in the former Western Zone, and denigrate the
> Jena lenses all they like.  The rest of us who are using Carl Zeiss Jena lenses
> as great bargains, can continue to do so with big grins on our faces.
>
> Remember, the 180MM f2.8 Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar, in black pre-set
> mount, was sold in the 1950s (and into the 1960s) by Carl Zeiss
> in the Western Zone of Germany, as a genuine Zeiss lens and the
> only such lens available with the reflex housing for the Contax IIA
> and IIIA cameras. The same exact lens from Carl Zeiss Jena was sold in mounts
> for Exakta, 42MM screw and other mounts - and later in an automatic mount for
> Pentacon 6 with adapters for 35MM cameras. When did this lens automatically
> become NOT a Zeiss lens? (The same story also goes for the 300MM f4 Sonnar and
> other optics).


From: [email protected] (Ralf R. Radermacher)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Kiev portrait lens advice?
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 

Sherman Dunnam [email protected]> wrote:

> I'm thinking 120mm Ziess, 150mm Kalinar (sp?) or 180mm Ziess. 

Let's add the 2.8/120 mm Vega by Arsenal for good measure and deal with
them, one at a time.

2.8/120 mm Zeiss (sic!) Jena Biometar
This is a Planar type (they just weren't allowed to use the name, in the
East) and of great quality. It is long enough to be a decent portrait
lens and its size and weight make for comfortable hand-held shooting. I
prefer it over the Vega because of its more solid feel, the evenly
shaped diaphragm, and the better rendition of the out-of-focus
background. No, I'm not going to use the controversial b.... word. ;)
Ideally, focussing could be a little more direct, but that goes for all
the Eastern lenses. 

2.8/120 mm Vega
Second on my list, mainly thanks to its astonishingly compact build.
Half as big as the Biometar and almost exactly the size of your standard
80 mm Arsat/Volga lens. Mine is pin-sharp and has nice contrast. 
Got it for a song because the rings are a little lose - not enough to
affect performance though. 

150 mm Kaleinar (sic!)
One of the lesser-known Arsenal lenses. No personal experience with this
one.

2.8/180 mm Zeiss Jena Sonnar
One of the greatest lenses ever made and a legend in its own right. I
use it for all kinds of photographic work, including a lot of 35 mm
shooting through an M42 adaptor ring. Great quality but not to be
recommended for long hand-held shooting sessions unless you've done
competition-grade weightlifting, in recent years. Unfortunately, the
tripod mount is a laugh. A little over 1/2 inch in diameter to support
such a heavy lens and the camera. 

If you prefer tripod work over hand-held shooting and the new K88CM's
tripod mount is sturdy enough to carry the additional weight and
momentum of the lens (I use a K60 and an Exakta 66, so I mount the lens
to the tripod, not the camera) then the Sonnar would be worth
considering provided your studio allows for the required distance. 

So, my choice would be the Biometar with the Vega a close second. 
Lens data, further info, and examples from all but the Kaleinar can be
found on my website.

Do let us know how you get on.

Cheers,
Ralf

-- 
Ralf R. Radermacher  -  DL9KCG  -  K"ln/Cologne, Germany
private homepage: http://www.free-photons.de
manual cameras and picture galleries - updated 26 Sept. 2001
Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses


From: "Ronald R." [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Is a fisheye really useful?
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 

Stephe Thayer wrote:

> I asked myself this question many times over the years. While the images
> I've seen looked interesting (most were close up's making full use of the
> fisheye effect), I figured it would get old pretty quick and wouldn't be
> that useful a lens. Given that the most reasonable way to even try a "GOOD"
> fisheye (as in a really sharp one) was with my OM 35mm stuff (which I hate
> using 35mm after shooting with med and lrg format) which was over $600 for
> the cheapest "bargain" rated zuiko lens I have seen. It wasn't hard to talk
> myself out of needing this type of lens. given that most MF fisheyes are
> 5-10 times that much, using a medformat one was out of the question. Well
> once I got a kiev, a 30mm fisheye was within reason.  At $230 new with
> filters,caps,case it would be hard not to get one just to have one!
>
> So now that I've had one for a while and played with it, I've found it to
> be a VERY useful tool for doing landscapes. While it does have the classic
> fisheye distortion, if used with some thought, being very careful composing
> and leveling the camera, it makes a great SUPER wide angle lens for all
> sorts of subjects. Also because of it's optical design, it doesn't have the
> severe light fall off issues a rectiliniar lens does. Given most landscapes
> don't have straight lines anyway, you can REALLY get some neat shots with
> one. I would have never guessed that this kind of lens would be good for
> "normal" looking landscape photography until I experimented with one. Below
> is an example of a shot I took last weekend at a local park. I've been
> shooting there for years trying to get a good shot of the lake front. This
> lens got the "look" I've been trying to capture for years but never could.
> This lens is going to be a take everywhere one!
>
> http://www.geocities.com/kievgurl/30mm.jpg
>
> --
>
>   Stephe

I've had the 30mm. on my Kiev 88 for about a year or so. I really like this
lens and have used it successfully for landscape work. I do mostly B+W with
this setup which is the lens I use most any more. If you are careful, it makes
some very wide panoramic type images possible. You just cut off the top and
the bottom {or the sides} and the results can be surprising. I have made some
pano prints up to 20X24. This is probably stretching the capabilities of the
30mm., but I don't think the results are all that bad at all. There is good
contrast and stopped down around f11 or 16, the negs are pretty crisp and
sharp with ILford 100 film. The 30mm. is really excellent! I guess you could
pay lots more, but the question is, would it be worth it and is the quality in
an 8X10 enlargement really noticeable.



From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] OT - hello to the Rollei list
To: [email protected]
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 

I have an extensive collection of Pentacon 6, Praktisix, Kiev 60, Kiev 88
and Exakta 66. A total of about 15 bodies, and numerous lenses, from all
sources, from 30mm fisheye, to the 1000mm Zeiss mirror lens.

All the lenses I have fit very well on all my Kiev 88 cameras with P-6
mount. I have not yet tried the 1000mm lens on that body yet, but this is a
new lens for me. On some Kiev 88's the mirror lock up will not work with
some lenses (they are physically obstructing the mirror release switch.
Also, generation 1 Kiev 88 with P-6 mount (presumably not a factory
modification) will not work with some of the bigger lenses because the
release button is in the way (too close to the mount).

There is a German company that manufactures an adapter that will allow you
to use a Kiev prism on the Pentacon body. As with everything German, it is
well made and super expensive. Last year the price was over 100 bucks for
the adapter (over 200 DM).

The Kiev prisms, especially the newer ones, are pretty darn good. The Kiev
88 does not need adapters to use the Kiev 88 prism (duh) and Hasselblad
prisms. I have had no problems with either Ukrainian metered prisms and
like them a lot.

All the P-6 lenses will work with no problem on the Kiev 60 and 6-C
cameras. Unfortunately, last year when I spoke to a manager at the plant in
Kiev, they said the model 60 is out of production, as they cannot afford to
make both cameras. So they are concentrating on the Kiev 88 and making it
better. Now factory kits come with mirror lock-up and black shutters (both
metal and cloth) and with P-6 mount and the NT backs are really good, being
interchangeable with Hassy and having multiple exposure capabilities
(switch on the side of the magazine).

The only Kiev 88 with P-6 mount that I have had problems with came from
Kiev USA and that jerk who owns the company. He ripped me off of two bodies
(he said he lost them) and would not compensate me for them. Eventually we
settled on a replacement, but the Kiev 88 he sent me was a piece of sh*t. I
have never heard somebody lie so many times in a single phone conversation
as that guy. He must have thought I was born yesterday and did not know one
end of the camera from the other. Anyway, I will never send him any
business, and will gladly discourage anyone from dealing with his company.

Back to the issue here. You should have no problem using East German, West
German, Ukrainian lenses on your Kiev 88. The only exception to this rule
is if you have some of those transitional bodies (sorry, can't estimate
year or serial number range).

Andrei D. Calciu (VA-4270)



From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] OT CZJ Lenses to Kiev 88 and Kiev 60
To: [email protected]
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 

You CANNOT use lenses with P-6 mount on a Kiev 88 with a threaded K-88
mount The reasons are multiple, but mostly, the P-6 mount is much larger in
size and the lens has a different clearance once mounted. There are
adapters for using  Kiev 88 lens on  a P-6 camera. A guy on eBay sells them
for 35 bucks or so. But there is no way to use the lenses the other way
without heavy machining both the camera and the lens.

Andrei D. Calciu (VA-4270)


From: [email protected] (Ralf R. Radermacher)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Kiev wide-angle lens
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 

Allblood [email protected]> wrote:

> I am interested in getting a wide-angle lens for my Kiev 60.  Besides the
> CZJ Flektagon 50mm f4 MC, I am interested in the relative quality of the
> Kiev WA lenses. 

Frankly, nothing to shout about. 

The 45 mm Mir would be a nice lens, because 5 mm *do* make a difference,
but it has unacceptable barrel distorsion and it is single-coated,
rather low contrast, and extremely flare-prone.

The only other option from Arsenal would be the 65 mm which isn't much
of a wide-angle.

Get a Flektogon in the latest all black MC version. And note the
spelling - 'Flekto...' not 'a'. Makes searches on ebay etc. a lot
easier. :)

Ralf

-- 
Ralf R. Radermacher  -  DL9KCG  -  K"ln/Cologne, Germany
private homepage: http://www.free-photons.de
manual cameras and picture galleries - updated 26 Sept. 2001
Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses


From: [email protected] (Hartmut Krafft)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Kiev wide-angle lens
Date: 10 Dec 2001 

[email protected] (Ralf R. Radermacher) wrote:

> Allblood [email protected]> wrote:
> 
> > I am interested in getting a wide-angle lens for my Kiev 60.  Besides the
> > CZJ Flektagon 50mm f4 MC, I am interested in the relative quality of the
> > Kiev WA lenses. 
> 
> Frankly, nothing to shout about. 
> 
> The 45 mm Mir would be a nice lens, because 5 mm *do* make a difference,
> but it has unacceptable barrel distorsion and it is single-coated,
> rather low contrast, and extremely flare-prone.

I second to that. Have got one of these. Distortion is visible, 
well, unacceptable is a bit much, but it's there. But it has very
visible color aberration in the corners, low contrast, and this 
leads to quite the worst optical performance of all the Kiev 
lenses I've got. (Of course, this may be due to the usual 
variation of quality with these lenses, but as Ralf says the 
same, I'd be wary...)

> 
> The only other option from Arsenal would be the 65 mm which isn't much
> of a wide-angle.

That's true, the view angle isn't very wide; but I found this 
lens to have quite good optical performance, much higher contrast
and sharpness, less distortion, and a quite compact and solid 
mount. So if you can get one cheap, try it out (got mine for 
about 50 USD used).

> 
> Get a Flektogon in the latest all black MC version. And note the
> spelling - 'Flekto...' not 'a'. Makes searches on ebay etc. a lot
> easier. :)

Can't comment on this one as I'm stuck with K88 mount :-)

Hartmut
-- 


From: [email protected] (kevin_i)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Kiev wide-angle lens
Date: 10 Dec 2001 

Hello.  Since the 30mm fisheye is a bit too specialized for a normal
use lens, and the 65mm lenses are not quite wide enough to be
considered "wide angle" IMO, perhaps your only choices would be the
Kiev Mir-26 45mm F3.5 or one of the Hartblei 45mm F3.5 Shift or
Tilt-Shift lenses.

The Mir-26 often gets a bad rap for being an utter piece of junk.  I
have two of them (bought quite cheaply, perhaps because of their bad
reputation?), and they perform well enough for my needs.  I think I've
blown up shots taken with my Mirs to 11x14 and was quite pleased with
the results.  But, I almost always shoot them stopped down to F8 or
F11.  I haven't really done much with them close to wide open so I
can't comment there.

Kievs' variable quality control seems *especially* variable when it
comes to the Mir.  "Bad ones", I guess, could be truly bad.  "Good
ones", perhaps like mine?, can be quite good.  Oh, and as far as I
know, NONE of the Mir-26 lenses are multi-coated.

Hartblei seems to have taken the Mir and put it into a new barrel with
movements.  They have also multi-coated the glass and reports are that
they have done a fine job with the coatings.  The price is quite a bit
higher than a standard Mir though.  It depends on what you are willing
to pay.

If cost is the issue and you're not willing to take your chances on a
Mir, I'd recommend an older "Zebra" 50mm Flektogon.  I believe that
even these older lenses are capable of fine results when used
carefully -- meaning, using a hood and keeping stray light off the
front element.

And if you decide you're not happy with it, or want to upgrade later,
there is a good chance you can get most of your money back by putting
it up for sale.  Not a bad deal, if you ask me. (^_^)

I hope this helps some.

-Kevin


"Allblood" [email protected]> wrote > Hi,
> 
> I am interested in getting a wide-angle lens for my Kiev 60.  Besides the
> CZJ Flektagon 50mm f4 MC, I am interested in the relative quality of the
> Kiev WA lenses.  Also, I would like to know which Kiev lens is multi-coated.
> 
> Thanks
> ABPH


From: [email protected] (FLEXARET2)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 11 Dec 2001 
Subject: Re: Kiev wide-angle lens

After years of saying what a piece of junk the 45MM Kiev lens was,
I got a good one and have taken some outstanding photos with it, even using
them in business.

The 65MM Kiev lens can also be very good and both of these lenses are
comparatively inexpensive.

A Better Lens is the Zeiss Jena 50MM -- or get them all.

- Sam Sherman


From: Stephe Thayer [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Russian Cameras
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 

David J. Littleboy wrote:

> 
> "Mark Smith" [email protected]> wrote:
> 
>> If you want to have a reasonable discussion about cameras GREAT,
>> at least discuss with facts and real ideas. If not, buy a notebook and
>> keep a diary.
> 
> OK, here's a facts question.
> 
> One of the Kiev sites lists the resolution of the lenses, and while the
> claimed center resolution (40 lp/mm) is probably enough to make a
> sharp 11x14, the edges (under 20 lp/mm) simply aren't.

They are probably talking about the 45mm arsat which is the dog of the 
line. Most users are not real  happy with that lens, while all of the rest 
have much better corner sharpness, especially the CZJ lenses that work on 
these camera's. Also at what setting were these results taken at? I've done 
a couple of 8X10's so far from the 80mm arsat at f11 and they look as sharp 
as ones done with my fuji rangefinder. Yes at f2.8-f4 the corners aren't 
real sharp but by 5.6 they are pretty good and at f8-f16 they look good and 
sharp to me.
> 
> Are they really that bad, or can one actually get a decent 11x14 from a
> Kiev negative?
> 


Skip the 45mm arsat and you'lll have no problems getting a nice 11X14.

-- 
 
  Stephe


From: "David Haardt" [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: KIEV vs HASSELBAD
Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 

Dear Johan,

Only the viewfinders are compatible. German "foto Magazin" has even found
that the Kiev TTL prism has the same optical quality as the Hasselblad one.
Generally, the optical quality is excellent, but the mechanical quality has
its problems. There are many people who would never use a Kiev, many who are
very happy with their Kiev, and many who are very unhappy with it. It is a
polarising camera.

Lenses are not compatible, backs could be converted to fit Hasselblad.

There are several factory-original Kiev types:

with Pentacon Six mount:
Kiev 88 CM: the most modern model with Pentacon Six mount

with Ukrainian "B" bayonet:
Kiev 88: The best known Hasselblad copy
Kiev 80: Kiev 88 without a hot shoe
Salyut-S: Kiev 80 with different name plate

with Ukrainian "A" bayonet:
Salyut: Salyut-S without diaphragm coupling (attention, different lens
mount!!)

Then there is the Kiev 60 which looks like an overgrown 35mm SLR. It also
has the Pentacon Six mount so its lenses can be exchanged with the Pentacon
Six and the Kiev 88 CM.

ALL OTHER Kiev 88 modifications are third-party! They mostly have Pentacon
Six mount, and often cloth shutter instead of metal one, MLU added, and so
on. But the ones mentioned above are the ONLY factory-original models!
(Except the very rare and faulty electronic Kiev 90).

I've written a small Kiev 88 buying guide which can be read at
http://home.pages.at/haardt/buyakiev88.htm

If you want an unbiased and friendly discussion group which covers all Kiev
topics possible, take a look at the Kiev Report message forum:
http://forums.delphiforums.com/kievreport/messages/

Cheers,

David Haardt

---

"Johan Delanghe" [email protected]> schrieb 
> I guess you all know Kie?
> This is a russian H-clone as far as I know.
> But how for does dis go?
> Are there backs compatible?
> And the lenses? Do they fit a H?
> Thanx
>
>



From: Stephe [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Kiev portrait lens advice?
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 

Sherman Dunnam wrote:

> 
> 
> Ralf,
> I took the advice from earlier in this thread and ordered a teleconverter
> from kievcamera.com to try.  I did order the 1.4x rather than the 2x. 
> Since my studio space is small I might even have gotten away with the
> standard 80mm (I will be close to the subjects).
> 
> I just developed another batch of negatives from a weekend trip and they
> are
> excellent.  I am liking this camera more and more.  I am very happy with
> the Arsat 80mm.
> 


Next "killer" lens to try is the 250mm f5.6. I don't know if you need 
anything this long but they are cheap, compact, use the same filters as the 
80mm and are at LEAST as sharp if not sharper than the 80mm! 

-- 
 
  Stephe


From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001
From: Evan Dong [email protected]
Subject: Re: Kiev 60

Bob, Kevin and Tony,

Mike Fourman of Kiev Camera has the Arsat 1.4
Teleconvertor for sale. I paid $90 plus 6 for
shipping. I received it last Friday, but didn't get
around to shooring with it. It is MC and the element
grouping is 4 in 3 groups.


The view through it with my assortment of lenses:
 CZJ = 50mm, 80mm, 120mm, 180mm, and 300mm
 Schnieder = 60mm, 80mm, 150mm

all appears to be very sharp, when mounted on my
Exakta 66.  Now, all I have to do is to shot some film
through it.

Evan Dong
....


From kiev88 mailing list:
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 
From: "Franka T. Lieu" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Schneider 60mm ?

I have been fortunate enough to "BORROW" somenbody else 60mm for a
while and shoot it side by side with my Flektogon 65/2.8 and the Mir
too. Certainly the Schneider is better quality build and the image is
noticebly sharper. Resolution is very good and much better than both
of the older lens. The edge of the newer 60 is in shooting wide open.
At 4.0 and 5.6, its beat out the other two readily, but starting
around 8.0, there is no much in term of difference. The one area that
the scheneider is certainly better is Sharpness; Always better than
the other two. Tonality howver seems not so good as the Flektogon.
Color Balance is neutral towards cool side.

However, the difference can only be discerned with the help of a 10X
and 15X loupe. Don't think it will worth that extra buck unless you
need that extra resolution and sharpness ( aka very big print etc.. )

--- In Kiev88@y..., mrfranck1@c... wrote:

> Has anyone try the Schneider 60mm in P6 mount ? I wonder if they are
> much better than the latests kievs 65mm - my '93 mir38b was a really
> cheap lens but offers more than decent images, I wonder what
> difference a Schneider would make.
>
> thanks



From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: Carl Zeiss Jena Optics opinions

> From: [email protected]
> Reply-To: [email protected]
> Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: [russiancamera] Carl Zeiss Jena Optics opinions
>
> But all this presumption has a precondition that the east German
> optics was indeed very close to the top world glass.


The situation is that the CZJ lenses were world class lenses through
until the 70s, but that no new designs were introduced after that.  The
only update was to add multicoating to the existing designs.  The 50
mm CZJ Flektagon, for example, was a better lens than the 50mm Distagon
for Hasselblad in the 70s.  The Flektagon, however, was never redesigned
afer that while the Distagon was, and the current Distagon outperforms
the Flektagon.

> Can someone give some inside opinions on this subject?

The CZJ lenses, in general, were absolutely top notch performers in
their day, but suffer in comparison to the most recent Zeiss and Leica
designs.

Bob



from kiev88 mailing list:
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 
From: Dale Dickerson [email protected]
Subject: Re: Pentacon vs, Kiev 60

Per Backman wrote:

> >Also for the lenses, are the newer MC Ukrainians on par with the MC
> >CZJ lenses?
> >
> I can not speak of own experience, I have one singlecoated Biometar
> 120/2,8, one singlecoated Sonnar 180/2,8, one Jupiter 250/3,5 and a
> bunch of 80/2,8 Volna/Arsat,
> nothing for a comparison. However, I read an article on a Russian
> site, which seemes to be reliable, where it was stated, that the newer
> Ukrainian lenses have a bit higher
> contrast and sharpness.

>
> I would say they are all very good lenses.


I have theCZJ 65mm, CZJ MC 50mm, 80mm 120mm, 180mm, 300mm in p-6 mount,
the Kiev 88 mount 3mm, 45mm, 65mm, 80mm, 150mm, 250mm and the Hartblei
MC  pc-tilt 45mm p-6. The CZJ are great lenses. The example of the Kiev
88 mount very in quality. The fisheye, 80mm, 150mm, 250mm are
outstanding and very close to the CZJ. The 45mm and 65mm were a bit
soft. The Hartblei lens is sharp and well made. The design of the optics
does not give coverage over the shift and tilt range marked on the lens.
This is my experience with the lenses.

Dale



from kiev88 mailing list:
Date: 10 Sep 2001
From: M P Brennan [email protected]
Subject: Re: Adapter for P6 lenses

I've been lurking on this newsgroup for several years.  I finally took
care of my "Kiev envy" by putting a Kiev TTL Spot Meter on each of my
Hasselblads and by buying some P6 adapters and Arsenal lenses (and a few
CZJ, too) for my Mamiya M645's.

Once you get used to manually stopping down (it only takes a few pictures
to get used to doing this), you will be quite happy with the results and
versatility that you get from this set-up.

With all due respect, I believe that the durability of the M645 body
exceeds that of the K88 and costs only slightly more.  I enjoy the wide
selection of available P6 lenses (especially that wonderful 30mm) that can
be had for a very modest cost.


For family vacations, I find that my M645/P6_Adapter/Arsenal_Lens combo
allows me to create high quality images and my small investment allows me
the freedom NOT to worry about my equipment while I'm away.  Plus I get
the advantage of 1/60th sych instead of the 1/30th of the Kiev bodies.

I use a metered finder on my M645 and am able to use it just fine with the
Arsenal lenses.  I merely push the linkage (the one that connects to a
Mamiya lens) all the way over toward the shutter release side of the
camera and I get correct readings for whatever f/stop that I have chosen.

My procedure is:
1) Open lens all the way up for focusing and composition.
2) Stop lens down to desired setting.
3) Adjust shutter speed while looking at exposure reading in metered finder.
4) Trip the shutter release and repeat.


I've had such good luck that I also bought a P6 adapter for my Canon Elan
II so that I could get the most mileage out of my Ukrainian glass.  This
arrangement allows me to use the sweetest part of the glass for my
pictures.  No soft edges there!

I'd still like to buy a Kiev 60 (in the 645 portrait arrangement) someday,
but that will have to wait.  I think I'm probably about 1 or 2 pieces of
photo gear away from divorce papers.  Gotta lay low for awhile.

-Mike

....


From: [email protected] (Ralf R. Radermacher)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Newbie: Pentagon Six question
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002


eMeL [email protected] wrote:

> Seriously - I have yet to see a Schneider lens mounted on a *user's*
> Pentacon Six (Exakta...)  I have seen one (80 mm, second-hand) in a photo
> store in Munich (Germany) but the proprietor told me that it was the only
> Schneider for P-six he'd ever seen.

Foto Walser of Burgheim, Germany, is selling them new on ebay.de, all
the time. Mostly the 60 mm and 150 mm lenses. And yes, people buy them.
Look for auctions by 'nikke'.

Foto Baier also has them in stock and so did Foto Gregor in Cologne
before Exakta production was ended.

Over here, Schneider Kreuznach lenses are considered to be on one
quality level with Zeiss Oberkochen.

Ralf

--
Ralf R. Radermacher  -  DL9KCG  -  K"ln/Cologne, Germany
private homepage: http://www.free-photons.de
manual cameras and picture galleries - updated 26 Sept. 2001
Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses



From Russian Camera Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 
From: [email protected]
Subject: RE: Re: Lens Resolution ???

Yes, the Russian numbers are line pairs.

Nathan Dayton
www.commiecameras.com

"rjrohleder" [email protected] wrote:

>Hallo Bill,
>
>Is there
>> really that much difference in resolution between the Russian and
>> Japanese lenses? Is there something I'm missing here?
>>
>> Bill G


From Russian Camera Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 
From: "yupiter3" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Lens Resolution ???

The 1951 USAF chart used by many Engineers & Modern Photography's
tests in the 1960's and 1970's; 1980's is in line pairs per
mm.........This is how we Engineers have used the chart for many many
years..when using the 1951 USAF test charts.....My several Jupiter
3's and 8's are wide open close to old Herbs data of 1962.....; some
are less and some are slightlty above the  "30 line pairs/mm" wide
open number in the center......Thus I believe the numbers Qouted in
the links on Russian lenses are in line pairs/mm... In Optical
engineering the people I have worked with have used lines/mm and line-
pairs/mm interchangeably....BUT we all knew that the other Engineer
meant line pairs/mm .......Philip

http://www.sinepatterns.com/Standard2.htm

http://frozenmoments.virtualave.net/LensTests/LensTestsChartsandInfo.htm

"The realistic value of 20 to 30 lp/mm is also on a level that most
lenses (older and curent Leica lenses, but also many lenses of other
manufacturers: like Voigtlander, Zeiss, Canon and Pentax and many
others) can capture without much problems."Erwin Puts link:

 http://www.imx.nl/photosite/technical/resolution/resolution.html
Microscope stuff etc:

http://www.microscopyu.com/tutorials/flash/pixelcalc/

"We measure MTF at 10, 20 and 40 lp/mm, where 10 lp/mm (line pairs/
mm) means 10 black lines with 10 white lines in between, for each
millimeter."

 http://www.cs.kau.se/~nicke/private/photo/lenstest/photodo/info.html



From: Stephe [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Kiev portrait lens advice?
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002


carl valle wrote:

> what about the 250 3.5 Jupiter?
> I have one of these on my 88 and i like it, but do you think it's sharp? -
>

I've not used one but most people say the 5.6 is much sharper. The 3.5 also
has no tripod mount and it's heavy enough to need one. Most people buy the
f3.5 'cause they are the same price as the 5.6 but I feel this is a mistake
unless you really need the extra stop.

On the ext tube, the russian ones are too long at 20mm and 40mm. If you can
find a set of the german pentacon six ones, they have a 10mm one in the set
that is perfect for this use! But these won't work on a k88 B mount lens.
--
  Stephe


From: [email protected] (kevin_i)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Kiev portrait lens advice?
Date: 26 Jan 2002


I think the 20mm tube is fine.

I just pulled out my 250mm F3.5 Jupiter and holding a ruler alongside
it, it seems to extend almost exactly 20mm from infinity to its
minimum focus distance of 3.5 meters.  As with Q.G.'s lens/tube combo,
a 20mm tube with the 250mm Jupiter should give a pretty seamless
transition.

With the Jupiter again at its maximum extension plus a 20mm tube, you
could do a nice head and shoulders shot from roughly 2 meters away.
If you want to get any closer, you'll need more extension.

About the tubes, I second Stephe's recommendation to go for the
Pentacon 6 tubes.  I have both the Kiev and Pentacon tubes and there
is no comparison... the Pentacon 6 tubes are MUCH nicer, more
versatile, and smoother to operate.  And at about $50 for a set of
four (10, 20, 30, and 60mm) they are a real bargain.

About the Jupiter... mine delivers nice, sharp pictures with good
color.  But I have to admit that I haven't used it much in the year
and a half that I've had it, and I have never done any sort of testing
(and I don't have a 250mm F5.6 Telear to compare it against).  It is a
pretty heavy lens and, as Stephe mentioned, there is no tripod socket.
 And if you're going to be sticking it on extension tubes, you're
going to have a LOT of weight hanging off the front of your camera.

The Kiev 88CM has a pretty solid lens mount base... but to me, its
lens locking ring is a bit suspect when it comes to big heavy lenses.
I think ideally, it would be good to have a cradle that would screw
into the camera's tripod socket and support the lens as well... then
you would mount this cradle to the tripod.  These cradles are
available for sale, but some people have made their own with PVC pipe.

-Kevin
...


From: Stephe [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Kiev portrait lens advice?
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002

...

I do mostly environmental portraits in informal settings. I don't have
anything handy to measure how far this lens racks out but it focuses to
2.5m and with a 10mm tube it gets as close as I need and still am able to
focus longer than that if I need to. If I set it up with a 20mm tube, I'd
be installing and removing the tube to get the different shots focused. I
guess more my point was I found the 20-40 russian tube set not as good as
the 10-20-30-60 pentacon set and it's only about $30 more.

The 20mm being too long is even more of a problem with the 150-180mm lenses.

--
  Stephe


From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Kiev portrait lens advice?
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 


Stephe wrote:

> I do mostly environmental portraits in informal settings. I don't have
> anything handy to measure how far this lens racks out but it focuses to
> 2.5m

That means it should have a built-in extension of about 32 mm.

> and with a 10mm tube it gets as close as I need and still am able to
> focus longer than that if I need to. If I set it up with a 20mm tube, I'd
> be installing and removing the tube to get the different shots focused.

Indeed. That's the downside.
On the other side however, supposing that the lens itself indeed has
something like 32 mm extension, adding a 10 mm tube will only extend the
range by, well, 10 mm. ;-) Adding a longer tube will obviously provide more
range, and as long as it isn't longer than the lens's own extension, it's
seemless, i.e. you can cover anything a shorter tube does.


From: Stephe [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: P6 mount users, heads up!
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 


Ralf R. Radermacher wrote:

> Stephe [email protected] wrote:
>
>> I'd be interested to hear if you see any vignetting wide open. Bair foto
>> has a page showing these latest versions (exakta 66 on the front ring)
>> have some vignetting wide open and even a little stopped down.
>
> I'm afraid I can't be of much help, there, because I have in fact bought
> generation III, IV, or whatever they are Biometars. The latest, at any
> rate. Those with the grey Exakta rubber trim. Labelled 'Biometar' and
> 'Carl Zeiss Jena'.

That is the biometar III, the version after the latest MC pentacon black MC
version. Those were the first of the exakta 66 normal lenses and the ones
NOT having the supposed vignetting problems.

>Not the version which says Exakta, on the front ring.

That is the latest and the one that is supposed to have the vignetting
issues. you're lucky you bid on the one you did!

BTW nice glass and a great deal. I bought one of these a few weeks ago new
for $125, still not a bad price but you did better! The few shots I've done
have nicer bokeh than the 80mm arsat but it doesn't focus as close and I've
been warned it doesn't work as well on ext tubes as the arsat.
--
stephe
http://www.geocities.com/kievgurl/



From: [email protected] (Ralf R. Radermacher)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: P6 mount users, heads up!
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002


Alexander Skorokhod [email protected] wrote:

> Could you tell me your opinion which lens is better for
> you?

Better than what?

Let's see what we have:

The old GDR Biometar, black, MC-version is a decent performer, at least
my two are, with the drawback of an endlessly long focussing mechanism.
Over 300 degrees is too much.

The new-style Exakta barrel Biometar, or type III as they call it, is
apparently the same lens with a few improvements, such as black matted
diaphragm blades, shorter focussing mechanism, better lens coating, and
more consistent quality. The innards, i.e. the various rings and
mechanical elements visible when looking through the front or rear lens,
appear to be quite the same as on the old GDR version. It is, however,
almost twice as large and heavy. Foto Walser claim it has been designed
by Zeiss Jena and made by Schneider Kreuznach.

The other lens offered by Walser is labelled 'Exakta 2,8/80 mm'. They
claim it's *designed* and made by Schneider Kreuznach, whatever this
means. Designed by Schneider would mean it's a Xenotar and hence might
even be better than the Biometar. Anyone to shed any light on this?
Unfortunately, this point is rather moot because of the vignetting issue
pointed out by Baier.

So, considering the vignetting problem of what might even be a Xenotar,
the safest bet would be the new-style Biometar III.

Ralf

--
Ralf R. Radermacher
NEW URL!!! private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de
manual cameras and picture galleries - updated 26 Sept. 2001
Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses



From: [email protected] (Ralf R. Radermacher)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Biometar by Schneider?
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002


Lassi HippelSinen [email protected] wrote:

> Are you sure about Kreuznach?

They explicitly say so.

> Wasn't there one Joseph Schneider in
> Dresden, later a part of VEB Pentacon?

Not quite. After the demise of VEB Pentacon, the Mandermann group, owner
of Schneider Kreuznach, Rollei, and a few more German camera and optical
manufacturers, bought parts of VEB Pentacon and called this operation
"Josef Schneider Feinwerktechnik, Dresden" until they eventually were
able to acquire the rights to the Pentacon name, as well. Now, it's
"Pentacon GmbH" of Dresden.

> A Xenotar wouldn't vignette.

Put into the wrong barrel, it would. The problem doesn't come from the
lenses but from the front section of the barrel which is either too long
or not wide enough. One thing is clear: someone goofed big time and it's
more than likely that the cuplrits are to be found in Kreuznach! :-)

> Besides, Schneider-Kreuznach produced P6
> lenses with their own labels. The same ones that were also available for
> Rollei SLRs. No need to use the label of their competitor.

The trouble is that no one bought them.

The problem with the Exakta had always been the enormous disproportion
in price between the camera and the lenses/accessories. The whole
pricing was a complete mess. Mind you, the TTL prism was more expensive
than the camera body with the WLF!

So, it's quite possible that they were looking for a way to offer a less
expensive standard lens for the Exakta 66 but didn't want to use one of
the Schneider lens designations and upset the rest of the market.

Interestingly, the Exakta Biometars have serial numbers in the former
Zeiss Jena format whereas the Exakta 2.8/80 mm 'Exakta' lenses have them
in the usual Schneider format!


> Still not believing Schneider-Kreuznach made Biometars...

I'm a little unsure about the Kreuznach story, as well. They may have
been assembled by Schneider Dresden, after 1991.

Then again, my new Carl Zeiss Jena Exakta model III Biometars have been
supplied in original Exakta 66 boxes with Pentacon GmbH stickers placed
over the Exakta Nnrnberg labels and.... with Schneider Kreuznach lens
caps.

*pheeewww*

I guess we shall never know. :-)

Ralf
--
Ralf R. Radermacher 
NEW URL!!! private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de
manual cameras and picture galleries - updated 26 Sept. 2001
Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses



From Russian Camera Mailing List:
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 
From: Roman J. Rohleder [email protected]
Subject: A Letter from Kiev

Hallo!

Have you seen the letter from Arsenal Zavod to Kevin at

http://www.kievaholic.com/arsenalletter.html
?

Steve, a chance for your "Project Rodina".. :-)

Beste Gruesse, Roman



From: Stephe [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Which Camera ? Mamiya or Kiev
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002


kauai82 wrote:

> I have been looking on ebay for Zeiss Jena 50mm F4 flektogon and there
> seems to be a big price difference from auction to auction.

A lot depends on who is selling it, You'll see some cheap prices from some
guy in Progue with 3 feedbacks and wanting dirrect money transfers to his
back and higher prices from someone closer to home with lots off good
feedback and accepts paypal or bidpay.

The silver and black "zebra" versions are single coated, are older and
while they can be sharp, ussually aren't as contrasty and have a better
chance of being damaged/assembled wrong after a repair. I had one of these
older ones and replaced it with a mint all black MC version and it's MUCH
better. I paid $200 shipped for mine from a reputable source in the US.
cupog is a good source but his ussually are a little more than some of the
other ebay sellers because people know he rates his stuff accurately.
--
stephe
http://www.geocities.com/kievgurl/


From Russian camera mailing list:
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 
From: Roman J. Rohleder [email protected]
Subject: joint venture CZ/Belomo

Hello!

Have you seen this, maybe it is of interest :

http://www.liproweb.com/content/main/refer4e.cfm

A Joint Venture between Carl Zeiss and our "Worst Soviet Optical Plant" Belomo.
No further information, just this little ad...

Gruesse, Roman


From Kiev88 Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 
From: [email protected]
Subject: RE: Re: hartblei shift lens on 88cm

I have the lens and the camera. All you have to do is either remove the small
plastic end from the lens mounting lever on the camera, or gently file down the
bottom of it until it clears the shifting/tilr knob on the lens. Mike at Kiev
Camera said, last year, that he is trying to get a new mounting system made up
to correct the problem, but I haven't seen any evidence of that yet. Its a
terrific lens and works well on the camera once this simple modification has
been made. Good luck.



From kiev88 mailing list:
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 
From: Adrian Tsim [email protected]
Subject: Re: hartblei shift lens on 88cm

Hi Dale,

The shift ring is 3.5" in diameter and is 1/4" off the camera.  From 225
degree to 315 degree, there is a arc with an extra 1/8" spacing.  I can
rotate the mount and install the lens easily that way.  The problem is I'm
pretty much stuck with doing a rise when shifting.  It seems like the only
part hindering is the external knob of the breech lock against the ring, the
rear element seems unaffected and the distance between lens and camera seems
even all around.

No problem shifting off camera.  While on camera, shifting isn't a problem
at most angles.  Mount rotated to 90degree (for fall) where rotation release
is (1/8" less room), it's completely impossible to mount.  I'll have to work
around it, flip the camera to the side to do a fall.  I think the lens
design didn't take the extenal knob into account.  With a Kiev 60, just
turning the lock ring will do.

 Actually the first time I did mounted it against the tighter part of the
ring, I just had a hard time unlocking.  I tried again, but reluctant to use
force, it became real tough to turn. I'm going to try mounting it a few more
times.  Maybe wear and tear will do it for thinning the breech lock knob.
And then work around the rest.  Let me know if you have any other
suggestions.  Thanks.

Adrian


From kiev88 mailing list:
Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Re: Stopdown Pins on Arsenal Lenses and My 88CM

Jeff,

You are not alone with the problems from these lenses.

I have a 250MM f3.5 Jupiter lens (from the mid 70s) in Kiev 6C/60 Mount.

It came with a bad stopdown pin and I improvised a new one. But I never 
liked the stopdown action of that
lens as it was stopping down too slow. I had the feeling that I was shooting
a photo as the aperture blades were still in motion and so I rarely used it.


When I got the Kiev 88CM - I could never get the stopdown to work at all
with that camera.

So... I removed my installed stopdown pin.

I use the lens as manual diaphragm and it is easy to focus at f5.6 or f8, which is all I need -
giving me razor sharp images. Further,  if the stopdown did work this lens could have "focus shift".

That is you focus at f3.5 and stopdown to f8 (without double checking the
focus as there is no stopdown lever
on the version I have) meanwhile optically the lens has shifted focus to
another setting and you do not get the maximum sharp image it is capable of.


I know this is culture shock - changing an automatic lens to manual - but
you will never have focus shift or
take a picture with the diaphragm blades still in motion to close.

I also had the problem of a lot of stopdown pin travel before something
started moving - poor design.

Yes, as a manual lens this is really excellent.

Then there is the horror of the 250MM f5.6 Telear. In this lens is a long
stopdown pin running the length of the
lens from the back to the blades near the front. If the blades have frozen
from extra lubricant vaporizing,
this long pin can bend or snap. The lens is optically good and is compact.
If this can be made to work as a manual lens this also could be quite good.


What amazes me, is that after working with Zeiss Jena lenses, Pentacon 6
cameras and Kiev cameras for 25 years,
all of this stuff is catching on. And, the problems and solutions I
encountered years ago are proving valuable
for people all over due to the magic of internet communication, which I
never take for granted.

When you get a Kiev 88CM working well with lenses working well - this is an
outfit capable of really high quality
work. Have you double checked your finder focus vs. what the back sees? If
so, you can be sure to get really
sharp images from most Kiev and Zeiss Jena lenses.

Good luck.

- Sam


from kiev88 mailing list:
Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 
From: Kevin Kalsbeek [email protected]
Subject: Re: Re: Stopdown Pins on Arsenal Lenses and My 88CM

Hi Sam,

> giving me razor sharp images. Further,  if the stopdown did work this lens
> could have "focus shift".

You know, I hadn't considered that- focus shift, I mean- And that could be the
reason that my Tairs seem to slightly outperform my 250 Jupiter on my 88s.
It has always bugged me that there was no manual stopdown capability on that
lens.

Thanks for the heads up.
Kevin


from kiev88 mailing list:
Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: focus shift ???

Olivier,

"Focus Shift" exists in all lenses to some degree or another.

That is when you focus with the lens wide open and stop down to f8, f11 etc.
the point at which the lens has been focused on changes, due to the optics of the lens.

If you will look at lens tests in old issues of Popular and Modern
Photography - their laboratories rated each lens for the amount of focus shift.


On a wideangle lens or normal lens depth of focus covers this up and it  is
usually of little matter except very close up.

With tele lenses it can be a real problem.

I am interested in:

- Cameras perfectly aligned between finder and film plane

- Flat film plane in the camera.

- Getting the maximum sharp focus on film.

Of course all of this is a dream of perfection, which never exists 100%.


When I used to use my 250MM f3.5 Jupiter lens on Pentacon 6 - it was okay
but never very sharp.

I was focusing wide open at f3.5 and then shooting at whatever smaller
aperture I picked.

When I eliminated the stopdown pin and focused and shot at f8 - I got razor
sharp photos on Kiev 88CM.

My lens does not have a stopdown lever, but if I used it on Kiev 60 - I
could check the focus at shooting aperture-
that is the reason for these stopdown levers- to both check depth of focus
and focus shift.

Best for a Happy Holiday and New Year,

Sam



Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 
From: Kevin Kalsbeek [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Russiancamera] Tair 33

Parlin,

The Tair 33 is the MF version for K-60 and 88. The Tair-3 variants are
for the 35mms.

While they perform very well, the semiauto/preset diaphragm of the
Fotosniper lenses is (to me) a pain in the neck on a standard 35mm,
though they are definitely very useable. The Zenit 39mm or the later M42
version of the preset accessory lens is preferrable for a 'normal' 35mm.
You do have to turn the ring to stop the lens down, but to me , this is
no big thing. Best performance with the Tair starts at about f8, btw (f
5.6 is useable).

The only thing that is cumbersome about the the 'sniper' lenses is that
your support hand will set off the spring loaded stop down mechanism
when you do not want it to. This is not a problem with the accessory
lenses, and this is why they are prefferrable, from my standpoint.
If you have access to a fairly rare Kiev-60 mount Tair-33, and also a
fairly expensive adapter, you can use the 33 on a 35mm, but the lens is
a lot heavier than the 35mm variety. The Z-39mm mount version can be
used on an M42 SLR with an inexpensive adapter ring, which is handy.

Regards,
Kevin


Parlin 44 wrote:
>
> Tom, a quick question: can the Tair 33 be used on cameras other than Zenit
> 12XP without the pistol grip with all funny focusing dial and the
> dunno-for-what cable connection from lens to the bottom of the Zenit body?
> What functionality am I losing?  Does the handling become cumbersome without
> the pistol grip?
>
> TIA,
> parlin


From: Stephe [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: what do you think about Kiev 60 and russian lenses?
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002

...
>> I shot some with mine this weekend and even tried a couple of shots using
>> it with a 2X converter. I'm real interested to see how these turned out!
>
>

Well they turned out good. I shot this hand held at 1/500 on NPZ at f8 on
the lens which was f16 with the converter.  Slight vignetting but for a
500mm hand held shot I think it turned out well.

http://miss_stephe.tripod.com/swan.jpg

--
stephe

http://www.geocities.com/kievgurl/


From: [email protected] (germano)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: what do you think about Kiev 60 and russian lenses?
Date: 21 Apr 2002

"dt" [email protected] wrote 
> Do you think Kiev-60 and the lenses 80 and 65 mm are worth buying?
> Also, how does a brand new Kiev 60 compares to Mamiya C220 for example, or
> other 20 year old camera of the same class?
> Thanks

Hi . I have a MIR 65/3.5 MC on Pentacon Six body. I tested lens at 25
focal distance with T-Max 100 and test chart USAF 1951 . At f/8
performances are normal, at f/11 is very very sharp , at f/16 is
extremely sharp . It's better than Zeiss Biometar 80/2.8 and Zeiss
Sonnar 180/2.8 (single coated version) . Quality of lens is excellent
also at infinity (but color's restitution isn't excellent).I am really
surprised about this lens. Ciao,Germano.


[Ed. note: thanks to Thomas Hartley for sharing this quick fix tip on popular 30mm fisheye!]
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 
From: thomas hartley [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: ARSAT Lense TIP

HI  I  recently purchased an Arsat 30 mm lense in Mamiya 645 mount. The
coupling prongs for use with metered prisms seemed to be a little too short to
stay coupled .There is an  easy fix for this which requires only a file and
some 5 minute epoxy.

Mix up a small amount of epoxy.  Then apply a small amount to the tip of each
prong. After both prongs have a small ball of epoxy built up on them ,
invert the lense so the epoxy will sag a bit during the curing process.

When cured  2 or 3  hours ,even for 5 min epoxy, the  file can be used to dress
the epoxy  so the slot between the prongs is equal to the original.  IF
required more could be applied and dressed. This has repaired mine to usable
condition.......

TOM      

PS  use a SHARPIE  permanent black marker to color the
glue BLACK and nobody will ever know....



Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: 300MM Sonnar - posted*

...

Re- new lens I just got in.

A Brand New - Hartblei 150MM f2.8 MC lens in P6 mount which fits great on
Kiev 88CM.  Similar but a great improvement over Kaleinar 150MM.

This lens is in very limited quantity and sold only by Mike Fourman of
www.kievcamera.com.  He and Hartbei don't advertise this on their sites,
but if you do a name search for "hartblei" on Ebay you will see the lens Mike is
selling. Mike also represents Hartblei in the US and their new site is very
interesting -  www.hartblei.com

This 150mm lens is truly pro-grade of major manufacturer quality and the only
such lens now being made in P6 mount.

If you have any P6 mount cameras, you might want to consider this great lens.
You also might want to consider the newest Kiev 88CM from MIke Fourman,
which is upgraded by Hartblei and makes an excellent combination with
the new 150MM lens. I have both and they are excellent.

Best,

Sam

[Ed. note: * - see http://medfmt.8k.com/sam/index.html#more on Kiev conversions to Bronica]


From: Stephe [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: what do you think about Kiev 60 and russian lenses?
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 

...
>> You'll be amazed, I was.
>>
>> I shot some with mine this weekend and even tried a couple of shots using
>> it with a 2X converter. I'm real interested to see how these turned out!
>
>

Well they turned out good. I shot this hand held at 1/500 on NPZ at f8 on
the lens which was f16 with the converter.  Slight vignetting but for a
500mm hand held shot I think it turned out well.

http://miss_stephe.tripod.com/swan.jpg

--
stephe
http://www.geocities.com/kievgurl/


From: Marv Soloff [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 500mm mirror lenses adapted to Kiev60 
or other FP-shuttered MF cameras like Bronica, Pentax 67, etc?
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2002


W. Catalano wrote:
>
> In my limited experience, I've never seen anyone commercially offer
> 35mm-format 500mm mirror teles  (they would be equivalent to approximately a
> 270mm lens on a '35') that have been modified so that they would work as
> interchangeable lenses on focal-plane shuttered MF cameras.
>
> I've seen the Cambron(sp?)-brand all glass 500mm teles offered, but not the
> inherently shorter and lighter mirror-type lens.  I'll bet no one could
> hand-hold those glass monsters, but a short, light mirror optic might be
> what the doctor ordered.
>
> Has anyone seen modified mirror tele lenses advertised?
>
> If they were available, would there be much demand from sports/nature/travel
> photographers (1/2 the potential sales to portrait photographers might be
> lost because of "donut"-Bokeh).
>
> Wayne

Leonard Flanagan, on his website, describes how to adapt a MTO 500mm
mirror lens to a Kiev 60.

Regards,

Marv


From: Stephe [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 500mm mirror on med fmt - was 35mm lenses on medium format
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002


Robert Monaghan wrote:
> Hi THOM
>
> do you remember which 500mm mirror lens from 35mm you saw mounted on the
> Kiev? Most of the mirror lenses I have checked vignette excessively, which
> is why I have used the long focus glass achromatic lenses instead. But
> it would be most interesting to learn of a possible compact conversion
> candidate 500mm mirror to check out!

 They talked about this at delphi and I think it was a rubinar 500 they
mounted.
--
stephe

http://www.geocities.com/kievgurl/


[Ed. note: thanks to Stephe for sharing this tip and URL - looking for a 6x6cm 500mm mirror lens?]
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 
From: Stephe [email protected]
To: Robert Monaghan [email protected]
Subject: mirror lens hack

http://www.users.qwest.net/~dnlflanagan/rubinar.html

Hope this helps Bob.

BTW have you seen the mirror lenses Mike from kiev camera has on ebay?
--
stephe


From Kiev88 mailing list:
Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 
From: kelvin [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Kiev88] Old CCCP vs Ukrainian lenses

Thanks for the note, mike...very pertinent!

...where is the Uman factory? I thought all Kiev gear was now
made at Arsenal.

 you wrote:
>Hello Guy
>this is Mike Fourman
>from Kiev Camera.
>During 80tees all lenses were made:
>Arsenal: 80mm, 250mm, 30mm
>Uman 45mm, 150mm, 120mm
>300mm tair was made somewhere in Russia.
>Right now ( late 1999 and up)
>Arsenal makes:
>30mm, 80mm, 250mm,shift and tilt :55mm, 65mm
>They will make :600mm mirror late January
>new design 45mm late June  ????
>150mm late March ????
>Everything else right now is made by " independed contractors" who is
>stealing part from bankrupt Uman factory.
>Please be very careful when you buying "brand new"
>45mm lens and 150mm lens .
>I will recommend to buy them from:
>Kalimex
>Russian Plaza
>Kiev USA
>and .. Kiev Camera.
>at least they have been tested and checked and tested
>I hope it will clear the issue
>Regards
>Mike
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Kelvin" [email protected]
>To: [email protected]
>Sent: Friday, December 01, 2000 4:10 AM
>Subject: [Kiev88] Old CCCP vs Ukrainian lenses
>
>
>> Hi guys
>>
>> I think I am noticing something about Kiev lenses after receiving my
>latest
>> Mir 45/3.5 last week.
>>
>> I have 5 lenses -
>>
>> 30/3.5 CCCP , 1987
>> 45/3.5 CCCP , 1987
>> 80/2.8 ?    , 1986
>> 150/2.8, Ukraine 1994
>> 200/5.6 Ukraine, 1990 +
>>
>> It appears to me that the construction and finish of the old CCCP lenses
>> feels better than those made in the Ukraine . The most obvious is the feel
>> of the aperture ring ... I'm just wondering if the difference is made up
>> from the fact those made in the 80s before the fall of the wall are
>better,
>> or the fact that the CCCP lenses I have were probably made at Krasgarnorsk
>> in Russia rather than Kiev at Ukraine...
>>
>> Any comments?



[Ed. note: see notes and resolutions for shift lenses and Hartblei lenses..]
From: [email protected] (Ralf R. Radermacher)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: P6 mount users, heads up!
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002

Alexander Skorokhod [email protected] wrote:
> BTW look at this - I see from your message to Stephe that you like
> snazzy cameras ;))
> http://home.arcor-online.de/skorokha/Hartblei/FrameSet.htm

Yikes!!!!

Ralf

--
Ralf R. Radermacher


From: "Axel Farr" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 500mm mirror lenses adapted to Kiev60 or other FP-shuttered MF
cameras like Bronica, Pentax 67, etc?
Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 


Hello Wayne,

"W. Catalano" [email protected] schrieb 
> In my limited experience, I've never seen anyone commercially offer
> 35mm-format 500mm mirror teles  (they would be equivalent to approximately a
> 270mm lens on a '35') that have been modified so that they would work as
> interchangeable lenses on focal-plane shuttered MF cameras.

You generally can't fit any 35mm lenses to MF, becaus the image circle of
most 35mm lenses is so limited that they would produce a circular image on
the 6x6 neg. Even a 6x4.5 neg would only be lighted up to the rims of the
4.5cm short base. Only at very short distances, it is possible to use 35mm
macro lenses for MF macro work.

> I've seen the Cambron(sp?)-brand all glass 500mm teles offered, but not the
> inherently shorter and lighter mirror-type lens.  I'll bet no one could
> hand-hold those glass monsters, but a short, light mirror optic might be
> what the doctor ordered.

There also exist 5.6/500mm glass lenses from Arsat in Kiew and 5.6/500 glass
lenses from Pentacon (not Zeiss, the longest they made is the 4/300mm
Sonnar, this optics was made by Meyer G"rlitz and they lack the automatic
aperture). There are also mirror lenses with 500 (rare) and 1000mm from
Zeiss. The Zeiss lens has an opening of 5.6 at 1000mm and is quite rare,
because most lenses are nowadays used by astrophotographers. On eBay
Germany, once or twice a year such a lens appears, at costs of about ~2000
to 4000 Euro (I did not see any lens be sold, I suppose they get sold after
the auction for something less). But the size of such a barrel is impressive
(1000mm/5.6 is ~ 200mm diameter, the lens must be nearly half a meter or 1,5
ft long), a Pentacon Six at the end of such a lens looks like having a smal
compact camera fixed at the end of a 5.6/500mm Meyer G"rlitz.

Foto Wiese in Hamburg/Germany has a 10/1200mm mirror tele lens noted on his
homepage, but I do not know anything more about it:

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/fotowiese/

(look for the lenses of the Pentasix 636).
...


Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 
From: fotocord [email protected]
Subject: Re: Resolution vs Fstop
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format


Jeff Novick wrote:

> Ralph,
>
> I don't know enough about diffraction to dispute you, but, I do have
> hands-on experience with 35mm and MF lenses.  Most lenses for 35mm, in my
> experience, are optimum at f/8-f/11, and, MF at f/8-f/16 with f/11 being
> very sweet.  I just can't see f/22 being optimum for 6x6 or f/45 for 4x5.
> I'd love to be proved wrong.
>
>

I agree. I just did some lens testing today on an 80mm f2.8 Arsat (normal
FL) lens on 6X6 and before f8 the lens was rather soft. From f8 to f16 it
looked really good and as you said f11 was the best while f16 still looked
good with more DOF. The shot at f22 was almost as bad resolution wise as
the shot at f4 and was obviously -much- worse than the shot at f16. I've
found the same thing shooting with 4x5 lenses at fstops smaller than f22
for a normal focal length lens. I'd love for f22 on 6X6 to be "the optimum"
but from what I've seen testing MF lenses 80mm and shorter, this isn't
true. It may not be at the "theoretical" diffraction point, but the results
on film show it has a fairly major loss of resolution at these f stops.

--

Stacey


From: fotocord [email protected]
Subject: Re: Russian 30mm f3.5 Superwide Lens - Opinions?
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Sun, 02 Jun 2002


Rosedco wrote:

> I see advertised at a very reasonable price a Russian made "Arsat" 30mm
> f3.5 Superwide or "fisheye" lens in mounts for several medium format
> cameras. Would like the opinion of users of this lens before purchasing.
>
>

I am impressed with mine. Sharp and good contrast. I use mine at f8-f16 and
it's a fun lens. Used carefully making sure the camera is level it works
well for landscapes in many shots even though it is a fisheye type lens.

Is it as good as a $5000+ zeiss lens? Probably not but how many people have
one of those? Also how often are you going to use a lens like this, it's
designed to have this distortion and as such how perfect does it need to
be? Another point, I've read the older "zodiac" labled ones didn't have as
nice a coating and had flare problems causing low contrast. The newest
"arsat" ones are much better performers. For >$300, these are a bargain and
worth owning.
--
Stacey


rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: [email protected] (FLEXARET2)
Date: Mon Jun 03 2002
[1] Re: "Russian" 30 mm Fisheye Lens

The standard Kiev 88 mount (similar to Hassy 1600F/1000F, but with auto
stopdown) is called the "B' screw mount.

The 30MM f3.5 Zodiak/Arsat fisheye/wideangle is generally a very sharp lens.
Sharpness is greatly reduced if one removes the clear, rear/mounted filter,
which is part of the lens' optical formula.

This lens is so good that it is worth getting the lens and a "B" screw mount
Kiev 88, or the lens in Pentacon 6 mount and a similar mount camera.

Reviews report sharpness comparable to Hassy 30MM ($7000) Distagon.

- Sam Sherman



rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: [email protected] (Mr 645)
Date: Mon Jun 03 2002
[1] Re: "Russian" 30 mm Fisheye Lens

I have one adapted to my Mamiya 645.  Optically it is really exellect at F8 anf
F11.  The corners get softer at F5.6 and wider, but at F8 it will go head to
head with anything out there.  It's heavy, manual stop down, but that ok since
at F8 focusing is not needed unles your shooting something close up.

Jon
http://www.jonlayephotography.com


From: Oliver Olsen [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Russian 30mm f3.5 Superwide Lens - Opinions?
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2002 


Rosedco wrote:
> I see advertised at a very reasonable price a Russian made "Arsat" 30mm f3.5
> Superwide or "fisheye" lens in mounts for several medium format cameras. Would
> like the opinion of users of this lens before purchasing.
>
> Rose


I'd say it's one of the best bargains in MF. Very sharp with excellent
contrast. Got mine brand new for approx $200 from Moscow. Think the
price is a bit higher now, but should be below $250. I have no idea how
it performs compared with the Zeiss, but you get this one for approx 4%
of the retail price of the Zeiss... I don't use it too frequently, but
it has yet do disappoint me. Due to the nature of the lens it's quite
sensitive to flare, but I doubt the Zeiss is much better here. With an
adapter you may use it for a few 645-format cameras (Pentax, Contax and
Mamiya) as well as most 35mm cameras. I prefer to use it with a native
6x6 camera, though (Kiev 60 and Kiev 88CM). If you get one - make sure
you get the latest model, as the coating is supposedly better.

Regards,
Oliver


From: fotocord [email protected]
Subject: Re: "Russian" 30 mm Fisheye Lens
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2002


Q.G. de Bakker wrote:

> FLEXARET2 wrote:
>
>> The standard Kiev 88 mount (similar to Hassy 1600F/1000F, but with auto
>> stopdown) is called the "B' screw mount.
>> [...]
>
> Thanks!
> Do you (or anyone else in this NG) know, will a "B" screw mount
> Arsat/Zodiak work o.k. on a pre-1957 Hasselblad without needing further
> adaptation/removal of parts?

I've read of people using the blad ektar on a "B" mount kiev so I have to
assume that the reverse is also true.

If you're looking for a body to try this on that will use normal 'blad
backs, finders etc, hartblei makes a 1008 body that is right at $200. I've
used kievs for a while now, used and new, with spotty results from the
bodies. I tried a hartblei K-60 and it's much better than normal kiev
products. I also believe most of the problems with the 88 style camera's
arise from the kiev backs not the body. If you have blad backs and finders,
all you'd need is one of these hartblei modified bodies. Just an idea and
if it didn't work out for you (doubt you'd wear it out just using a fisheye
on it) it's only $200.  And god forbid, you might even like it!!  8-)

http://www.hartblei.com/products/cameras/8_introduction.htm
--

Stacey


From: fotocord [email protected]
Subject: Re: Russian 30mm f3.5 Superwide Lens - Opinions?
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2002


Franck Maubuisson wrote:

> Well, the 30mm is fun and I do like it the fisheye may be easier to use in
> a
> square format.  But mine is not very sharp, let's say just just decent, I
> believe a good 16mm fisheye on a 35mm camera would easily deliver better
> pics. Considering
> other opinions on this lens,  I suppose I just didn't pick up a very good
> one....


Is yours an arsat or a zodiak labled lens? What is the serial number? (The
first two digits are the build date). Also these are made in russia so some
are bound to be worse than others :-).  Mine is really sharp, especially in
the center. Of course the corners aren't as good but are still acceptable.

You might try selling yours on ebay and try another? Part of the
russian/east german optics game, you have to be willing to buy, test and
sell until you find a good one. So far I've gotten lucky and the dozen or
so lenses I've bought were good except for one  CZJ 50mm flektogon, the
second one I got was fantastic!

--
Stacey


From: Lassi [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Ukrainian (not Russian) 30mm f3.5 Superwide Lens - Opinions?
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2002 



fotocord wrote:

> Is yours an arsat or a zodiak labled lens? What is the serial number? (The
> first two digits are the build date). Also these are made in russia so some
> are bound to be worse than others :-).  Mine is really sharp, especially in
> the center. Of course the corners aren't as good but are still acceptable.

That's as bad as confusing Texas and Canada... they aren't Russian
lenses. The factory is in Kiev, the capital of Ukraine.

The name of the lens was changed to Arsat, because the factory wanted to
have its own label. Previously they used the all-Soviet labels derived
from astronomy (Zodiak, Jupiter, ...) or some other upbeat source. Now
thay label everything as Arsat. The change of the label didn't change
the design. Probably not the quality controls either.

-- Lassi


From: fotocord [email protected]
Subject: Re: Ukrainian (not Russian) 30mm f3.5 Superwide Lens - Opinions?
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2002

....(quotes above)...

The older zodiac lenses -seem- to be more prone to bad samples/poor
coatings. I haven't heard of anyone complaining about one of the newer
arsat labled ones not being sharp and is why I asked. Sure doesn't mean it
couldn't be a bad arsat version though.

Same goes with the CZJ lenses. The latest samples (4 or 5 digit serial
numbers) have newer/better coatings and seem to have better sample to
sample quality than even the older MC versions did. Good samples of the
older single coated lenses are out there, but they have more bad ones than
the newest types did. I can't say the same for the kiev-60 bodies. I've had
better luck with the older ones and nothing but problems with the 2001
samples I've used.

--

Stacey


From: [email protected] (Hartmut Krafft)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Ukrainian (not Russian) 30mm f3.5 Superwide Lens - Opinions?
Date: 4 Jun 2002

 fotocord [email protected] wrote:
> The older zodiac lenses -seem- to be more prone to bad samples/poor
> coatings. I haven't heard of anyone complaining about one of the newer
> arsat labled ones not being sharp and is why I asked. Sure doesn't mean it
> couldn't be a bad arsat version though.

While I cannot tell about the differences of the 30mm lenses
(I've got an *excellent* Zodiak-labeled one), I've got two
2.8/80mm lenses here, one is a non-export (cyrillic-labeled) MC
Volna, one is an Arsat. The Volna is en par with the Zenzanon PS
80 mm, while the Arsat is what we call here a 'bottle bottom':
low contrast, color aberration, it's worse than my old 3-lens
uncoated Nettar-Anastigmat.

So it seems to be hazardous to set up rules derived from the
labelling of those lenses.


But subjectively, I found the Soviet-made items of better finish
especially compared to the lenses of the 90..94 production years
(no wonder if one reflects that the workers actually worked
unpaid over several months in that period).

Hartmut


From minolta mailing list:
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 
From: "markgroep" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Arsat lens

--- In ManualMinolta@y..., "wsrphoto" sknowles@u... wrote:
> Folks,
>
> There is an Arsat lens currently on ebay at:
>
> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?MfcISAPICommand=ViewItem&item=1361043267
>
> Number 1361043267
>
> It's listed as a 80mm f2.8 lens but it doesn't look like an 80mm lens,
> more like a 35mm f2.8 lens.  In discusssion with the sellor (actually
> resellor), he states it is an 80mm lens, but doesn't have a photo of
> the complete front of the len to show all the lettering.  Did Arsat
> make a 80mm tilt-shift lens?  Or is this lens simply mis-labeled?  It
> does appear different than other Arsat lenses I've seen photos of, but
> not that dissimilar in overall size to explain the 80mm focal length.
>
> Thanks, Scott


It is an 80mm lens.  Owners of a Kiev 88 or Kiev 60 camera should
recognise the lens: it looks ABSOLUTELY identical to the standard
80mm f/2.8 lenses of these cameras.  I have one for my Kiev 60.  I
guess the Russian engineers have used the larger image circle of
these lenses (intended for the 2.5 inch square medium format) to
accomodate the shift and tilt by fitting a different more flexible
mount.  If that is true I hope they have adjusted the depth-of field
scale for the 35mm format.  Even for their medium format cameras Kiev
are wildly optimistic with their circle of confusion criterion, so
for a 35mm frame it could be WAY off.  For what it is worth, the 80mm
f/2.8 lens (called "Volna") for the Kiev 60 / 88 models is
frighteningly sharp.  Even for a 35mm frame it should be quite
adequate.  Contrast is not great however (Yes, even with a "flocked"
Kiev 60), mainly due to the unmatted bright polished aperture
blades.  The coatings of these lenses have been improved over the
last few years I have heard...

Interesting to see I bought my Kiev 60 NEW with this lens and
metering head for about the same price as this Tilt/Shift lens is now
on offer (BUY NOW price)

Mark


From: [email protected] (Ralf R. Radermacher)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: MC 8/500 mirror lens for Kiev60/Pentacon 6; any opinions?
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002


[email protected] [email protected] wrote:

>   Has anyone tried the 500mm f8 mirror lens currently available for
> the Pentacon P6 Mount? Kiev Camera and other places are selling them
> as new 2001-made lenses in the $200-300 price.

Do a Google search for this lens. It is very popular with astronomers
and it's widely distributed by astronomical supply houses. The better
places check and adjust them prior to delivery. Many of them need
re-adjustment, mainly relieving mechanical tension in the mirror in
order to deliver their optimum performance. Once this has been done
they're very good. Prices are about the same as what you've mentioned
above.

Ralf

--
Ralf R. Radermacher  -  DL9KCG  -  K"ln/Cologne, Germany
NEW URL!!! private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de


From: [email protected] (Robert Monaghan)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: re: kiev resolution
Date: 28 Jun 2002

Hi David!

The standard russian published med fmt lens values also are problematic as
most are taken wide open, where sundry aberrations may be maximal and not
a good predictor of lens performance when used at typical shooting
f/stops around f/8 to f/16. They reportedly used russian film stock and
the charts used and procedures are not known (that I've seen published).
We do have one set of comparisons of the russian and a German test set:

lens variant      center lpmm    edge lpmm   f/stop

Mir-26 45mm         45            16         wide open
Hartblei 45mm S/TS  50            22         wide open
"            "      90 (!)        60         "stopped down" (optimum f/8?)

Mir-38  65mm        42            18         wide open
Hartblei 65mm S/TS  80            56         stopped down (?)

What this suggests to me is that the lenses do quite well, stopped down,
based on Hartblei's tests. They may select their lenses, but if so, the
wide open differences aren't large between their selected lenses and the
standard optics (esp. given different lens test charts and films assumed).

We can't relate these numbers to Modern Photogr. standards, but I'd
believe the claims of users that they produce good 16x20" and even 20x24"
prints. Sample variation is an issue too, perhaps more so with Kiev than
with the Schneider or CZJena optics (e.g., crash of Soviet Union and
economy etc. during production period..). see user notes and comments at
http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/kievlens.html

It would be a useful service for someone(s) with a set of these lenses
to do and post a lens test result (esp. for multiple samples?); free USAF
chart links at http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/resolution.html to start off ;-)

regards bobm

some comparison values for hasselblad lenses from July 1980 MP tests:

110mm f/2    35/19 (center/edge) wide open
150mm f/2.8  43/24
50mm f/2.8   47/21

for C lenses, 1977 MP test data:

80mm  56/40  (wide open)
      68/50  (at f/8, max)
150mm 43/34  (wide open)
      54/43  (at f/16, max)

---


From: Torsten Wiens [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: stats on Kiev Re: Cheap Kievs from Russia - risk assessment
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2002


"David J. Littleboy" schrieb:

> My problem with this whole discussion, though, is that the Kiev isn't
> competing with the Hassy (for my money, anyway), it's competing with
> Bronicas and Mamiyas and Fujis.

Just for the record: A new, all-black K-60 (propably by Hartblei) will
be 459 EUR here in Germany, 499 with mirror prerelease. The same store
has K-88 CM for almost 1000 EUR per piece. They can be had cheaper
here, but that's the way to go; now do the comparison to other gear
yourself.

> Certainly the users seem happy. Do you (or anyone else) have pointers to
> discussions of Kiev lens performance?

I'd recommend having a look at these two:

(was at http://www.rickdenney.com/lens_testing.htm - now down (4/2003)


http://www.pentaconsix.btinternet.co.uk/LensTest.htm



Regards,
Torsten.



From: fotocord [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Flektogon  50mm lens with Mamiya m645 ?
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002

kauai82 wrote:

> I have heard that these lens are very good and can be reasonable priced. I
> would like to use this lens with an adaptor on a Mamiya m645. Is there any
> downside to these lens with my Mamiya ? What size filters do these lens
> take ? Thanks, Matt


Compared to mamiya optics, both in mint late version condition, these look
to be about half the price. The flek is heavier and uses 86mm filters but
is an excelent lens, especially the later MC versions. The earlier "zebra"
single coated versions are about $125 and can work fine in many shooting
conditions. The problem is new filters can be as much as the lens costs!

--
  Stacey



From: fotocord [email protected]
Subject: Re:  45mm Lens for Mamiya M645
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 

kauai82 wrote:

> I would like to get a 45mm lens for my Mamiya M645. I do landscapes and I
> do not want the 30mm Fisheye lens. I have the standard 80mm Mamiya lens
> that came with the camera. Would I be better off buying a new Arsenal Mir
> 45 lens with the Mamiya adaptor for $275 (including the adaptor) or buying
> a used
> Mamiya 45mm lens on ebay ?

The regular arsenal 45mm is the sketchiest lens in their line. When you
find a good sample, they perform very well, but they have problems with the
quality control, mostly with the coatings and cementing the center doublet
corectly and as such, some aren't very good.

If you're talking about a hartblei version, these -are- good. I bought one
a few weeks ago and so far am very impressed. Very nice multicoating and as
sharp as my excelent performing MC zeiss 50mm flektogon. They disassemble
mir 45's and only use the good elements, recoat them and
reassemble/recenter them in a remachined/modified mount. 

You do know you won't have an automatic diaphram using the adapter? Another
thought is getting a hartblei 45mm shift lens. A little more money but give
you the option of using some shift..

--
Stacey 



From: [email protected] (FLEXARET2)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 19 Jun 2002 
Subject: Re: "Russian" 30 mm Fisheye Lens 

I have the old single coated 30MM Zodiak fisheye lens in Pentacon 6 mount. It
is an incredible great lens and gives excellent sharp photos,
even backlit into the sun. If the MC version is better, it can't be by that
much. Go to www.kievaholic.com - look at several of the photo galleries
and see my photo "Field of Pumpkin Dreams" taken with that lens - what else
could one want in that type of lens? Photo was taken with a P6
mount Kiev 88CM camera. You might also look for my photo "Cactus Pears"
in the "RED" photo gallery -taken with my Kiev 88/crank model with standard
Arsat 80MM f2.8 lens. What camera could take shots like that any better?

If you have one in "B" screw mount - get a good Kiev 88 or Salyut-C
(better made earlier version of same) just to use this lens. I have
two Salyut C cameras and a late model Kiev 88/crank model - which all work
perfectly. And, if they don't, there are repairmen who can fix them
reasonably - just like any other camera.      

- Sam Sherman



From: fotocord [email protected]
Subject: Re: kiev lenses.. Re: marketing
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002

Q.G. de Bakker wrote:

> Robert Monaghan wrote:
>
>> the 50mm flektogon is a particularly interesting example, per Bob Shell,
>> author of the Hasselblad Guide (sponsored in part by VHB lens loans etc.)
>
> Totally off topic, but this fact is still a major mystery to me.

Well this was written by a user of both 'blad and pentacon gear. He praises
the 40mm distagon but wrote this about the 80mm optics.

http://www.pentaconsix.btinternet.co.uk/StandardLenses.htm 

The Mk III Biometar looks as sharp as the Planar, until I take my 7x loupe
to the two of them.  Then it becomes clear that the Biometar is
fractionally sharper than the Planar at the edge of the frame.


>
> But we don't disagree on this, you still say things like "can be", and
> "have to spend a little effort [...] to get a good example".
>

Yep and for our trouble we pay 1/10 the price for these "every one is
identical" optics which I don't believe anyway.

Unless you know where a mint condition MC 50mm distagon can be bought for
$250? What does a 180mm f2.8 sonnar equivelent in a 200 series blad lens
cost nowadays? I bet it's more than 10X what a CZJ version goes for.

Maybe if I had a larger amount of disposible income this price difference
wouldn't matter, but I'd still want to check and test what I bought and all
I'm really 'paying' is some shipping costs and a little time. Until I'm
making $1000 a hour, it isn't worth buying lenses that are 10 times the
cost to have a higher sucess rate. Also once you've found a good one,
you're done.

BTW most of the other kiev mount lenses I've bought/tested were fine so 2
bad samples of one lens out of the dozen lenses I've bought isn't too bad
IMHO. I'd hate to see what those 12 lenses in a blad mount would have cost
me!


> Now if they would do this right there in the Arsenal works, we didn't have
> to. But it would put some more $$$ on the price (more time and work
> involved in testing alone, rejects have to be reworked until they pass,.
> etc.) 

Which is one reason companies like hartblei have become so popular. They
are doing the QC/QA that arsenal isn't doing.


I look at this cheap camera/expencive camera debate like automotive tools.
Someone who works on cars for fun can't warrant buying snap-op tools. You
can buy a whole set of craftsman wrenches for what one snap-on wrench
costs. But for someone who uses them everyday for their living, the better
tools are worth it.  The analogy goes on: if the home mechanic only has the
budget to buy one snap-on wrench or a whole set of the cheaper ones, he
will get a lot more done using the whole set of cheaper ones while the pro
can afford to buy a whole set of the good ones. Also the home mechanic can
take the time once in a while to take the cheap ones back or buy another if
it breaks while a pro can't be bothered with this. Make sense?

--
Stacey 


From: [email protected] (FLEXARET2)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 20 Jun 2002 
Subject: Re: "Russian" 30 mm Fisheye Lens 

I have the KIHAS (Kilfitt/Hasselblad) adapter which fits perfectly on all my
Salyut-C and Kiev 88 cameras and allows me to use my 39MM
Kilfitt short mount lenses just fine.

If you have the "B" screw mount (Kiev 88) version of the 30MM lens
the cheapest and best means to use it is to buy a Hartblei/converted
(excellent quality & lasting power) Hartblei converted Kiev 88 body
that has the 88 "B" screw mount and has been adapted to take
Hasselblad backs. This will also take your Hasselblad finders.

For the cheapest price you will have a dedicated body for this 30MM lens
which is of top quality and will work well and will use your Hassy
accessories.

You can see this at the Hartblei website - www.hartblei.com

Then for good warranty and secure payments etc. - buy it from their US
distributor - Mike Fourman- http://www.kievcamera.com

This is the best bang for the buck. I would not waste the time and money to try
and convert this lens to Hassy 200 or 2000 series.

- Sam Sherman 



From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: "Russian" 30 mm Fisheye Lens
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002

FLEXARET2 (Sam Sherman) wrote:

> I have the old single coated 30MM Zodiak fisheye lens in Pentacon 6 mount. It
> is an incredible great lens and gives excellent sharp photos,
> even backlit into the sun. If the MC version is better, it can't be by that
> much.

That makes sense too. Thanks.

It appears to be a toss-up: the large angle of view makes the fisheye more
prone to reflections, suggesting that you need every single bit/layer of
AR-coating you can get, while on the other hand the difference between
single layer and multi layer coatings apparently isn't much all, so why
bother?    

> Go to www.kievaholic.com - look at several of the photo galleries
> and see my photo "Field of Pumpkin Dreams" taken with that lens - what else
> could one want in that type of lens? Photo was taken with a P6
> mount Kiev 88CM camera. You might also look for my photo "Cactus Pears"
> in the "RED" photo gallery -taken with my Kiev 88/crank model with standard
> Arsat 80MM f2.8 lens. What camera could take shots like that any better?

Good photos indeed.
It's hard to answer your last question judging by images on the net alone
;-)

> If you have one in "B" screw mount - get a good Kiev 88 or Salyut-C
> (better made earlier version of same) just to use this lens. I have
> two Salyut C cameras and a late model Kiev 88/crank model - which all work
> perfectly. And, if they don't, there are repairmen who can fix them
> reasonably - just like any other camera. 

Perhaps i will get a Salyut or Kiev-88. But not now, not yet.
The options at the moment are either return the lens to Hans Roskam, or have
it converted to fit my 2000 series Hasselblad.
Of course i would prefer to do the second, but i was wondering if there are
better versions of this 30 mm Zodiak than the one i got. If so, i would
rather convert one of the better versions.

And how about the "b"-mystery (at least, it is that to me): what is the
difference between a Zodiak 8 and Zodiak 8b?




From: [email protected] (FLEXARET2)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 20 Jun 2002 
Subject: 30MM Zodiak Fisheye on Hasselblad?

Interested in using the Zodiak 30MM f3.5 fisheye lens with
Kiev 88 "B" mount on Hasselblad. To convert it would be an expensive nightmare.

Solution - Buy a HARTBLEI model 1008 body for $203-
which will take that lens in "B" screw mount and fit all Hasselblad
finders and Hasselblad backs - simple solution and the camera
is reliable. Order from - Mike Fourman- http://www.kievcamera.com 


Date: Sun, 07 Jul 2002 
From: Bob Bidniski [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Do Androids dream of electric sheep?

Just thought this might be enlightening, in view of all the rhetoric
that electronics play a vital role in the superior imaging of certain
cameras :)  Check out what the even  lowly Kiev is capable of when the
brain does the thinking rather than the camera :)

http://www.photosig.com/photos.php?cameraId=410


Not meant to be a troll. I'm seriously impressed with some of these
images.  I had never given Kiev a second thought before I saw these.


From kiev88 mailing list:
Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002 
From: Dale Dickerson [email protected]
Subject: Re: re: kiev lenses

Mark,

I have had mixed reactions to coatings on the Kiev lenses. My favorite
2.8/150mm is a single coat. The coating is first class. My 45mm lens
coating is not very good. I bought a Hartblei 45mm pc-ts and find the
coating to be great.

Dale

mark hahn wrote:

> I find Kiev lenses to be very good... but the coatings
> pretty much suck.


From kiev88 mailing list:
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 
From: Stephe Thayer [email protected]
Subject: Re: Photo testing

> yes the 60 is
> BUTT UGLY so ugly
> that I do not take it on shoots,

?????? Who cares what the camera looks like?
Personally I think they look OK...

Anyway I have used other makes of med format cameras
and you aren't missing any optical quality +IF+ you
have good samples of each lens. There is some variety
in quality from sample to sample so you HAVE to be
honest about how good the results realy are with each
lens and be willing to try another until you get a
good one.  The 45mm is the worst in this regard.

Stephe


From kiev88 mailing list:
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 
From: "Jay Y Javier" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Photo testing

Not scientific, rather more pragmatic.  I  have been to occasions when the Kiev
88 (with its lenses) were used alongside more expensive Mamiyas and
Hasselblads.  Minus the clues like the larger 6x7 format or the "double-v"
notched Hassy square frames, it is hard to tell which transparency was shot
with which camera/lens when the frames are laid side by side.

The Kiev optics are capable of expensive-looking pictures :)

Jay


From kiev88 mailing list:
Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 
From: robert svensson [email protected]
Subject: Re: Photo testing

Hi!

Yes, I have done some "non-scientific" comparison. I mixed pictures from my
Hassy and from my Kiev. They were intended for an exhibition. They were
presented in the 12x16 in. (30x40 cm) format. B&W. I used as minimum f-stop
5.6 on the VOLNA 80 mm lens. The pics were shot in my small studio
w/  halogen video lights. The Hassy was equipped w/ an older 80 mm ZEISS
Sonnar.  When using f-stop 5.6 or higher number I could hardly notice any
difference. The exhibition visitors noticed NO difference.  Perhaps a
difference could be noticed at full opening, but from other reasons I
seldom use it. The Volna 80 has always resolved all strands of hair on my
dog or my male models and all particles in the concrete structure of all
those beautiful concrete objects out there... I also made commercial jobs
w/ the Kiev. No objections.

All the best, Rob
Dr. Robert Svensson, Associate Professor,
Chalmers Lindholmen Univ. College


From kiev88 mailing list:
Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 
From: Carlos Alvarez [email protected]
Subject: Re: Photo testing

Jay Y Javier said something to the effect of:
>The Kiev optics are capable of expensive-looking pictures :)

Since I shoot pro work with the Kiev, I was once derided by a couple people
at the pro lab where I get my processing done.  I challenged them to a
contest based on showing one 30x30 print and one transparency.  Nobody was
able to tell the difference.  They were all equally sharp (Mamiya, Hassy,
Kiev).
--
    Carlos Alvarez


From: fotocord [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Carl Zeiss Jena (?)  f/5.6 250 mm lens on Kiev
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002

Q.G. de Bakker wrote:

> Hello all, and Kiev experts ("fotocord" Stacey ?) in particular,
>
> I have heard a Carl Zeiss lens f/5.6 250 mm lens mentioned here, that
> apparently will fit Kiev cameras.

No "modern" ones just a 180mm and a 300mm.

The russians did make a lightweight 250mm f5.6 telear that is a nice
multicoated lens, very sharp from f8-f32 and actually pretty good wide
open. Also works very well with the arsat 1.4X and the 2X converters. Since
the arsat 250mm f3.5 is awful wide open, there seems to be little reason to
carry around a big piece of glass that isn't good until f8. The only down
side to this lens is the out of focus area's (bokeh) is kinda choppy/lumpy
in a tessar sort of way, like most russian glass. probably not the best for
portrait use. I believe these were made in both russian mount styles.
--
  Stacey


From: fotocord [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Carl Zeiss Jena (?)  f/5.6 250 mm lens on Kiev
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002

...
> Thanks. Do you know anything about the parentage of those "Russian" Telear
> (?) lenses? Are there links to the former Zeiss works in Jena?

Hmm I kinda doubt it. I have a 180mm jena sonnar and seen images from a
300mm sonnar and it's not the same "look". The telear is sharp and good
contrast but the bokeh isn't the same. I don't think this is a direct copy
of a zeiss lens. Also never seen any old ones, most are later vintage (from
serial numbers) and all I've seen were labeled "MC" which wasn't done on
the older style lenses. Then again ANYTHING is possible with the soviet
glass! {G} By the soviet test specs, this is one of the sharpest lenses
they produced.

Focal length 250 millimeter
Maximum aperture f5.6
Aperture scale f5.6 to f32
Angle of view18 degrees
Focusing scale
>From 98.4 inches (250 centimeters) to infinity

Diaphragm Coupled automatic
Depth-of-view preview lever Yes
Filter size 62 millimeter

Resolution (center/edge)55/40 line pairs per millimeter

Construction 5 elements in 5 groups
--

  Stacey


From: [email protected] (Thom)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: New Hasselblad 4.5 x 6 camera?
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002

"maf" [email protected] wrote:

>It's probably a revolving back on a 6x6 body. The extra space on a 6x6
>negative doesn't cost that much, but the extra pixels of a square format are
>not cheap for the hardware or for the image storage.  I have heard that
>Hasselblad is not doing too well these days, and if they came out with
>another MF camera, I suspect it would be 6x7 or 6x9 for the pro market. But
>given the cost of R&D for the new body and lenses, even that is doubtful.
Hassies are good cameras but they have some serious competition.  Back
in the 60's the Bronica SLR took a chunk out of them and the Mamiya
came out with thei TLR that had interchangable lenses.

Now they have KIEV to deal with.  Kiev is working hard to make their
gear better and they are selling much better in Europe than the USA
because there is a distributon system there.  There is also Wiese
Fototechnik and Herbitel (I know I'm not spelling that right) that
work over the factory units.


Everything I have heard about the lenses for the Kiev except for the
120mm is that they are very sharp and many many potential Hassie
buyers will go Kiev if they are reliable and cheap and still deliver
the goods.

Then you look at Wiese Fototechnik which makes panoramic 35mm backs
for the K-88 and a soon to be released digital back and the hassie is
in trouble as is all the other 120 SLR makers.

My photo unit in Viet Nam had Nikons and Hassies but the Hassies were
constantly in the repair trailer.  They couldn't take the dust and
heat like the Bronicas and Mamiya C's could.  The NIKONs were OK but
many were ditched when the first Pentax with motor wind came out
(which by the way were especially made for the USAF)

Hassie lenses can be dogs sometimes too.  My wedding (While I was at
Brooks Institute) was shot with a hassie and the negs made with a WA
lens are quite disappointing.

Now you throw in a possible Kiev 67 and Hassie could really be in
trouble.

THOM


From: [email protected] (kevin_i)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 500mm Russian lens
Date: 19 Aug 2002


Actually, this lens is the Rubinar 500mm F5.6 lens that was designed
for 35mm use but has recently been showing up as converted to work on
several medium format cameras with focal plane shutters.

So, yes, it will work on a 35mm camera.

I began work on converting one to P6 mount myself before they became
easily available on eBay.  I've since used it on my Kiev 88CM a few
times and it produced nice sharp images... but I have not tested it
critically.

Compared to other mirror lenses, I can't really say...  I've used the
autofocus 500mm F8 Minolta lens for their Maxxum line and a 3rd party
500mm F8 mirror lens in older Minolta MD mount.  The 3rd party lens
stank... the AF Minolta lens was not bad.  That was over 10 years ago
so I can't compare them to the Rubinar.

Anyway...  You might look for a plain, unconverted Rubinar which comes
in M42 screw mount (usually with a 2x converter too) and can be used
on various 35mm cameras with adapters.  These can often be had for
around $130... so you can save yourself a bunch if you don't need the
redone mount.

-Kevin


[email protected] (Thom) wrote
> I've noticed on eBay listings for a "MC MACRO f=5.6 / 500mm reflex
> (mirror) tele lens for Kiev 88" and I'm wondering if this lens is
> sharp enough to use on a 35mm (with adapter of course) and get results
> equal to the 500mm F8 mirrows made by various companies for the 35mm
> format???
>
> THOM


From: fotocord [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Zeiss Sonar 180mm F2.8?
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002


John Stafford wrote:

>
> What's this lens for? It's got a three-lug bay mount.  Got it at a junk
> store.

It's for a pentacon-6 mount camera. It also fits some models of kievs (kiev
6C, K-60 and 88CM). The all black "MC" models are in demand, especially the
4-5 digit serial number versions, the "zebra" single coated versions are
worth ~30% of what the al black versions bring, which is in the $200-$300
range in mint condition. A zebra is worth about $100-$150 in good shape.
These prices assume it has the factory lens hood and case. Throw it on
e-bay and it will get scouped up by someone for probably a lot more than
you paid!

This is a fantastic lens and is one of the best lenses I've ever used
period. Sharp wide open and has wonderful bokeh. There are adapters to make
this fit other medformat/35mm cameras and might be worth trying for
yourself.

--

  Stacey



From: [email protected] (Ralf R. Radermacher)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Russian Lense Connection?
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 

Bean112 [email protected] wrote:
> I recently bought what I thought was a lense for my Kiev 88. What I didn't
> know and perhaps still don't understand is that that lense fits only the
> Kiev 88 CM.

The 88CM has a Pentacon Six bayonet. Well, sort of....
> The lense has  three blades not the screw type used on my Kiev 88 TTL.

Clearly a P6 mount.
> Can anyone tell me about compatility issues between Russian Cameras?

As far as Russian, or rather Ukrainian, medium cameras go, things used
to be quite easy. The Kiev 88 had its own unique mount, the Kiev 60 had
a Pentacon Six bayonet mount.

Now, there's a number of K88 versions, such as the 88CM or the B.I.G.
Six, with a P6 mount but only limited lens compatibility, i.e. some P6
lenses fit, others don't, mostly due to their barrel diameter.

Ralf

--
Ralf R. Radermacher 
NEW URL!!! private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de



From: "Sherman" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Arsat - overall quality?
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002


[email protected] wrote 
> Does anyone have any comments about the Arsat (Arsenal) brand of
> lenses?  How do they compare against Japanese and European brands?
>

Steven,
I own a Kiev 88cm and have a few Arsat lenses.  I find the 80mm 2.8 to be
very good.  It is sharp and has excellent contrast.  The 150 2.8 is also a
very nice lens (but heavy and huge with an 82mm filter size).  It is fast
for a MF 150.  I also like the 250 5.6 Telear (not the 250 3.5 Jupiter).  It
takes the same filter size as the 80mm and is very sharp.

I have heard that the 65mm and the 120mm are also excellent lenses and that
the 45mm and the aforementioned 250 3.5 are mediocre, but I have no personal
experience.

One of the things I've found interesting is that it seems that the Arsenal
folks rate their lenses sharpness in line pairs per millimeter with the lens
wide open.  Stopped down a couple stops the performance improves (as with
almost any lens).

Keep in mind that if you use a Kiev 60 or 88cm you can also use Zeiss lenses
made for the Pentacon system.  I have a Zeiss 50mm f4 MC that is an
excellent lens.

For a more detailed discussion check this site-
http://www.pentaconsix.btinternet.co.uk/LensTest.htm

Have fun,
Sherman
http://www.dunnamphoto.com



From: [email protected] (kevin_i)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Arsat - overall quality?
Date: 25 Sep 2002

Optically, many are quite good.

As to how they compare to Japanese and European brands, well, they're
"different"... that is also to say that two lenses of the same model
can also be different from each other (it probably has something to do
with the day of the week on which it was made, how close it was to the
end of the month and the quota deadline, the alignment of the stars,
and the amount of Vodka imbibed, etc.).

Built quality may also be a shock if you are used to Japanese and
European lenses.  Especially if you are buying old Ukrainian lenses
(and sometimes even with new ones) you'll get dust between lens
elements, metal shavings and other gunk in the lens, play in the
focusing helical, a little looseness here or there... oh, and did I
mention dust between the elements?

Also, depending on the age of the lens you will also encounter
differences in coatings... with the newer ones generally delivering
better color and contrast due to better coating.

Just some personal opinions:

30mm - Fun lens to use.  Very good quality, but with some coma at
wider apertures.  Stop down to F8 or F11 whenever possible.

45mm - This lens gets a bad rap.  Quality with this lens seems to be
the most variable and there seem to be many dogs out there.  I have
two of these and they are both decent performers.  You *definitely*
want to stop down to F8 or F11 though.

65mm - I don't have one, but I often hear that they are fine lenses.

80mm - Good, sharp, contrasty.  Too bad it leaks light through the DOF
preview lever when focused closer than 1 meter or so... black tape
will be your friend.

120mm - Nice, compact, good performance.  The East German 120mm
Biometar is nicer though, IMO.

150mm - Good portrait lens when used close to wide open.  It has a
nice softness to the image, which is a good thing unless your model
has perfect skin.  This lens does will with an extension tube for
closer shots... and it sharpens up nicely by F5.6 or F8.

250mm F5.6 - I don't have one, but it's reputedly sharp.

250mm F3.5 - Needs a tripod socket.  But a decent performer especially
when stopped down a bit.

300mm - Seems okay.  I haven't tested mine carefully though.

What kind of camera are you thinking about using them on?  If it'll go
on something like an M645 or P645, you might want to just pay a little
more and get a nice used lens that was meant to go on your camera.

But the Arsenal lenses via and adapter are a nice option for the more
interesting focal lengths (namely the 30mm) or if you just have to
have a certain look from a certain lens.  These Ukrainian lenses do
have a look of their own... "character" you might say.

-Kevin


[email protected] wrote...
> Does anyone have any comments about the Arsat (Arsenal) brand of
> lenses?  How do they compare against Japanese and European brands?


From: Jeff [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Arsat - overall quality?
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002


I've owned 3x 80/2.8 lenses (2 Arsat, 1 Jupiter), a 30mm fisheye Arsat and
a 120mm (Mir?). The best was the 80/2.8 that came from Hartblei. Quality of
the others was kind of rough, to put it mildly. I've used late model medium
format glass by Fujinon (GS645, GA645, GA645zi, GSW690 III), Mamiya (75,
150 RF lenses), Zeiss (3x 80/2.8 50/4, 38mm, 150mm) and briefly, Bronica
(45-90 zoom for ETRSi). I'd say they all outclass the Kiev glass! A real
problem with Kiev glass is that sharpness and contrast don't always seem
uniform across the entire field.

But if you've got plenty of photo enthusiasm, and nowhere near enough money
for a Bronica (about $900 for a complete ETRSi starter package) I say go
ahead and buy a Kiev from Hartblei or Michael Fourman--last I checked,
their surcharge was reasonable.

[email protected] wrote:

> Does anyone have any comments about the Arsat (Arsenal) brand of
> lenses?  How do they compare against Japanese and European brands?


From: [email protected] (Hartmut Krafft)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Arsat - overall quality?
Date: 26 Sep 2002
[email protected] wrote:

> Does anyone have any comments about the Arsat (Arsenal) brand of
> lenses?  How do they compare against Japanese and European brands?

As can be seen from the other postings, YMMV quite a lot. All
lens makes have slight variations in quality; but with the
Ukrainian lenses, these variations may lead to quality that goes
from intolerable to excellent. E.g. I have two supposedly equal
2.8/80mm lenses; one is so bad (low contrast, missing sharpness)
that it's visible with the naked eye on the chrome (no
enlargement needed); the other one is amazingly sharp and
contrasty  (even under the microscope).

This must be kept in mind and added to the overall ratings of
these lenses (Kevin's list is quite comprehensive).

So if you decide to buy one of these, be sure to agree on a test
period and check the lens thoroughly (on b/w or chrome film).

Hartmut



Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 
From: Marco Pauck [email protected]
To: [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Russiancamera] Filters for Arsat 30

Paul R. Ostand wrote:
> Marco, thank you for the reply. In the Kodak pub. "Applied Infrared
> Photography" they say (in refering to aerial photography), "...filters
> should be mounted in glass; unmounted gelatin filters are likely to result
> in poor definition."
>
> I am not interested in aerial photography. The only other reason I could
> imagine for this warning is that the unmounted gel might not be flat.

Yes, that's true.

In addition, true gelatin is very sensitive to humidity and wraps easily.
Other foils such as polyester don't have this problem (but others ;-)

> Do you see any such problems with gels in the Arsat mounts? Do you leave the
> clear glass in place? I was going to leave my clear filter unmodified and
> replace the glass in the other two with red and yellow for straight b&w.
> Then for IR I was going to just use a gel BTFR so I could use all lenses
> easily.

Leave the clear filter alone. It is part of the optical calculation
and replacing its glass by a gelatine foil will cause problems.

I'm using gels for many of my more exotic lenses that don't accept
standard filters (beside the Arsat/Zodiak fisheye the Peleng 8mm
fisheye, the Horizon 202's swing lens, some large format lenses, etc.)

Sure, in theory a well polished glass filter would be better but this
is no practical alternative unless you are willing to get a custom
filter built that probably will cost more that the lens itself ...

Some additional pages to check on this issue are:
http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/gelatine.htm
http://www.astropix.com/HTML/I_ASTROP/FOCUS/FOCUS036.HTM

Marco


From: [email protected] (Ralf R. Radermacher)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Quality of Carl Zeiss Jena Biometar 2,8/120
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 


Radek Orski [email protected] wrote:
> Have you any opinion ?

And here's a website with a very extensive comparison of most P6 mount lenses:

http://www.pentaconsix.btinternet.co.uk/index.htm

Ralf


From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 
From: Kevin Kalsbeek [email protected]
Subject: Re: Current status of Russian lens factories?

Javier,
I think the Helios-40 lenses have been out of production since the
1970's. KMZ is almost out of the accessory lens business, unfortunately.

Kevin

Javier Perez wrote:

>  BTW:
> What's the situation on Russian lenses?
> Can I still buy, say a new KMZ Helios 40?
> Javier


From: Stacey [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Portraiture with a medium format !
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002

"Daniel ROCHA [email protected] wrote:

>Hello All ! :)
>
>I'l buy a medium format camera mainly for making portraiture, and fashio
>type photography. I'm not a pro, a simple user which is practicing his
>hobby with care :)
>
>I'm deciding which is the best lens for portraiture, in medium format.
>


The best protrait lens I've ever used in any format is the 180mm f2.8
CZJ sonar. The bokeh is wonderful and is "just right" as far as
sharpness wide open. Can be used on some of the 6X4.5's with adapters
or on a pentacon-6/kiev-60 if you're daring  :-) IMHO it would be
worth having one adpated for use on a 200 series blad as well.

Stacey


From: Stacey [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: CZJ Flektogon - MC or not MC ?
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002

"Pawe Szkup" [email protected] wrote:

>Hello,
>
>I have possibility to buy CZJ Flektogon 50/4, but have some doubts regarding
>lens coating. There's no "MC" engraved on the front of lens, but from the
>other side the entire lens "body" is black, like all "MC" versions...
>There's also 1 mm width glossy silver ring around the filter mount... Can
>anyone tell me if it's MC or non-MC lens ?

Probably not. This has been debated amounst CZJ users and there were
several variations of these all black lenses. The later MC coatings
have a purple cast with some green reflections in them as well and
IMHO the lenses to look for are the latest samples with either a 4 or
5 digit serial number if for no other reason than these ALWAYS have
the good MC coatings while some of the earlier 8 digit samples may or
may not even if they say MC on them.

Stacey


From: Stacey [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Opinions on Sonanar 2.9 180MM Lens
Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002

"Allan W. Bart, Jr." [email protected] wrote:

>Hello
>I am using Pentacon Six Cameras. Would you say that your Kiev 60 is
>competitive with the mamiyas and Pentax and other more modern units?

I own both several K-60's  and several pentacon 6's and think the P6
is the better made camera. The K-60 is probably "tougher" but many
aren't assembled corectly and need some work to be usable/reliable.
The main problem with the pentacon 6 is the film advance and this can
be "worked around" by simply adopting a new winding technique. The
other bad part of the pentacon 6 is the finders. An exacta 66 WLF is
light years better and baire foto makes a adapter to use a kiev prism
if that's what you like better. Both benefit from a ground glass
upgrade and I like the ones made by Bill Maxwell the best. Some kiev 
60 info can be found at www.geocities.com/kievgurl

Stacey   


From: Stacey [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Opinions on Sonanar 2.9 180MM Lens
Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002

"Allan W. Bart, Jr. [email protected] wrote:

>Hello,
>
>I see them on ebay and they are a bit pricey, are they worth the bucks or is
>just hype. I am using a pentacon Six.

I bought a MC 180 f2.8 and it's the best lens I've ever used on any
camera in any format. There is no hype, this lens is wonderful! It's
worth owning a pentacon or a kiev just to be able to use this lens!

IMHO the ones to buy are the 4-5 digit serial number  late MC
versions. These can be found for under $250 and are more than worth
what they cost.                       

Stacey



From russian camera mailing list: 
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 
From: [email protected]
Subject: RE: Russian lens tests

"njp66 [email protected] wrote:

>The Soviets did give figures for the resolution of their lenses but
>the figures seem absurdly low.
>Was this based on what they could see on a print, rather than
>examining the negative through a loupe?

The Soviet tests are not lines/mm they are line pairs/mm. which means that the
approximate corelation is double the number.
--
Nathan Dayton
www.commiecameras.com 


From russian camera mailing list: 
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: Russian lens tests

[email protected] wrote:

> The Soviet tests are not lines/mm they are line pairs/mm. which means
> that the approximate corelation is double the number.
> --
> Nathan Dayton
> www.commiecameras.com
>

Line pairs per millimeter is the standard measurement used in optical
testing.  Often you will see it called lines per millimeter, even though
it means line pairs.  I don't think this is why the Russian test numbers
are so low, even though we know the lens performance is much better than
the numbers would indicate.

In their latest issue Popular Photography put some vintage Nikon lenses
through the same tests they use on modern lenses, and the old stuff did
really well in most cases.  It would be great if we could talk them into
testing some Russian glass.

Bob


From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 
From: "Jay Y Javier" [email protected]
Subject: Re: RE: Russian lens tests

Nathan

I've found some soviet references so far which do say "line pairs per
millimeter" - a TENTO catalogue, a Zorki-1 passport, and several lens passports
for J-9 and I-61 lenses.  Did something get lost in the translation?

Jay


From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 
From: "tigerarm2000 [email protected]
Subject: Re: Russian lens tests

...
Chinese national standard of 35mm lens resolution is also very low.
37 l/mm at center and 22 l/mm at edges is good enough to be rated a
first grade lens(J1).
Use the method to test a Nikon normal lens would give  a resolution
figure of about 50 L/mm at center.
I think the resolution of film plays a very important role in the
tests.

Zhang 


From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Russian lens  tests

The Soviets only gave a single center/edge or center/corner measurement,
probably with the lens wide open.  Resolution should be better with each
lens stopped down two or three stops.

For practical purposes with 35mm what counts most is not ultimate
resolution but contrast (MTF) at about 20 lpm, which means how cleanly
light and dark points that end up spaced about 1/1000" apart on a
negative are tonally separated.  Not coincidentally, this is the circule
of confusion used to compute depth of field.  In a 10x enlargement those
points will be about 1/100" apart. What happens out beyond 20 lpm is of
diminishing importance in influencing our subjective sense of sharpness.

Of course you should adjust this critical point as film size and
enlargement ratio changes.  For instance if you routinely enlarge 35mm to
16x20 the critical resolution becomes about 32 lpm. 



From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 
From: Paul Shinkawa [email protected]
Subject: Re: Re: Russian lens  tests

Dave:

Thank you! That is the clearest explanation I've read
on resolution and testing with respect to 35mm.

-Paul
...


From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 
From: Kevin Kalsbeek [email protected]
Subject: Re: Russian lens tests

Neil,
They used a very different system! One source, Vade Mecum, says it represents
microns, rather that line, or line paires per millimeter.
They work nicely though, don't they! B^)

Kevin  


From kiev88 mailing list:
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 
From: "Edward Lukacs [email protected]
Subject: Hartblei Mirror Lens

Hello,

Has anyone out therre had any experience with the 500mm mirror lens
that Hartblei is selling for the Kiev88 and 88cm/60?  I would not
normally buy a mirror lens, absolutely hating the "smokering"
bokeh that they produce.  Has anyone used one?  Are they at OK,
or are they, as I suspect, really a 35mm mirror that has been adapted
because it can illuminate a 6x6 frame, however fuzzily, in the extreme
corners?

I have been looking for some time for a 500mm f/5.6 Arsat and getting
nowhere trying to contact the factory comrades, who apparently are too
busy worrying about the next five year plan to answer my emails and
letters.  Nomne of the sellers seem to have one, either, yet there it
is, staring at me from my Kiev-88 catalog flyer!

Perhaps someone might gently inform them that there will be no more
five year plans, only cash customers wanting to buy?

Thanks for any infornmation you might be able to supply.

Ed Lukacs


From kiev88 mailing list:
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 
From: RussianCamera.net [email protected]
Subject: Re: Hartblei Mirror Lens

Kiev, Ukraine [30.01.2003]

Hello, Edward Lukacs!

you wrote:

ELecn> Thanks for any infornmation you might be able to supply.

Only  one  catadioptric lens was produced for medium format in exUSSR.
It's  name  -  ZM-3B  600mm 8.0/600 and made in ARSENAL Factory (Kiev,
Ukraine)  for  special  purposes.  Produced  in  very  little quantity
(150-300 pieces) in 1974.

---
Best Regards,
Gevorg Vartanyan,
www.araxfoto.com - Medium format cameras, lenses, accessories


From kiev88 mailing list:
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 
From: Tiger Moses [email protected]
Subject: Hartblie Mirror

I have the Hartblei 500/5.6 mirror

For the price, I am very pleased with the quality.
Came in nice vinyl padded bag with hood, two filters
(big filters!) and a hood.  It has that focus assist
knob on it too.

Yes, shallow depth of field, but I think it may truely
be a 5.6 based on my metering.  Very sharp lens in my
opinion, based on one day of shooting, but also does
have a somewhat shallow depth of field.

Very light compared to my Pentacon 500/5.6 telephoto.

Yes, it does produce the donuts like most mirrors in
to bokeh, but the shallow depth of field can help a
subject stand out, dont forget.

I want to say mine was under $200 from KIEVCAMERA.COM,
and I think its worth it!  I have had nice results
from my 250/3.5 with a 2x, so if you want 500mm, that
might be the best option if you dislike mirrors.

All the discussion about air current and heat
patterns, I dont see that as significant as many
people think, I think compress the air in 500mm view
adds to that in general.

I dont regret my purchase.

I have a full assortment of P6 lenses and have small
reviews of them on my little
http://hasselbladski.cjb.net website.  I sincerely
apologize for the crap that pops-up from my free
webhost, and say no to anything from GATOR or XUPITER!

If anyone can recommend a better free webhost, please
let me know!


From kiev88 mailing list:
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 
From: Kevin Kalsbeek [email protected]
Subject: Re: Digest Number 719

HI Ed,
Yes these are Rubinar 'cat' lenses made by LZOS and adapted for use on MF cameras. I
have no experience with the MF versions, but these are really fine performers on 35mm
format and should do very well on MF-- assuming-- all the  dimensions are as
they should be.

One chap on the Kiev Report forum has been playing with the f8 version, which is the one
I would recommend, btw, but has had focusing problems. In my experience, focus is REALLY
critical, as these lenses have basically NO dof. This guy will not use the chimney
finder with it's higher magnification, which should help. Also if the mirror of the
camera is not precisely set, you will have focusing problems. He won't listen..Oh well.
These lenses are a relatively cheap way to get high mag images if you are willing, but
the camera body may be an issue, but I can certainly attest to the lens quality, as the
results I got in tests for the old hardcopy Kiev Report, were superb.
I do NOT recommend the f5.6 version, as the mechanics are not as good as they might be,
but YMMV. The f8 version is best in terms of 500mms- and yes, I also tested the 1000mms.

I tested at infinity and due to the vagaries of 'cat' lens construction, the focus is
very critical, and reviewing,- the MF should not be significantly different. These are
specialty lenses, whether 35mm or 6x6, and require very special techniques to get the
very best results. The learning curve is STEEP! That said, fine results can be had if
you are willing- note that- do what is necessary.I took a LOT of testing to find out
what is necessary to get the very best out of these lense, believe me! The
Bogen/Manfrotto 3420 telephoto lens support is a very important part of the formula.

Regards,
Kevin



From minolta mailing list:
Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 
From: "parlin44" [email protected]
Subject: Re: screw mount/M42/Russian lenses

How about PC Arsat 35/2.8 for architecture? Better still PC/tilt
Arsat, but pretty expensive (still much, much cheaper than OEM
though).  There's also PC/tilt mid-tele Arsat 80/2.8.

I second Jupiter-9 (Carl Zeiss Sonnar copy), get the MC version.
Nice lens, often gives you that surreal, pastelish, oil painting like
bokeh.

Wonderful (mildly) soft focus lens is that chunk-of-glass Helios-40-2
85/1.5, soft for upto  Hi Michael,
> regarding portraits, look for Jupiter-9 (85mm f2,0). It's very cheap
> and a pretty good lens.
> Regarding architecture, look for MC Mir-20M (20mm f3,5). It's rather
> good lens also. But more expensive unfortunately.
> These lenses are M42 mount.
>
> Regards, Sergei


From kiev88 mailing list:
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 22:15:46 -0500
   From: Dale Dickerson 
Subject: Re: wide-angles

Stewart,
These are the lenses I recommend to people. Schneider are best, but cost
is not justified compared to cost and quality of the late MC CZJ lenses.
Arsenal and Hartblei optics on newest mc are close to equal. The quality
of metal seems better on the Hartblei, but my newest Arsenal lens is
late 1990s. I have placed a * by my personal favorite of each focal length.

Arsenal lenses
Fisheye*, 55mm pc*, 80mm, 120mm 150mm*, 3.5/250mm*

CZJ MC
50mm*, 65mm (none mc)*, 80mm, 120mm*, 180mm*, 300mm*

Hartblei
45mm pc-ts used at no more the 4 degree*, 150mm
45mm pc-ts used at no more the 4 degree*, 150mm

Schneider
60mm*,  80mm Xenotar*, 150mm (Would have a * but favorite portrait lens
is the Arsenal single coated 150mm)

This is my general view of  the optics. Some uses are best served by a
lens not listed or not *.

Happy New Year,
Dale

Stewart C. Russell wrote:

> Is the Flektogon 50/4 MC the undisputed king of the wide-angle lenses we
> can buy, or are there better Ukrainian ones?
>
> cheers,
>   Stewart


From kiev88 mailing list:
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 
From: mankoo kak [email protected]
Subject: Re: Digest Number 711

Thanks Olivier!

Whats confuses me is that 30mm is always rated as
pretty good and 45mm , 150mm as not so good .. when
30mm is a much more complex design to make !!

Mir 65mm is pretty good too ..

Heres a chinese web site giving block diagrams of CZJ,
arsenal and blad lenses side by side ..

http://cccp.rich2000.com.tw/report/test-revolutionvszeiss.htm

Flektogon 50mm is said to be better than 45mm Mir and
I guess thats bcoz it has lesser elements  .. Mir has
more and no coating means less contrast! ..same reason
why old nikkor 105/2.5 is considered good still today!

-Mandar


Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 
To: Russiancamera-user [email protected]
From: Jim Blazik [email protected]
Subject: [Russiancamera] lens tests

In light of the lens tests that have been posted (much appreciated, by the
way), though I'd post a few shots I'd taken with a variety of lenses and
cameras.  I'm not one for photographing newspapers or brick walls, and I
figure the real test is in images made in the real world, whatever world
that happens to be for the photographer.  In any event, they're located on
my web site, and any feedback or constructive criticism is welcome.  All
transparencies and/or negs were scanned on my Minolta Dimage Scan Speed
slide scanner.  A fair amount of image manipulation has been applied in
Photoshop, but I look at that as nothing more than what one would otherwise
do in a darkroom when making a good print.  Any loss of detail or whatever
is more a function of resampling the images so that they're 'webbable'.  -

Jim

please visit:
http://www.geocities.com/fzorkis/photos.html


[Ed. note: long sold, but info is here for pricing etc. on a hard to find lens...]
From kiev88 mailing list:
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 
From: ARAX [email protected]
Subject: ZM-3B 8.0/600 long-focus

Kiev, Ukraine [27.03.200315:00:29]

Hello!

ZM-3B 8.0/600 long-focus RARE lens was listed on eBay from starting $499 with NO RESERVE!!!
Address: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2919982411

---
Sincerely
Gevorg Vartanyan,
http://araxfoto.com/


From: [email protected] (Ralf R. Radermacher)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: CZJ 80mm vs Schneider 80mm
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 

[email protected] wrote:

> So this then is one true advantage of the Exakta 66 over the Kiev 60.

There's a few more but their reliability is still so rotten that I'm now
trying to make up my mind on what to do once I've had my two Exakta 66
repaired yet again (lost count on the number of times they've been to
Dresden) after both failed within minutes, two weeks ago.

This time, one has a sticking shutter and on the second the threaded
bushing for the cable release just recently retrofitted by Pentacon as
part of their mirror pre-release hack has cracked and fallen off.

The greatest trouble in all this is that in my experience the Pentacon
factory service is an essential part of the problem. I've still got to
see the first instance they get something right, the first time around.
Heaven knows who gave them their ISO certification. :-(

Does anyone know of another place in Europe where they carry out service
and repair work on P6 type cameras according to _Western_ standards?

Now, before anyone suggests it, a Kiev 60 is out of the question because
it doesn't work with a 500 mm Pentacon lens unless one is prepared to
pour concrete foundations for each shot to be taken. The mirror
pre-release won't help because this camera suffers from extreme shutter
slap!

And, no, 6x4.5 isn't an option, either.

Ralf

--
Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - K"ln/Cologne, Germany
private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de
manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Nov.26, 2002
Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses


From: [email protected] (Hartmut Krafft)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: CZJ 80mm vs Schneider 80mm
Date: 24 Mar 2003 

[email protected] (Ralf R. Radermacher) wrote:

> Does anyone know of another place in Europe where they carry out service
> and repair work on P6 type cameras according to _Western_ standards?

Do you know about Mr. Olbrich in G"rlitz (must be a residuum of
Meyer/Pentacon)?

His leaflet says he will repair Pentacon Six (but doesn't mention
Exakta66). I have had *very* good experiences with his lens
service (for my Praktica lenses) and can recommend him without
any doubts.

Foto-Service G"rlitz (7-Bit: Goerlitz)
Dipl.-Ing. Peter Olbrich
Emmerichstr. 17
D-02826 G"rlitz
03581-401241
Mo-Fr 8...12 and 12:30...17(Di 18)

(not affiliated!)

Just try and give them a call.

Hartmut


From: [email protected] (Ralf R. Radermacher)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: CZJ 80mm vs Schneider 80mm
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003

[email protected] wrote:

> So this then is one true advantage of the Exakta 66 over the Kiev 60.

There's a few more but their reliability is still so rotten that I'm now
trying to make up my mind on what to do once I've had my two Exakta 66
repaired yet again (lost count on the number of times they've been to
Dresden) after both failed within minutes, two weeks ago.

This time, one has a sticking shutter and on the second the threaded
bushing for the cable release just recently retrofitted by Pentacon as
part of their mirror pre-release hack has cracked and fallen off.

The greatest trouble in all this is that in my experience the Pentacon
factory service is an essential part of the problem. I've still got to
see the first instance they get something right, the first time around.
Heaven knows who gave them their ISO certification. :-(

Does anyone know of another place in Europe where they carry out service
and repair work on P6 type cameras according to _Western_ standards?

Now, before anyone suggests it, a Kiev 60 is out of the question because
it doesn't work with a 500 mm Pentacon lens unless one is prepared to
pour concrete foundations for each shot to be taken. The mirror
pre-release won't help because this camera suffers from extreme shutter
slap!

And, no, 6x4.5 isn't an option, either.

Ralf

--
Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - K"ln/Cologne, Germany
private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de
manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Nov.26, 2002
Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses


From: [email protected] (Ralf R. Radermacher)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: CZJ 80mm vs Schneider 80mm
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003

Stacey [email protected] wrote:

> I haven't used one but the people I have chatted with that have said
> it's sharper wide open than the biometar.

Having acquired a Xenotar, a while ago, I can confirm this.

Further advantages are the fact that it goes down to 60 cm and the more
direct action of the focussing ring.

Ralf

--
Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - K"ln/Cologne, Germany
private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de


From: "Jeremy" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Hartblei
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2003 

"Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected] wrote 
> I don't know, but presume Hartblei is offering these as well, but there
> indeed are Ukranian Arsat f/2.8 35 mm and f/2.8 80 mm tilt and shift lenses,
> available in many 35 mm camera mounts, including Nikon. But only Nikon
> manual focus. They do not fit any of the AF Nikons.

Here is the link for an article in Shutterbug that describes some of these
lenses in greater detail:

http://www.kievcamera.com/shutterbug1.html


From: Lassi [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: P6 Tessar - Any good?
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003

[email protected] wrote:
>
> I just read somewhere on the internet that the P6 mount CZJ Tessar was
> sub par. I'm sure that it's not up to the Biometar, but how bad could
> it be?

It would probably be a 80mm/2.8, which is streching the Tessar a bit too
far. With only four elements there isn't enough design freedom to
correct all errors at large apertures. Rollei used 3.5 Tessars
succesfully, but rejected the 2.8 version in favour of the Planar.
Biometar is the CJZ name for Planar.

It's probably still good enough at full aperture to beat any 35mm
camera...

-- Lassi


From: Stacey [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Heliar vs tessar?
Date: Sat, 03 May 2003 

ArtKramr wrote:

> Of course today the old goals of roundness have long been
> abandoned and hard sharoness is the rule.

Not for everyone. I'm starting to realize there is a lot more than
"sharpness" to what makes a great lens/image. I suppose the CZJ 180 f2.8
has shown me this more than any other lens I've used recently. Yes it's
pretty sharp but the other stuff "going on" is what makes this lens so
fantastic. The soviet 150 f2.8 is sharper but at the expence of harshness.


> But those were different times
> and a few
> designers had different goals.
>

I'm glad these goals were seen. Thanx for the info.
--
Stacey


From: [email protected] (kevin_i)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Meyer/Pentacon 5.6/500 mm anyone?
Date: 3 May 2003 

Hi, Ralf.

I haven't used my 500mm Prakticar a whole lot, but I shot a series on
Provia 100 at a nearby duck pond about two months ago.

I didn't have any complaints about image quality.

It's a bit hard to say with the lens focused closely on the ducks...
Because of the super shallow DOF, the edges are all out of focus, but
the central ducks are very sharp and you can clearly make out the fine
lines of their feathers.

I also took a few shots of subjects that were several hundred meters
away. Examining these shots under an 8x loupe just now, I can clearly
see branches, leaves, and (unfortunately) telephone wires out to the
very edges of the frames. Very sharp. No color fringing.

I believe I was shooting at either F5.6 or F11 for almost everything.
This was on a Kiev 88CM mounted on a large Graf Studioball and Gitzo
L-407 legs. This lens is such a monster, I found myself wishing for a
bigger tripod and gimbal head.

-Kevin


[email protected] (Ralf R. Radermacher) wrote
> Is there anyone with _practical_ experience concerning the performance
> of this lens?
>
> The one I've bought on ebay is extremely soft and has strong colour
> fringing everywhere but in the very centre of the frame. In a nutshell,
> it's somewhat useable with 35 mm but a complete failure for medium
> format.
>
> The 'official' Meyer service at Goerlitz claims that there's nothing
> they can do. De-centering can't be the cause, they say, because there's
> nothing to be centered, in this lens.
>
> Any help or advice would be appreciated. Yes, I know Eastern lenses are
> subject to variations of quality but this goes far beyond what could
> reasonably be tolerated. The usual bashers will be ignored.
>
> Ralf



From: Stacey [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Rubinar 500/5.6
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 

Fernando wrote:

> Hello,
> in the helpless strive to find a cheap telephoto lens for my Pentax
> 645, I've seen guys on eBay selling those mirror lenses (Rubinar
> 500/5.6 Makro) for about $180.

I got the f8 version for my P6. First, think about the DOF at f5.6 and given
mirror lenses don't have a diaphram it's what you're stuck with. The f5.6
is twice as heavy and the f8 works pretty good. I got mine (MC f8 500) new
from DVD technic for $125, came with ND and orange filters and a nice case.
For the few times I'll need a lens this long, it looks like a good
solution.
--
Stacey



From kiev88 mailing list:
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 
From: [email protected]
Subject: Various Lenses appreciation for K88cm and K60

Hello, I am Jerome from Paris, France.

My ex-jammed K88CM is just back from Arax Photo
for repair and modification. Good work!
Thanks to Gevorg !
I will come back later to give a full positive preciation.

I have several lenses for my K88CM and K60.
maybe you can use the CZJ on K88 with conversion ring.

3,5/30 Arsat: excellent super wide = 17mm 24x36 !!! and cheap !
not so much distorstion, works well for lanscapes, people..., very fun !
3,5/45 MIR: very nice, small; no distortion, realy wide!
a bit soft at full aperture, excellent at 8-11
3,5/50 MC black CZJ Flektogon contrast since full aperture, TOP
2,8/80 MC Volna good lens, less contrast than CZJ biometar
2,8/80 MC black CZJ biometar, contrast even full aperture
2,8/180 MC black CZJ Sonnar: sharp & contrast since full ap
needs a very short ext ring to close up to full face.
This lens is not long but heavy: not for weak arms (take rather a 120mm)
except use monopod. Other possibility, buy weights and work
musculation every day two monthes before get this lens ;-)
Russian Converter 2X: looks realy excellent.


CZJ are top quality, Fabrication outstanding: Germany!
If you take a look inside, you'll understand what I mean...
Same quality lenses as hasselblad, cosmeticaly too.

Russian are cheaper, nearly half price, and for the price,
totaly amazing!

bye everyone,
Jerome



From: [email protected] (Fernando)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Lenses - yesterday, today and tomorrow
Date: 25 Jun 2003 

Stacey [email protected] wrote
> I wouldn't have been. :-)

Right, sometimes I'm dragged by the low price I paid for it! ;)

> People who have tested them say they are better than the blad 50mm
> distagon..

Amazing! Is there a web page showing that?
By the way, the Flektogon shows very, very little barrel distortion...
way lower than my 28mm Vivitar for 35, for example.
And color rendition? I find it superb.
Another thing that amazed me, is its flare resistance.
I used to have a non-MC model a couple years ago, and I experienced
bad flares on night shots (I do a lot of night photography); but now I
got an MC unit, and its way better! Head-to-head with my SMC Pentax
35/3.5, if not better. And you know, Pentax' SMC treatment is regarded
as one of the best.

> I've still have yet to see a lens that makes as wonderful a photograph as a
> 180mm f2.8 sonar..

I have to admit, that I don't use my Sonnar MC extensively: too bulky
and heavy. :( But when I manage to use it, results are actually very good (despite
non-stellar resolution tests). And shows a good flare resistance, too!

Now if only I could find a PentaconSix -> Pentax645 adapter... last
year there were some on eBay, now there's nothing. I even contacted
DVDTechnik to no avail, on the matter.

Did you ever tried the Arsat 30 MC fisheye? Nothing short of
spectacular!!!!!! Not only excellent resolution and contrast, but very good color
saturation too!

If you mind, I shot this with the Arsat:
http://www.usefilm.com/showphoto.php?id=157104

Bye!
Fernando


From: Stacey [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Zeiss Jena lenses on a P67?
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 

Bandicoot wrote:
> "Ralf R. Radermacher" [email protected] wrote 
>> Is there a known way to use Pentacon Six lenses other than the two Meyer
>> telephotos on a Pentax 67?
>>
>> I'm thinking of the 50 mm Flektogon etc.
>>
>> Ralf
> Do you happen to know if the 50 has the coverage? Since the Arsenal 45mm
> is available in shift mounts that don't vignette 6x6 until about 10mm of
> shift is applied, I imagine that would cover 6x7 - though it is not the
> greatest lens in the world.

Some are/some aren't. I have a hartblei MC'd and remounted Mir45 that is
wonderful. I would think a good one might be worth adapting? But then again
the pentax lenses aren't that expencive either. I can see why someone would
want to adapt the 180 sonar though!

> Come to think of it, the Arsenal 65 and 55 are also available as shift
> lenses, so it seems there is a family of large coverage lenses coming out
> of the Ukraine.

The 55 shift is another really nice lens. They seem to be making these in MC
versions now and work great!
--
Stacey


[Ed. note: thanks to Gorda Alexandru for sharing these notes on russian and soviet optics..]
From: Gorda Alexandru [[email protected]] 
Sent: Thu 4/17/2003 
To: Monaghan, Robert 
Subject: Thank You for information


Hi Bob,
Thank you for your replay and for all quotings, they were persuasive enough.
As I see from your message and from all these quotings with MF cameras is the
same problem like with other Soviet cameras, relegated by ones and worshipped
by others, maybe worshipped is said too strong.The problem is that Liubitels as
well as Moskvas have pretty low resolution figures
(moskva has 28 mm in centre, liubitel has the same) and the difference at edge
is very slight moskva does 14 mm while liubitel does 12 mm. For me these
figures seemed very low( if compared to 35mm cameras lens like Iupiter or
Industar and other soviet lens that are above 40 mm in centre and 20 at edges),
and I considered that such cameras like Zeiss Ikon, Kodak and some other brand
name cameras do better and what concerns their economy lens are at the same
level or above Liubitels or Moskvas, while such lens like Tessar or Ektar are
up to kiev 6 c Vega 12(this does 48mm at centre and 24mm at edge) or to
Pentacon 6 lens. Now it seems that Liubitel's T22 lens and Moskva's Industar 23
is at the same level with Tessar and other high quality lens, while economy
anastigmats like Novars are worser than these common soviet lens. It seems to
be one more good Soviet copy of a good camera. Thank you for your message and
if you'll need some information about some soviet foto stuff I'll be glad to
help you with what I can.

Best regards Alex


From kiev88 mailing list:
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 
From: Dale Dickerson [email protected]
Subject: Re: Kiev lenses on Mamiya 645

I like to say a "Kiev lens is not better then a Zeiss or Schneider.
However a Kiev is not that much worse than those two brands." How do I
know? I use CZJ, Kiev on a pentacon 6ttl and Kiev 88cm. I use Zeiss and
Schnieder on my Rolleiflex 6008 Pro. No one has notices when I mix the
prints. Nor does my lab! I do not believe I can do that mix Mamiya
images that way. I know I could with a Contax. If I were buying a 645
that did not also do 6x6, I would buy a Contax. Remember a Contax will
use a Kiev lens, CZJ lens, and CZ lens!

Kiev not = to Mamiya lens. Kiev > to Mamiya lens. (That is my experience.)

Dale

Svensson Robert wrote:
> This is not a scientific comment. However, I have sometimes experienced that the
> Kiev lenses might be as good as some Mamiya lenses. Compared my photos with
> other photographer's mamiya pics. Especially stopped down a click or  two. I
> would be interesting to see if there are mor List Members with the
> same experience.



From: Stacey [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Arsat 30mm fish-eye in the UK?
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 

Roland wrote:

> Does anybody know a source for the Arsat 30mm fisheye lens for the
> Pentacon 6 mount in the UK? I am very reluctant to buy this direct from
> the Ukraine.


Why? I've ordered a bunch of stuff dirrect from the ukraine with no
problems. DVD technic is very reliable as is grizzly33bear and ustas on
ebay. Cupog is also a very reliable dealer but has mostly pentacon CZJ
stuff. DVD technic sometimes has =their= MC versions which are very nice!

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2941198810&category=710

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2941241862&category=30075

Either of these would be a no brainer for me.
--

Stacey


Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2003 
From: "Bob Shell" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Russiancamera] Mid range teles
To: "Russian Camera Users" [email protected]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Kalsbeek" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 
Subject: Re: [Russiancamera] Mid range teles


> Chis,
> I prefer the 120 Vega to the Biometar.
> The 150mm Kalienar is basically a portrait lens and is somewhat soft. I found it
> too be too soft for scenics.
> The 180 Sonnar is a fabulous lens.
> Regards,
> Kevin

It really is a sampling question with most FSU lenses. The 120 Vega I have
is about equivalent to my late MC Biometar. My 150 Kaleinar is super sharp,
actually so much so as to be too harsh looking for portraits. My 180 Sonnar
is a bit flat, rendering subjects in moderately low contrast with low color
saturation.

It's very hard to generalize about these lenses because they vary so much
from sample to sample. This is due to lack of basic quality control, of
course, although I think CZJ had better quality control than the other
factories.

Bob


From: [email protected] (Ralf R. Radermacher)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: In Praise of Pentacon 6X6 Cameras
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003

Allan W. Bart, Jr. [email protected] wrote:
> I have noticed quite a few responses to my post and what would really
> be appreciated would be your opions on the different GDR and Ukrainian
> Lenses.

There's a page about my expeience with those lenses at my website:

http://www.fotoralf.de/k60lens.htm

Also, there's a number fo photographs taken with them in the various
sections of the gallery.

Ralf

--
Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - K"ln/Cologne, Germany
private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de
manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Apr. 11, 2003
Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses



From: Stacey [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: In Praise of Pentacon 6X6 Cameras
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 

Allan W. Bart, Jr. wrote:
> I have noticed quite a few responses to my post and what would really
> be appreciated would be your opions on the different GDR and Ukrainian
> Lenses.
>
> I have the Sonnars, Flextogons and Kaleinars. What do you have?

30mm arsat, mine is sharp, very contrasty and no flare problems.

45mm hartblei MC good after f11, no flare problems fairly sharp but not
great in the corners. Much better than the regular mir's I tried. The
regular mirs had serious quality control issues, some are REALLY bad!

50mm flec MC Sharp and contrasty but can have flare problems, especialy with
no lens hood. After using the 45, it's not wide enough!

55mm shift arsat Sharp, very well made and wish it was wider ;-) One of the
best soviet optics.

65mm mir Good wide/normal lens. Not extra sharp but good enough. Great carry
around lens. The older mir 3 is equal optically, maybe slightly better but
is MUCH larger and flare prone.

80mm arsat real sharp after f5.6, good up close but bokeh isn't great.

80mm MC biometar sharper wide open and nice bokeh

120mm MC biometar fairly sharp wide open and great after f4, bokeh is OK

180mm MC sonar, best lens in this mount. nicest bokeh I've ever seen period!

250mm telear Sharp after f8 all the way to f32. Bokeh is kinda busy but not
awful. Nice small tele that works handheld.

500mm mirror. Haven't had a chance to test much bet seems sharp and is easy
to use.

1.4X converter. Works great with the soviet optics (almost no image
loss!)but not real impressive with the CZJ stuff in my use of it.

2X converter works good, makes the 80mm arsat a good portrait lens and seems
to help out the bokeh as well. Also used it with the telear, some slight
vignetting but quality is good.

--
Stacey


From: Andrew Price [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: In Praise of Pentacon 6X6 Cameras
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 

[email protected] (Ralf R. Radermacher) wrote:
>Roland [email protected] wrote:
>> Thanks for warning me. Is there a better body I can use the Biogon lens on
>> and the Flektogon?

[---]

>My second choice would be the Kiev 60 if you can get a working example.

Not a problem if you buy it from a reliable dealer like Hans Roskam.
But just make sure that the channel for the lens registration pin is
drilled out, otherwise there is the risk that some of the CZJ lenses
won't fit properly without filing down their pins, which is a
sacrilege.



From: Stacey [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: can bokeh be quantified? described?
Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2003 

Bob Monaghan wrote:
> I do think it would be an interesting project for the various camera and
> lens brand lists (e.g., Kiev88, PentaxMF..) to see if a consensus can be
> reached on which lenses within a particular line are consistently rated as
> having good bokeh, and perhaps even more useful, really, really BAD bokeh
> ;-) ;-)


In the kiev/P6 line the f2.8 180mm sonar has probably the prettiest bokeh
I've seen from any camera lens. The 80mm biometar's is nice as well. The
120 biometar isn't quite as good but isn't bad. I've seen some shots from
the arsat 150 f2.8 and while not as nice as the sonar, it's not bad either.
The 80mm arsat, the 120mm vega and the 250mm telear have some pretty nasty
looking bokeh but are contrasty and sharp! Bet they's beat the zeiss
lenses on a MTF test. :-)
--
Stacey


Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2003 
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: MIR 45mmRe: [Russiancamera] WORST DEAL-Dealer
To: Russian Camera Users [email protected]

Jay Y Javier wrote:
> I wonder too what makes it terrible. I've got one (K88 mount), and
> shoots good.

Aha! Now we know the factory made two good ones!!

Bob



From: Stacey [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Pentacon 6
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 

Ralf R. Radermacher wrote:
> Adam [email protected] wrote:
>
>> Is there much difference
>> between the Single Coated and the Multi Coated versions?
>
> The difference is smaller than the quality fluctuations within the
> various incarnations.
>
> And, yes, the 180 mm Sonnar is excellent. The other outstanding lens is
> the 50 mm Flektogon. Next are, in this order, the 120 mm Biometar, the
> 300 mm Sonnar which isn't quite as good as the 180 mm version and the 80
> mm Biometar.


I think the 30mm arsat needs to be thrown in there somewhere around the 50mm
flek (a stunning lens IMHO) and also the 55mm arsat shift is another
=really= good lens in this mount. I'm not sure I wouldn't buy one of those
over the 50mm flek? The 45mm mir can be good but many are bad, have to be
willing to buy and sell till you stumble across a good one. I went for a
Hartblei version and am very happy with mine, =almost= as good as the flek
and wider. The 65mm mir is OK but not great but a handy focal length. The
250mm telear is another good lens and is quite cheap and lightweight. The
80mm Biometar is good but unless it's the later exakta mount, has VERY slow
focusing and the arsat 80 focuses much closer and is again =almost= as
sharp wide open. After f8 they look the same to my eyes except the biometar
has slightly smoother bokeh but the arsat 80 performs better on a bellows.
I do agree the 120mm biometar is a nice lens and much lighter than the
180mm sonar. But the sonar 180mm f2.8 is probably the best lens I've ever
used, =period=.

I feel as cheap as all of these CZJ optics are, it's worth finding a
excelent condition multicoated version as even the best are only around
$200. Just a heads up, the 4-5 digit models are the latest versions and
should have the best multicoatings.
--
Stacey


From: [email protected] (Ralf R. Radermacher)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Pentacon 6
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 

Adam [email protected] wrote:
> Is there much difference
> between the Single Coated and the Multi Coated versions?

The difference is smaller than the quality fluctuations within the
various incarnations.

And, yes, the 180 mm Sonnar is excellent. The other outstanding lens is
the 50 mm Flektogon. Next are, in this order, the 120 mm Biometar, the
300 mm Sonnar which isn't quite as good as the 180 mm version and the 80
mm Biometar. 

Ralf
--
Ralf R. Radermacher 



From kiev88 mailing list
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 
From: -=AraxFoto=- [email protected]
Subject: MC ARAX 5.6/500 catadioptric macro lens

Kiev, Ukraine 
NEWS FROM ARAX
Hello!

I hope you had great wekkend.

I would like to present new MC ARAX 5.6/500 catadioptric macro lens
for medium format cameras with P-six mount for $259

http://araxfoto.com/lenses/arax-500/

Perfect multicoated catadioptric macro lens produced for ARAX in
Russia (Lytkarino). Has multi-layer anti-reflecting coating on optical
surfaces.

ATTENTION! It is not a Rubinar, it cover full 6x6 frame!

They are ideal for photographic hunting, for taking pictures of
distant objects, inaccessible places on the landscape, architectural
details and sportive competitions. You can use it for black-and-white
and colour photographs. It has a macro-limit, the minimal distance is
2,2 m. Tripod mounting special ring makes it possible to arrange the
frames by turning the lens with the camera.

This price is for brand new, factory sealed, newer used lens. Comes
with 3 light filters: Neutral-4x, Orange-4x, Ultra Violet-1.4x; front
metallic and rear plastic cap; special ARAX protective bag with strap,
metallic hood.

---
Sincerely
Gevorg Vartanyan,
http://araxfoto.com/

You can unsubscribe from ARAX Mailing List anytime here http://araxfoto.com/news/
� www.AraxFoto.com All rights reserved


Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003  
From: Kai Griffin [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Russiancamera] Flash! 
To: Russiancamera-user  
Molniya = "Lightning" 
Mir = "Peace" 
Zenit = "Zenith" 
Salyut = "Salute" 
Zarya = "Dawn" or "Sunset" (!) 
Mir & Salyut were commonly used (in) names for all kinds of things, sort of 
standard words in the Soviet lexicon. The rest of them all relate 
interchangeably with concepts of light or cosmos. 



From: [email protected] (Ralf R. Radermacher) 
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format 
Subject: Re: MC Biometars - will they ever run out? 
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2003 

[email protected] wrote: 
> I seems like no one's in short supply of any lens for this system. 
When have you last seen a P6 mount Zoom Kilar, one of the Schneider 
Variogons, or a PC Angulon? 
Try finding a decent 300 mm MC Sonnar at a reasonable price and you'll 
see that the air will already be getting thinner. 
Ralf 
-- 
Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - K"ln/Cologne, Germany 
private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de 
manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Apr. 11, 2003 
Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses 


From: [email protected] (Evanjoe610) 
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format 
Date: 10 Sep 2003 
Subject: Re: MC Biometars - will they ever run out? 

I have both the lster MC Biometar and the Schnieder 80mm Xenotar MF.The 
Schnieder is sharper, contrasty, and really shows when shooting B & W. The 
overal tone has a buttery look to it. This lens is as good and probably better 
than my Hasselblad 80mm Planar CF. 
Evan 


From: [email protected] (Ralf R. Radermacher) 
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format 
Subject: Re: MC Biometars - will they ever run out? 
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2003 

[email protected] wrote: 
> Are these Schneider optics still in production? After all Arsenal is still 
> pumping out bodies. 

They aren't. With the end of camera production, the remaining stock, 
including lenses and accessories, has been sold by Pentacon (who are a 
subsidiary of Schneider) to Foto Walser of Burgheim, Germany. 
There still is continuous supply of both types of Exakta 80 mm lenses as 
well as 60 and 150 mm Schneider lenses from them on ebay.de. 
Ralf 
-- 
Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - K"ln/Cologne, Germany 
private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de 



From: "Bandicoot" "insert_handle_here"@techemail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format 
Subject: Re: MC Biometars - will they ever run out? 
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2003

"Stacey" [email protected] wrote... 
> [email protected] wrote: 
> 
> > I couldn't believe the slew of Biometars (MC no less) that have been 
> > hitting eBay in recent weeks. Will Eastern Europe ever run out of these 
> > lenses? What's rare in the P6 world? I seems like no one's in short 
> > supply of any lens for this system. 
> 
> What's in short supply is bodies that work right that use them! As far as 
> "rare" P-6 mount lenses there are a few like the 55mm shift arsats.. A 
> great lens that you don't see many of. 
> -- 
> Stacey 

The 45mm T&S Arsat can't be that common either - mine has a two digit serial 
number, and is not that old. 

The later version of the 65mm Flektogon isn't all that common, but that was 
never made in an MC version, unfortunately. And the 80mm Tessar is not 
rare, but not common either - reputedly not that good. 

It is the more esoteric of the Schnieder lenses for the Exacta 66 that seem 
rarer. Partly there were far fewer made, and partly fewer people are 
parting with them. Eastern Europeans are selling their CZJs because they 
need the money, whereas the E66 stuff wasn't really in that market to begin 
with: most of it is in Western Europe, and some in North America - so the 
sales pattern is more like that of any other discontinued, low volume, MF 
SLR - ie. not seen especially often. 

Peter


From: [email protected] 
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format 
Subject: MC Biometars - will they ever run out? 
Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2003

I couldn't believe the slew of Biometars (MC no less) that have been 
hitting eBay in recent weeks. Will Eastern Europe ever run out of these 
lenses? What's rare in the P6 world? I seems like no one's in short 
supply of any lens for this system. 


From: [email protected] (FLEXARET2) 
Subject: Re: Kiev Carl Zeiss/Arsat vs hassy C lenses? (I'm serious!) 
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format 
Date: 05 Oct 2003

The Best photographic equipment is truly the Best and there is 
no doubt about it. At a recent PhotoPlus Expo in New York I had the opportunity 
to examine a new Hasselblad 200 series camera with a longish tele lens on a 
type of tripod mount. This was just a sensational piece of equipment of high 
quality and fine smooth style to use. I would love to have one, but I think the 
price for the setup I was looking at was about $10,000, which I cannot budget 
for occasional use. So, I am very content in using Kiev 88CM with Hartblei 
500MM f8 MC MIrror Lens 
at a cost of probably 5% of the Hassy outfit.
 
If I were doing something for commercial use and had a proper budget, I would 
go with Hasselblad equipment all the way - it is the best. 
I have the Hasselblad lens catalogue and just drool over all of those great 
lenses (not actually wanting to get them wet)- as I would like to have every 
one of them, regardless of cost. 

If my lottery ticket comes in - I will buy the whole catalogue's worth. 
Until that time I am doing very well with Kiev 88CM, Hartblei, Arsat 
and Carl Zeiss Jena lenses. 

Instead of thinking how bad all of this stuff might be - actually be amazed at 
how good it actually is - far better than it has a right to be. 
Re- buying expensive equipment. The Leica R3 - still not sold at giveaway 
prices, is actually the same camera as the Minolta XE-7 - for 20% of its cost 
today and the Minolta does a great job for all conditions. 

- Sam Sherman


From: Stacey [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format 
Subject: Re: Kiev Carl Zeiss/Arsat vs hassy C lenses? (I'm serious!) 
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 

oranewbie wrote: 

> I'm contemplating on buying a kiev 88/60 or old hasselblad 500 cm 
> fitted with a kiev prism and back to cut down on cost. I'm wondering 
> if anyone has used BOTH the hasselblad or kiev and if you think there 
> was a difference in color cast/contrast characteristics between the 
> lenses of the two. 
> 
> I expect that zeiss for the hassy is alot better then older carl 
> zeiss/arsat but I am still on the fence about if there would be that 
> much a difference. 

Why, the 'blad lenses you are saying you can afford aren't any newer.. 

> Say for instance two pictures are taken of the same 
> scene with each camera, would it be possible to tell which one is 
> hassy or kiev? 

Doubtful you'd see much. In fact a few of the CZJ lenses are superiour, the 
50mm f4 flektogon and the 180mm f2.8 sonar in particular. The normal 80mm 
arsat is VERY sharp from f5.6 and smaller while the biometar is fine 
everywhere. There are a few iffy lenses in the lineup, the worst as far as 
quality control seems to be the 45mm mir. The 30mm arsat is fantastic. The 
built of the soviet lenses isn't as nice as a 'blad but they are all around 
$100-$200, what do you expect. The CZJ are as smooth as anything I've used. 
> I'm also worried about the quality of the kiev body, although I would 
> be buying an upgraded one from araxphoto. 

Get an Arax K-60 and you have a very good chance of getting a useable body. 
The K-88 is a risky camera at best IMHO. Also the Pentacon-6's sold by 
cupog on ebay are OK but are an old design that need a lot of work 
upgrading the viewing system. Any of the bodies are risky compared to a 
'blad/rollei etc and are NOT up to professional use, again IMHO. That said, 
I've bought 4 K-60s and the only ones I've had any problems with are the 
newest 2001+ models I got from kievcamera. 

> Seems the kiev would give me more of a lens selection 

That you can also afford. If you have the money to buy all the blad lenses 
you want, don't fool with the kievs. Probably not good for people who can't 
handle simple tasks like calibrating focus screens etc themselves as most 
need some tweaking before use. 

> but I'm just 
> concerned about contrast and the color rendition of the lenses 
> compared to the blad.. if there is any?? 
Use a lens hood and you'd be hard pressed to see any difference. 
http://www.geocities.com/kievgurl/ 
http://www.geocities.com/kievgurls/ 
-- 
Stacey 



From: Stacey [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format 
Subject: Re: Kiev Carl Zeiss/Arsat vs hassy C lenses? (I'm serious!) 
Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2003 

Thom wrote: 
>  Stacey [email protected] wrote: 
>> There are a few iffy lenses in the lineup, the worst as far as 
>>quality control seems to be the 45mm mir. 
> 
> Glad you brought that up. Is the 45mm shift lens just as bad?? 
> THOM 

When these mirs are good, they work well. The problem stems from poor 
quality control of a complex lens design. Hartblei, who does the shift 45mm 
lenses, hand picks lens elements for their lenses and their multicoated 
version of the 45mm mir works very well. As far as the shift version, I 
personally think they should have limited it to 10mm of shift as the image 
past there gets pretty soft/dim in the corners. 
http://www.rickdenney.com/hartblei.htm 

Now the 55mm shift arsat is a different animal and probably the best of the 
soviet wide lenses. It is sharp and distortion free as it was designed from 
the beginning as a shift lens. Mechanically is also one of the nicest of 
the soviet lenses but is also one of the most expencive. Still is dirt 
cheap for a MF shift lens. 

-- 
Stacey 



From kiev88 mailing list:
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 
From: "Dale Dickerson" [email protected]
Subject: RE: T-mount adapter for Kiev88?

Check with
http://www.dvdtechcameras.com/

They should be able to help you. Most fsu adapter are made by them.

Dale

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Law [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2004 
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Kiev88] T-mount adapter for Kiev88?

I have one with the Pmount where could I get Tmount adapter?

thanks

Robert



Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 
From: Paulo Moreira [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Russiancamera] Rubinar 500/8 Macro
To: Russian Camera Users [email protected]

Kelvin,

My Pentacon 4/300, is really a Pentacon, not the sonnar 300/4. It is a different lens, mine being bigger! It is 
only sigle coated, but the coating seems better than on the Biometar. I like the Mir 45/3,5, although I recognise 
that the lens distorts and it isn't as sharp as the Biometar or the Sonnar 180. Still, for me it is enough and it is a 
wonderful way to get nice pictures!!!

As for the 65mm, well I do agree it could be almost the standard lens, trouble is, the P6's viewfinder is anything 
but bright (opposite to the K6)so 3,5 will make it dimmer...we shall see!

The Rubinar is interesting because it can focus quite close, which will be nice, as I like macro pics!

Paulo


From: Stacey [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Grain of salt.
Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2004 

Someone pointed out a review of the Arsat 30mm fisheye on
www.luminous-landscape.com . They gave a less than stelar review and posted
some sample shots showing their resolution "test". My arsat always seemed
extra sharp and then someone noticed in image #5, the camera isn't even
focused on the infinity target using the arsat but rather is focused on a
railing 15 feet from tha camera. I wonder why the distagon looks sharper on
the infinity target?

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/arstat-30mm.shtml

If he had cropped close in on the railing we could say the distagon is a
POS? I also wonder if he knew the rear UV filter must be used and must be
screwed all the way in place as this is part of the optical formula? Not
using this can throw off the optical results and affect focusing distances.


BTW this was all pointed out to him and he said the text stands and as far
as the image "I will posted the correct one ASAP." We'll see...
--
Stacey



From: Peter Irwin [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: What does T-22 mean on a Lubitel?
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 

[email protected] wrote:
> I've never seen "T-" designations on any other kind of camera. What are
> the folks in LOMO talking about?

The T indicates that the lens is a Cooke Triplet type.

There is a good page on Soviet lens formulas here:
http://www.baierfoto.de/russobj/objektive.html

Peter.
--
[email protected]



End of Page