MC Kaleinar-5H is an excellent short telephoto lens with f / 2.8-22 aperture and 100mm focal length. His double meets ARSAT H 100 F2.8 - they are the same lens. After the collapse of the USSR, the optics of the Arsenal plant began to be produced under the brand name “Arsat“. They say that this is a Soviet copy Nikon 2.8 / 100 Series Ebut this is not so, Nikon and Kaleinar have different optical schemes.
Overview of the lens Kaleinar-5N 2.8 100mm
Lens MC Kaleinar-5N 2.8 / 100 is a legendary lens. MC Kaleinar-5N 2.8 / 100 was produced for 'Kiev' cameras with 'H' mount. Now the lens MC Kaleinar-5N 2.8 / 100 is very popular lens due to its relative cheapness and high quality of the resulting photos. He is rightfully considered one of the best Soviet portrait lenses.
view of the MS Kaleinar-5N 2.8 100 lens from the back and from the side with MDF with an elongated hood
The current popularity of the MC Kaleinar-5H 2.8 / 100 lens is due to the fact that Nikon cameras have not changed their mount type for more than 50 years. Some of the 'Kiev' cameras have the same mount as Nikon, this allows you to use lenses with the 'H' designation on modern Niko SLR camerasn without any adapters. In more detail about the use of old Soviet lenses in the article about Soviet lenses... For those who want to use the MC Kaleinar-5H 2.8 / 10 on a Canon system, an article about old lenses at canon.
Type of lens enlightenment MS Kaleinar-5N 2.8 100
When using the MC Kaleinar-5N 2.8 / 100 lens (the letter 'H' in the name means the mount type), there will be no problems with focusing to infinity, as well as with aperture presetting. Once installed on Nikon cameras, the aperture will be at its maximum open position and will only close at the time of shooting - just like with modern Nikon lenses. It is very easy to find out the year of manufacture of a lens - the first two digits in its serial number are responsible for this.
Sample photo on MS Kaleinar 5-n
The first thing that catches your eye, but rather in the hands - massiveness of MS Kaleinar-5N 2.8 / 10... The lens weighs over 300 grams with its small appearance. MC Kaleinar-5N 2.8 / 10 is made in the good old traditions - glass and metal. Actually, my copy is over 20 years old, but the quality remains at the same high level.
View of the aperture of the lens diaphragm MS Kaleinar-5N 2.8 100
Focusing:
The lens has only manual focus. The focus ring is rubberized. When focusing, the trunk of the lens lengthens by about 2 centimeters. The focus ring rotates 270 degrees, so the Kaleinar-5N 2.8 / 100 MC has very large stroke of the focus ring. When focusing, the front lens does not rotate. Focusing on the lens is nice enough. The minimum focusing distance is 80 centimeters.
Diaphragm
The lens aperture has only 6 blades - this is one of the strong disadvantages of this lens. The aperture blades are black, the light in the middle of the lens does not reflect back. F / 2.8 maximum allows easy control of DOF and taking photos with blurry background. The aperture can range from F / 2.8 to F / 22. Please note that when using the lens on Nikon cameras, automatic iris control is possible using the aperture ring on the lens, this is due to the fact that the lens is AI-S compatible lens for Nikon. If you use the lens on other cameras, then the usual manual iris control will be available.
I use or used this lens on cameras without any problems Nikon D90, Nikon D40, D80 и D700.
Sample photo on MS Kaleinar 5-n
When using the lens on cameras Nikon DX EGF lens will fit 150mm. On cropped cameras, the MC Kaleinar-5N 2.8 / 100 is a real telephoto lens. Due to the excellent ratio of focal length and aperture, the MC Kaleinar-5N 2.8/100 lens is perfect for portrait and creative shooting.
I have more here one shot at Kaleinar = 5N in the studio.
Attention!
This lens can work in full automatic aperture control mode through the camera and with confirmation of focus... How to do it - read in my article Dandelion Lushnikova.
Dimensions of two portrait lenses
Addition to the article:
Recently I got my hands on a Kaleinar-5H lens with an interesting name written through the letter 'C' - 'MC Cbut byjnar-5H 2.8 / 100 '. In the literature, there is an export version with a name through the letter 'K' - Kalejnar-5H (see here) Visually, it is no different from a lens with a name in Cyrillic and looks like this:
The lens has good image quality. First of all, I want to note the excellent sharpness over the entire field of the frame, good contrast, color reproduction. MS Kaleinar-5N 2.8 / 100 well tolerates backlight, has no distortion. The vignetting of the lens is minimal, especially when using the lens on cropped cameras.
view of the lens MS Kaleinar-5N 2.8 100 on the Nikon D80
Beginning photographers can feel the old days with the Kaleinar-5N 2.8 / 100 MC and appreciate the importance of each shot they receive, as well as increase their level of dexterity and knowledge of photographing methods and techniques. There is even a joke that a novice photographer usually buys the simplest camera Nikon D40 and one of the Helios-81N or Kaleinar-5N lenses.
Dimensions of two lenses
Catalog modern brand lenses 'Zenitar' и 'Helios' can look at this link.
Comments on this post do not require registration. Anyone can leave a comment. Many different photographic equipment can be found on AliExpress.
Conclusions:
MS Kaleinar-5n - a unique lens with fabulous sharpness. The lens is in the top five best portrait soviet lenses.
Material prepared Arkady Shapoval. Training/Consultations | Youtube | Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | Telegram
Нelp !!! I can not find in Latvia Kaleinar 5N! Maybe someone is lying around ready to buy! (+ 371) 24-805-965
https://www.ss.lv/msg/ru/electronics/photo-optics/objectives/dbiin.html?0.884772544334981
I have a price of $ 150 +77055177259
And my aperture blades are not black, but metallic ...
Good day everyone! Many thanks to Arkady for his work - for his reviews !!! Having bought a budget DSLR nikon d3200 with a kit lens 18-35, the result was not satisfied! I'll probably describe why. Probably it's easy to understand that if a person buys a camera of a class budget, he hardly plans to buy lenses that cost more than the camera itself! Therefore, Arkady came to the rescue with his reviews! And then it started ... search and again search for Soviet lenses and information about them! Since people are already beginning to see the light and understand the price of real quality .... there are very few sales offers, and there are only a few of them at the flea market. With the exception of Helios 44-2, they are still sold enough, sometimes they raise the price up to 40eur - they are completely crazy. I saw the ad for the sale -Legendary Helios 44-2 but these guys are a little too much, what kind of legend is he? As time passed, I already know a little about this! The legendary is Helios 40, Jupiter 6 but by no means 44-2. Over the course of time, I regretted that I had not bought a canon (now I would have taken a canon 600d for sure), since it is possible to attach more Soviet glasses to it than to Nikon. Therefore, one of the best or even the best lenses such as Helios 40 and Jupiter 9 Wave 9 after the purchase had to be sold soon - due to the lack of focusing at infinity! The only plus - after their profitable sale, I was able to buy myself a Nikon AF-S Nikkor 35mm 1: 1.8G DX, a comrade advised My question is: I want one universal lens that is not expensive so that it is better than a whale lens and the photos would be worthy! Not bad, but he lacks something! And now about the difference! I can compare Nikkor 35mm 1: 1.8G + kit 18-35 with Soviet lenses! The disadvantages that photographers who shoot in auto mode usually include in the disadvantages, I would not call them that !!! Namely, the lack of autofocus and the need to select the shutter speed and aperture yourself! On the contrary, this is an opportunity to progress and learn to take pictures! Well, again, I moved away from the topic! on plastic Chinese lenses nikon it turns out very bright and colorful as if not alive, some kind of soulless !!! In principle, the same photos are obtained on modern phones! But Soviet optics gives a different result - photos are alive, plastic, they have a soul especially in portraits! Of course, this is not suitable for commerce, but only for unhurried shooting! My summary is this: yes, you can quickly click 500 photos in auto mode or with a Soviet lens, only 50 of which will turn out due to overexposures and underlights only 20! But believe me, you will look at these 20 photos and show them to your friends more often than those 500! And you understand that you have done something and not just pressed the shutter button !!! below the photo was taken on Tair 11a without any processing and modifications - I don't admit it !Thanks! maybe someone will be interested in reading my vision of everything described above!
And yet ... ..the hold in hands for example Helios 40 of 1966 or Jupiter 9 of 1967 is completely new, Jupiter is 11 of those same years and other worthy lenses - you understand that you touch forever! And it is very nice to realize that you give them a second chance - a second life by photographing them!
And more ... When you hold some canomatic or comuranon in your hands, you understand that you are messing with it and not frank bottle slag. Which only gets more expensive over the years.
And according to my impressions - buy this fluorite, any, hosh from the first boots like from the last nikkors - this will definitely be possible to demonstrate to friends.
I recently tested such a lens on Nikon D-600, and it turns out a very, very interesting picture. At 2.8 it is very soft and “soapy”. But for artistic portrait photography it can be very interesting, the background blur is very unusual and beautiful. I will definitely buy myself one over time. Good old Soviet old school. Now they don't do that anymore ...
No, gentlemen, the modern popularity of this lens is connected not with the fact that Nikon has not changed the mount for more than 50 years, but with the fact that this "Sovdepovskoe" piece of glass will give odds to many "new" ones, up to Karl Zeiss.
Sir, according to his completely own impression of working with this "piece of glass" (and according to the opinions of people who have eaten the dog in this matter), the kaleinar is as sad as an Easter cake baked by a Jew from matzo.
Actually, a very considerable number of "mega-Soviet legends" are the same publicized garbage. (like the same Gelik 40-2)
I fully agree with the assessment of Sovdep lenses. * found villi. bubbles. and other defect is not * Helios-40. read the photoshop. unfortunately I don’t remember the number and year. big. heavy. no. all these are fairy tales. myths ...
Bro
I feel sorry for you
I had all the top Nikon glasses - the floor of the cabinet,
I sold almost everything and I don't regret it - there was nothing fabulous in them either volume or plastic,
- Pure Japanese robots with perfect performance characteristics.
but the character and drawing of Helios 40 (for example) is exactly what I hiccupped in the photo,
and if you need sharpness and ISO - then you are in advertising.
Do not pretend to call the kit + poltina set “all top nikon glasses”.
And why did you take out a frame from a basket that a preschool child apparently accidentally made by randomly poking buttons on the camera is completely incomprehensible to me.
Why say so if you definitely don’t know?
And the frame - no matter what - the main thing is that you like it,
and you Lynx angry, you probably have a problem - it can be seen.
but there is something with this bunch, but simpler.
not everyone is capable of understanding and accepting such art
Yes, no one trolls you, everyone says it as it is.
Like, don't like ..
To whom the mare is the bride.
in short
without trolling
all of you go to one famous place!
especially "Lynx"
Lynx - poz, you know?
recently flipping through an old book, 1976. about the Altai Territory, mostly photographs. the colors are all natural, no overexposure / noise. everything is clear.
distortion - zero. not that it is invisible to the eye, but it is not there at all in any picture)))
and these carousels in the park are just a shame, Soviet optics can also shoot
here it is
https://www.ozon.ru/context/detail/id/31442111/
Well,…. "Uncle Petya",
I like it very much,
show - no shame, pliz?
Denis, the book of 1976, I was in 1979, and when it was fotali, it was probably 74 years old in the yard or earlier. With almost one hundred percent certainty, we can say that everything is filmed there in a medium format, and there the fixes and widths of 45 mm are naturally visible without distortion to the naked eye.
If you call it a shot, then along with the lenses you should have sold the camera.
It seems to me that Comrade Owl just trolls you :)
Brother,
if you're a good person, you won't say that,
everything is relative, and judging is bad.
Many people like G40 - those who don't like modern ones,
so is it really you?
the troll’s fantasy is completely over
Bad, good, brother, sister, shkolota in a word.
Friends, I really liked shooting with a manual lens, and its optical imperfection gives interesting effects under certain shooting conditions. Here is an acceptable praise for many old glasses.
But if you want to cure yourself, then of course you should definitely add that all other modern UG glasses are not worth mentioning. A sold cabinet Nikon's top-end lenses, it is generally poetry.
In order to somehow "rise above the crowd", one must hint that all those who shoot with modern optics have simply not yet grown to aerobatics with an old Soviet lens.
Well, like the last nail in the lid of your own coffin, it’s loading something of a chromatic-soapy-coughing-like.
And you say: "eh, brother, why evil as a dog." Yes, this is what you are in relation to yourself, do not like yourself at all if you write this.
yes shkolota
some did not learn anything at school.
can an example show a beautiful shot from your lenses?
Interesting frame!
Change-8m?
so, if there weren't such a problem with manual inexpensive Nikon's weaves on the territory of the former USSR, or if the bayonet was changed, no one would need this piece of scrap metal.
And most of those who have acquired - in the end merge it with the "next enthusiastic"
Everything from poverty. But someone may like to shoot on old manual optics
manual optics can be different, there are many manuals that are significantly more expensive than autofocus.
.......
For example, if Russia had sufficient access to Nikon's 100 / 2,8E or other 105tkas, I am sure Kaleinar would be an outsider.
But, for example, in our city, I only know about one hundred square meters. And I still regret very much that I sold it. Autofocus is not always needed, and a “light, unpretentious and reliable manual”, especially in the case of fixes, will easily give AF odds.
Although, of course, it all depends on the situation. If you shoot on the D700, then put yourself 35 / 2D or some sort of Ai-s 35/2 difference in weight, reliability, and the picture is not particularly, and the presence of autofocus is nice.
but to carry a proprietary bandura 90/2, weighing half a kilo and 62 mm with a thread for filters, on the same fujika-type mirrorless camera, or throw 100 / 2,8E into your pocket - a very big difference, despite the fact that “with portraits” it is still often you use manual focus, and af is not particularly needed.
but in the case of kaleinar, I agree. from "the impossibility of something else."
Here is 37 Jupiter - really extremely good both in design and in price (if you get a good copy, of course).
Yes, I completely agree. The same Kenonovskaya 135 is damn expensive and most can not afford it. Then the old Soviet optics may come to the rescue. Where you can test 100 or 135 for a perfectly sane money, of course with some caveat, because In any case, it is weaker than modern: autofocus, contrast, backlight. And the same Helik 44-2 is quite competitive with Kenonov and Nikon fifty dollars. With the exception of autofocus and backlight. But the truth is she has one bonus; she is made of metal and glass and will survive all of us. And Kenonovsky 50 / 1.8 most likely not
Canon, however, has 135 / 2.8 soft focus for a reasonable price and not bad quality. He is a concrete portraiturer and one of a kind. 50 / 1.8 is in the first version, which can survive the helix and the head from the twisted bokeh will not spin :)
With an autofocus lens, you can shoot both manually and with autofocus, but on the manual - only with handles. IMHO, why give up conveniences in the 21st century?
so no one says that you need to give up the benefits of civilization. if Soviet optics is available or it can be purchased for not much money, it may well diversify life and for the most part these are cheaper analogs of the Carl Zeiss. In addition, there are people who just like to tinker with manuals from time to time.
I agree. Sam bought 44-2 and a 135mm rangefinder Jupiter redone. But when I bought the Canon 50 / 1.8 mkI and 135 / 2.8 sf after it (free money appeared), I never picked up these Soviet manuals.
Contrast, autofocus and the absence of hares are very important components of the lens.
In the pros of the manuals I see a retro picture, a kind of bokeh (which not everyone likes) and the price :). And the quality from copy to copy walks a lot.
... I got caught, I got lucky :) it really warms my soul ... but I rarely use it (
But what does poverty have to do with it ... not every rich person will go to buy a set of lenses for $ 5000, they know how to count money ... ... it's just in the availability in the post-Soviet expanses and at a fraction of the price and quality for the same ridiculous price ... and then there is a sports interest to try these oldies in business!
I completely disagree with you. I’m switching to manual ones, because autofocus lifted me up, they always focus in the wrong place, and I don’t aim at small objects either. The focus ring is not specially made conveniently, you can easily hook and knock sharpness, too thin a ring. I spat on all this and switched to the manual, I’m not a reportman, speed is useless to me. On the Olx website, I monitor fast manual lenses, add to favorites. For 2 months, what I have in my favorites has decreased by half, and the ad is no longer active. They take it, they buy it like that. I got to the point that I use the metering functions manually, between the machine, heaven and earth.
Well, autofocus and another auto, you also need to be able to use the same. And do not hope that if there is a car, then the device is also able to read thoughts
Do not think so critical of yourself
I'm talking about you
I understand that everyone has the right to a personal opinion, and as the famous hero said: “So what if I see the world differently,” nevertheless, I will say that not Soviet, but foreign optics are promoted to heavenly heights. 90% OF ALL, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, FOREIGN OPTICS IS NOT WORTH A FIFTH OF ITS PRICE. But people are led from ignorance, inability and, in general, from ignorance. People need “razor sharpness” in a portrait lens - the manufacturer gives it to him. Papa bought a snotty daughter, she - “Wow! Oops! ”And everyone has the same drooling to the knee, looking at her, just because she, like,“ fumbles ”.
And for me, for example, Nikonovsky 85 / 1.8 has been lying around in its own box for a year after I bought “ms Yu-9”. and when I just bought “Jupiter” and started comparing these 2 lenses, not meaning which picture was taken by which, erasing or changing EXIF, 100; “Homebrew experts” cast their vote for “Jupiter”.
So, I will only agree with the conclusion in this article: “MC Kaleinar-5n is a unique lens…”. But I still cannot buy it due to its absence in my region, and the Russians do not want to send it to neighboring republics.
Many thanks to Arkady for the review!
I wish everyone prosperity and good pictures!
Perhaps, it is the Soviet optics that is promoted, because many of its samples are really worse than their cheaper foreign counterparts. This is exactly the case with Kaleinar. The main problem is that people know what to expect from “ours”, and they are just too lazy to understand foreign names.
In addition, there is also know-how Japanese rubbish, having run into it once, you can drastically change your attitude towards Japanese manufacturers. Until now, I myself cannot understand how you can shoot with all sorts of Hanimexes and Beroflexes - they are nightmarish (especially if you look at how they are arranged inside ...).
Rodion, I disagree with you: PR is needed to increase sales, and who is interested in selling cheap ancient lenses? And by what parameters do you compare “foreign analogues”? The question is that along with really successful Soviet glasses they are trying to “push” all the rest of the rubbish, calling them “legends” only because they are made of glass-iron and Soviet (as well as Japanese, German, etc.). Although you can shoot on bottle glass, if as an experiment, and for this you do not need to change the attitude towards bottle manufacturers. There is no need to compare the “guts” of lenses, but you need to look at beautiful photographs and try to do at least the same and the same.
For what, for what. In contrast, at least. By sharpness. According to the picture as a whole.
If our Zenitar 50 / 1.7 is overpriced, and half bars like Minolta or even Takumara cost less with the same characteristics - is this the norm? Despite the fact that Zenitar 50 / 1.7 does not stand out from the crowd, I would say.
Or Granit-11 - a dark, soapy and heavy, very poor zoom, but it costs more than a very pleasant 80-200 / 4 tokina. Okay, but Viv C1 70-210 / 3.5 is cheaper - and he is definitely strong!
So it turns out that in general they want to make not outstanding lenses “legends”, like the G-40, so that later they just want to cash in on it.
You have to look at the guts of the lenses, because you shoot them, if anything. And the intestines, by the way, depend on such qualities as durability, contrast, convenience (135 mm Japanese with MDF 2,5 m - I remember, I remember ...), protection from external factors (sorry, but some kind of "know-name An auto "with an" open "lens unit may not survive your trip to Egypt, as it will get dust inside and turn into a sandbox).
Rodion
21.06.2016 in 12: 57
> Or Granite-11 - dark, soapy and heavy, very poor zoom,
> but it costs more than a very pleasant 80-200 / 4 token.
Yes, right! Take a look at least at OLX - Granit-11 costs 120-1500, and for your "inexpensive" Tokin the price tag starts from 7000 UAH.
UAH 7k? Well, your prices ...
We sell Granite for 3-5 kilorub, and you can take a token for 2-4.
in fact, UAH 7k is for Tokina AT-X 80-200mm f2.8
Any lens needs its own camera, just like not every lens will fit a camera, and the plot is of great importance. If you have one lens on the camera “lathers”, “gives light”, the contrast is “to hell” and in general the picture turns out to be “dead”, try to put it on a completely different system or another series in the same bayonet. Pick a subject for your lens! Find where this lens is best for you.
For example, the cheap Soviet lenses “Helios 44-2” and “Industar-61ls” can shoot simply gorgeous on expensive full-frame Sony mirrorless cameras (ICLE-7m2). Or, for example, Tair-11A on the Nikon “full frame” (D750) is great in a artistic portrait. This is all for me as an amateur, you may have something completely different.
PS: from the ordinary - the trees and foliage I like most of all those shot on Mir-38B (!) On Nikon (D7200) crop, and the dacha beds are the most delicious from the Panasonic DMC-LZ7 digital soap dish.
I agree with Georgy 100%. Once, having tried to shoot with a kaleinar, he also began to look for him ... it is just as difficult for us to find him; one was offered, seemingly new, but inside was a cloudy suspicion of a fungus, a couple of months passed. Despite this, I bought it… I took it apart, I cleaned it, the fungus was confirmed… the fungus does its job well, it eats up the lens! I used a lot of old Soviet lenses, but I only met this with Kaleinar.
Just now I am being offered an exchange of Nikon 135 / 3.5 AI-s for this very Kaleinar. But since I want to sell Nikon due to non-use, I can render you a service and sell Kalainar (after exchanging it in advance). If on the subject, then you gradually get tired of manual optics, except for lenses for narrow tasks. I sold out and gave away almost all MF lenses, falling in love with the comfort of using AF. But I also went through all the stages of adapters, alterations, experiments. There are only lenses for video shooting and lenses that cover the “holes” in the old Practices and Zenits. If the glass has a drawing, then even though it is auto- or manual-focusing, the main thing is the mood, character and thought that the photographer conveys. Most people look at photos on a “like-dislike” principle, not knowing about any Bokeh, Soft, contrast, etc. And a bunch of fotodro..rov buys vaunted glasses not for the beauty of the photo as a whole, but in order to measure these very bokeh and sharpness. So it's pointless to break spears, good Soviet lenses or bad ones. We need to grow our hands and take off everything that is, tk. you can find beauty in everything (or ruin it with the help of super-mega-beautiful-expensive glasses).
But you understand, George, that all these masterpieces of old Soviet lenses are, in principle, 90 percent a matter of chance and such glasses are not for work. A top-end lens is a professional lens and most of them are sold to people who are going to work for them and earn money with this device. Are they worth their money or not, this is just a conversation without constructiveness. Suppose the same Nikon 24-70 2.8 is therefore so expensive that with a professional reporting camera, success is guaranteed in 70% of cases. But from 24-85 3.5-4.5 you will have to work hard to get a similar result, if it succeeds at all. I think that the one who filmed the report with the top zoom knows what I mean. Top Nikon lenses are very strong and tenacious. The same 24-70 withstands falling onto concrete from a height of 80 cm and inside there is a displacement of only one lens, which is easily put in place without any problems. Nothing breaks even there, although the details of the case may bend) I do not think that such a ride with the same 24-85. Therefore, the price is 100 rubles. justified.
Yes, no, Rodion, practically everyone (and all the young people) scoffs at Sovdep's optics. And mainly because it is manual and it is not enough to press a button to get a more or less tolerable shot. As for me, autofocus optics are good only in reportage and not because “this is better”, but because “this is the only way possible”. This is, in fact, like using puff.
Well, in general, in the previous post I expressed my opinion, I do not like to write a lot of "bukaff". And at this stage of my life I cannot be persuaded.
And also, as a wish for everyone: as a amateur photographer, I wish all amateur photographers to shoot manually and exclusively with manual optics, because only in this case you will feel creative freedom and enjoy the filming process.
Come on - we have all the "youth" with the Helios on cameras, they have not been "chmyr" for a long time.
This makes me happy.
Not so long ago I bought Nikon Df. Autofocus lenses allow you to quickly take a few angles and consider and render your verdict when, where and what. Manual old lenses are best to know in advance where and when to put them. I don’t buy Kaleinar 5N, but quite often they put this lens for sale in Chelyabinsk. Not hooked. Nikon 75-150mm f / 3.5 Series E AI-s, Nikon 135 / 3.5 AI-s, Zeiss Biometar 80 mm, Tair 11A, Tair 3A, I bought right away. I like reading reviews of Arcadia. You need to know different opinions. Who cares, take a look http://theage.ru/Lenses.html
What is there to enjoy? A drop in purchasing power? People are forced to screw Helios instead of buying a normal lens. And the prices for used Soviet optics, in this regard, went up.
Lyokha, as I understand it, in YOUR concept “normal” is certainly autofocus. And the prices went up for the Soviet optics not because the purchasing power of the People fell, but because the People are beginning to wake up from obsessive lies in the form of advertising. Ferstein?
I’ll answer instead of Alexei, about my understanding. Normal is normal. Nice manual Nikons for example. Autofocus is a completely separate topic. And not Soviet guano, which has one merit - the price. And this price is growing, so now they make less and less sense. I probably had all of the Soviet. After trying normal lenses, I don't even want to take all these helios-jupiters-tair-kaleinars in my hands. I see the only use for them only in trying high-aperture fixtures for inexpensive and buying consciously necessary optics
Not a single self-respecting photographer will allow himself to speak of Soviet lenses in such expressions.
Excuse me, but your amateurism makes you sick.
Dear Peter I expressed my opinion. No more, but no less. You go personal. Yes, I think that, for example, for a portrait, Nikkor 105 2.5 is much better and established it experimentally. Do you disagree with this? Maybe. Accept the arguments and maybe I'm wrong and agree with you. The same is true for the rest of Soviet optics. You, in response to an opinion that you think is wrong for some reason, begin to throw poop
Regarding the outbreak, I can say that those who use it only in the report simply do not understand its capabilities. Especially when there are 2 or 3. These are 2 flashes, and the main one shines simply on the brick wall on the right. I would see what can be removed without them in cloudy weather in the bushes.
Autofocus is really needed, if it's fast, if it's slow, then sometimes you will curse. The ability to instantly change the aperture with the wheel is also oh how needed. The lens is good optics and ease of use - that is, in my understanding, a “normal lens”. There are good optics in Soviet lenses, but for ease of use they remained there, in the past. Do you wash on a typewriter or by hand? And since I'm Lech, maybe a beer?
I met reviews on the Internet about working with this lens, where users complain that some Kaleinar 5N touches the mirror when the shutter is released, while the lens itself trembles when shooting. Is such a situation possible and how to fix it? I want to take this glass, but now I’m afraid for the camera, I’ll suddenly ruin the mirror
Great lens. I have been working with him for six months now and will not give him up for any price. The only thing - I had to disassemble and thoroughly clean all the lenses. There was some kind of gray bloom on the back block, which made the picture low-contrast. After cleaning all lenses with lenses, the lens became sharp and contrasting, although, of course, I also always use a hood.
It differs from branded counterparts by its very natural and eye-pleasing drawing. The models themselves mostly opt for portraits taken with this lens, despite the fact that portraits using traditional portrait fixes with stabilizers are slightly sharper and brighter. In short, this lens really “draws”, which is why it is good. On Episode 7, Nikonov works very confidently on diaphragm priority, just sharpen it and click. In short, my recommendations.
PS I also have Helios 81 ... and I am not so delighted with it. An ordinary manual fifty dollars, I would even say so. But Kalainar is a thing. Although, maybe just lucky with a copy.
I decided to write about my once favorite lens. Only a few of them passed through me because it is quite rare. As a result, I left a post-Soviet copy of 93 in my year with a pinkish enlightenment of the front lens (the rest had a green one) and a condition like a factory. It turned out to be the best of them both in sharpness and, most importantly, in color. The green ones all turned yellow and gave some kind of dirty picture. Used it for portraits, although it was 105 macro. I considered it one of the best Soviet lenses, I tried them all because I sold them on Ibei and there was an opportunity. But I was happy exactly until the moment when I got Nikon's 105 2.5. This is the lens, I'll tell you. Kaleinar completely loses its meaning, especially considering that he has all the Soviet problems - the spread of quality, you have to choose, an incurable disease of clouding of the back gluing in some specimens, I seem to have heard that at one time they used some kind of glue that grows cloudy gradually, plus escaping enlightenment, glitter inside this is it, plus a non-blackened diaphragm in many copies. And the price? The last Kaleinar left me for $ 150, there is cheaper, but with defects, if they say that without defects, they are clean, believe me. And the question is - why is it needed? I took Nikkor for $ 200 and it is better, without sawing, blackening with a marker of the ends, etc. Ie took and got an excellent result without dancing. Why now need this Sovdep at these prices to someone other than collectors, antiques? When it cost 50 bucks in excellent condition, one could still think - for little money, try a focal one. Now this is either unreasonably expensive, or rubbish for Gobsek. That's it, I ask you not to throw anything else at me.
Compare Kaleinar and Nikon 105 / 2.5 is not entirely correct, in my opinion. These are different optical schemes and different weight categories (in the literal and figurative sense).
Yes, the weight categories are definitely unequal ...
With Nikkor E 100 / 2.8 to compare, as you like. And Kaleinar will also lose.
I'm not sure, but I seem to have a diaphragm problem. On a fully open aperture 2.8, I can see the petals, and even in the bokeh circles the shape of the petals is visible. Who would not be faced with such a problem? Here is a photo of my lens on f2.8
Judging by the picture, this is an intermediate stop between 2.8 and 4 (checked on his own). The diaphragm springs may have loosened.
And can these springs be tightened somehow?
Maybe :) if you really want to remove such a defect, you have to disassemble the lens, clean the diaphragm blades (maybe they don’t close due to sticky thickened grease) and replace the diaphragm spring. But this is all "at your own peril and risk."
PS. Sava, where are you from?
It is clear, I have already disassembled the lens once, cleaned the rear lenses. I was afraid to touch the diaphragm, apparently I have to ... I'm from Jordan
... the position of the diaphragm is fixed by small balls that are spring-loaded and these springs "lie" in the old grease ... the number of balls is two, their installation after cleaning is difficult, but you can leave one ... and so that the spring of the jump rope does not "release", store the lens need at aperture 22 ... in any case, you need to remember the order of assembly and disassembly
My problem turned out to be different. The photo shows "brackets" between which the aperture lever goes. They only had to be slightly moved apart from the right side.
Here is a photo
Long chased after Kaleinar with us. I did not find below 150 Baku. And sellers rested on the price, as if it were gold. But I found Nikon 105 / 2.5 non Ai Zonnar for 100. I read the reviews and I think that I did not fail.
Nikon 105 / 2.5 is definitely better! :)
I support.
I have long wanted to use my D5100 Nikon AF-S 85mm 1.8G. But even in the secondary market, it is now at least $ 350. Is it worth it as an alternative to purchase this MC Kaleinar-5N 2.8 / 100? I know about the difference of 15 mm, I think it will not be critical. Well, the zoom looked after 85 and after 100 - you just have to step back a couple of steps. All the same, I will not often photograph at such focal points and probably only portraits. You can also fake. For other themes there is a park of: AF-S 35mm 1.8G; AF-S 50mm 1.8G; AF-S 18-135mm.
Lens MS Kaleinar-5N 2.8 / 100. It focuses about 70 meters, and then there is no infinity. Is this peculiar to Kaleinar? And what can be done? How can I adjust?
With infinity, I decided using the Internet: I released 3 screws of the focus ring, scrolled a few millimeters relative to the helicoid towards infinity, and tightened the screws. After that, a few millimeters of the focus ring stroke appeared, which were enough to focus to infinity. The idea is not mine.
I discovered another problem - a small backlash relative to the lens axis of the plastic part on the tail. There is no corner backlash. Is it critical? Did you come across this when applying? How can you fix it?
He unscrewed the bayonet, the plastic tube was inserted with pins along the diameter of the bayonet into three holes, and the pins were melted. There was no rigidity. Dismantled it and put it on glue.
Road going by walking.
I describe it for that - suddenly someone will come in handy. It was necessary to eliminate the backlash for the sticker of Dandelion Lushnikov. Moving the pins of the chip relative to the pins of the camera could burn the dandelion. By the way, the latter is now glued to the lens. Everything works great now.
And I do not resent, but praise!
Eugene, did you have any difficulties with the 'dandelion' sticker? You need to somehow contrive with the sticker so that there is reliable contact!
No, I applied the “caliber” according to the stencil included in the kit, outlined it, then, according to the instructions, applied it on the glue, stood it, applied it again, applied it, checked it again with the caliber and pressed it completely, then left it to dry and began to use it after drying. I did not dare to use instant adhesives - I was not sure that I would clearly apply it the first time. There is a method for choosing a position without a gauge.
Alexey, I understood and generally not in your direction, but simply explained, thanks.
If you find a kaleinar at an affordable price and a good copy, then it is obligatory to use. I have two pieces of 1985 with a non-blacked diaphragm and 1991 with a blackened diaphragm. Enlightenment is different for them. 1991 the picture is better. Both have a picture on open without software. I I rarely cover the diaphragm. Both are sharp. There are problems with clouding of the negative lens. Such specimens have been sold to me. And so the lens is good if you get a good specimen.
After eliminating all the problems described above, and the stickers of the Lushnikov chip, the lens took its rightful place in my wardrobe trunk. Everything except autofocus works with the chip - all priority modes, the metering scale. True, you need to apply the exposure compensation table due to the non-linearity of the aperture closing. On the open, everything is like a corporate one.
recently tidied up a reflex camera, used Nikon 5100, I have a Helios 81 N with a dandelion, I like everything. It’s much better than a whale. Is it worth taking a Kylenar or bypassing the Helios and picking up a portrait from Nikon, or looking towards another Soviet glass that’s not expensive Is there too much zoom on the crop?
You will probably come to a good (and expensive) zoom (but not to quality - to convenience!), Kaleinar 5H is definitely worth taking !!! Great lens !!!!!!
Nikon's portrait portrait is worth the acquisition, only its cost significantly exceeds the cost of the Kaleinar 5N (not in favor of the price / quality ratio).
Image quality (let me be trampled now ...) may depend on your skills and ability (vision) to focus manually and the correct exposure setting (I don't even mention the composition of the picture, which does not depend on the camera and lens).