According provided by lens MC Zenitar-M2s 2/50 many thanks to Alexander Mezhevitin.
MC Zenitar-M2s 2/50 review
MC Zenitar-M2s 2/50 is a standard standard lens for film cameras with M42 thread. This is one of the last mass standard fifty kopecks for Zenit cameras.
How to use with modern cameras?
Lenses with mounting thread M42 (M42 X 1 / 45.5), such as the lens from this review, are very easy to use on almost any modern digital camera (both SLR and mirrorless), for this it is enough to choose the right adapter (adapter). You do not need to carry out any additional steps to modify the lens.
The cheapest adapters can be found at Aliexpress.com... There are adapters (adapters) with a chip that provide more convenience during shooting, usually chips are used to confirm focus and / or metering exposure, and form the correct EXIF. The chip does not affect the image quality in any way.
For some SLR cameras (for example, with the Nikon F-mount), you need to use adapters with a corrective lens, which allows you to focus correctly at all focusing distances. For any mirrorless cameras, such a lens is not needed, and the adapter is a simple decorated hollow metal tube with an appropriate mount.
For SLR cameras
- Canon: For cameras Canon EOS with bayonet mount EF / EF-S need an M42-Canon EOS adapter, such an adapter with a chip can be found herewithout chip here.
- NIKON: For cameras Nikon DX / FXas well as for cameras Fujifilm и Kodak with a Nikon F mount, you need an M42-Nikon F adapter, you can buy such an adapter without a lens and a chip here, with a lens without a chip herewith chip without lens here, with lens and chip here. Why a lens? Why chip?
- PENTAX: For Pentax cameras with K mount, you need an M42-Pentax K adapter, you can buy such an adapter here.
- SONY/MINOLTA: For cameras with a Sony / Minolta A mount, you need the M42-Sony A adapter, you can find such an adapter without a chip at this linkwith a chip at this link.
- OLYMPUS/PANASONIC/LEICA: For cameras with a 4/3 bayonet mount (not to be confused with Micro 4/3!) You need an M42-4 / 3 adapter, you can buy such an adapter here.
For mirrorless cameras
- SONY: For cameras with 'E'/'FE' mount series SonyNEX и Sony Alpha you need an adapter M42-Sony E (aka M42-Sony Nex), you can find it at this link. An autofocus adapter is also available for these cameras. Techart PRO Leica M - Sony E Autofocus Adapterwhich can be found at this link.
- OLYMPUS / PANASONIC / KODAK / XIAOMI: For cameras with a bayonet mount Micro 4/3 (Micro 4:3) you need an adapter M42-Micro 4/3, you can find it at this link.
- CANON M: For cameras with Canon EF-M mount need adapter M42-Canon M, it can be found at this link.
- CANON R and RF-S: For cameras with Canon RF mount need adapter M42-Canon R, it can be found at this link.
- Nikon 1: For cameras Nikon 1 Series need adapter M42-Nikon 1, you can find it at this link.
- Nikon Z: For cameras Nikon Z series (FX/DX) need an adapter M42-Nikon Z, it can be found at this link.
- FUJIFILM X: For cameras with mount X need an M42-Fuji X adapter, you can find it at this link.
- FUJIFILM GFX: For medium format cameras G-mount need M42-Fuji GFX adapter, you can find it at this link.
- SAMSUNG: For cameras with NX mount, you need an M42-Samsung NX adapter, you can find it at this link. There are no adapters for the NX mini camera yet.
- PENTAX: For Q-mount cameras, you need an M42-Pentax Q adapter, you can find it at this link.
- SIGMA / PANASONIC / LEICA: For cameras with L mount you need an M42-Leica L adapter, you can find it at this link.
- LEICA: For cameras with a bayonet mount Leica M need adapter M42-L / M, you can find it at this link.
If you have any questions on compatibility and adapters - ask in the comments (comments do not require any registration at all).
View of the MC Zenitar-M2s 2/50 lens on the ZK
First impressions of the lens are negative - the plastic body in the hands feels like a cheap Chinese toy. The focusing ring is not very comfortable, it is tapered. And the chamfers of the lenses are not blackened, and there are only 6 aperture blades, well, even a dark matte color. Poor manufacturing quality is associated with a reduction in the cost of production - when creating a lens, they tried to minimize the costs of manufacturing the lens and at the same time obtain good optical quality. In the end it turned out, but in my opinion it became a kind of nail in the coffin of Soviet optics, which at that time was already far behind foreign analogues.
Lens trunk MC Zenitar-M2s 2/50
There are many Zenitar brand lenses with a focal length of 50mm, for example MS Zenitar-M 1,9 / 50 и Zenitar-M 1,7 / 50. Fifty zenitar is usually very sharp and, in general, good lenses. The lens from this review is slightly inferior to them in build quality, but optically pretty good.
Multi-Enlightenment of the MC Zenitar-M2s 2/50 Lens
The focus ring of the MC Zenitar-M2s 2/50 rotates 180 degrees, while the trunk of the lens lengthens noticeably, and the front lens does not rotate when focusing. The lens has a focus distance scale from infinity to 35smwhich is pretty good for a fifty dollars. But due to the fact that MDF is small enough 180 degrees of the focusing ring is not enough for smooth focusing. There is also a depth of field scale and an infrared shift mark. Aperture closes to F / 16, between F / 2 и F / 16 there are many intermediate values. Also MC Zenitar-M2s 2/50 has a blinking aperture device without aperture control switch. Front filter diameter non-standard - 46mm, it will be difficult for him to find a cover and a filter. On the lens you can find the inscription M1: 5 which informs about the maximum magnification that the lens creates when focusing on MDF.
The parameters shown in the photo gallery:
All shot on Canon EOS 350D. EGF lens on Canon 350D is 80mm. On-camera JPEG L, high quality (without any processing). Noise reduction at slow shutter speeds was turned off. Parameters: contrast correction - 0, sharpness - 0, saturation - 0, tone color - 0. Used white balance: 'Mainly cloudy'. Photo size has been reduced to 3MP.
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:
MC Zenitar-M2s 2/50 optically turned out to be a pretty good fifty dollars - in the center of the frame it is sharp even at F / 2.0, holds side and back light well, bokeh is not for everybody. But the workmanship of MC Zenitar-M2s 2/50 is very weak, and aperture slightly decreased compared to the older brothers of the lens. Personally, I would buy exceptionally high-quality metal old Zeniths.
Material prepared Arkady Shapoval. Training/Consultations | Youtube | Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | Telegram
Hello, tell me, what else can you buy a lens from the distant past, on the Nikon D3400? The kit includes Kitovskiy, 70-300 and Helios 44-2. Is there anything else to buy (Helios 44M, Industar 50-2 ....) Thanks for your answer!)
There is no special meaning. But if you really want to, then you should look at Helios-81N, MS JUPITER-37A and Kaleinar-5n
Thank you very much!)
Tell me, do you need an M42 adapter ring for them?
Jupiter may need an adapter. The other two do not need
My Kiton Nikon, also not a bad shoot)
18-55 Nikon D3400
on the photo some soap is out of focus :)
Keith does not take off like 81N. For 81H I judge by the photo of the author of the site.
Look at 100% of the photo.
Nikon d3200 camera - apparently this lens resolves or almost resolves the matrix.
You have a camera without an LF filter, which will give another 1-2MP.
Shot fully open with halos just below.
Very shallow depth of field.
And big HA, in my opinion.
And there is no infinity without refinement.
And so I slide into the open and without infinity.
Other things are irrelevant.
Oh, I wrote a direct review.
I have an adapter on the M42.
Click on the photo, download and look at 100%.
There is a 2MB limitation on the photo, you have to be perverted. 21st century in the yard…. ))))
I bought myself this lens after reading this site. And bought for the praise of optical properties.
Of course, I knew what I was going for, so I was not shocked when buying this device.
Since it is practically impossible to use the lens in the form in which it left the factory, I have undergone a revision.
A few words about the lens:
a) optics for 5+
b) mechanics and body for 2–
c) he asks for a hood because he is afraid of side illumination
The body is made of terrible plastic, the lens unit gets stuck, the lubrication does not help, the focusing ring is terribly uncomfortable (especially with gloves in winter), the depth of field is terrible, the aperture ring does not switch easily.
When disassembling the lens, I found out the following:
of metal parts, there is only a bayonet with a jumping aperture mechanism, a rear lens nut, retaining rings, screws, self-tapping screws, one lens unit guide, a few parts of the diaphragm, from which the petals did not understand - I did not disassemble the diaphragm. Although there are two guides at the lens block, there is only one metal, and not only for me, but for everyone who disassembled this model :))) The plastic guide grinds off over time.
Lens block body, helicoid, front nut - all plastic.
Blackening of the front and back gluing is translucent. I did not blacken it, because the back gluing hardly falls into place in the lens unit - which I have not seen in any metal lens (all 44 helios, Arsenal optics, Jupiter - the lenses are very easy to put on).
The focusing ring travel is 180 degrees, on the one hand it is enough, on the other hand it is not enough - the depth of field scale turns out to be clamped.
For revision.
A new focusing ring was manufactured. A non-working whale from Canon 18-55 was purchased as a donor. The ring was assembled using a hacksaw, soldering iron, sandpaper method.
The first version of the REV1 was made, which was used for several months. Lubrication of the lens unit did not help much - as I walked with difficulty, so I walked. The O-ring on its body made itself felt. Plus, the lack of a distance scale created a bit of discomfort.
So I made myself a REV2. A scale for focusing distances has been added - an aluminum ring, ground, paint. From the remains of the whale, a ring was made for the depth of field scale.
All manufactured parts are polished, primed, painted, scales are applied with adjustment and depth of field calculation using a calculator, matte varnish is applied.
What I got now:
1.Convenient to focus, because there is a rubber ring
2.there are informative scales for distance and depth of field
3.the thread for the filter is now 58mm
4.you can put a standard kit canon hood (it is small, most likely this is an additional option, since I have a metal threaded one, from which there is more sense)
The cost of revision: 500 rubles a whale, 500 rubles a ring from a turner. Primers, paint, varnish, marker, glue, sandpaper - do not count, it was all.
Was this dancing around the lens worth it?
Dancing with a tambourine is when your hands are out of a soft spot. For those who have arms from their shoulders, making a new part is not difficult.
as they say - we sing a song to the madness of the brave.
but why all this, Karl ??
Wasn't it easier to buy any NORMAL Japanese / German glass?
Thousands of commercials for 20? Or over 50? :)
Not, of course, when you have an extra 20, you can go buy a new zenitar 1.2 / 50. Or buy a used Zeiss. Or radioactive SMC :) But I liked this glass, it will shoot much sharper than helios44. And if you count the costs - it's only 2.5tr. Is there a difference - 20 and 2.5? And to twist and assemble something is not alien to me.
Zenitar 1.2 can be found on the secondary housing and is significantly cheaper. But it is not a substitute for the conventional helios, it is an independent solution with a different picture and different quality.
:) we are not very fond of manual, so looking for a zenith 1.2 / 50 on the secondary is a dubious occupation. And outbids, which have manuals available, break horse prices for their own trash in fact. Sometimes they ask for 44-6 thousand for helios ms2m3, while the grease flowed out onto the diaphragm, closing it up, the remnants dried up, well, the glasses were wiped on a dirty T-shirt))) This is if we did not play football with glass at all))) Yes, we have such huckster)))
And as for the helios, I did not say that this is an analogue. He has a different picture, a different bokeh pattern. I want a sharpness of 50 I take the zenith, I want lace in bokeh and I take an old picture 44 zebra, I want lace and more sharply I take ms44m6, I want lace for 80 I take a wave, I don’t want lace for 80 I take a zenith 85)) everything is logical and in the mood)
Avito has a lot of these lenses at reasonable prices. However - the owner is a master, as they say.
I do not understand what you are driving at?
And you?)
there are zuiko, there are nikkors, there are foctlander and yashiks. and they all cost much less than 20 rubles. despite the fact that they give an incomparably better picture and have incomparably better mechanics.
I am sincerely glad that there are nikkors, radioactive boxes, zeiss, watering cans, etc.
BUT(!)
Why are you trying to impose your opinion on me?
it is not an imposition, but bewilderment. What are the awful Soviet glasses for when there are beautiful and inexpensive Japanese glasses? Fortunately, the USSR collapsed and sank into oblivion, there he deserves. and there is no longer any need to choose between bad and very bad))
One might ask - why is this lens terrible? In addition to the ugly body, of course, which has already partially sunk into oblivion.
What is worse?
Well, for example, here is a quote from a certain Victor aka @victor_vvo: “The body is made of terrible plastic, the lens unit gets stuck, the lubrication does not help, the focusing ring is terribly uncomfortable (especially when wearing gloves in winter), the depth of field is terrible, the diaphragm ring switches tightly.” Enough for now? It will not be enough, I will add more.
You cannot even answer the question posed - "Except for the ugly corpus, of course, which has already partially sunk into oblivion." - for whom did I write this clarification?
And apparently you did not read the quotes further and did not look at the photo.
Divorce a srach for the sake of a srach. I consider the conversation with you closed.
Yes, Andrei, asleep I thought I was answering Alexei. But still the essence is the same. And yes, I do not care about your opinion and Alekseevskoe.
and Soviet optics, like all Soviet things in general, is crap. and this does not require proof in principle.
The winner is Arkady, who will ban all the participants in the discussion.
Most of. Like this zenith, for example.
Comments on this post are closed for the time being.