Many thanks for the opportunity to review the Tele-N 3.5 / 200 lens Ivan Kosarekov.
Overview of Tele-N 3.5 / 200
Telear-N 3.5/200 is an amazing Soviet telephoto lens. Tele-N has a 200mm focal length and F3.5 aperture, which is a very good indicator for such a large focal length.
Tele-H 3.5 / 200 bokeh example
TTX Tele-N 3.5 / 200
- Focal Length: 200mm
- Aperture: F / 3.5-F / 22
- Number of aperture blades: 8 pieces
- Weight: 700g
- Optical design: 5/5
- Front Filter Diameter: 62mm
- MDF: 1.6m
- Bayonet mount: H, similar to Nikon F, AI (sometimes PRE-AI / NON-AI)
The lens sits perfectly on the camera without causing weight imbalance.
Tele-N 3.5 / 200 sample photo
Tele-N can very much blur the foreground and foreground. Blurring the background is very important for photographing a portrait. Tele-N can easily compete with such super expensive and high-quality professional lenses as 80-200mm F2.8 and 70-200mm F2.8, since at 200mm focal length there is maximum blurring of the background. The difference in aperture between F2.8 in modern professional zooms and F3.5 in old Tele-N is only 1.56 times. Therefore, if you need exactly a good TV set for wonderful portraits, then it may be the old Soviet Tele-N.
Tele-N 3.5 / 200 sample photo
How to use Tele-N with modern cameras?
The Tele-N lens has the same mount as all Nikon cameras. Thus, in order to use the lens on any Nikon CTC, no adapter is needed. Also, Tele-N is an AI lens. How to use Soviet lenses you can find Nikon on any central control center in the pro section Soviet lenses, or, in the section about AI-S.
Tele-N 3.5 / 200 example of a portrait
Indicators
The lens has an aperture control ring with values of F3.5, F5.6, F8.0, F11.0, F16.0, F22.0. Between F3.5 and F5.6, you can set F4.0. The depth of field scale is indicated only for F8, 16, 22.
Tele-N 3.5 / 200 color rendition
The weight
The lens is quite weighty. Allows you to avoid shaking when photographing with your hands. Weight is associated with a good manufacturing quality of the lens of iron and glass. My copy is 1996, it is already over 18 years old, and it works just as well.
Tele-N 3.5 200 blur background on the covered aperture
Focusing
Focus ring rotates 270 degrees. Focusing is very comfortable, smooth with a nice rubberized ring. The lens has MDF of only 1.6 meters, and after 30 meters, “infinity” begins on the focusing distance scale. When focusing from MDF to infinity, the lens trunk extends 4 cm. When focusing, the front lens does not rotate. Finding a 62mm filter will not be a problem.
Tele-N 3.5 200 blur background
Lens hood
The lens has a built-in telescopic lens hood.
Tele-N 3.5 200mm sample photo
Image quality
The lens is not sharp enough at F3.5, but this sharpness is quite enough for portrait shooting. Normal sharpness starts at F8.0. At F22.0 on my camera, sharpness deteriorates due to diffraction. At apertures up to F8.0, the lens suffers a lot from chromatic aberrations, which make the picture at F3.5 slightly soft. The lens completely lacks distortion and vignetting on cameras with an APS-C sensor. Tele-N reproduces pleasant bokeh. Unfortunately, the built-in hood does not help the lens in the fight against backlight and side light, the lens easily loses contrast in difficult conditions.
Separately, it is worth noting the lack of multi-enlightenment. In general, image quality has strengths and weaknesses.
Tele-N 3.5 200mm sample photo
Personal experience
Using a manual telephoto lens is quite difficult. It's not the most comfortable lens to use. In general, who does not need exactly 200 mm focal length, it is better to look towards the shorter, but more interesting lens MC Jupiter-37A 3.5 / 135.
Tele-N 3.5 200mm sample photo
Sample Photos
Camera photo examples Nikon D40. Original photo size here.
Comments on this post do not require registration. Anyone can leave a comment. Many different photographic equipment can be found on AliExpress.
Conclusions:
Telear-N is an old Soviet telephoto, it has many shortcomings, but a good ratio of focal length and aperture allows you to use it not only as a short telephoto lens, but also as a portrait and creative lens.
Material prepared Arkady Shapoval. Training/Consultations | Youtube | Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | Telegram
Sit back and I'll tell you the truth about Teleare-N.
A copy of the author was released in 1996 and this means that it was made not at the Arsenal, as the first samples from 1985, but at a brunch in the city of Nizhyn (NEC "Progress").
At the Arsenal, the release of the first batch in leatherette cases-wardrobe trunks (there were never leather cases-wardrobe trunks) was in the region of a hundred pieces, then Nezhinsky production went in leatherette cases-wardrobe trunks, and then in plastic flasks. The kit included an extra. adapter for Nikon, light filters. The frequency of copies has dropped sharply since the moment of "independence".
In the 90s, the focus ring was changed, before it was made by knurling, a little later it was milled.
Also, the enlightenment "walked" a little after the 90s, when the color shift formula was changed for imported color photographic materials
http://www.flickr.com/photos/55206823@N02/5452801502/in/photostream/
Full factory equipment mid-80s
http://www.flickr.com/photos/66521762@N02/8289688277/
http://www.haardt.net/kievtelear200.htm
Price 210 rub., Prices from 1986 http://www.flickr.com/photos/yarovitcin/5395477159/
Several lenses of the standards of 1985 and 1986 went west into the hungry 90s, see the bourgeoisie's photo on the internet, if you see absolutely sharp photos, maybe they are.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/99846510@N00/3261399274/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/99846510@N00/3261399290/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/d-k-t/7685228776/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/symbiotek/6232889560/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/symbiotek/7313562490/in/set-72157627719502391/
My copy of 1986, on a laser interferometer, showed an almost perfect picture comparable to the lenses of 1985 and 1986.
Arkady, in a good way, your Tele-N should be on the optical bench and under the laser interferometer to find out what is wrong with him and to adjust if there is such an opportunity.
Dmitry wrote ... ... I can post pictures. after the telear, I wanted to throw out Nikon's optics (cheap lenses) 18-135, 70-300 It's a shame that our (CIS) industry stopped producing lenses. made for canon, nikon pentax sony and mirrorless ...
I agree to all 100%.
Good luck.
Thanks to Arkady for the review and Alex for a very helpful comment! Out of old memory, I decided to buy Telear N for myself. The first of the tested - 86 year of release, was unsuccessfully "repaired" (there was no aperture driver, and the blades were inverted during assembly, and gave "slits" when closed), but the picture even "on the open" lens gave a very detailed and sharp, with moderate contrast and a slightly yellow-green color rendition, which was very easily corrected in the editor. All subsequent lenses, which were more “fresh” by the year of release, tested by me, on the open lens gave a confident “soapy-chrome” daub, but with relatively normal color rendering. As a result, I purchased the ancient “Vemar teleauto 200 \ 3,5”, but I regret the “Telear”, I had one in use 25 years ago, on Kiev 17 and filmed the NC-19 film quite abruptly.
Shanovny, znіmki, on yakі you try - ruinous NOT Telear! Usogo navsogo))))
To this image:
1) do not live
2) supernaturally іzkі i yaskravі.
This is enriched by the fact that we have a wide range of education and information on the inside of the asset. And in the Soviet era, the bunkers were badly burned, on the rivals of the 1930s rock.
“Several lenses of the standards of 1985 and 1986 went to the West in the hungry 90s, see the photos on the internet from the bourgeoisie, if you see absolutely sharp photos, maybe they are.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/99846510@N00/3261399274/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/99846510@N00/3261399290/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/d-k-t/7685228776/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/symbiotek/6232889560/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/symbiotek/7313562490/in/set-72157627719502391/"
How definitely not a telearom ?!
Doesn't it turn yellow? C'mon camera WB or post-processing will fix any yellowing that is extremely harsh? about the fact that the first were sharper. but a high appraisal "The price is summed up by the well-groomed enlightenment of the linz and the black inner surface of the active." speaks of the good quality of Soviet lenses, and the following words about ignorance.
Internal blacking on the lens? between the diaphragm and the front lens block is a very effective hood. Blackening of the ends of the lenses is absent only on one lens (the second in front).
Many of the lenses that fell into my hands had very high quality blackening (industrials, jupiters, some helios), and while they were doing white Jupiter 9 in full, they only learned to do normal enlightenment.
Well, to summarize, in skillful hands any balalaika item, you need to approach the technique with an understanding of the minuses and advantages thereof, and there will be happiness and photographs at the level of expensive lenses.
And what is better than this or Jupiter 21M?
“But in fact, only Jupiter-36V 250mm F3.5 and Jasper-4H can compete with Telear-N.” There is one more-Oberon-11K 200 / 2.8. Can't you make a review about it? It is interesting to compare it with Telear-N .About Yashma, I do not offer it, apparently, it is impossible to find it. And Oberon, although rare, sometimes appears on the Internet for 7-8 thousand rubles (in a used state).
Good evening! I am the proud owner of the D5100, I want a telephoto for shooting mostly children from far away. Jupiter 21A costs inadequate money, and they simply are not on sale, but there is a tele-N 200 / 3,5 and Nikkor 200/4 AIS for 100 euros, which of them is preferable? Will both work equally well with Lushnikov's dandelion?
..bought a couple of days ago .. for a hat of crackers .. immediately felt a concrete iron ... put it on the D200-it turned out a brick-heavy .. from the photos taken for tests, 50 percent are normal .. the rest are smeared .. but the quality is awesome .. I think this is from an unusual weight .. I bought it by the way after reading your review, for which thanks .. I thought of taking Jupiter 36b .. although I will buy it too .. here is a photo, who is interested http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=637446266292387&set=pb.100000810582602.-2207520000.1393439627.&type=3&theater
Yes, Gregory, I bought it yesterday too and was amazed at the quality of the color. Very satisfied. One caveat - I didn’t think that Telear — it happens with the M-42, but I just have an adapter with a lens, so everything is super! I would like to say many thanks to the creator of the site, it's just a storehouse of valuable information! THANK YOU VERY MUCH!!!
this lens does not need an adapter with a lens ... the picture is far from perfect and an additional lens will worsen it. the kit with the lens usually came with an adapter for cues 17-19 or nikon ... you need to unscrew 3 screws, remove the adapter m42 and insert another ... .. why complicate everything?
Please advise whether this lens is suitable for macro photography. There is such a design:
-Nikon D100
- through M42 connected furs
The adapter from the bellows to the lens is M44 (M52 is also there, but you need to think about how to connect it)
I shot with a Helios 44M 2/58 lens on this design, I liked it very much, but I want a higher magnification. There are 2 flashes on synchromes, 2 flashlights - the aperture is not a problem. I would like an inexpensive fix either 85, or 105, or 200 - what can you tell me? Of course, no automation is needed through the mechs, but you want sharpness.
Is there a telephoto mount Olympus OM 200mm / 3,3 mount I can’t understand what kind of lens it is? It says (front in a circle) MC AUTO CPC PHASE 2 CCT 200MM 1: 3,3 (diameter) 62mm. Maybe someone knows?
Arkady, tell me, is it worth taking a lens on a crop if you already have Jupiter 37?
He interests me in the role of portraiture.
I myself have these two.
U37A I use a lot more. And also exclusively portraits
Is it possible for the name “glamorous blonde” to show how the TV was worn on the Nikon?) I bought the mirror not so long ago, I'm afraid to damage it, “because everything should be assembled like a computer, if something is not installed and you use force, it means you are putting it wrong and most likely you you will break it now, ”I opened the TV-n, I'm afraid to put it HD)) nikon d3300
Lord, і stars are blondes ???? Press the fixing button, and "whale" about, turn to turn (for the year's arrow - like wondering ahead). The Telear is placed on the second place - so, the signs on the cameras are on the on, the active ones fell off - and twist (against the old arrows), do not click. Everything.
Good day, Arkady!
Still, I want to ask a sports question.
Which of the 200mm Soviet fixes (or next to 200mm) is the best for Nikon.
And a narrower, duplicate question, U21A or Telear N?
Successful Yu-21 And I prefer it, but Telear is good.
Good afternoon, Arkady!
The question is similar to the previous one and also has a sporting interest.
If you add to the two Soviet fixes Yu21A (Yu21M) or Telear N native Nikon 200mm f / 4 NIKKOR-Q.
Which lens would you prefer?
Nikkor 200/4 suttuvo shrinking from the Radianskiy Givna to the Telear-N chi Yupiter-21 type. Protect the soviet technology - it's cheap. At the end of the day.
And if you compare with the Vivitar-200mm-f35 (Kino or Komine)?
Outwardly 1 to 1
Typo f3.5
Here is your "vaunted" Nikon 200/4, and-and-and-and, what's good about him !? Telear is definitely better. (How many “experts have divorced” ...) https://radojuva.com/2011/06/obzor-nikon-200mm-f4-nikkor-q/
Good afternoon, Arkady. I got a telearon, with the Arsenal logo, under the number 863181. The first digits are understandable for the year, the last four mean something?
Next, just the serial number goes)
Hello, tell me, please, about the working order of the diaphragm: it seems to be manual, but when the ring rotates, it does not close on my copy, the ring moves quite freely, the hole is open, nothing happens. The M / A switch was not found on it. It seems that it is not there at all, the edges are not visible. They put Nikon on a digital camera - it shoots in manual mode, but the diaphragm does not lend itself to automation (we checked it just in case, you never know, it is automatic by default, and it is not indicated on it). Is my Telear broken, or am I missing something? Thanks in advance.
Heh, we found a "lever" behind, the aperture is still there) I figured out that it changes according to the set value at the moment the shutter is released, right? The first time I hold a similar Soviet one, everything is not very clear yet on the installation. Please write in more detail and more accessible for a beginner in such matters, am I trying to work with him correctly and what other information will facilitate its use?
An excellent lens for me. I use it with nikon d5100 + 2x converter. The photos are just a masterpiece (the focal length is about 600 in total). Anyone who does not have enough money for lenses for $ 1000 and above is a great way out, the photos are not worse. There is only one thing, but they need to learn how to work ... and the result will amaze you :)
What can I say, I tested this lens. Compared with my existing Nikon zoomer 55-200.
From the pros I can distinguish
1) Large aperture. Actually, somewhere in the same exposure position is lighter with the same equal aperture / shutter speed / ISO.
2) A wider hole. 3.5 vs 5.6.
Cons
1) Lack of sharpness on open apertures. For a portrait ride
2) Even on f8, Nikon's buzzer paints landscapes definitely more clearly
3) Weak contrast. Black in the pictures is quite small
4) As the author noted, he tries chromatism.
Alexander, do you think it makes sense to take Tele, if there is already a Nikon zoomer 55-200? Or is the game not worth the candle?
bought the other day the Tele well, I noticed one strange haze in the middle of the frame that these are the consequences of backlight or pollution of optics
Perhaps if the diaphragm is not blackened when shooting on a closed, re-reflection to the matrix occurs. I had such an effect on nikkor 50 / 1.4 but not always, it depended on the lighting.
But without haze
It is still possible re-reflection of the shiny details of the mount. It is observed when setting lenses for crop cameras for a full frame.
Tell me, I can't decide: is there Jupiter21m 200/4 and Telear n 200 / 3.5 on my hands - which one to leave?
Throw a coin, heads-tails, Jupiter-telear :)
IMHO, the good old zonar-jupiter is better made than telear. Take test shots paired and choose)
The telear has better ergonomics and a hole, but the picture of Jupiter is more contrasting. Maybe this is my inexperience. Both managed to sort out (repair, maintenance) - assembly: both have pros and cons. I bought a pentax k20d for the first time (and a camera in principle). Native glass is expensive, even an old native manual. Alternative to Soviet glass. Now I twist thoughtfully, romance. Probably it is worth leaving both for now, until the arrival of full practical and theoretical understanding and understanding, since the telear got almost for nothing, and Jupiter came inexpensively.
Good day!
What about * active vi b was pleased for the best frames for nikon d3100?
+ Soviet arches important korimuvatsya?
M42 200 mm f / 3.5 or Helios-44 2/58
Which one is more beautiful than brother for nikon d3100?
all lenses with M42 will not give Nikon, without alteration, focusing on infinity. What do you need?
Good day. Judging by the number of the 85th issue, I came into the hands of Telear-N. In very good condition, everything works, the case is present, there is one BUT. An M-42 shank is installed on it, and I need H that is lost. While hung on his Nikon through a simple ring, naturally without infinity, the focus is 10-15 meters. I want to bring it to mind, I liked the way he draws. I understand that this is not a flea market, but can someone tell me where you can find the native H shank. Thank you in advance.
But KP-AN is not suitable?
No. There is nothing to fix ...
Today I made a self-made shank from the Chinese ring M42-N, an infinity run turned out :) Well, it’s understandable, the difference in the segment is a whole mm, until I found something like that to compensate for it.
I don't know if it's possible to find a native shank? The lens itself can be said to be rare. If you only turn to the master - on YouTube, a person is in good hands, his channel is called Digital M42 if you send him to rework. He will be able to carve a new bayonet altogether - he has the equipment. Is your diaphragm only manual now?
I found it. The man works with Pentax, and his tail is on his lens on his native N. Anyway, hang through the adapter, agreed to give up on my M42.
Z.Y. Jumping works. Thank you for the info about the master, it will come in handy.
I got it today - I'm not happy
Good afternoon, Arkady bought Tele-N 3,5 / 200 a couple of days ago, the condition of the surfaces of the lenses and mechanics is good
I installed the NIKION 5100 on the carcass, but unfortunately the lens does not have sharpness at infinity, it catches 15 meters, literally one division on the scale is missing at infinity and the lens rests on the limit value of the range. Is there a constructive opportunity to shift the focus limit.
With a native H-shank? Or the M42 tail and planted on the camera through a simple adapter ring?
If the first, then you need to get the helicoid and check how the lenses and alignment rings are installed. If the second option, then no way, you need to change the shank. I had the same problem. At first, I made a shank from a conventional M42 / H adapter. In principle, the technology is not complicated, we remove the tail standing on it, wrap the adapter on it, turn it over and carefully use a regular drill with a drill of suitable diameter to drill the same holes in the adapter through the native holes in the tail. We twist the adapter and slightly bring the resulting holes for the native mounting screws. That's it, we fasten the resulting tail instead of the native one and get the desired infinity even with an overrun. I used it for some time like that, but in the end I gave it to the service specialists for remaking. At the moment, it’s not Arsenalovsky’s on my lens, namely Nikonovsky mount from a modern lens, even with dustproof rubber. I don’t know how they screwed it there, I only smile slyly at all questions. But everything works great.
Picture for clarity ...
I add that the lens has the ability to change the shank on the M42, which came in the kit.