For the opportunity review lens MS Wave 1.8 / 50 many thanks to Alexander from the manual optics section and Alexander Perever for the camera Pentax K10D.
Review MC Wave 1.8 / 50
TTX MS Wave 1.8 / 50
The weight: about 240g
MDF: 0.45m
Focal length: 50mm
Front Filter Diameter: 46mm
Factory manufacturer: LOMO Plant (Leningrad Optical and Mechanical Association)
Aperture Limits: F1.8-F22, intermediate values: 2.8, 4, 5.6, 8, 11, 16
Number of aperture blades: 6 pieces
Optical design: 6 elements in 5 or 4 groups (unknown)
Resolution: 45/27 lin / mm (center / edge)
Bayonet \ thread: Bayonet 'K' (Pentax)
Lens MS Wave 1.8 / 50 was shot with the Almaz-103 camera. The Almaz brand cameras were excellent cameras and were generally equipped with good lenses. Volna lenses are now very rare and represent more collectible value than value for good photographs. I've met different lens names MS Wave 1.8 / 50, likely MC Volna-1 1.8 / 50 и MS Wave 1.8 / 50 Is the same lens.
View of the MC Wave 1.8 / 50 lens from different sides
MS Wave 1.8 / 50 It has bayonet mount Kexactly the same as the cameras Pentax. Therefore, to use MS Wave 1.8 / 50 Pentax cameras do not require any adapters. Modern Pentax digital SLR cameras themselves measure exposure with manual lenses and themselves confirm focusing without requiring any chips or dandelions. Aperture works automatically using the aperture control ring on the lens. It’s very convenient to use manual optics in Pentax AF-S mode, AF-Ccreating a focus trap effect. In order to use it on other cameras, you will need to purchase an appropriate adapter.
View of the MC Volna 1.8 50 lens on a modern camera
Lens MS Wave 1.8 / 50 Very well made, small in size and light in weight. Externally MS Wave 1.8 / 50 nothing special differs from other fast apertures. On cropped cameras MS Wave 1.8 / 50 can serve as a good portrait lens, good aperture helps to achieve a very small DOF. However, due to the very small depth of field this time I had to work hard to get sharp pictures on F / 1.8, maybe I’m just not used to managing Pentax manual lenses.
Sample photo on MC Volna 1.8 50. Bokeh.
Focusing on the lens is usual for a fifty dollars, when focusing, the front element does not rotate, it travels about a centimeter forward. The focus ring rotates approximately 270 degrees, which makes the manual focus process quite enjoyable. An interesting fact is that the focus distance scale has a lot of intermediate values. The minimum focusing distance is 45 centimeters, which is a pretty good result.
An example of a photo on MS Volna 1.8 50. Skin tone and depth of field.
The lens has a depth of field scale. The aperture ring clicks nicely when switching between values, and when the aperture is closed from 2.8 to 5.6, the aperture blades form a 'circular saw'. The aperture blades are gray in color and give reflections when light hits at a certain angle.
Sample photo on MS Wave 1.8 50. Color rendering and bokeh
Image quality
MS Wave 1.8 / 50 boasts a complete lack of distortion. At open aperture, lens sharpness is not as good as after 2.8 aperture due to aberrations. Sharpness is present throughout the entire APS-C camera frame. The lens provides good color rendition, contrast, holds side and back light well. The optical design is a bit like the CZJ Planar because the lens has interesting bokeh. In general, the lens showed good image quality.
Sample photo on MS Wave 1.8 50. Open aperture, focus at infinity
Sample Photos
All sample photos in this review were taken with a lens. MS Wave 1.8 / 50 and cameras Pentax K10D. All photos without processing, only reduced to 2 MP and imprinted data from EXIF. On cropped APS-C Pentax cameras EGF lens will fit 75mm.
Personal experience
On a completely open aperture, getting into sharpness seemed harder to me than on other fifty dollars. The lens really turned out good. The front lens has a strong reddish-violet flare, which really confirms multi-enlightenment. I included MC Volna 1.8 / 50 in the list the best Soviet fifty dollars.
An example of a photograph on the MC Volna 1.8 50. You can remove the dynamics on a manual lens.
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.
Sample photo on MS Volna 1.8 50
Other lenses of the brand 'Volna':
Conclusions:
MS Wave 1.8 / 50 - good high-aperture fifty dollars. Has good build quality, good image quality. For owners of CZK Pentax and film cameras with K mount - I recommend.
Material prepared Arkady Shapoval. Training/Consultations | Youtube | Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | Telegram
Can the rear with the K mount be replaced with Nikon?
I think it is possible - but difficult.
structurally it is similar to Helios 81H / Arsat. are the diameters of the “backs” the same? It seems that Granit 11 lenses provided for replacing the back with the "desired" one
There was a rare Granite-11A 4,5 / 80-200 with a replaceable shank.
For K and H mounts, the blinking diaphragm drives are different!
No one said they were the same.
My old friend Sergey Grishin in Soviet times converted Kaleinar from N to K while maintaining the operation of the diaphragm drive. A note with drawings was in the Soviet Photo magazine. Naturally, this only made sense for a camera without metering, since it was not possible to transfer the aperture value to the camera.
YES!!! Just made. Problem, but it turned out to be solved. There are enough problems in the process. Very pleased with the result. I was lucky that I didn’t sell it, but I ventured to do it for myself under Nikon. I can tell you what difficulties were.
which, I wonder!
I first saw this lens exhibited in one of the windows in the center of Sochi in the 80s of the past century. Within two years, the blackening of its frame and the frames of other lenses from LOMO became red.
With the blackening of the petals of my specimen, everything is fine, the only thing is that they still glare, as described in the review.
Interesting article. However, like all. I read about Almaz-103 in the Soviet photo. But the camera is described there, now I read about the lens.
I will sell obktiv. Ukraine 0665047571. http://vk.com/id23126791
Thank you for the interesting article, as well as for the recommendation of the "glass" itself! As for blackening (bluing), the frame is steel and likes to be stored in a dry place. Recently I bought myself this 85 onwards. looks like new!
How is it compared to the zenith 50 / 1,7 in the issued picture? Interested in your opinion.
Available in the M42 version. Zenitar (which I have) with a single layer of enlightenment - the contrast is lower. But on the open it is sharper. The wave (which I have) has a pronounced soft effect on the open. The bokeh at Zenitar is softer IMHO.
The weather is gloomy with examples, what I was shooting with my glass gave a very smooth blur: http://fotkidepo.ru/photo/678411/42740bMcGVaCi9o/t908xk8ezo/765835.jpg
Separately, I would like to note the almost perfect geometry of the flare shape, without twisting, flattening and cutting edges: http://fotkidepo.ru/photo/678411/42740bMcGVaCi9o/t908xk8ezo/792064.jpg
http://fotkidepo.ru/photo/678411/42740bMcGVaCi9o/t908xk8ezo/745001.jpg
Tell me, which lenses are still suitable for Pentax K? Which ones are worth taking?
The list is here - https://radojuva.com.ua/2011/04/optika-na-nikon/#k-mount
Hello, I would like to ask about the market value of this lens for M42 thread, if you know. Thank you in advance.
Greetings, Arkady!
The lens is excellent - everything is as written. I can't believe that such things were done (mine was already in 1984).
The only caveat:
"Aperture works automatically with the lens iris ring."
On my Pentax K-5 does not work - after installation, the diaphragm is open at a constant value of 1,8 and the ring is not adjustable :(
In the instructions for the camera, I read “the influence of the aperture ring does not affect the aperture value” This applies to lenses without position A on the aperture ring, i.e. only M / R (as I understand it manual).
Can you advise what can be done? And then it turns out some kind of fix squared)
Thank you for the site and your work! I will try to contribute my “3 kopecks” to the collection.
It’s hard for me to tell you how long ago it was.
Continuing the theme on "Wave" with a K mount:
Understood, with the help of a kind person)
-preliminary in the camera settings My settings-Aperture ring-Allow,
-install "Wave" on Pentax,
- when you turn on the device, confirm the focal length of the lens,
-More shooting mode-M (that is, manual),
- set the desired value on the aperture ring,
- at the beginning of shooting, click on the Green button (to the right of the LCD screen on the Pentax K-5),
-focus (with the ability to focus on the green dot in the viewfinder)
- take a picture.
- the device automatically clamps the aperture to the desired value and returns the petals to their original position to fully open.
-n the next frame, if you do not need to change the aperture, then the Green button can not be pressed - the setting is already in memory (if you need to change the aperture, change the value on the aperture ring and press the Green button).
At first it was a bit unusual)
Thanks again to Arkady for opening such an interesting lens for me!
Good luck to all! Happy 2015!
Diamond is a great camera. Mostly different from others ... It is simply impossible to find a worse camera from the USSR.
The camera was great. Constructively. One problem - did not live long. 1000 runs on average - and into the box. Because it was practically unrepairable.
After I purchased the Pentax K - Canon EOS adapter, I decided to compare the Wave 50 / 1.8 (completely metal body - apparently from the first) and Hexanon AR 50 / 1.8 (from the “medium series” - completely metal and black, it seems to be considered the best of all fifty kopecks for Konica AR) on Samsung NX11. So - to my extreme amazement, Hexanon completely "merged" the Wave. At the full hole there is generally the earth and the sky (the scene at infinity), but even at the 8th aperture, the Wave worked decidedly better. And not only at the edges. I'm shocked! After all, these Hexanons are considered to be one of the best poltoes!
No wonder! 50 / 1,8 is far from the best, the best of the staffs they have are 50 / 1.7 and 45 / 1.8 (I don't remember exactly the numbers).
I somehow bartered a thrift store (in Vladivostok) with the Konica + 57 / 1.4 machine. So I want to say it was losing optically at all diaphragms to my ARSAT-50/2. At 1.4 there was not just software but "cotton wool!" Well, how this miracle looked on the strap and on the neck - a huge lens with a diameter like the bottom of a glass, the device is silvery, but the results are zero! :))
The optics of the conic alone are very pleasant in color, not in all plots, but I tried a lot of glass and Pentax and Olympus and Minolta lost in color. Although Olympus / 1.4 was the best in terms of sharpness out of all fifty dollars on the open, it is 5-8 times better than Konica 57mm. I was not surprised by your comments.
I don’t know what kind of enthusiasts or experts say this, but I have not yet seen high-quality lenses from the Clinic. The 35-70 zooms are rather weak, and the standard 55 f/1.4 is completely inferior in sharpness to our Arsat 50 f/2 H. What is good about this Japanese glass is the richness of the picture and color. And your 1.8 lens is from a different manufacturer, not Konica. Konikovsky precisely - 50mm f/1.7
I didn't like the lens. On an open aperture, soapy to the point of horror (I don't know how G must be to "drain" it), and even the chromaticity (green and purple edges) is clearly visible. Those. hole 1.8, if you don't want to use it. Here is the zenitar-to 1.9 / 50 - another matter! 1.7 / 50 did not try - I will not lie, but it is M42, which is not interesting for the pentax. The difference in aperture of 1.7, 1.8 and 1.9 is more imaginary than real, but according to third-party data, 1.9 / 50 is sharper and generally better. There is also helios -44k-4. So there is nothing special to say about him, tk. having a smaller aperture, it loses to the zenitar in sharpness.
You just had no luck with the copy, you can't call the 45 resolution loose in the center, by the way, some lenses produced more than 50 lines ...
Dmitry don't be surprised - it can be even worse !! Try the Konica hexsar 57 / 1.4 I mentioned and you will be surprised, at apertures 1.4 -4 it loses to both Wave and Helios 44-k4. By the way, Helios dug this out of the box when he bought himself a Pentax, and was pleasantly surprised - sharp starting from the open one, to see a successful specimen. I think - how good it is that I did not give it to someone. But he gave this wave to use, and the person left and all that. So draw conclusions like-minded people!
Why can we turn it over by screwing it through the reversing adapter to zoom? chi is more beautiful than the first candidate for macro.
Friends and tell me Wave will be suitable for Canon Mark 3 through an adapter? I really wanted to make a teal shift and realized that the working segment of the canon is different. And all adapters are designed for Sony, Kiev and other. Tell me, does the wave lens have about the same working length as the canon ??
Could just turn on the autofocus trap, and would fall without problems. I had K10, and on one muddy aperture manual telephoto lens fell into the trap without any problems. After autofocus lenses, honestly, laziness was aimed at the eye.
DD
Caught in the hands of such a lens.
Will it be more interesting than the Canon 50mm 1.8 stm? Of course, apart from the convenience of the latter ...
I will try to answer several at once. First. “Diamond” is an absolutely disgusting camera. We had an illiquid store LOMO, where they sold jammed "Diamonds". First, it was poorly designed. If you forgot to cock the shutter, but cocked the self-timer (and it doesn’t happen with anyone!) They pressed the shutter button, the camera stuck dead and had to be disassembled. The cell was of disgusting quality: I gathered myself ONE working copy from SIX non-working. At the same time, I checked ALL the details, scratching them with a screwdriver. 40% of them were raw, and 40% were over-heated. In addition, the rods under the bottom cover (responsible for cocking the shutter and mirrors when rewinding the film) were adjustable - on the screws. It is clear that the screws were unscrewed from vibrations, and the camera jammed. There were also defects. Now about the lens. Optically, he is absolutely gorgeous. We compared him on the optical bench with the pancolar and the takumar - he scored both of them. At diaphragm 8, he produced about 32 lines per mm on the “photo-100” film (pankolar - 88 lines, takumar - 115, but only in the center, its field is curved like that of G-44. More than that. Out of half a dozen “waves” from the purchased “Almaz” I COULD NOT choose the best one - they were all the same, a thing unrealistic for the Soviet industry! And I had three more "waves" converted for M42. More than that. I took the trouble to disassemble several lenses and twist the lenses (usually I managed to raise the resolution this way, sometimes by 10-15%) - no effect! The lenses are made perfectly. But ... Only optically. I have never seen a more vile construct in my life. Firstly, to reduce the size of the front lens is not deepened into the body (like the same Helios). And it gave a sad result. The MC enlightenment of the “wave” perfectly holds back light, but it ABSOLUTELY does not keep the backlight from the source located OFFFRAME. At the same time, a dark-red arcuate “hare” goes through the entire frame, which is practically invisible to the eye in bright light, but completely ruins the slide. Saved, called. And the second is the worst diaphragm drive in the world. There, the blackened duralumin crown rotates in the blackened duralumin glass. Who knows what “AnOx. chern. ”, already guessed everything. The friction there just rolls over. And the only way to remove this friction is to do WHAT? That's right, grease the crown. What this leads to is not hard to guess. After a certain amount of blinking of the diaphragm, the lubricant is on the petals of the jump rope without fail. Speaking in detail, even using the “wave” converted to M42, i.e. not in the blinking mode, but with manual closing, about once a year the lens needs to be disassembled and washed ... But there is also a second source of lubrication on the petals: the helicoid. Again, for the purpose of compactness, it was made of such a small diameter (and even with a groove) that the Soviet lubricant like TsIATIM inevitably fell on the petals. And the last thing: about the comparison of "Wave" and "Zenitar 1,7 / 50". There are two points. First: the wave has MC, the zenith does not. Therefore, the contrast of the wave is higher. The second point. Zeniths were of two types (I mean with ONE and the same aperture of 1,7). The first - rare - were only at Zenith-19, and even then not at all. Their rear lens is attached through an intermediate ring with three milled “legs” like a jewel. Mounting at three points ensures complete absence of stress in the glass and the highest image quality. Apart from the lack of MC, these anti-aircraft guns are absolutely identical in resolution to manual nikkors 1,8 / 50 - I compared them side-by-side. Then, in order to simplify, the rear lens was fastened with an ordinary threaded ring. Those lenses that I saw from this series are worse and unpleasantly worse on the edge (astigmatism). But any zenith will constructively give 100 points to the wave.
Thanks for the article Nikolay. There was a lack of such articles in photojournalism of the late 90s. There, somehow it doesn’t matter, but they belittled the quality of Soviet optics. Correctly, their main idea was to move the market for typical products, and at the same time they wrote articles about Nikons and Canonies.
“There somehow don’t mean…”.
Not in what?
"The optical design is a bit like the CZJ Planar."
there is something wrong - there has never been such a lens
either not Yen or not Planar
I put the lens wave 1,8 on the Sony camera, it works in manual mode!
My old friend Sergey Grishin in Soviet times converted Kaleinar from N to K while maintaining the operation of the diaphragm drive. A note with drawings was in the Soviet Photo magazine. Naturally, this only made sense for a camera without metering, since it was not possible to transfer the aperture value to the camera.
The optical scheme at first glance is very similar to the 1,7 / 50 zenith. Has anyone compared these glasses?
The optical scheme at first glance is very similar to the 1,7 / 50 zenith. Has anyone compared these glasses? From the photo on the Internet, it seems to be noticeable that the wave has a nervous blur. And they seem to write that the wave conveys shades and volume better. But this is a taste and color opinion. Does anyone have experience using these glasses?