Overview of the MC Zenitar 1.2 / 50s lens specially for Radozhiva prepared Rodion Eshmakov.
MC Zenitar 1.2 / 50s
Specifications:
Structure: 8 elements in 7 groups
Viewing angle: ~ 30 degrees
MDF: 0,45 m
Aperture Limits: 1:1.2-1:16
The weight: November 630, XNUMX
Years of production: since the beginning of 2014
Filter Thread Diameter: 62 mm
Contents of delivery: a lens with caps, a cloth bag under the lens.
Format: APS-C
Focus Type: Hand
Aperture type: manual
Appearance and design
The lens has a body made of hard, durable plastic that inspires confidence. The lens mount is made of non-black metal, which is best corrected by at least blackening it with a marker to avoid loss of contrast.
The plastic case is no longer glass and metal, plastic can quickly lose its appearance if handled carelessly. In general, it raises no objections.
Portrait on MC Zenitar 1.2 / 50s
The lens is available at KMZ for Canon EF and Nikon F mounts and is suitable only for cropped cameras (APS-C). At full-frame, he will give strong vignetting. Contrary to current trends, the lens has no connection with the camera, even the focus confirmation chip, which does not add convenience.
MC Zenitar 1.2 / 50s
Key features:
1. Huge aperture - F1.2 - allows you to shoot in low light, achieve a small depth of field and use the lens as a portrait lens (equivalent to 75 mm at 1.5 crop).
2. Manual setting of the diaphragm. Aperture control is performed by one ring, without presetting mechanisms. The diaphragm snaps nicely, stops at the feet and half-stops. It's nice that there is a label for 1.4 between 1.2 and 2.
3. Multilayer coating - allows you to achieve good contrast and colors. At the same time, a lens from an open aperture, due to some features, is able to catch huge rabbits - more on that below. In terms of light transmission, the object is approximately equivalent to F1.4.
4. The lens has nine blackened aperture blades - more than enough to get smooth circles in the bokeh and a multi-pointed star from the flashlight.
5. The lens is suitable only for cameras with a format of no more than APS-C (although no one forbids using on trimmed APS)
6. The lens uses manual focus by moving the entire lens block. To do this, he has a wonderful convenient wide focus ring with a stroke, however, only 180 degrees. However, this move allows you to shoot videos faster and more conveniently.
7. The lens's MDF is large - 0.45 m, but still allows shooting small objects.
8. The lens is assembled flawlessly - no flaws were noticed. Often they write about the chips between the lenses in the new lenses of KMZ and so on ... This specimen has no such problems.
MC Zenitar 1.2 / 50s
Photo quality
At 1.2 sharpness, the lens is more than enough. It is limited only by light software and chromatic aberrations, especially they appear on sources of bright light. Chromatic aberrations lenses are represented by both conventional fringing and the more harmful chromatism of magnification, which almost does not disappear with aperture. However, this is a disease of many lenses with "extreme" characteristics. And it is quite worthy to be removed programmatically, in the editor. In addition, there is a very small spherical aberration (soft) for such a lens and a barely noticeable coma at the edge of the frame. Overall, the lens is very good in distortion correction. The main problem - getting into focus at 1.2 - is solved by gradually getting used to the lens.
The maximum sharpness of the lens appears at F / 5.6, although already at 2.8 sharpness in the center abound. At the edges, the sharpness more or less aligns closer to F / 5.6-F / 8 due to chromatism.
The lens has very good color rendition and contrast. Thanks to the successful layout, the lens has a very good pattern and bokeh, which is closer to the edge of the "lemon", like planars. And just like planars, these circles can be “cut off” from the edge.
With backlight at apertures of up to 1.4, the lens gives a huge annular rainbow flare that occurs due to the special bore of one lens of the lens. Glare can be a good effect, but sometimes it becomes a big problem. At 1.4, it completely disappears, leaving only small reflections of enlightenment. Those. it is necessary to close the aperture to 1.4 at least to minimize the drop in contrast in backlight.
In general, the lens is nice to use for photos (especially portraits, night photographs) and video, there’s nothing to complain about.
MC Zenitar 1.2 / 50s
Download source files in format JPEG can at this link (10 files in '.JPG' and '.CR2' format, 100 MB). All photos were taken on Canon 600D.
UPDATED
Prices for MC Zenitar 1.2 / 50s
You can see the real prices for the lens in online stores here.
Hack and predictor Aviator
Zenitar-S 50 / 1.2 is a wonderful portrait-night lens for cropped cameras, with a huge aperture, noble design, pleasant build and image quality and a "highlight" in the form of a sly flare.
Of course, its retail price is far from small, but if we ignore it, the lens is simply wonderful.
A list of all reviews from readers of Radozhiva will find here.
There can be only one conclusion - with a dollar exchange rate under 70, the price of 15000-17000 is a laugh for the chickens ...
I went to the store and held it twisted ... the quality of the Chinese fake.
It's just the agony of a dying plant ...
Damn the guys Shuttlecock 0.95 can still be ordered for the same 400 Baku.
What other arguments can be ???
Delirium
I have one.
sometimes use on sony a7
there is a vignette, but the frame is easily cropped.
in the review, terrible photos giving anti-advertising to glass.
in fact, the glass is very sharp with open
very contrasting, with a soft picture
requires open hole skills
Nice, informative review, thanks, it was interesting. By the way, the lens is designed for crop, and its 50mm on the crop, in terms of 35mm (FF), the focal length is 31mm, vignetting due to the fact that it was calculated for the crop and FF does not cover. Yes, it is quite difficult to focus with a manual, you need skill)), but plus this lens in its "hole", on Soviet / Russian lenses there is a grip scale, which, depending on the set aperture, shows the depth. Sometimes I don't really bother with precise focusing, I close the aperture to 8-11 and from 4-7m to infinity, everything is sharp.
You are wrong, on focal 50mm, and on crop 50mm. But the EGF on the crop is 80mm.
It’s strange that the author is talking about a plastic case, my lens has a metal case, and I don’t see any kind of XA even on f 1.2. There is a feeling that some other lenses are being delivered to you in Ukraine
Author from RF ...
The case is exactly with plastic elements (which occupy most of the lens surface area) - the mechanical damage that the focus ring received during operation confirms this. Black plastic. The diaphragm ring is also plastic. Perhaps the detail with the depth of field is metal there.
Chromatism at 1.2 is also what.
Lens from the 2015 party, apparently.
By the way, it will be necessary to finish off the normal photos in the review ...
my body is also all metal. rings, by the way, the lens of 15 years
I confirm, the case is completely metal.
Photos added a little.
And they added. Everything, the pot will not cook.
It's time for you not to add your photos, but to delete and massively ... Feedback in comparison with works of authorship is nothing at all. No normal tables, no useful information - just slag.
Well, don’t read and don’t look, nobody forces you. And if so smart, then write your review about this lens. If you have it of course.
Do you remember how Delphin was 99 years old in the song Vera about an act? The point is not whether I have it or not - no and never will, although I held it in my hands like a new 85))) and am I a fool - a fool 100%))). The point is different. If you are already writing about optics, then drive it to the fullest. Find all the possible information on all the tables I repeat once again, shoot in all modes with all apertures, etc. No offense. Good luck
And yet - if it comes to this you will be the first after the author who will leave the link to the review. Will you be the main hater?)))
And by the way, I looked at your photos - not everything in the furnace must be admitted. The description let us down and so on filling the norms - not structured at all, but it will work!
On this site, I will never send reviews with photographs of test charts and other things. Only work in real conditions, no “greenhouses”, “points” and Dxo.
For photographing brick walls there is a Lens Club. There is this good in bulk.
As for the quality of the photo, these are my skills.
And despite the fact that this is one of my first texts, the description of the essence fully reflects: all the problems of the lens and features are listed; conditions for achieving maximum image quality when working with the lens.
Although the review structure is really not the best.
Everything is correct. Better real pictures in difficult conditions, rather than the “most successful” after processing. This is a lens test, not a glamorous photo contest.
Rodion, don’t listen to anyone. Do it. Everyone sees your result. And screamers only scream for nothing. (No one sees or hears their work, just a hollow chatter. Do not make excuses to such a thing, they will not accept your excuses, and you do not owe anything to them, since you are doing business.)
:) It seems to me that you train more in chatter, your test photos can only repel potential buyers, here is the photo also Helios 44, try to approach f2 / 0, well, and more photos from cheaper glass here http://rasfokus.ru/photos/tp/%D0%93%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BE%D1%81+44-1.html
lens, optical very, very! good. I compared it to CANON EF 24-105 f / 4L IS USM on SONY A6300, I needed it for video. Zenitar 1.2 / 50s won in color and sharpness. If the sharpness could still be discussed, then in terms of color it outperformed canon unambiguously, and by a large margin. The color from the zenith is very soft and clean, transparent, delicate, caresses the eye. But, alas, the lens had to be returned to the store due to poor assembly. The focusing ring had a large backlash at the beginning of the scale within 3mm, by the middle of the scale the backlash disappeared, but the lens did not aim at infinity. The adapter is not to blame, as I tested it on CANON 5D. I compared this lens with Samyang 50 mm f / 1.2, Samyang's drawing loses, in the out-of-focus area (bokeh) it is “cotton wool”, “fog” and Zenitar's “expensive” drawing is “oil”. If you don't care about butter, then take Samyang, it is better assembled.
focus confirmation problem is solved by sticking the chip on the mount
And here is the information from the owner. The lens doesn't have a 1.2! He has a maximum of 1.3. This is due to the fact that behind the diaphragm there is a wall that is smaller in diameter than the diaphragm! Those. When fully open, it bluntly blocks the outer part. The second point - after F13, the aperture does not close! Yes, it does not close stupidly. Well, my copy does not include school risks in numbers.
What a revelation!
For my instance, the diaphragm works fine and closes to 16.
What you call a wall is more of a lens chamfer. The aperture between 1.2 and half-stop has an excess travel, which just allows you to close both the chamfer and the lens when you close one click from 1.2 to half-stop.
Well, in general, such statements require confirmation by calculations, although the maximum relative aperture is indeed often rounded up, and fr - down. As vega-11 54/3 and 50 / 2.8 - there are many such examples. In any case, there is no difference from good - this lens is more than 1 T-stop lighter than MC Helios-44, for example.
You have a wrong lens 😊 I have one too! As for the back wall, which is already aperture of 1,2, it will be necessary to check, but it closes properly at my copy, to f16. The focus bar is exactly centered.
What a revelation!
For my instance, the diaphragm works fine and closes to 16.
What you call a wall is more of a lens chamfer. The aperture between 1.2 and half-stop has an excess travel, which just allows you to close both the chamfer and the lens when you close one click from 1.2 to half-stop.
Well, in general, such statements require confirmation by calculations, although the maximum relative aperture is indeed often rounded up, and fr - down. As vega-11 54/3 and 50 / 2.8 - there are many such examples. In any case, there is no difference from this - this lens is more than 1 T-stop lighter than MC Helios-44, for example.
Rodion, thanks for the review - everything is on the case! Please tell me what kind of bayonet it has.
I will take the liberty to answer for Rodion. As the name implies (Zenitar-S), his Canon mount is suitable for both EF and EF-S. For Nikon called Zenitar-N, there is one. By the way, Rodion left a link in the review, you can click and find out everything.
The lens is not plastic but metal. The pictures from it are of quite good quality. Well, whoever needs an awesome picture, take the new Leica Carl Zeiss, etc.
Yes, maybe I was wrong about the material. Indeed, it looks more like metal. Although about the focus ring, I'm still not very sure.
Zeiss Praktikar 50 / 1.4 recently came to me, it’s like the last zilch of dying lens production in Carl Zeiss Jena. Compared immediately in sharpness with Zenitar. It turned out that Zenitar is very, very much better in sharpness at its 1.2 Practice at 1.4. Zenitar is practically devoid of software and is only noticeably chromate, and Praktikar softit is very decent. Well, the picture from the Zenith is more even, pleasant. Probably, unless Planar 50 / 1.4 can compete with him.
I beg your pardon Rodion, but from this place can you get more details? Zeiss planar ... even if on a crop. It is clear that these are optics of different classes, but if you do not pay attention to the cost ... what is the color of the Zenith picture? what do you think ... Regards
Planar did not try, only the practitioner. I do not discuss color.
That is why I cannot find any glass from the price range <= 12k that would be better or at least not worse than this lens in terms of optical quality.
You are wrong, there are a lot of modern manual expensive glasses. Take a look at the Chinese Zhongyi Mitakon Speedmaster 50mm f / 0.95 PRO and its price. And this glass is worth the money. It’s just not for you, not for me to even take it in my hands. About manual Voigtlander-s and Zeiss-s I do not even say.
Don't talk about that - this mitacon does not stand on the mirror. Zeiss (classic planar 50 / 1.4) I'm not convinced that I can beat this zenith - if only in a circle of coverage. Practitioner 50 / 1.4 merges in front of the zenith in full - checked. So do not talk nonsense and try to discard your prejudices.
Rodion, I did not write to you, but to Dima. Read the message with this in mind and you will understand that I share your point of view.
Well, if in this context, then it's clearer. Because this letter can be counted equally towards the zenitar and against it)
Which emphasizes the paradoxical phenomenon - when two opposite points of view can be equally easily proved)
Behind. Strong, good lens. The price is competitive, which does not exclude the desire “it would be cheaper”. In general, one must be able and willing to work with such glasses. A picture at 1,2-1,8 should be adequately assessed, understanding how it might look on analogs of the same class and close price. I do not take glasses of this class, I am more satisfied with something like Canon FD 85mm 1,8.
On the secondary, it is quite cheap, by the way. Like 85 / 1.4.
I’ll just copy my review from Yandex Market here
Advantages:
1) Conditionally working 1.2 - the image in focus is not soapy, very weak fringing compared even with pop music like Nikon 50 \ f1.8D, Helios and other M42
2) Good sharpness from F2.8 in the center - a completely sharp field throughout the frame becomes only at f11
3) Can work at full frame in crop mode 1.2X without vignette. But in this case, you need to put up with soap in the corners on all diaphragms
4) It has an artistic twist in the form of a huge rainbow-annular highlight 1.2 against the light
Disadvantages:
1) Shameful build quality, terrible metal processing inside, various kinds of manufacturing defects inside the case, marriage in the form of scratches on internal lenses. Poor back cover. It's just that there are no words as if they were sculpted quickly on a 3D printer. The good news is that since the year 17 they began to be equipped with a 62mm normal expandable lid with the Zenith logo. Early versions had a constantly falling steel cover as on Petsval
2) heavy
3) The price for a new one - the hand will not rise, it will become scarce to give that kind of money for such "quality"
4) GATHERING !!! The real aperture ratio is not 1.2, but 1.4! Why - read the detailed comment below
5) The sharpness of this Zenitarych does not ring - it is good, but no more. My Helios 40-2 in the old "body" just rings sharpness in the eyes from 5.6 to 16, higher optical resolution and micro detail
6) The lenses turn green in the light - dirty color rendition. It is necessary to preset the BB and the shade on the camera, then you can shoot
A comment:
In short, we finally managed to get it. For a long time I was shooting at the prices of the used equipment, as a result, I took almost a new one for 10. And now I will express everything I think about this product. As for the design - for an amateur, it looks good if you do not look at it in detail, but does not cause delight
Dear manufacturer, when will we see the real quality of the lenses? Why should I see manufacturing shavings inside my specimen, small
foreign particles (not even dust!) and most importantly, very noticeable greasy scratches on the internal lenses of the new lens ???!
This lens is very strange, I realized this after 1 day of testing. I will rewrite and supplement the review as I study.
Strange drawing and bokeh for this type of optics. The picture is neutral-boring, low contrast. The bokeh is atypical for such aperture - it is unobtrusive, very creamy, smooth, soft and at the same time I cannot understand whether it looks expensive or cheap. The general picture after Helios 40-2 is uninteresting
I already wrote about the hack from 1.2. This is marketing 1.2 and really is not there, it is 50 \ 1.4 for the crop and not otherwise. Let me explain why: if you look from the front inside the lens, you will see there behind the diaphragm something like a light-cutting hood. So because of this hood - the aperture stroke from 1.2 to 1.4 is essentially wasted! The camera does not see the difference in exposure between 1.2 and 1.4
In principle, you can squeeze a good picture out of it on an FF camera. I tested on D800. But I repeat again - I like Helios 40-2 much more in all respects
I propose to rename the aperture position “1.2” to “CI” on the esto lens (artistic highlight).
Who for?
typo (on this lens)
Helios 40 and 40-2 is a soap soap, unlike the zenith of ANY
:) Take better Helios 44
Thanks for the review! Now I also want to buy one. There are no other sensible and detailed reviews of this lens on the network. So thanks again for this and your other reviews.
To health. Although this is not the best review, because one of the first, the lens itself is really very high quality: so far I have not seen the lens on the crop until 20 tr. with parameters 50 1.2 or 1.4 better in optical quality.
I would like to object to the phrase: "The MDF of the lens is large - 0.45 m"
for almost 85 matches it's just how little kapets. Usually they start at 0.8m, and 0.45 is almost macro. The Samyang 85 1.4 in general with 1m. So this one can be used both as 75mm and 135mm as I think.
The lens at its price is simply beyond competition, especially in optical quality
And how will this Zenithar oppose the Nikkor 50 / 1.4d? What but better in the picture? Nikkor has autofocus, while Zenith has a better aperture. For the price, both are not budgetary. Is Zenitar worth the money? Do you learn from the picture than Nikkor 50 / 1.4d?
Camera d7000. Advise to choose Nikkor and not to be built up or is this Zenitar directly better?
Nikkor 50 1.4
Newbie, here you go first https://radojuva.com/2012/12/all-50mm-lens-nikon-together/
Uv Valentin! I was interested in the question - what is better for the picture Zenitar 50 / 1.2 or Nikkor 50 / 1.4d. I know that Nikkor is with AF, and Zenitar will have to turn the handles. The question is in the artistry of bokeh and pictures. It's about UNSUFFICIENT outdoor shooting.
Perhaps flowers or a subject or just street shooting, but certainly not people.
Perhaps in the evening I will shoot with him.
I had a Nikkor 50 / 1.4D, but a thousand years ago and with the d90. I then sold it without much regret, because smeared at 1.4 (at dusk), possibly due to my curvature and inexperience then.
Well, excuse me, to the question “artistry of bokeh and pictures” can there be an objective answer “which is better”? I thought you were interested in a technical question. By the way, under the named goals, this pair is so-so: flowers (a bit short, for example, 100 F / 2 will be more interesting), a street (a bit longer, 35 F2 is more interesting), an object (MDF is too small). There is something to think about. Regarding the misses on F1.4 in version D, there is this. For a more confident focus on F1.4, you can use LV and zoom, since the D90 has it all.
soviet junk, yes, exactly soviet, technologies of that time.
Come on w ***, Stepan.
I wonder what year of birth are you ??? if after 1990 everything is clear with you….
it is if there are a lot of people talking about the SOVKA of the "soviet year of assembly"
Arkady, tell me, what kind of EGF will there be on the crop, under which this glass is designed?
50 or 75mm? A bit confused (
75. Focal length is a characteristic of the lens, not the camera
Then I don’t understand something.
This Zenithar has an efr-75mm crop. And Sigma has 17-50 / 2.8 designed for crop ether-75mm 24-75mm. Why then write the wrong numbers on the crop lens ?? They would write right away -75mm or 24-75mm.
This is the most common question. Because the real focal length of the optical circuit is indicated, not the EGF. If you install it, for example, on micro 4/3, then the crop will be 2.0, and the EGF will be 100 mm.
Arkady, thank you!
I will be glad to share an opinion about the taste of oysters, for they ate): a two-month use of this lens on the Nikon D810. Himself from Minsk. I bought a lens for eq. 200 dollars here in the online store new.
For a photo installation on a camera - AVR, i.e. crop 1.2.
Vignetting is subtle. Instead of 36 - 25.25 megapixels and focal, of course, - 60 mm equivalent.
The video is also barely visible with a noticeable vignette in full frame.
In short ... I am ready to be very offended by those who undeservedly hate the lens!
More than permits the D810.
At full sharpness with interest for a portrait.
And, believe me, I am not telling you ... Sigma art 50 1.4 is weaker!
Yes, autofocus .. Only Sigma on the open in the car smears more than I do in manual mode.
Video at 1.2 and distances up to 5 meters is just super due to the bokeh of the foreground and background.
Depth of field ... it's just not there)
Even at f8 sharply from the infinity of meters to 30 only.
So focus only on the screen in magnification or light. The point always has to be done.
In a word, I do not regret buying at all.
And I’ll say without cunning, on a leisurely shoot, he is more interesting to me than Sigma 50 1.4 ART.
Only the price tag is 200 versus 800 ...
And here they say, Zenit lost ground ..
Thank you for your feedback and addition! I think it will be useful for those choosing. Taking into account the prices for the secondary housing ...
Some personalities write here that the real aperture is not 1.2 but less, and it seems that these are “users” from the Lens Club who write mostly about what they did not shoot
The aperture of all lenses is usually less than the aperture value of the same Nikon 50 1.4D, it equals 1,6 and it is almost the most honest lens in this regard. If you need to know exactly the value of aperture, then you need to go to the lenses for cinema and watch the T-Stop and not the F-stop. From the reviews here one gets the impression that certain people simply always blaspheme everything Soviet, Russian, etc. By the way, without objective arguments, but for 200 dollars or even less there are such lenses in the world with interesting patterns, or there are very few of them. Photographers do not need aperture, but an aperture to blur the fin, first of all, and this is present here, and the shutter speed can be set a little shorter ...
It's just that these are two different concepts from the very beginning. In photography, we are talking about geometric aperture, and it is precisely it that is indicated on all photo lenses, there is no deception here, real light transmission does not indicate them. On video lenses, the real aperture measured in T-stops is taken into account.
The lens is excellent. It produces a very sharp and contrasting picture with a color as close to what is visible with the eyes. Well, to the one who didn’t take pictures of him or his hands from one place, of course, this lens is not for assholes
I own this miracle for only a week, but there is something to tell! The lens was clearly lying on someone's shelf, like new! THE MOST IMPORTANT IS HIS NIFU AIRPHRAGM 1,2!, And there is no doubt that this is not a good specimen !, since the aperture blades work out all positions, but 1,2 does not differ from 1.4 in any way. the picture itself, the exposure does not change at all. In comparison with Nikon optics - Exposure completely coincides at all positions, from 1.4, that is, there is no error. But Why is there no Effect of 1.2 ?, because you can see how the aperture opens wider than 1.4? Looking closer, you realize that this is a pseudo-disclosure! The aperture blades are located next to one of the lens frames, and allow you to determine that the "hole 1,2" goes beyond the optical capabilities of the lenses. 1,4 is the beginning of the close. And why have I not seen anything about this marketing move anywhere else in the reviews?
As for the rest: It may not be correct to compare it with the Nikkor 50 / 1.4G, but I got both of them for the same price. Sharpness is very close to Nikkor (not everyone will distinguish), but do not forget that Nikkor, to its insignificant superiority, still covers the full frame! lenses specially designed for crop are more likely to be sharper. Chromatic aberrations, at 1,4-2,8 are about the same, but at the Zenitar, at the edges, they remain noticeable at 11! With a rigidly set white balance of 5000k, in sunny weather, the picture from Zenitar goes to “slightly green”. With automatic BB, the colors are almost the same.
In general, I liked the lens, but I bought it only because of 1.2!
Thanks for the feedback.
The aperture at 1.2 and 1.4 is completely different than you measure it there is not clear
Most likely, this lens 1.2 and 1.4 are not exactly the same, but just THE SAME. If we believe that 1.4 really gives exactly its declared aperture ratio of 1.4, then 1.2 is subjectively equal to 1.39. On Liveview everything is confirmed. And where does the weight of 680 g? how can aperture ratio be measured in grams?
680 grams weighs the lens. Full metal body