According provided by lens MC Telear-5B 5.6 / 250 many thanks to Oleg Albaev.
MC Telear-5B 5.6 / 250 review
MC Telear-5B 5.6 / 250 is a telephoto lens for medium format cameras with a frame size of 6x6. This is not for you tiny matrices 36x24 mm! The lens was produced in two versions - for cameras with 'B' mount (Salut, Salyut-S, Kiev-80, Kiev-88) and 'B' (Kiev-90, Kiev-6, Kiev-6C, Kiev-60). There are lenses with names written in Cyrillic - 'MC Telear-5' and in Latin - 'MC Telear-5'. As far as I know, Telear-5 was not produced under the name 'arsat', under which they began to produce part of the Soviet lenses in the 90s.
I used the MC Telear-5B 5.6 / 250 on Nikon cameras with an adapter KP-88 / N, and on Canon cameras using two adapters: KP-88 / N и Nikon F - Canon EOS. Attention, on full-length APS cameras EGF lens is the same 250 mm.
MC Telear-5B 5.6 / 250 with yellow border near the front lens. Such a Soviet 'L'.
Unlike most Soviet lenses, the MC Telear-5B 5.6 / 250, which I reviewed, does not have the manufacturer's logo. On the lens you can find a rare, in our time, inscription 'Made in Ukraine'. The serial number is 960224, most likely the lens was manufactured in 1996.
MC Telear-5B 5.6 / 250 rear view. The white diaphragm pusher pin is visible.
MC Telear-5B 5.6 / 250, as befits a medium format lens, is heavy, weighs 900 grams. True, the front lens is not very large, it uses filters with a diameter of 62 mm. The focus ring is very wide and rubberized, rotates 135 degrees. When focusing, the front lens does not rotate, and the trunk of the lens significantly lengthens. On my copy, the ring rotates tight and jerky, after an hour of working with the lens, the hands just fall off. MDF is 2.5 meters, on the case there is a depth of field scale for F / 5.6, 8, 11, 16, 22, 32 values (for all values indicated on the aperture control ring) and a focus distance scale.
MC Telear-5B 5.6 / 250, the paint with the inscription completely peeled off.
The diaphragm consists of only 6 blackened blades. Most likely, on the sample from this review, the aperture does not close completely, because at F / 32 the blades create a visually rather large aperture. The lens has a 'blinking' aperture device to work with the corresponding cameras. Also, on this lens, the front part of the lens trunk knocks (although it does not wobble), because of this I cannot write that the build quality is at a high level.
A small spoiler: a lot of Soviet medium format lenses that I reviewed look like large pieces of iron, have a very rough design (probably corresponding to that era) and, most importantly, most of them stink of oil or grease. When you use such a lens, you get the impression that you went into the garage to help your dad with repairing his old 'penny'. In addition, few people use such lenses, therefore, as a rule, all the mechanics are in poor condition and the focusing rings rotate tightly. The diaphragm, on almost all copies that I have used, does not work, wedges, has no blackening, or forms irregular polygons. As it turned out, in hot weather, on this Telear, the rubber on the focusing ring expands and leaves. In general, I get very little aesthetic pleasure from using such optics.
The photo shows the MS-enlightenment of the front lens of the MC Telear-5B 5.6 / 250 lens
At an open aperture, the lens suffers from chromatic aberrations, sharpness is also not the best. What's good is the level of vignetting on a full-frame camera, low distortion, and good backlight tolerance. IN JVI it is noticeable that the lens slightly distorts the color reproduction. Due to the large focal length, even despite the weak aperture, The depth of field remains very narrow and it’s not so easy to catch the subject in focus :(. Personally, I did not like the lens a bit, except that the background is very blurry.
Here link to the archive with the originals - 299 MB, 24 photos in .CR2 format (RAW) from a full-format camera Canon 5D.
MC Telear-5B 5.6 / 250
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.
Results
MC Telear-5B 5.6 / 250 is a lens for medium format cameras, on full format cameras, and even more so on cropped cameras, I don't see much sense in using it. Perhaps the lens will be useful for someone as a telephoto lens, however, as for a prime lens, it is deprived aperture. Sell such a lens at 30-50 cu
Material prepared Arkady Shapoval. Training/Consultations | Youtube | Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | Telegram
when already in Ukraine they will produce standards for optics ...
Now never
The question is not quite the topic. What would you choose at a comparable price - a stone lens with an indestructible construct and optics of 4 or even 4 with a minus or plastic with a picture of 5? The question is how to a wedding photographer))
We need specific models.
with hands 28 1.8g (the focuser creaks the toy lens itself) or from the store 24 2.8d (monolith)
Are you going to take pictures with a lens or play 'cars' with children? If you really want such a fix, then I recommend you wait, add funds and take a new 28 / 1,8G.
And the pictures are good.
It seems to me that Soviet photography suffered in its very system. The lenses seem to be copied from the Germans, but they lack aperture and contrast with sharpness. The range of quality is amazing - hence the “successful” and “unsuccessful” specimens. The cameras seem to be too licked, and the range of shutter speeds is shorter, the usability is also lame. Let's compare the same practice and zenith. A screen with a micro-raster again. And the most, in my opinion, that finished off all this - the film. Mediocre film, the choice of which is not great. We charge such a film to the zenith with helios 44-2, and voila - family albums all over the union. It's good if the zenith. And then another fed, the shifts are different. No, I don’t hate anything, on the contrary - the equipment was available, everyone had cameras. I just have a question - why did it all go secondary? Well, let it be for amateurs, okay. And what was left for the pros? Import? Japan, Germany? Cameras okay, but the film is native, Svemovskaya?
And the pros - eat what they give. Or did we have a normal quality in some area other than the military?
As one Soviet-era programmer told me, the party simply decided that we don’t need all this, that it’s easier to rip everything off from the west. As a result, everywhere and in everything they fell behind, except for the defense industry of course. A photo is really beautiful. Arkady thanks for his work
You write nonsense. The copied lenses can be counted on the fingers and all of them were mainly counted back in the 50s.
Well, there are only a few cameras "licked".
Well, why all the Soviet Geliks and Jupiters were copied from Carl Zeiss. And the Nikon bayonet appeared in the USSR thanks to Nikon, and not vice versa. As for programming, the person who received state awards for his work said that the USSR had its own operating system, which was licked from the American DOS and simply Russified and named differently. Okay, the blog is all about photos only where our computers, cameras and lenses are right now and why we are not competing on a par with kenon and nikon. And our Krasnogorsk plant or Kiev Arsenal are more likely to fight for survival
A rhetorical question immediately arises. What is stopping the great Ukrainian engineers today, who are not hindered by either the USSR or the Party from creating anything worthwhile? In any area? “Mind”, unfortunately, is enough only to plunder what was left of the Soviet regime (25 years have passed, and the carnage continues, although it is clearly coming to an end), and to pour crap on it at every opportunity. In the field of photography, as for me, we generally lagged very, very little. In contrast to the areas of trade, service and consumer electronics. At least the Zenith brand was familiar in every corner of Europe. I say this because I have personally encountered local photographers many times in various places in Western Europe.
By the way, Nikon and Kenon also often have a VERY large variation in the quality of individual copies, especially for lenses that cost up to a piece of bucks. As an example, the new Nikon staff for FF 24-85VR, the quality of which varies from delight to full g ... depending on the instance.
Today, it is the same as half a century ago - the cane system, which the communists introduced out of panic fear of any dissent, completely knocked people out of the ability to think freely. Therefore, even those few who have not forgotten how to think prefer to go abroad, and not to splash in a post-Soviet swamp. And you don't need to be fooled into thinking that the scoop has created some super-wealth, which is already enough for the third generation)))) The heroes of the scoop, just like their today's followers, are strong in one thing - take the cow, plant the owner (shoot). It would be more correct to say in another way - the material values of the people who were shot and tortured during the revolution were enough to raise a whole class of parasites, skilled in theft and torture. Regarding your illusions about the progress of the Soviet / post-Soviet industry, it is pertinent to give two examples - the Moskvich engine, assembled from BMW, which, unlike its prototype, pulls not a car, but veins from its owner and a new miracle of the plant. Zvereva - a Zenith camera worth half a million rubles, which is essentially nothing more than a Leica ten years ago. And so - in everything absolutely!
“Soviet photography suffered in its very system” - vysnovok at the beginning, mmm, how delicious!
“The lenses seem to be copied from the Germans” - quite a shot by the way, it does not fit the Telear system at all sideways.
Well, in general, Roman is right. I confirm that I have worked in the public service system since the early 80s ... The professionals spent all their creative potential, all their life energy on overcoming the ugly quality and range of photographic equipment and materials. The best photographer was most often considered not the one who shot more interesting, but the one who processed the filthiest film more cunningly and received a bearable negative at the same time. However, there were also privileged photographers of the big press, factory workers, defense workers ... So they did not feel the need for funds. It was due to the acquaintance with such colleagues that the “household workers” survived, buying stolen materials and equipment from them.
For Anonymous -! *
... Why only with them? In the hero-city of Kiev, on Yamskaya Street, there was a very “interesting” office under the terrible name “Kievmobreznabsbyt” (popularly called “Mobrez”), which served as a wholesaler of photographic materials and equipment for enterprises of various industries. Madame Bronya was in charge of this process, forgot her middle name, the photographic community called her “Bronya” (with an emphasis on the last syllable). So, if it was possible to “appease” Bronya (5-10% of the order), then it was easy to get Czech (Hungarian) photographic paper, reagents, ORWO NC19 film and Pentacon optics (Meyer Optic Gorlitz, incl.) Even if it’s fair to buy everything in a store, the cost of a 13n18 color print was a maximum of 24 kopecks, and the price for a client was 1,95 rubles ... do you capture the profitability? (this is provided shooting on a wide film, so that the quality "rang"). Now let someone tell me what I need to shoot in order to “beat off” the cost of a decent camera in 2 shooting days, and how often it succeeds. So not everything was so bad in the “scoop” in terms of photography! (IMHO) But all the same - I don't want to go back! It just rolled ...
What if it’s Oleg A's favorite lens, and you?
It would be a favorite lens, it could be used more often and there would not be such a tight focus ring :)
Arkady, I put it on the camera 2-3 times in total, since I use Tair-33 in the television range. This lens was acquired as a more compact replacement for the above Tair. But due to the chromatic aberrations you described and not the most ergonomic focus ring (namely, its tight stroke), Telear was on the sidelines until he became the hero of this review.
I would also like to clarify: this particular copy was produced by the Uman plant "VEGA", therefore it does not have the Arsenal logo
PS And the photos are really good, despite all the disadvantages ...
Each lens is disassembled, cleaned, repaired. And there will be no tight focus ring. Of course, he is 200 years old, all the grease has dried up or turned into chewing gum.
I have here several Japanese olympus and konica lenses. they are also about 35-40 years old. and somehow their focus rings don’t stick to any. smooth and pleasant ride. moreover, one clearly shows that I didn’t understand it (I did it myself, there was no focus ring, but the aperture blades were sticky), while the rest simply had no external signs of disassembly.
normally made lens age does not interfere with good function.
Photos, as for me, came out very beautiful, I liked it! Yes, and outwardly pretty, but the dangling gum small flu slightly disappointed.
But as for the smell of lenses of that era and the approach to making “only glass and iron”, well, this is a kind of charm of these lenses.
"Mighty Nuclear Country - Mighty Glass Lenses"
"Soviet microcircuits are the largest microcircuits in the world!"
“A powerful nuclear country - powerful glass-iron lenses”
Well, actually, all the lenses of that time are made the same. The only difference is in quality. But now the plastic city ... has filled the photographic area. Why don't they make everything from titanium, for example? And easy and durable. Because money rules the world and you have to constantly buy. Producers don't need eternal things.
Hello, it is very unpleasant to read in the comments how Soviet engineers from “lack of intelligence” and other things “licked-ripped off” from their Western colleagues, this is not true, there were many revolutionary technologies of their own, for example, an ultrasonic engine
http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A3%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B2%D1%83%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B3%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C
Please do not turn a cozy photo blog into a cheers patriotic srach. And instead of the IS and KV tanks, cite, at least, the same Maksutov as an example.
Only nothing Savetsky went into life! All wretched impractical, brittle, clumsy! Not a single camera was normal! All with problems !! Remember the squalor ,, Diamond ,, Stolen ,, Nikon ,, So they couldn’t bring it to mind. What worked well,_saws, shovels, buckets, picks, crowbars, hammers, pliers, wire cutters, vise. The nails are terrible, the screws too ....
All photos from the 5V Telestar MS were taken with a 5,6 aperture? and if you cover the aperture sharpness improves?
I had experience with the Telear-5v lens in the 90s. The lens left a pleasant impression. But I was shooting with a medium format camera "Kiev-88". I didn’t notice any tight movement of the focusing ring, no garage smell (unless you specially bring the lens to the nostril), no peeling of the rubber ring. Maybe because my copy doesn't have “MADE IN UKRAINE”? Oh, Japan has spoiled us ... Excellent technique in hand, but where are the great photos? And photographs are sometimes only passable, but nevertheless we have many complaints about the technique ...
How is he for you at Kiev 88? I want to try such a bunch.
Yuri Yurievich - beautifully said !!!
Indeed, the regularity is such that the more talentless the photographer is, the more expensive he tries to take optics. Whereas the really talented guys say this: "Yes, I don't care what they recommended, so I use it."
There is the same pattern as for women - the most unsightly women are the most expensive perfumery.
Dirt on the camera’s matrix is visible in every shot.
I confirm that.
that. really getting into focus is very difficult. although sharpness is good. if you get it.
On the ARAX website, this lens has very good ln / mm values in the table. It seems to me that the copy here is not very good.