Related Local Links:
Fisheye Lens Pages (MF/35mm)
Wide Angle Lens Options Study (Nikon)

Related Links:
8mm Peleng Fisheye
8mm Peleng Lens Source
KievCamera on 19mm Kiev
Marco Pauck's Peleng Fisheye Pages [6/2001]
Super 8mm lens site (fisheyes..)

Article Index:
Peleng 17mm vs Zenitar 16mm
(8mm Peleng notes..) by Kevin Lee
Peleng 17mm vs Zenitar 16mm vs. Nikkor 18mm
by Gunnar �berg
Peleng Club 8mm
Zenitar 16mm fisheye review [8/2002]

Have you priced ultrawide and fisheye lenses from OEMs (like nikon) lately? If so, you have probably been shocked at the prices asked for even used fisheye and ultrawide angle OEM lenses. The nikkor 13mm sells used for circa $9,000+, the 14mm f/3.5 AF nikkor for $1,800-2,000+, the 15mm f3.5 AIS for $1,400-1,600+, and the 16mm f/2.8 AF nikkor for circa $700 US. There aren't any 17mm nikkors, but even recent used 18mm nikkors will cost circa $900-1,000 US too.

Even if you turn to third party lenses from Sigma, Tokina, Vivitar, and Tamron, the offerings are sparse below 18mm, especially on the used market. I recently purchased a used 14mm Sigma lens in AF Nikon mount, only the second used Sigma 14mm in Nikon mount I have seen advertised in the last year and a half. The Tokina and Tamron provide some 17mm ultrawide options (at $250 and $375 new). You can also find some older Sigma 18mm ultrawides on the used market for under $100, often with high levels of distortion and flare (by today's standards). The best buy may well be the 19mm Vivitar ultrawide (at $125 US new).

Circular fisheyes are another problem. I advocate checking out your fisheye needs using the modest cost front of the lens 0.18X fisheye adapters, costing about $100+ US on the used market. The other third party 8mm fisheye offering is the 8mm f/4 fisheye by Sigma ($600+ used), about half the cost of the harder to find 8mm f/2.8 nikkor (also only available used). But you can buy a new 8mm Peleng for roughly $200, depending on where you buy!

So my interest in modest cost ultrawide and fisheye lenses from Russia and the Ukraine are understandable. Some of these lenses are available for as little as $110 US plus shipping and handling fees! At this price, you probably wouldn't expect Japanese OEM (e.g., nikkor) quality results. But you can expect surprisingly reasonable results for the money, as the evaluations below testify!

The following postings provide many interesting pointers and observations about these low cost ultrawide and fisheye optics. Special thanks to Kevin Lee and Gunnar �berg for providing these reviews, and to the other posters for providing tips and useful notes!

Lots of people in the USA are using EBAY to provide some extra protection in buying from overseas sellers. See EBAY's buyer protection programs on their site for more details. You can also buy directly in the USA from sources such as Kiev/USA using your credit card for protection (see Kiev 88 pages for more links and postings). In any case, I echo the recommendations to get a return warranty and thoroughly test the lens during that warranty! You can also get more details about avoiding problems buying online at our buyer beware section.

It has produced brilliant results and been sharp for enlargements up to 8x10 (haven't gone bigger).

About 6 months ago, I bought a Peleng 8/3.5FE and can't recommend it too highly. It's a pre-set lens which comes with a nikon adaptor which you swap with the M42 one on the Peleng by removing 3 screws. Even in moderately subdued light, it's flarey... and the black area also shows flare ... it seems that the blackening coating in the barrel isn't quite light-damping enough.... you can see the reflections within the barrel in the black area of the 35mm frame. That said, the optics are fine. When there is no flare, sharpness is good from about f5.6 and colour saturation is pretty good. I would probably recommend anyone who wants to buy one to disassemble it and repaint the insides of the barrel... that ought to yield a good fisheye. It's a pre-set lens, by the way. For my purposes, since I don't use it often enough and I'm no camera techie... I've decided not to spend the probably US$100 it'll cost me to do so.

Directly to your question above. Several months later, whilst ordering a Kiev 30/3.5, a friend piggybacked my order for the Peleng 17/2.8 FE. I believe he paid about US$110, includes shipping as our order came directly out of Moscow from an Igor Tretchiakov , whom I have dealt with twice and found reliable. Same guy who sold me the Peleng 8/3.5FE.

I sneaked the 17/2.8 FE out for a quick test along side my Zenitar 16/2.8FE. I did some shots with both on my Pentax spotmatic, loaded with 100ASA film ... swapping lenses mid-roll. Since the Zenitar costs more, I expected it to be a better lens. Surprise, surprise... when I got the results I found that the Peleng had better colour saturation (higher contrast) and possibly displayed just a touch better resolution viewed by naked eye, relative to the Zenitar.

I've been happy with my Zenitar all these years... but side-by-side with the Peleng, the Peleng 17FE was visibly (slightly) better. I didn't get a chance to compare both lenses in bright light for flare-control, though.

Anyhow, I kept my Zenitar and passed the 17mm along. The Zenitar is somewhat more compact that the Peleng, which is a hefty lens about 50% longer and probably 25% heavier. I prefer the handling on the Zenitar too, but that may because I prefer to work with it in stop-down mode rather than the Peleng, in which I found working with the pre-set ring awkward.

Both lenses seem well built to the naked eye, with the Zenitar being slightly better. My Zenitar is a 1996 production piece and the Peleng was a 1999 production piece.

Hope you find my subjective evaluation useful.

Hi Bob

Did you ever get a reply on your post below?

----------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 24 Apr 1999
From: Robert Monaghan [email protected]
Subject: [NIKON] Ukrainian 8mm/f3.5 Nikon mount; 16 & 17mm fisheye; 35mm f2.8 shift

anyone have any experience with the various Ukrainian lenses in nikon mount fisheyes and shift lens? see http://www.dedal.cz/optics/default.htm (35mm..) e.g. multicoated PCS arsat Nikon mount 35mm/f2.8 shift lens ($280 US)

MC Peleng M/N - 3.5/8 "superwide angle fish eye" $380 US

MC Zenitar N - 2.8/16 "fish eye" $260 US

MC Peleng M/N - 2.8/17 "fish eye" $140 US

Thanks for sharing any lens reviews or experience! regards bobm

----------------------------------

Postscript: Re: Prices

...

Anyhow, I thought you may also want to note that the prices given on the page are very expensive. I paid about US$200 for the 8/3.5 FE and the 17/2.8 FE was US$110 , out of Moscow. Prices incl. shipping. BTW, I found this other site you might want to check out: http://www.lzos.com.ru ... they are not responsive to e-mail, but they are the makers of the Jupiter 85/2 , and seem to have a selection of MF enlarger lenses covering up to 6x7.

Have you heard of the Helios 85/1.5 ? I think it's based on the Sonnar 85/1.4 ... I'm out chasing for a piece! ...

[Ed. note: I have noticed that prices for these lenses here in the USA are often double the price from sources overseas. So if you are willing to take the risk and buy direct, you may end up with even more of a bargain!]

Postscript: RE: Direct Buys

...

Also, FYI.... I e-mailed the Zenit factory a month ago. They replied very promptly (and nearly sent me a virus at the same time) that the Zenitar 16/2.8 and the Mir 20/3.5 were $99 each. And they wanted $105 for UPS shipping.

...

Hi Nikkonians,

I will now keep my promise to compare Peleng 17/2.8 with Zenitar 16/2.8. I have included Nikkor 18/3.5 - in spite of the different format.

I shot a series of pictures a cloudy day - the place is the graveyard in Vissefj�rda, Sm�land. The light conditions were about the same all the time. I do not think it will cause any differences in the pictures. My F3T was mounted on a tripod. I shot with cable release the same scenario. The film is Fujicolor Superia 200ASA (It takes some time to get slides developed - that's why I chose negative film.)

I have scanned the negatives in Nikon Coolscan III to as big files as possible (about 26MB TIFF format) and worked on them in PhotoShop - enlargements of two spots, one in center and one in the periphery - all glued together. The pictures were then converted to JEPG to make the files as small as possible. I use 79 dpi for the files shown - close to the "pixel border" - just to look at on the screen!

No method of sharpening the pictures is used of course - and no change of the color or brilliance.

(I will come back later with the shots in the sun to check flare Roland! Its autumn here - foggy, humid, warm� I do not remember last time when I saw the bright sun!)

My conclusions?

The Peleng is a hefty piece of glass - almost as grandmas crystal vase(650 g) with a huge easily damaged front lens - diam. 75 mm. The lens sticks out about 85 mm with the Nikon adapter. You just don't put it in your pocket! The Zenitar is smaller (350g). Front lens diam. 60 mm and it sticks out 45 mm (no adapter needed) - fits well to the pocket!

Both are multicoated. The Peleng comes with an impressive leather case - the Zenitar a little case of woven black nylon. Both with 3 B&W rear filters. The Peleng has a stop down ring - Zenitar only the ring for aperture settings. (No big problem since they are both non AI and purely manual - like PCNikkors.) Both feel good and solid. The Peleng has a front cover that is very loose - falls off all the time and makes you nervous! The Zenitar has a snap on cover that fits nicely and makes you feel better � ;-)

The pictures?

Judge for yourselves! I think the Peleng is a tiny bit sharper and more contrasty but I hate those vignetting in the corners - the Zenitar pictures have no dark corners.. Both perform quite well for the price. The Nikkor - no comment - it is included just for fun - as to compare apples and pears � But the vignetting full open surprised me a bit. I forgot - sorry! - to test f4 on the Nikkor!

There is a risk for bias in this amateurish investigation - the Zenitar belongs to me - the Peleng is borrowed back from a friend I sold it to � ;-)

Here you will find the result - please start with the file "A GUIDE - READ THIS FIRST".

http://www.egroups.com/files/NikonMF/Peleng-Zenitar+%28Nikkor%29+/

At last - thanks to Roland Vink for tips off list!

Best wishes

Gunnar �berg
Ronneby

Related Postings:

From NikonMF Mailing List:
Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2000
From: Piotr Keplicz [email protected]
Subject: Re: Russian 17mm f/2.8

AFAIK this Peleng is a pretty good piece of optics. Surely it doesn't perform as well as the Nikkor, yet it's said to be better that the other russian fisheye, Zenitar 16/2.8 (which comes with a regular Nikon AI mount, though).

  ___ _  _
 | . ) |/ /  -- Piotr K�plicz  ------  Nowy Polski S�ownik Pijacki:  -----
 |__||_|\_\  -------------------- http://rainbow.mimuw.edu.pl/~pkeplicz --

[Ed. note: price is circa $75-120 US in Russia for Zenitar depending on mount per posters..]

From NikonMF Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000
From: Piotr Keplicz [email protected]
Subject: Re: Russian 17mm f/2.8

Rich Lahrson [email protected]:

:      Thanks for the comments on the Russian 17mm fisheye.  I was not
: aware that it lacked an auto diaphragm.  That partly explains the
: price break compared to the Nikkor.

No, *it* doesn't :-) Zenitar 16/2.8 has a Nikon AI mount with auto diaphragm and lists at the same price as Peleng here in Poland (about a hundred bucks).

Kalimex wants $260, tho'.

Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2000
From: Bob Scott [email protected]
To: Robert Monaghan [email protected]
Subject: Re: Ultra wide angle lens options

> I'd be interested in posting any lens reviews based on your experiences
> etc., or make links to your pages. I have promoted the low cost benefits
> of the kiev lenses (see http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/mf/cameras.html for
> links andpages and kiev buying guide and other related postings...).
>
> see http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/broncameratest.html on lens testing tips
>
> in any case, good luck with both your Kiev and russian lenses, and hope
> you have some good news to share... bobm

Bob,

It is a dismal, rainy day here in upstate NY. The lighting was terrible outside, so I shot a roll of T-MAX 400 inside and souped it in T-MAX developer to quickly get an idea of how the lens does... I am very satisfied, so far. -- This was my first use of T-MAX film and developer... I souped the negs for 7 minutes at 68 degrees. The shots look a little low in contrast. I don't know if it's the film/developer/temp/time, the lens, or the lighting [SB-24 off the ceiling]....

I put up a .TIF and .JPG on the web. The .TIF is shot at f/11; the .JPG, wide open (f/2.8). The .TIF file is 900KB, the .JPG is 64 KB.

TIF: http://www.capital.net/users/desmobob/peleng17.tif

JPG: http://www.capital.net/users/desmobob/pelengwo.jpg

For $140.00, I think the lens is fantastic! It does lack an auto diaphragm, but is has a convenient stop-down ring between the focus and aperture rings, making it easy to stop down the lens before exposure -- if I remember to do it. The way I look at it from a hobby viewpoint, this will probably be the least-used lens in my bag. My Nikkor 24mm f/2.8 AIS gets used a lot, but I would NOT consider spending several hundred on a nice Nikkor fisheye for occasional use. I am very happy with the performance of this lens,considering the price. Not having an auto diaphragm is not a big deal to me.

I'll have some color negs and more applicable test shots soon.

Good shooting,
Bob Scott
Whitehall, NY

From Nikon MF Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [email protected]
Subject: Re: Peleng 8 mm fisheye

> http://www.trainweb.org/zeniphotos/pagethree.html

I've never played with fisheyes, they don't appeal to my sense of aesthetics generally, but these two images are very nicely done. The lens looks to be quite good quality for the money.

Godfrey

From Pentax Mailing List;
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2000
From: Joseph Tainter [email protected]
Subject: Re: Fisheye help

I have seen these priced in the U.S. from $139 to $225. I bought mine for $175 from:

[email protected] Tel. 203-531-0900; Fax 203-531-6229

I was also given the following site in the Czech Republic, but their price is as high as in the U.S., plus you have to pay by Western Union (more on that below):

http://www.dedal.cz/OD_C_EN.html

The Russian supplier I nearly bought from is (with his message quoted):

Rustem Salikhov [email protected]

[Ed. note: see caution below]...

"yes, we have the Zenitar 16/2.8 for Pentax. The $109 price includes the regular mail shipping. If You want to use the air mail shipping, add $10. The best way to transfer money is the Western Union transfer to:

RUSTEM SALIKHOV,
ZHUKOVSKY,
MOSCOW REGION.
140180, RUSSIA 

Thank You,

Rustem"

I have no reason not to think he is honest. I didn't buy from him because of how the costs added up: $109 + $10 + $22 for Western Union transfer. The total was too close to the U.S. price to bother with the risk of a Russian transaction, and the nuisance if the lens should be defective.

KievUSA shipped very promptly. My lens arrived in a Russian box with a Russian manual, in which is a Russian inspection certificate. Having been to Russia I can make out a few words. Other dealers seem to have an English-language manual, but I don't know why you would really need a manual for this lens.

A used Pentax A 16 mm. fisheye is going now on Ebay for over $400.00, so $175 for the Russian lens (which, as I reported earlier, seems to give quite satisfactory results) seemed like a good price. I am having fun with mine.

Hope this is helpful.

Joe

[Ed. note: I have received a note that reports some delays and unreceived goods from this source, so be aware of possible problems! If possible, use credit cards when buying overseas (saves fees, provides resolution options..) and check with other buyers (e.g., Kiev user group) to determine current reputation and potential delays or problems from recent buyers...]

Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000
From: "eMeL" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Peleng 8mm Fish-Eyes

Mike Forkash [email protected] wrote

> Hi,
>
> Does anyone have any (serious) comments about this lens? I'm thinking of
> buying one for my N90s and I would like to know if they are
> compatible/won't screw with the Nikon electronics.
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Mike

It is a totally manual lens, so there is no electronic bus at all. Peleng is a preset lens, i.e. lacks the automatic aperture but instead has a ring which allows quick opening and closing of the aperture to the preset value. I have never used it on anything autofocus, though, but the Nikon mount worked fine on a F3, and a M42x1 screw mount worked fine (with a FD mounting ring) on my Canon F1N. IMO Peleng isn't a serious lens (rather soft in my experience, prone to flare and with very poor contrast) but then again how many "serious" applications are there for a circular fish-eye...? It is fun to use if you like the effect, but it gets old pretty quickly.

My Peleng was rather difficult to dismount from the camera as the entire front of the lens would unscrew itself from the rest every now and then... It could have been my sample, because the factory has no quality control in the western meaning on this word, i.e. they seem to work on the principle that "if it looks like a lens, it is a lens. Ship it!" Test the very lens you are buying before committing your money (or get a firm money-back guarantee from the seller.) If you are paying for it more than 140-150 US dollars - including the mount - you are overpaying, IMO. I bought mine in Poland for approx. 80 dollars. Apparently it costs approx. 240 bucks - including s/h - directly imported to the US from the Ukraine, but some places ask much more than that.

Michael

From Nikon MF Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000
From: Osmo Honkanen [email protected]
Subject: Arsat PC!?

As a new subscriber excuse me a little rewind.

Is there really visible, singnificant differences in optical performance of Peleng and Zenitar fish-eye?

(http://www.egroups.com/files/NikonMF/Peleng-Zenitar+%28Nikkor%29+/)

Both look quite nice - while it is lacking real reference (Nikkor fish-eye). I have just came over my strong suspicions and bought 16 mm Zenitar. It has very rough work-out, but with a fraction of the costs of Nikkor fish-eye it works surprisingly well.

That leads me to ask if anyone have reviewed another interesting "eastern" lens: Arsat PC 2,8/35 mm, 399 $ at http://arsenal-photo.com/tilt.htm. It must be really bad, mustn't it? (And who will anyway in these Photoshop-days need a PC-lens - as Gord put in message #11677?)

Osmo

From Nikon MF Mailing List;
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000
From: "Gunnar �berg" [email protected]
Subject: Peleng versus Zenitar (Nikkor)

Hi Nikkonians;

At last the sun was there - a bit hazed but rather bright! I have added 3 files to this site

http://www.egroups.com/files/NikonMF/Peleng-Zenitar+%28Nikkor%29+/

to show flare while shooting in the sun. They are named "Flare - xx"

Summary:

The Peleng is more worked on but big and heavy - the Zenitar is a handy lens for your pocket.

The Peleng has got a preset ring for the apertures - the Zenitar just one necessary ring to stop down - you dont need more!

The Peleng has an unpractical lens hood made of sheetmetal - it falls off easily (quite a problem to put it inte the leather case with the hood on!) The Zenitar has a snap on hood - very safe I think if you just are a bit careful putting it on - the form gives you a hint how to put it!

There is a very ugly vignetting on pictures taken with the Peleng (look at the corners!) - the Zenitar gives you pictures without vignetting - bright an clear out to the corners

The Peleng lens flares easily - the Zenitar just a little.

Sharpness and contrast is difficult to judge but the differences are not great. Both perform well for the price!

The contest between Peleng and Zenitar ends IMHO with a victory for Zenitar! Reactions?

Best wishes
Gunnar �berg
Ronneby
Sweden

From Nikon MF Mailing LIst;
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000
From: Rick Housh [email protected]
Subject: Re: Peleng versus Zenitar (Nikkor)

Gunnar �berg wrote:

>I have added 3 files to this site
>http://www.egroups.com/files/NikonMF/Peleng-Zenitar+%28Nikkor%29+/
>to show flare while shooting in the sun. They are named "Flare - xx"
>
>Summary:

...

>There is a very ugly vignetting on pictures taken with the Peleng
>(look at the corners!) - the Zenitar gives you pictures without
>vignetting - bright an clear out to the corners
>The Peleng lens flares easily - the Zenitar just a little.
>Sharpness and contrast is difficult to judge but the differences are
>not great. Both perform well for the price!
>
>The contest between Peleng and Zenitar ends IMHO with a victory for
>Zenitar!
>Reactions?

I think your summary is quite accurate, Gunnar. The Zenitar obviously has much less flare than the Peleng. However, the vignetting you described on the Peleng isn't very evident in the images, at least to me. That curved shape in the top left corner looks like the side of a building to me, which is not visible in the narrower angle view of the other two lenses, and the other corners seem to be unobscured right to the corners.

Perhaps the vignetting was removed in the digital processing?

- Rick Housh -

From Nikon MF Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000
From: "Gunnar �berg" [email protected]
Subject: Peleng versus Zenitar (Nikkor)

Hi Rick,

No - it is not a building. Look at this picture

http://www.egroups.com/files/NikonMF/Peleng-Zenitar+%28Nikkor%29+/Pelinf-8.jpg

That s a graveyard with just the stones on the ground.

Here is the Zenitar picture - without ugly corners

http://www.egroups.com/files/NikonMF/Peleng-Zenitar+%28Nikkor%29+/Zeinf8.jpg

I have tried to center as precisely as possible while scanning the pictures. No one is cut or worked on. Obviously there is vignetting in the corners of the Peleng pictures. As if the lens is squeezing out as much information as possible - and does not succeed in the corners? !

But look - the vignetting is just in the top of the picture! Something with the alignment of the lenses? I dont know enough about optics to comment this - anybody have an idea why just in the top??

The Peleng is 17 mm - the Zenitar 16 mm. I have wondered why not 1 mm in such a super wide lens makes more impact on the perspective. There is about the same angle of view for both lenses. Could it be that the Zenitar uses the shorter length to cover the frame totally? Without any vignetting? Those corners of the Peleng disturb me - even if they perhaps are hidden in a slide show!

Best wishes
Gunnar �berg
Ronneby
Sweden

From Nikon MF Mailing List
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000
From: "Bob Scott" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Peleng versus Zenitar (Nikkor)

From: "Gunnar �berg" [email protected]

> The contest between Peleng and Zenitar ends IMHO with a victory for
> Zenitar!
> Reactions?

I have both lenses, and personally, I call it a draw. My Peleng is noticeably sharper than my Zenitar, but does show minor vignetting at some settings. The Zenitar is much more convenient to carry and use. They both are a great bargain!

Good shooting,
Bob Scott

Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000
From: "eMeL" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Help picking fisheye

SirScrilla [email protected] wrote

> if someone can help me, i'm looking for a fisheye for my canon eos mount
> camera. i'm looking for a cheap lens that doesn't show any border. please
> help me choose one if you can. *will mainly be used in skateboarding
> photography*

There is a full-frame Russian fish-eye lens (all manual) ZENITAR 2.8/16 mm available in the variety of mounts, including Canon EOS and FD. The quality is surprisingly good (if you are lucky NOT to get a crappy one...) My specimen works admirably at f/8-11 and corner-to-corner sharpness and color rendition are comparable to the Canon's own 15 mm fish eye, but unfortunately the lens is prone to severe flare when any strong light source is included in the frame (not always a bad thing, BTW.) This lens can be had for ~ $100 in Eastern Europe or ~ $200-300 in the US from a variety of internet sources (a quick search for "ZENITAR" turns up a good number of links, but I've seen its prices vary from $100-600, so watch out for rip-off artists out there...)

Michael

From Russian Camera Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000
From: "Kelvin" [email protected]
Subject: Belarrusian optics

I thought this site may interest some of you, esp. those who are interested in the 8/3.5 FE and 17/2.8 FE.

http://www.optika.boom.ru/index.htm

It's quite cute. It includes a brief character CV of the guy who will source for the lenses ... and how sociable he is ;)

From: "eMeL" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000
Subject: Re: cheapest Canon fisheye

There is also a full-frame russian fish-eye lens (all manual) ZENITAR 2.8/16 mm available in the variety of mounts, including Canon EOS and FD. The quality is surprisingly good (if you are lucky NOT to get a crappy one...) My specimen works admirably at f/8-11 and corner-to-corner sharpness and color rendition are comparable to the Canon's own 15 mm fish eye, but unfortunately the lens is prone to severe flare when any strong light source is included in the frame (not always such a bad thing, BTW.) This lens can be had for ~ $100 in Eastern Europe or ~ $200-300 in the US from a varitey of internet sources (a quick search for "ZENITAR" turns up a good number of links, but I've seen its prices vary from $100-600, so watch out for rip-off artists out there...)

Michael

...

From Panoramic Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001
From: Marco Pauck [email protected]
Subject: Re: Peleng fisheye (was: question)

> lyz wrote:
>
> Dear All:
>    Does anyone know of 8mm'Peleng len? the len is really cheaper. I try to
> shoot spherical panoramas 360x180,but I can't get good one.

I'm also just considering buying one for the same application.

There are several dealers selling this lens. Have a look at

http://www.geocities.com/belshop/index.html

http://www.peleng-club.co.uk/

>    Does anyone can give me suggestions about 8mm'fisheyes Peleng len or other
> 8mm'fisheyes lens? which one is good and cheaper?

Well, it depends ... ;-)

The 2.8/8mm Nikkor might be better but is also *far* more expensive.

From the comments from other users, the Peleng seems to be not only the cheapest full-circle fisheye but also have a quite good quality, surely good enough for screen-size VR panos. Just see:

http://www.photographyreview.com/reviews/35mm_lenses/product_5997.asp

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fisheye_lens

http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/third/kievwide.html

BTW: You should also check the 'Immersive imaging' mailinglist:

http://listserv.fh-furtwangen.de/cgi-bin/lwgate/lwgate-en-proj/PROJ-IMIM/

Marco

--
Marco Pauck -- [email protected] -- http://www.pauck.de/marco/

From Russian Camera Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001
From: "Kelvin" [email protected]
Subject: Belarussian Optics

I found a Belarussian site which sells M42 screwmount :

Peleng 17/2.8 FE US$90 (retail) US$70 (wholesale)
Peleng 8/3.5 FE US$130 (r) US$115 (wholesale)

...prices are new and do not incl. transaction or shipping.

I have posted the URL already at Club M42. You can refer:

http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/clubm42

From Nikon Mailing List;
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001
From: "Jim Tardio" [email protected]
Subject: [NIKON] Zenitar 16mm Fisheye Lens for Nikon

I've seen these lenses advertised on the web, so I finally bought one. If anyone is interested in reading a report about it, I posted one on my website, along with some photos. Check it out here:

http://www.jimtardio.com/zenitar.html

From: Roman Prokhorov [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001
Subject: Re: Zenitar M 2.8/16mm

...

I have this lens, bought directly from the factory for $75 a year ago.

http://roma.at.ru/VIEWS/landscape_hi.jpg

http://roma.at.ru/VIEWS/sunset03_hi.jpg

http://roma.at.ru/ANM/goat01_hi.jpg

--
Roman

From: [email protected] (Jsnack)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 09 Apr 2001
Subject: Russian Zenitar 16mm Fisheye Lens for Nikon

If anyone is interested in this lens, I've written a report about it and included some photos. Go to:

www.jimtardio.com/zenitar.html

It's a very capable alternative to Nikon's 16mm fisheye at a fraction of the cost.

From Russian Camera Mailing List;
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: Zenitar 16 mm lens

The ex-factory price of the 16mm Zenitar fisheye lens is about $ 72 in M-42 screw mount and about $ 120 in Nikon mount. You can buy them directly from the factory, although it does take them some time to fill the order ( a couple of months). Some friends and I pooled our resources and bought a bunch of them direct along with Zenit loupes and other things.

There is a minor problem with the lens in M-42 mount when used with an adapter. It does not line up properly with the aperture index at the top, but offset counterclockwise. This means the built in lens hood does not line up properly. I have not had time to look into adjusting this.

The factory web site is at http://www.zenit-foto.ru/

Bob Shell

...

[Ed. note: possible concern to Nikon AI only camera owners relating to older Russian and pre-1984 Kiev Nikon mount "AI" lenses?...]
From Nikon Mailing List;
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001
From: "Stouten, Pim (EBI)" [email protected]
Subject: [NIKON] RE: Russian Optics for a Nikon?

....

It looks like you've got the focal lenghts above 35mm covered, so you might be looking for a 24 or even 20mm lens. I have used a Mir 3.5/20mm for the last 5-6 years, and am very satisfied with it. Disadvantage of most of these lenses (well, at least the onse I saw) is they don't have AI-notches on the aperture ring, so aperture settings won't be communicated to your camera (OTOH, I have a Russian-made teleconvertor that IS AI-compatible). You'd have to use stop-down metering to get proper exposures.

Feel free to contact me off-list!

Best,

Pim Stouten
AMS, NL

From Nikon Mailing List;
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001
From: Karlis Zigurs [email protected]
Subject: Re: [NIKON] Russian Optics for a Nikon?

Hello Pascal,

There is little problem with russian lenses for kiev - they are ALMOST compactible to nikon cameras. Difference (AS far as I have gone) lies in mount external workship on lens - on nikkor there is a little latch (~5PM) on body that is being touched by lens - russian lenses don't support it - therefore if you mount thge russian lenses on your camera you risk

a) damaging latch

b) applying excessive stress to camera lens m,ount (because latch don't allows to properly seat in

c) latch disturbs aperature action.

If you see the sample where latch compactibility is ok - take it - our lenses are mainly old nikon/leica copy's without build quality ;)

Karlos

...

[Ed. note: the newer Ukrainian (Kiev) lenses may be more compatible?]
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001
From: Ihor Karpinsky [email protected]
Subject: Re: [NIKON] RE: Russian Optics for a Nikon?

"Stouten, Pim (EBI)" wrote:

> ...Most of them are actually made in Ukraine, in general both build and optical
> quality are not bad at all, only lens coating isn't too good (watch out  for
> flare, especially with wide angle lenses). Brands are Arsat, Mir,  Peleng,
> most lenses I've seen for sale in 'the west' are wide angles.

Correct, only one nikon compatible russian lens I know now is 16mm wide angle, it is made in Pentax and Nikon mount and priced about $150 US in Moscow for nikon mount (originally about $100 for Pentax mount). :-o

> ...Disadvantage of most of these lenses (well, at least the onse I saw)  is they
> don't have AI-notches on the aperture ring, so aperture settings won't  be
> communicated to your camera (OTOH, I have a Russian-made teleconvertor  that
> IS AI-compatible). You'd have to use stop-down metering to get proper
> exposures.L

May be, you have an very old sample for Kiev-17 camera (check lens serial number -- first two digits are year of production)? Since 1984 all Kiev nikon compatible lenses are AI. I still have four Kiev lenses (for Kiev-20 camera) and everyone work well with camera metering in aperture priority and manual mode on N70/N90s.

- --
Best Regards! Ihor Karpinsky.
Lviv, Ukraine.

From Contax Mailing List;
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] Russian wide angles

> From: "Valcour" [email protected]
> Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 
> Subject: [CONTAX] Russian wide angles
>
>
> 1) Yes, the guy is of polish origins, and goes there quite often. So,  you
> just have to say how many you want...

BTW, MIR is a lens designation, not the name of the maker. MIR lenses come from Krasnogorsk Optical Factory.

You can learn all about this company on their web site. The URL for the English version is:

http://www.zenit-foto.ru/english/start.htm

They used to have a price list of all of the products posted, but I didn't see it this morning.

Ex factory price of the 16mm fisheye in M-42 mount was about $ 72 when we bought ours. C/Y adapters can be bought new for about $ 12. Sounds like this Polish guy is making himself a very nice profit!!!!

Bob Shell

From: "G. Fenstermacher" [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Cheap Fish-eye Lens?
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 

"Ryan Forman" [email protected]> wrote 
> Anyone use the zenitar russian fish-eye lens?  How is it?  Are there

I have one in K mount.

I'm obsessed with it.

> anyother cheap fish-eye lenses out there?  Thanks for the info.  I have a
> Nikon N70.

At $136 to my door, i doubt you'll ever find a cheaper one. The Peleng 8mm
one is sort of cool, too, but you don't get a full frame out of it.


From: Robert Kirkpatrick [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Cheap Fish-eye Lens?
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2001 

Over the years there have been various fish-eye adapters to mount on
the front of a 50mm lens.  Kenko made a very nice one.  These front
mount converters are very common for camcorders.  I believe B&H
is listing some new fisheye camcorder converters but you would need
to use them stopped down.  Traditional still camera converters show
up periodically in used stock or on Ebay.  Adorama even had one in
their catalog a few years ago.  The Russian fisheye was recently reviewed
in one of the major magazines, Shutterbug I think.  It is slightly longer
than a true circular fisheye so the top and bottom of the circle are cut
off on the 35mm frame.  (It was originally designed for a slightly larger
Russian film format.)

As for standard lenses I bought a used Sigma diagonal (full frame) fisheye

from Adorama that I'm very happy with and that wasn't too expensive.


Richard Cochran wrote:

> Ryan Forman wrote:
> >
> > Anyone use the zenitar russian fish-eye lens?  How is it?  Are there
> > anyother cheap fish-eye lenses out there?  Thanks for the info.  I
> > have a Nikon N70.
>
> The cheapest fisheye suggestion I've heard is to get one of those
> security peepholes designed to give you a fisheye view through your
> front door.  Drill a hole in the center of a spare lenscap, and mount
> the peephole there.  Obviously, optical quality may be really lacking,
> but for the price, it might make for some interesting experiments.
> I've never tried this myself.
>
> --Rich


From: Anthony Polson [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: vivitar lenses?
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2001 

"Webmarketing" [email protected]> wrote:

> I consider them, while not stellar performers,  a good value.  It gives
> beginning photographers a way to experiment with other focal lengths without
> taking our a second mortgage.

Hi Fred,

If only this were true.  The Cosina-made lenses are almost all junk, and
there are much better alternatives for only a *tiny* bit more money.

The clearest example is the Cosina/Soligor/Vivitar/Phoenix 19-35mm that
was also briefly available about 3-4 years ago as a Tokina.  The
rectilinear distortion of this lens is so bad that it could accurately
be termed the world's first zoom fisheye.  

Contrast this with the Tokina-made 20-35mm that replaced it in the
Tokina range.  This has dramatically better sharpness and contrast, less
than half the distortion of the Cosina/Soligor/Vivitar/Phoenix 19-35mm,
and superb colour rendition.  I bought one to try and find out which two
or three wide angle focal lengths I would choose to buy and ended up
liking it a lot.  It costs a tiny fraction more than the Cosina/Soligor/
Vivitar/Phoenix "lens" and is at least 10 times better value for money.

The same applies to most Cosina lenses; there will be a very much better
alternative for a small extra cost.  These other brands are not only a
way to experiment with other focal lengths, they are a way into taking
excellent pictures in the right hands.  

There's no need to take out a second mortgage either.  Win/Win/Win!

If people persist in buying Cosina/Soligor/Vivitar/Phoenix lenses
because they appear to offer good value to a beginner, they would either
be wrong or badly advised.  Even the best Cosina/Soligor/Vivitar/Phoenix
lenses suffer from such appalling build quality and sample variation
that you cannot sensibly expect *your* lens to give a performance that
even slightly resembles the results of any "independent" tests.

Just as with Sigma, we'd all love to be able to own the review samples
that Cosina supply to photo mags.  Unfortunately, thousands of people
end up buying Cosina and Sigma junk products on the basis of highly
inaccurate and dangerously misleading reviews in magazines that depend
on advertising revenue for their survival.  What price impartiality? 

And, as you once said to me (correctly) "Don't quote Photodo to me!"
 
g>

-- 
Best regards,
Anthony Polson


From: Joerg Daehn [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Russian made fisheye lenses
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 

it is:
http://www.pauck.de/marco/photo/stuff/peleng_fisheye/peleng_fisheye.html

DO wrote:

> I frequently see fisheye lenses of Russian manufacture for sale on
> eBay.  Can anyone comment as to the general quality?  What I'm looking
> for is a full-frame fisheye for a Pentax K-mount.
> 
> Dave


Joerg Daehn      Tele-/Mobilfon:        +49 511/178  80 77 866
Jordanstr. 17    Email:                 [email protected]


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

??? wrote:

> I have a Nikon 16mm fisheye len.
> It's really good len.
> When I shoot the sun directly ,there is no visible goast in the frame.
> And I buy a 0.8mm tube for the fisheye to let it shoot the insect.
> This is a intresting way to take a micro picture.
>
> I like my fisheye len.
>
> "Stephe Thayer" [email protected]>
> > 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 have used a Nikkor 16mm fish on an FM with extension tubes to take
magnificent macro shots. With 25mm. extension, f22, you can actually have
objects, such as flowers, touch the front lens. The petal of the flower
touching the lens will be in sharp focus and the other petals will be in focus
also. If you want to soften things a bit, just shoot a little bit more open.
You can tape gel filters to the rear of the lens or use the filters included in
the lens for B+W shots.

I have used extension tubes on my Kiev 88 and 30mm. to get the same effect.
Pretty awesome. You don't see many people using this combination for macro.
Depth of field is almost too much, gotta watch the backgrounds!

Ronald R. Levandoski, DMD, Ltd.



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] (Richard Cochran)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Any good fisheye pictures?
Date: 21 Dec 2001 

"Eddie O'Bryan" [email protected]> wrote 
> Does anyone have any fisheye photos they've taken that they're especially
> proud of?  I'd be really interested to see them.  I'm thinking about getting
> one, and am curious to see what some of you guys have done with them.

As has been said, a google search on "fisheye" will give some
results, as will a search on photo.net.

But I'll inject an observation:  I notice in browsing used equipment
listings that one rarely finds a used fisheye that's in a worn 
condition.  The ratio of pristine ones to beaters is much higher
than most other categories of lenses.  I'm guessing this is because
quite a few people buy one, use it for a few nifty photos, and
then tire of it and let it sit.

--Rich


To: [email protected]>
From: "Kelvin" [email protected]>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 
Subject: Re: [camera-fix] paint for lenses

Hi Jim

Would this happen to be a Peleng 8/3.5 FE ?

IF so, this lens could seriously do with a repaint on the insides.
I have a new one in EX+++ condition... but the flare from the internal
reflections of the barrel are very obvious.

Let us know how you do.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Brokaw" [email protected]>
To: [email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 1:35 PM
Subject: Re: [camera-fix] paint for lenses


> kelvin at [email protected] wrote:
>
> > Jim
> >
> > Are these white areas in actuality, bits of fungus? If so, you may be
> > better off
> > just treating it with the h202/ammonia solution mentioned and at best
> > touching it
> > up with some flat black enamel.
> >
> > Not worth the while re-painting.
> >
> I suspect they might be fungus colonies although they appear more like mold,
> almost. Little almost circular areas ranging from pinhead to perhaps 1/8",
> although as this is a 8mm fisheye lens the size and curvature of the element
> might be distorting the actual size of the spots. I'm thinking I'll strip
> the paint on there with some kind of remover, starting with lacquer thinner
> and progressing to actual paint remover. The piece is glass, so I would hope
> it won't be damaged... although I don't know about the coating. Then I'll
> clean with acetone, and paint with black model-car paint, or a good black
> paint. The surfaces that are painted are what would correspond to the sides
> of the element, but remember that it has a large-diameter domed front and an
> almost hemispherical inner surface, so there is a broad band of black
> surface that is almost the 'bottom' of the lens. Its as if you took a
> convex-concave lens and then warped it about 75 degrees backon itself. This
> is the element that gathers that 180 degree fisheye view. I'm sure the black
> paint is to prevent an incredible flare problem.
> --
> Jim Brokaw



From leica topica mailing list:
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 
From: Mark Bohrer [email protected]
Subject: RE: photography with ultrawide lenses (was:  CV 28/1.9)


I've been struggling with a 12mm UW Heliar for six months now. To make the
inevitable corner darkening less obvious, best results have been with
interior shots with a localized light source, and outdoor shots with dark
edges. The wide angle falling building syndrome is another problem
obviated by waist-level shooting with a tripod. (Falling building effects
may look OK in ghosts towns, or even be the true situation there...)

A good example of a 12mm interior shot is at
http://www.kokophoto.com/GCNP_&_AZ/AZ%20other/MokeGuestBath.htm. There's a
slight amount of cropping to left and right. I shot this in a friend's B&B
suite south of Sedona, AZ.

 you wrote:
>Using an ultrawide like the Heliar 15 is not easy for me. I work at it. I
>would say I'm much more successful at using the 24 or a 21mm lens, simply
>because of the coverage.
>
>B&W or color doesn't make much difference ... it's *seeing* with such wide
>coverage that's difficult.

Mark Bohrer
www.kokophoto.com



from russian camera mailing list:
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 
From: "yupiter3" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Super wide angle lens "ZENITAR" 2.8/16mm LINKS

Darcie; here are some links for the 16mm Zenitar- Philip

http://www.jimtardio.com/zenitar.html

http://teladesign.com/photo/zenitar.html

http://www.photozone.de/reviews/zenitar16.htm

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=000xAQ

http://l.lopez.home.att.net/zenitar/zenitar.htm



From: [email protected] (john chapman)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Tokina 17 vs Nikon 18-35 vs Nikon 17-35 Wide Open
Date: 7 Mar 2002 


I owned and tested the Tok 17 ATX AF for Nikon.  Like so many of the
Tokinas I have owned and tested, resolution in the center was OK, but
poor at the edges.  I soon sold it.  Since my test procedures do not
measure curvature of field, it could be that high curvature of field
in the ATX caused poor edge performance.  But in any case, it was not
a good lens.

Interestingly, the Tokina 17 SL which is MF seemed to be a much better
lens optically.  I kept it and used it several years until I replaced
my Nikon 20-35/2.8 with a new 17-35/2.8 .  The 17-35 is far superior
tothe Tok 17 ATX, but similar in performance to the cheaper 17mm SL.
That the SL is comparable to the Nikon says good things about the SL.
That the Nikon is as good as the SL, which is a prime lens says good
things about the Nikon.


"Tom Darlington" [email protected] wrote 
> I am looking for a new lens wider than my 20mm Nikon F2.8 AF.
> I went to my local camera store today and looked at the Nikon 17-35.
> It was definately impressive. The reports on the web are very positive also.
> I know I would love the lens.
> I am also considering the Tokina 17 ATX Pro and the Nikon 18-35
> because of the 3-4 times price difference.
> I know all the lenses will work great when stopped down to F8 or more.
> My concern is the optical performance wide open.
> I know the 17-35 is the best, but how do the other two compare.
> I also have a Tokina 28-70 F2.8 ATX that I am not happy with wide open.
>
> Thanks for any help,


From camera fix mailing list:
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: 16mm Zenitar (was: Zenit camera and lens)

celicav8 at [email protected] wrote:
> Bob,
>
> How does this lens perform? Can it be fitted to a Minolta SR-bayonet
> mount, e.g. by use of an adapter M42 to SR?
> Where can *I* buy one for that price, using PayPal?
>
> Bert

Performance:  Good.

Minolta: I don't know.

Buy via PayPal: you can't.  KMZ only accepts direct bank transfers.

Bob


From nikon mailing list:
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 
From: Bill Maloney [email protected]
Subject: Re: 16mm Zenitar in Nikon mount

--- jkalach [email protected] wrote:
> Does anyone have any experience with the Russian-made Zenitar
> 16mm
> ultra-wide angle lens in the Nikon mount?

Hi Jim,

I have one that I use on my F and Nikkormat.  The first example
that arrived had something rattling inside and the diaphragm was
disconnected from the aperture ring (turning it did nothing in
regards to opening or closing the aperture).  The replacement
seems OK.  It does seem a bit soft for landscapes.  But for
people or high contrast subjects it's great.  It has a lot of
distortion which makes it a lot of fun for shooting people and
trucks and boats.  Center it a little off the horizon and you
get lots of curvature in the frame, which can be fun if you're
looking for a different effect.  It seems sturdily built and not
too big.  The lens cap is kind of fragile and could be easily
broken.  It's not as sharp as a Nikkor but nowhere near as
expensive either.

Bill Maloney
Wayne, NJ USA


from russian camera mailing list
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: Zenit camera and lens

Anatoly Nevelev at [email protected] wrote:
> Hi Bob
> 1. For the buyers from abroad of Russia the minimal sum of purchase = $ 2000.
> 2. The prices specified on an official site KMZ are intended only for a home
> market (only for Russia).
> 3. ???????? cameras, for example Zenit FS-122 PhotoSniper, KMZ any more does
> not sell on export.
> 4. At purchase of the camera at KMZ and sending it abroad of Russia -  the
> price of the camera is increased by 20 % - customs duties
>
> Anatoly

I've bought directly from KMZ.  I had none of the above problems.  I just
bought 16mm F-Zenitars last year for $ 72 each.

Bob


From: T.P. [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Trying out cheap wide angle lenses
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 


"Bob Fowler" [email protected] wrote:
>
>I've got news... According to a friend (who is a Tokina rep), the Tokina
>19-35 zoom IS the Phoenix!  It's the only lens in the Tokina line that isn't
>made by Tokina - Cosina strikes again!


Your "friend" has misled you.  They are NOT the same lens.

It is true that, about four or five years ago, some Cosina-made
19-35mm lenses were sold under the Tokina brand.  This arrangement
lasted for a short time while Tokina developed their own design, the
20-35mm f/3.5-4.5, the optical performance of which blew the Cosina
junk off the planet.

The latest Tokina 19-35mm f/3.5-4.5 is closely based on the optical
design of the 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5 and bears not the slightest
resemblance to the optical design of the Cosina-made lens.


It's very easy to tell the difference between shots made with the
Cosina and Tokina designs:  The Cosina design has appalling barrel
distortion at the wide end and startling pincushion distortion at the
35mm end.  It bears more resemblance to a fisheye than a rectilinear
lens.  If you want a cheap zoom fisheye, this is the lens for you!

It is perhaps a sad indictment of the lack of ability of "the average
amateur" that so many buy the Cosina-made junk when the Tokina costs
so little more and performs so very much better.


From: [email protected] (Neuman - Ruether)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Zenitar 16/2.8 fish-eye
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002
 Steffen Kluge [email protected] wrote:

>can anybody relate some first-hand experience with this Russian
>made lens, available in various mounts, that is omnipresent on
>eBay?

The memory of the image is dim, but a user who liked
it sent me an image shot with one that looked at least
decent in the corners... Cheap, it may be worth a try.
My favorite: the older Nikkor 16mm f3.5, which is about
as good as wide-angles get (very sharp to the corners
[and with good corners even wide open], very "brilliant"
and free of flare, and good on the TC14A converter...;-).

David Ruether
 [email protected]
 http://www.ferrario.com/ruether


Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 
To: Russiancamera-user [email protected]
From: Bob Ludwig [email protected]
Subject: [Russiancamera] Re: Zenitar Fisheye on a LSM Rangefinder

The standard trick is to combine a Pentax 42mm to Canon FL/FD adapter with a
Canon FL to LTM adapter. The Pentax to Canon adapters are common (both Canon
and generic versions), simple and relatively cheap ($10 to $30). The Canon
FL to LTM adapters go for $20 to $85 or so.
I have used the non-fisheye Canon 19mm R FL lens on Leicas extensively
without rangefinder coupling. The pictures were great.

Bob Ludwig



Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 
Subject: Re: [Russiancamera] Zenitar Fisheye on a LSM Rangefinder
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
To: [email protected]

scoop at [email protected] wrote:
> Does anyone have experience with this lens, on a rangefinder or SLR? How do
> you like it?

I bought several of them direct from KMZ a while back for $ 72 each.  They
vary somewhat in sharpness from sample to sample.  If you get a really good
one, it can be exceptionally good.

Bob


From Manual SLR Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 
From: Stephen Gandy [email protected]
Subject: Amazing New CV Stuff


Hi Folks,

Courtesy of a CameraQuest spy at Photokina, a few minutes ago I learned
of some rather amazing things about the new Voigtlander SL lens lineup.

To this point in time, the widest lens available for a Nikon F mount SLR
was the 13mm Nikkor.  The widest Nikon or classic Contax rangefinder
lens was 21.    Soon all of them can shoot with a 12 !

Next year Voigtlander will be marketing the 12/5.6 and 15/4.5 in Nikon F
mount, for mirror lock up.  I am told these lenses will fit the Nikon F,
Nikon F2, F3, and F4.   A special finder will be made to replace the
pentaprism on the F or F2.   scale focus of course.


now the really neat stuff comes to play.

Voigtlander will make an adapter to mount the F mount  12's and 15's on
Nikon Rangefinders (and classic Contax RF's too, since they have the
same outside mount and back focus).

to go one stop further, the same adapter can be used to mount ANY Nikon
F mount lens on Nikon or Contax rangefinders -- scale focusing only, of
course, no rangefinder coupling.

and of course, if you buy the Voigtlander R2S or R2C, you will be able
to use any of these lenses with TTL metering.!

it's amazing these lenses are being made at all, just amazing.

Stephen



Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 
To: Russiancamera-user [email protected]
From: Zhang XK 
Subject: [Russiancamera] Re: Zenitar Fisheye on a LSM Rangefinder


scoop wrote:
>
> I have a Zenitar f2.8/16mm fisheye that I bought from (need
> you ask) "Zenitar". It was a good transaction, lens as
> described, and it arrived quickly in what appears to be the
> Russian equivalent of a US Priority Mail box; sadly, no string.
>
> The lens is in a M42 mount and I can use it now on a Pentax.
> What I plan to do though is mount it on a Zorki. It won't
> couple to the rangefinder, of course, but the depth of field
> on such a short lens is so great that it's practical to
> visually estimate distance and set the focus on the lens
> scale. (The next indicated gradation after infinity is 1.2
> meters).
>
> There is a nice table of lens registration distances at
> http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/mounts.htm. With a Leica
> registration distance given as 1.1339" (28.8mm) and the M42
> mount registration distance as 1.7898" (45.46mm), I'll need
> an adapter which increases the lens to film distance by
> 0.6559".
>
> Has anyone attempted this adaptation? I know that Steve Gandy
> sells adapters but they seem expensive at $125 so I'll
> probably machine my own unless someone on this forum has a
> source of less expensive one. The LSM end of things is
> actually an English thread, 26 tpi, BTW.
>
> Does anyone have experience with this lens, on a rangefinder
> or SLR? How do you like it?

I have thought about using my MC MIR-20M 3.5/20 on a Zorki or Fed and found
one tube of the 4 piece M39 extension tube set is about the size as
required. The only thing need to do is to drill the M39 thread to M42. If
the lens works fine on a 35mm SLR, it should perform as well on a
rangefinder camera. Considering the high prices of wideangle rangefinder
lenses, it is worth doing.  But I haven't shoot any film yet.



From minolta MF mailing list:
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 
From: "Michael Hood" [email protected]
Subject: Re: 3rd Party lenses

That lens is also sold as a vivitar series 1 and tokina and it was designed
by cosina. I have the vivitar version. Stopped down to F8 it's actually
fairly sharp. Wide open it's a dog and it flares like mad. It does produce
awesome color though. It's not bad for an ultra cheap way into ultra wide
photography.

-Mike

----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Morris" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 
Subject: Re: [Minolta] 3rd Party lenses

> I use a Phoenix 19-35 3.5-4.5AF.  I works fine for me.  Just a little soft
but good for catching large groups.


From nikon MF mailing list:
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 
From: Larry Kopitnik [email protected]
Subject: re: New super wides for MF Nikons


Stephen Gandy (of http://www.CameraQuest.com fame) just posted to his
manual SLR elist (SLRMAN onTopica) that Cosina will soon be releasing
under their really excellent Voigtlander label 12/5.6 and 15/4.5
lenses in Nikon F mount. The lenses are said to be scale focus (which
at those focal lengths is no problem) and designed for use on the F,
F2, F3 or F4 (F5?) because those bodies have the required mirror
lockup capability. Supposedly Cosina will be making a special finder
to replace the pentaprism on the F/F2.


This is wonderful news! I'd take the Voigtlander/Cosina 15 mm lens
over the current 14 mm Nikkor in a second.

I first had the Voigtlander on the cheapest Voigtlander/Cosina body,
which together take up comparable space in a camera bag and weigh
less than the 14 mm Nikkor alone. The lens is closer to f/4 than
f/4.5 wide open, and being able to handhold a rangefinder at a slower
shutter speed than an SLR (no mirror slap), I could shoot it in light
comparable to an f/2.8 SLR lens. Depth of field is great enough that
in normal use focus could be easily preset, though the scale focusing
kept me from using the lens at close distances. But that cheapest
body really did feel cheap, and stupidly I sold the combination.

Then I got the 14 mm Nikkor. It's a sharp lens across the frame. The
Voigtlander is sharper in the center, the Nikkor at the edges. The
Voigtlander has more light falloff at the corners (typical of a
mostly non-retrofocus design). But the Nikkor can flare horribly if
the sun is anywhere in front of you, even outside of the frame. This
is probably unavoidable with its huge front element, a problem the
tiny Voigtlander doesn't have (an advantage of the Voigtlander's
mostly non-retroficus design). I got tired of having good
compositions ruined by flare and aperture ghosts and finally sold the
14 mm Nikkor.

I eventually got the 17-35 Nikkor, and more than a year later I am
very pleased with its performance. It needs to be closed down a
couple of stops to show its best, but I consider it to be the widest
angle Nikkor currently made which can be used outdoors without worry.

On an SLR, the Voigtlander/Cosina lens is indeed slower, losing the
rangefinder body advantage. Still, if Cosina is coming out with their
ultra wides to fit my F2, I see a wider angle lens in my future
(maybe the 12 this time?).

Larry


From nikon MF mailing list:
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 
From: "Dan Lindsay" [email protected]
Subject: Re: New super wides for MF Nikons

The biggest problem that you will run into with these lenses on your SLRs in
F-mount is that you don't get to view through the lens.  And, since ultra-wides
have a propensity to flair quite easily, you will lack the ability to minimize that
flair through careful camera placement or blockage with your hand those
strong light sources.  That will be a lot of bad shots.  For me, I prefer my 13mm
f/5.6 Nikkor AIS! --Dan




Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 
To: Russiancamera-user [email protected]
From: scoop [email protected]
Subject: [Russiancamera] Zenitar Fisheye On A Zorki (Reprise)

Following up on my earlier posting, I machined an adapter to mount the
Zenitar 16mm/f2.8 (M42 mount, 42x1mm)on my Leica screw mount (39mm x 26 tpi)
cameras. I included a rim at the rear of the M42 thread to depress the
automatic diaphragm actuator (this is an Pentax type SLR lens) so that I
could use the f-stop ring in the usual way.

The viewfinder needed for use with the RF cameras was fabricated using a
fisheye door peephole viewer. These are available in a number of different
view angles; I used a 200 degree viewer and masked it to match the ca. 180
field of view of the Zenitar. I actually did this by mounting the lens on a
SLR then masking the newly made RF viewfinder to match the SLR viewing field.

I've posted several photographs taken over the weekend with the lens mounted
on a Zorki 3M.  Seems to work.


Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 09:21:50 -0600
   From: "Michael Hood" 
Subject: Re: Vivitar Series 1  AUTO FOCUS ZOOM 19-35mm /3.5-4.5

It's a pretty cool lens. We have one in Minolta AF mount and Canon FD mount.
Has awesome color and sharpness is OK but nothing to write home about. But
it makes a descent 8x10 or 11x14 (never tried it at a bigger enlargement
like I have my other lenses). Light fall off is minimal, Corner sharpness
isn't quite as good as center, but not too shabby considering the price. It
focuses down to around a foot... Possibly 15" At 19mm and F13 or smaller you
can literally have everything in focus from infinity up to the front lens
element.

It does flare like mad, and it does have some distortion @ 19mm. The build
quality is cheap.. But it comes with a 5 year warranty, so the cheap build
quality is kinda meaningless. FWIW neither of mine have had a problem.

For $90 bucks it'll be the most fun for the money you can buy. It opens a
whole new world of perspectives. Obviously a much more expensive UW zoom
would be better, but it depends on how much you will use one. I find I use
mine more and more and eventually I will buy a nicer one.

So basically if you want the ultra wide experience with acceptable results
and don't want to break the bank. The lens is a good buy. If you want superb
results, Buy a Sigma 17-35 EX or a Minolta 17-35 G. This lens is designed by
cosina and sold as a vivitar, phoenix, tokina, and possibly a few others.

FWIW Here's a few samples taken with this lens a couple years ago. I have
some really cool ones from my galveston trip but I haven't scanned them yet.

http://www.vwpower.org/mhood/gallery/otherstuff/aaa
http://www.vwpower.org/mhood/gallery/Landscapes/aaa
http://www.vwpower.org/mhood/gallery/Landscapes/aac
http://www.vwpower.org/mhood/gallery/Landscapes/aaq
http://www.vwpower.org/mhood/gallery/Architecture/aaa

-Mike
...


From minolta mailing list:
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 
From: "haefr2000" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Vivitar Series 1  AUTO FOCUS ZOOM 19-35mm /3.5-4.5

It's actually made by Cosina and is also available under the Phoenix
and perhaps Kalimar brand names, and perhaps several others.  It
was/is available re-branded as a Tokina, but it is NOT the same lens
that Tokina actually makes and sells as their "AF-193" lens of the
same speed and focal range.  The Cosina 19-35 model has a filter
mount that rotates during focusing which complicates use of
polarizers and gradient density filters.  The Tokina AF-193's front
element DOES rotate, but the filter mount does NOT.




From: Paul van Walree [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Contax] Utrawides usage rules
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 

The muchan [email protected] wrote:

>> Useful guides will tell you that a lens does not offer a perspective.
>>
>In another forum I saw a discussion about perspective recently.
>
>The basic fact is that perspective changes when view point moves. (a)
>
>Someone said shifting the lens doesn't change the view point, so
>calling shifting enabled lens as PC (Perspective Control) lens
>is minomer. (b)
>
>Another said shifting the lens upward changs the actual viewpoint,
>thus changes the perspective, so calling shift lens as PC is correct. (c)

I think that there are two effects that we must separate here. When you
look around with your naked eye, the position of your eye determines the
viewpoint and hence gives the perspective. When you look through a camera,
the position of the lens (nodal point) gives the viewpoint. So, when the
camera is on a tripod and a wideangle lens is exchanged for a tele lens,
the perspective may differ slightly because the positions of the lens
nodal points can differ by a few cm. Likewise, when a PC lens is shifted
upward I suppose its nodal point may shift along. But again, the
perspective would change only by a little.

The key issue is the following. When a 40-m building is photographed from
ground level with a tilted camera and converging verticals arise (i), the
convergence can be made undone with a PC lens (ii). The perspective
however does not change since the viewpoint remains basically the same.
Alternatively, we can climb an adjacent tower and photograph the building
from a viewpoint 20 meters above the ground (iii). Here there is no need
for a PC lens to get the verticals parallel and the perspective may be
called natural. The perspectives (i) and (ii) are the same, while
perspective (iii) is very different. And the actual photographs, these are
all different. It would be incorrect to say that a PC lens can be used to
give the natural perspective corresponding to nonconverging verticals. A
perspective control lens does not change or even control the perspective
and in that respect you could call it a misnomer.

Apart from the perspective pertaining to the picture taking conditions
there is also the perspective pertaining to the picture viewing
conditions. So-called perspective distortions arise when a photograph is
judged from a wrong viewing point. Pictures (i) and (ii) look strange when
they are viewed from a position right in front of the print.
(i) looks strange because of the converging verticals and (ii) looks
strange because we can't see the flowers on the windowsill of the second
floor which we can clearly see in photograph (iii). Yes, (iii) is the only
print that looks natural when it is viewed from the usual position
straight in front of the photograph. Things are different when we look at
the prints from a low viewpoint, corresponding to the picture taking
conditions of (i) and (ii). Now (i) and (ii) look natural and people are
less inclined to speak of perspective distortions. From this viewpoint
number (iii) looks funny because we can see the flowers on the sill while
we seem to be standing on ground level.

>And for correcting the convergence (building like falling toward us,
>when we point the camera upward) meticulous photographers with view
>camera often set the lens to correct position first, then move the
>filmplain downward, (not the shifting the lens, but shifting the
>body) in this case really he is changing the view point to change
>the perspective (d)

I must disagree. The moment the position of the lens is fixed, the
perspective is fixed too.



From: "Alexander" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Contax] Utrawides usage rules
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 

Let me try to add something here that might be helpful in further
understanding this issue.

Depth of Field by 1 eye is not possible. The reason we 'see' the 3rd
dimension through our eyes is because we have 2 of them at separate
locations. If you close 1 eye long enough (for many many hours) you will
start to loose the perception of depth.

So looking through the lens you actually see a flat image that you are
recognizing as 3D because you have previously seen it with 2 eyes.

I hope I explained myself well and did not add more confusion :-)


From minolta mf mailing list:
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 
From: Eugene Dobryanskiy [email protected]
Subject: Re[2]: Russian lenses for Minolta

Hello

 you wrote:

AZ> Russian stuff have always been suffering from poor quality control (or lack
AZ> of thereof), craftsmanship wasn't exactly the one to be proud of and there
AZ> is no modern, sophisticated lens design technology there allowing high
AZ> quality lens design. From this reason, most (if not all) even contemporary
AZ> Russian lenses lack coating on lens's surfaces thus may be extremely flare
AZ> prone.

That's mostly true, except for the last sentence. All *contemporary*
Russian lenses are multicoated, however some of them really do suffer from
flare due to poor blacking of internal surfaces (that's the problem
with Russian cameras, too).


Lenses that may be of interest for Minolta users are IMO Helios-40-2
85/1.5 and Zenitar 16/2.8 fisheye. The former is unfortunately not
produced any longer, but can be found used for about $70, the latter
is in production and widely available here at the price of $100. The
mount adapter would cost about $15, and I can't think of any other
fisheye lens you can get for $115 (maybe except for Ukrainian Peleng,
which is harder to find and is said to be a bit worse optically).

AZ> Perhaps there are special adapters can be found, but that is quite
AZ> rare, an I doubt anyone would bother with it just to benefit from
AZ> Russian optics.

These adapters are very common in Russia and certainly can be found in
other countries as well. The mount for most Russian lenses is the M42
thread mount used by Pentax in the mid-century, and there's plenty of
German and Japanese lenses with this mount available second hand.


From minolta mailing list:
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 
From: "jplecruguel" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Russian lenses for Minolta Question Need help


Hi,

I got one few weeks ago. I had the same problem. Do a search with
Zenitar, you'll find how to do it: I posted a message for doing so.
Basically, there are screws  on the back of the lens.
Unscrew th bottom on the lens. Remove the pin.
And last: there is a L shaped lever. with a spring. You have to remove
that spring and leave the L lever in intermediate position (45
degrees).  You can screw back the 3 screws. That's all.

My adapter was not perfect. I had to used some dine sand-paper on it.
There a lever coming of the body that closes the diaphragm.  This
lever   was kind of getting jammed with the adapter. (Sound worse that
it was actually). I saw a small mak on the adapter. A small sand-paper
job made it ok.

JP


From minolta mailing list:
Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 
From: "parlin44" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Zenitar 16mm/2.8 and stop down metering

Yeap, my Zenitar fish eye is permanently set to manual step-down
mode.  Even if it's mounted onto M42 bodies, it's a fish eye!
focusing is NOT necessary (well, set to hyperfocal setting) DOF is so
great, just frame and shoot

The best way is, but not for the weak stomach, a simple DIY, you can
unscrew the lens mount and wedge the (plunger) pin to keep it in the
depressed position.  It's pretty straight forward once you've seen
the plunger mechanism inside and the best thing is you can always
take it out should you have a chance of mind.  Otherwise you friendly
local repairman can do it for a nominal fee (heck, I can do it for a
starbuck frappucino :))

parlin


Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 
From: Gordon Moat [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: cheap ultrawides

Just to add to your posting, I was recently looking at a used 20 mm f3.5
Nikon. Surprisingly, the cost was nearly the same as a Tokina 19 mm to 35 mm
f3.5, and a Tamron 19 mm to 35 mm f3.5. The Tamron had a nice build quality,
and good manual focus feel. The Tokina was similar, but did not include a
lens hood at the shop I checked. All were under $250.

The big test was the wide angle chromes that I checked out. I was using a 4x
and 10x loupe, and I honestly could not tell you which shot came from which
lens. If I was doing a large percentage of shots at 19/20 mm, then I would be
inclined to choose a prime over a zoom. However, I was looking for a used
Nikon because I rarely find a need to shoot that wide. With occasional use in
mind, I doubt there is enough visual difference in the quality of the shots
to justify one lens over another at the 19/20 mm range, making these viable
options. I realize that some shooting situations may show more deficiencies,
or differences between these zooms and prime lenses, so others experiences
may be different from my observations.

To go even wider, the OEM gear is often expensive enough that getting a
dedicated camera solution might be another option. The Voigtl�nder 15 mm, and
12 mm, provide some low distortion super wide images at fairly low cost.
Adding a camera body just for one of these would not be too much more
expense. The other future option will be an adapter that Voigtl�nder is now
developing to allow these superwides to mount on older Nikon SLRs with mirror
lock up.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com

Robert Monaghan wrote:

> the problem is that there is some variation in build quality, esp. on the
> russian optics, so a good russian optic will be quite impressive, but you
> may also get one which is less stellar, aka "russian roulette" ;-) I think
> the russian lenses are generally better buys, if you have return warranty
> and are willing to test the lens carefully on receipt...
>
> it doesn't make a lot of sense to compare the rectilinear lenses and the
> fisheyes for things like flare (one covers 180 degrees or so, the other
> much less), distortion (fisheye vs rectilinear), and so on. A comparison
> of two rectilinear lenses for flare and distortion and so on, esp. if near
> the same coverage (f/l), makes sense, and there are links. You can look
> them up at photodo for the japanese or korean ultrawides I believe...
>
> A number of posters recommend spending a bit more for the big-3
> (sigma/tokina/tamron) ultrawides over the vivitars as flare and distortion
> and build quality are a bit higher. The russian lenses tend to have good
> build quality, somewhat less flare resistance, and more variation in
> quality than the big-3 lenses of similar type (fisheyes, rectilinears..).
>
> But there aren't many options at the lower price points for ultrawides, so
> many start out with the russian lenses or older sigma ultrawides. To my
> mind, it would be better to get the 17mm third party cheapy rather than
> the 19mm, since you can find some nice 20mm lenses at good buys, but
> lenses below 18mm are very hard to find cheaply. There are also some
> cheapy vivitar zooms that go to 17mm-28mm and so on, again, lots of
> faults, but the only $100-ish option for ultrawide zoom starting at 17mm.
> (actually 17.8mm or so on the one I tested/used in pentax KA mount).
>
> I have the nikkor 20mm OEM, it is much better against flare than any of
> the vivitar and sigma ultrawides I have (21mm down). Cost was under $200
> used, with the added advantage of using 52mm filters vs 72mm on some
> ultrawides (check as this can add a lot to filter costs if you don't have
> them). This is one reason I suggest you consider the OEM for 19mm range
> and buy the third party lenses for 17mm if you really want an ultrawide;
> the difference between the cheapy ($129/99) 19mm, the third party big-3
> 19-20mm, and the used OEM 20mm may be modest for the big difference in
> performance. By comparison, the difference between a sigma 14mm AF and an
> OEM nikkor 14mm ultrawide lens is much more in $$, enough to buy a lot of
> other stuff ;-)
>
> hope this helps bobm


From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 
From: "Chandos Michael Brown" [email protected]
Subject: RE: [RF List] The Russar 20mm/5.6


The version of this lens that I owned was first rate, especially for the
bargain price I paid for it several years ago ($150).  Mine had a black
finish that was durable enough.  The lens does not couple with the rf.
I also had the 21 aux rf in a metal body that worked pretty well.  I
used the Russar until I acquired a Biogon 21/2.8, which is a vastly
superior lens.  I think that were the CV 21 available in the mid-90s,
then I probably would have chosen it over the Russar, whose build
quality, I understand, varies from lens to lens; I don't think that it
presently sells for less than the CV, but I haven't been paying much
attention.  I sold mine to fund the purchase of the CV 15.

CHandos


From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
Subject: RE: [RF List] The Russar 20mm/5.6


Mike Mallett wrote:
>I'm not really answering your question but those that I have read about
>seemed to be more expensive than a discounted CV21/4 ! I'm speaking of
>LTM of course - not sure about Contax mount. BTW this lens also came in
>M42 mount.
>
>Can anyone say when the lens was discontinued as it isn't in my 1978
>list of Russian RF lenses (I'll post this if I get a minute) ...

The Russar MR-2 was introduced immediately before the Soviets switched from
aluminium to black finishes, so the black ones are fairly common and the
aluminium ones quite rare.  (The reverse situation holds, though, for the
6/28 Orion-15, which is rare in black but common in aluminium.)  The MR-2
was produced in quantity only in LTM;  they do exist in Contax/Kiev RF BM,
but are exceedingly rare -- I have never seen one and know no one who has
ever seen one, though I have seen pictures of a single example.  I do not
believe that the Russar was ever made in M42, though the Soviets did
produce several other lenses in this focal length.

The Russar is a great lens, and I use mine with some regularity on my IIIc,
though I tend to use a converted 4.5/21 Zeiss B iogon on my M's.  The
Russar does vignette a bit.

Marc
[email protected] 


Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 
From: Christian [email protected]
Subject: Re: Re: [Leica] Zenitar 16mm fisheye

[email protected] schrieb 

I fully agree on fit and finish: However, without optical bench and the like it is very hard to give more than an educated 
opinion about a fisheye's performance. So I scanned a bunch of shots taken with either the Zenitar or my old 1:2.8/16 mm 
Sigma. Even when closely examining them at the edges, there was no noticeable difference in definition. As this is no regular 
lens test by anyone's standards, I would only venture to say that the Zenitar is less flare-prone than the Sigma, which is 
certainly no bad performer.

Apart from being dirt cheap, the Zenitar is much smaller and lighter than e. g. the Sigma or the Byelorussian 2.8/17 mm 
Peleng. Thus, I can only highly recommend it.

If you're looking for a 'circular' fisheye, go for the Byelorussian Peleng 2.8/8 mm (available in M42 and Nikon mount)


Chris

> fit and finish are not up to Leica standards...more like Petri standards, however, optically this lens and almost all from 
Russia Ukraine Belarus et al are outstanding particularly in light of the tiny price. BTW if anyone is looking for such a lens 
Soviet Things (one word) has a K mount one oin ebay now at $50. Mark

> > Does anyone have any experience with this lens? I can't justify the price
> of a used Leica fisheye, and I got this for around $150. Should be here any
> day. Just wondering if anyone else has tried one and liked/hated it.
>
> I'll post what I think about it after I've tried it, for anyone that's
> interested.
>
> Randy
> www.randyjensenphoto.com


From camera fix mailing list:
Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 
From: "peterinbrussels" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Zenitar 16mm

--- In [email protected], Stephen Castello scastello@c... wrote
>  peterinbrussels petergutierrez@c... wrote:
>
> >Hi all,
> >
> >I just got me one of those neat Zenitar 16mm Fish-eyes. Brand new,
> >like many of the Russian products it shows marks of high optical
> >quality mixed with poor workmanship (sorry, any Russians out there).
> >What does that mean? Well, I'm getting a nice sharp image but the
> >lens won't focus out to infinity. It looks like a straightforward
> >fix. There's no way I'm sending it back, anyway. Does anyone out
> >there have any experience with this lens, or shall I just go at it on
> >instinct?
> >
> >Peter
> >
>
> Do you have a filter mounted on the rear of the lens?
>
> It's needed to get infinity focus.
>
> Stephen


Stephen,

Yup, filter's there. In the meantime I found a webpage by a guy who
had the same problem with his Zenitar. I removed the rubber covering
from the focusing ring like he said and reset the three screws. Works
like a charm now.

Here's the link:
http://etischer.com/zenitar/zenitar16mm.html

Peter


From K-cameras mailing list:
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 
From: "Tom" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Wide Angle Comparison

Hi,

I never compared it to a pentax wide angle but the Mir
is very very good. I'm with Doug on this. A small review/article
is on www.tomtiger.net with shots.

L8tr... Tom


--- In [email protected], "Doug Wilcox" cdwilcox@n... wrote:
> I have never tried the Pentax lens but I have the Mir 20mm f2.5 and I cannot
> see how anything could be sharper. I love the straight lines for such a wide
> angle lens.
>
> Doug Wilcox


From manual minolta mailing list:
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 
From: "Goldmann" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Zenitar 16mm lens

Hello Alan,

I buyed Zenitar 16mm with two rings, one for my X-700 and my XM and
one for my 600si classic.

A quality is good at the center of pictures for stops 5,6 and 8.
After f:11 a diffaction is annoying. For the edges and the corners,
a resolution is poor but it's valid for me BECAUSE a price...
To buy (in average) 110 EUROS on eBay for new lens and 15 EUROS for
each ring... Here, a Minolta 2,8/16 costs 1.215 EUROS... And it's
impossible to find this lens in secondhand buy...

Yes, for me, it's a good choice. And to use with 500, 600, 700 and
800si, it's very easy : you must desactive a security if you try to
shoot without lens : to push a lens button AND take on the body.
After, it's OK in mode M or Tv.

Thierry



From: John Bean [email protected] 
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm 
Subject: Re: Opinions on Zenitar fisheye? 
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 

"Chris Barnard" [email protected] wrote: 
>I keep seeing K-mount 16mm Zenitar f2.8 fisheye lenses going cheap (around 
>�70) - has anyone used one? Obviously, I understand that you get what you 
>pay for - I'm sure it's not up to the quality of the more expensive lenses, 
>but just how bad is it? If I can get reasonable shots with one, I might 
>consider buying one. 
I have a M42 Zenitar that I bought new a few months back from a guy in 
Moscow for about �60 (paid in USD). It's very sharp, contrasty, 
reasonably well made. Suffers from some chromatic aberration at the 
edges and is very prone to flare. Overall, a very good lens for the 
money. It is *much* better than I expected it to be. 
>Are there any other alternatives at around a similar price? 
I doubt it. 
-- 
Regards 
John Bean


From manual minolta mailing list:
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 
From: "Peter Blaise Monahon [email protected]" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Vivitar 17mm


> Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 
> From: "Goldmann"
> [email protected]
> Subject: Vivitar 17mm
>
> Hello,
>
> I would know that if Vivitar
> 3,5/17mm is a good lens ?
> Quality, distorsion, croma,
> aberrations ? The model
> that I see is for Minolta MC.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Thierry

Hello Thierry,

I love mine.

To quote me * :

--------------------------------------------------------------

Vivitar MC Lens, Wide Angle,
17mm f/3.5 (to f/16)

�72mm Filter Ring,
Field of view: 70� to 103.6�,
Close focus: 4 1/2",
6 aperture blades,
Size: 3 1/4" wide by 3" long,

Markings: "Vivitar 17MM 1:3.5 AUTO WIDE ANGLE No.3770217 �72MM
LENS MADE IN JAPAN M/SR",

Construction: metal, glass, with rubber grips, with front
(metal, with "Vivitar" logo) and rear lens caps, lens case,

Fit: for Minolta Manual Focus 35mm SLR SR/MC, fits MD but does
not operate MD tab. See discussion at * for MC/MD lens
compatibility explanation!

Condition: fully functional, no damage, very little wear, no
marks or scratches; glass, aperture blades, controls, and
focusing movements flawless.

This is my favorite lens for interiors, since I can stand in a
corner and get a full 90� corner image of a room. It's also
great for landscapes with close-up features since it close
focuses to 4 1/2"!

--------------------------------------------------------------

I find that it does exactly what it promises to do, no
more, and no less.

I find that all of my Vivitar lenses are capable of
providing the exact same fulfillment of delivering the
features and benefits promised.

I find that all my Minolta gear does the same.

I find that all my photographic gear from any supplier
over the last 50 years does the same.

What quality of "... quality, distorsion, croma,
aberrations ..." are you after? Can you tell us more?

As I see it, these so called "qualities" are in the eye of
the beholder, relative to your needs and resources, to your
current and/or chosen photographic skill set. Why not explore
your own reaction to this lens and share your experiences with
us?


Click!

Love and hugs,

Peter Blaise Monahon
Minolta Vivitar Tamron Fujifilm Ilford Kodak Adobe Hewlett
Packard et cetera Photographer
[email protected]
http://www.peterblaisephotography.com/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vivitarphotography/
* http://www.geocities.com/peterblaise/minoltamf/

PS - I'm lost to help anyone who steers clear of potential
experiences with some wonderful photographic gear because
someone else called it "poor quality". As always, send me
your so-called "junk" and I will not only take some swell
pictures through it, but I will not return it. If it's merely
broken, either one of us can get it fixed, and it will be
worth more than another used replacement to me since it's in
pristine, known condition. We get this stuff so cheap on the
used market, why not double or even triple our investment and
have it all serviced? It will still be cheap, but them we
will have a greater delight in knowing it's neat, clean,
reliably awaiting for us to pick it up and go out and shoot
something with it!





End of Page