WAVE-4 1.4 / 53
This is a brief overview, since I was only allowed to play the lens for a few minutes. If you have reliable and useful information on VOLNA-4 1.4 / 53 lenses (from this review) or MS VOLNA-8N 1.2 / 52, share it in the comments.
The main technical characteristics of VOLNA-4 1.4 / 53:
| The name of the instance from the review (as it is written on the lens itself) | VOLNA-4 1.4 / 53 840111 with the logo of the Arsenal plant. |
| Basic properties |
|
| Front Filter Diameter | 52 |
| Focal length | 53 mm (according to some sources - 50 mm, or more accurate - 52.38 mm), EGF for cameras with an APS-C type sensor is approximately 75 mm |
| Zoom ratio | 1 x |
| Designed by | for film cameras with a frame size of 36 mm X 24 mm. |
| Number of aperture blades | 8 pieces |
| Tags | focusing distance only in meters. The depth of field scale for the values of F / 2, 4, 5.6, 8, 11, 16. The scale with the aperture values for F / 1.4, 2.8, 4, 5.6, 8, 11, 16. |
| Diaphragm | F / 1.4 to F / 16.0, adjustable by aperture ring |
| MDF (minimum focusing distance) | 0.45 m, maximum magnification ratio is 1: 6 (approximately) |
| The weight | definitely unknown |
| Optical design | 7 elements in 6 groups (the reliability of the optical design is not verified) |
| Lens hood | not foreseen |
| Manufacturer country | USSR, made at the Kiev plant "Arsenal" |
| Period | The model from the review was made in 1984 (The start of the pilot production was most likely started in 1982, all the drawing work was completed at the end of 1981) |
The protrusion on the diaphragm ring to transfer the aperture value to the camera does not fit with the diaphragm rheostat on Nikon D700. This lens, in terms of Nikon lenses, is most similar to lenses Nikon AI.
Lens view
Sample Photos
Examples taken on Nikon D700. In the examples is on-camera JPEG reduced size. Such a large watermark is one of the conditions for this review.
WAVE-4 1.4 / 53
My experience
My experience is very small, since I used the lens in minutes. To the touch it is well assembled. The focus ring rotates 270 degrees; during focusing, the front lens does not rotate. It is not difficult to work with VOLNA-4 1.4 / 53 (if you do not take into account the problem with the connection of the diaphragm protrusion). Divorces of yellow paint for the depth of field scale hint transparently at the attitude towards production.
WAVE-4 1.4 / 53
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. Lenses and promotions on them look at Moyo.ua.
Material prepared Arkady Shapoval. Training/Consultations | Youtube | Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | Telegram.
Well, in general, very much nothing. There is nothing beyond the natural course, but not bad for Soviet optics
it is pointless to survey such. The circulation is so small that this glass is interesting only to the collector. And since it is interesting to the collector, the quality of the image does not matter. Well, and the last argument - glass is interesting only for a collector, since the owner is so concerned about copyrights and watermarks. That's all.
That's exactly it. But on Radozhiv still unique and rare infa. Where else would you see the Wave-8H and 4H with 2048 pixels on the long side :)
... it would be interesting to see a review of the ARAX 2.8 / 80mm Tilt & Shift lens, or ARAX 2.8 / 35mm Tilt & Shift lens.
Well, yes, another collector lens. After all, once tried, experimented, produced interesting glasses. And now, where is that Arsenal? he is not here…
Such information on unique lenses is needed and in demand, at least for history.
Brief retelling: the lens is slightly smaller than Mr. MC VOLNA-8N 1.2 / 52, Ninuzhyn.
a brief sense of the review: guys, there were such lenses (as well as charotanks and a tsar tank). Yes, they are not canon 1,2.
Kenon 1.0 USM is jealous just :)
"Spirva dabeya !!!"
Cunning lynx! Would have gotten such an accident in the teeth, hell would have parted with him just like that, in spite of what he thinks g ...
not at all. immediately sell at exorbitant price to collectors and take normal optics.
Kenon 1.2 shit soap up to 2.0 and the price is a maximum of 1/3 of what it costs now
Thanks for the review!
So what, that collection glass, I was interested. In principle, the picture for 1.4, although not to say that it is working, but is quite applicable for artistic shooting
Unfortunately, the eye constantly focuses on the inscription in the center of the photo ... There is no time for bokeh ...
some kind of it was killed for a collector's item, and yes, the gaze is concentrated on the "watermark", and not on the picture
Arkady, that they began to overwrite watermarks and give out photos for their own? Watermark in the center.
Dragging is one of the conditions of the lens owner.
And yet the LOMO wave was the best….
There is some information, why exactly 53 mm focal length?
There is information why Indastar-61 FR from 50 to 55 mm was indicated?
Here and here the same thing ...
And the Arsenal plant itself is literally two steps away in the photo :)
apparently, this is Arsenal's hidden PR action ... :)
forget about the arsenal - it doesn't exist ...
at all? ((
Zenith is like something out there trying to "in Rashin Samyang"
Arsenal - absolutely. KMZ and other enterprises in the Russian Federation were bought by the Shvabe holding and produce all kinds of crap (especially their epic ff 50 / 1.2 planned, weighing five 50 / 1.4) from Chinese (I suspect) glass with Soviet quality standards from the times of stagnation ...
Sorry Arsenal.
Well, KMZ and their clownery with “Schwabe quality” on strange lenses is somewhat sad to watch.
The design is really nice, but the bokeh design will not draw.
They will also produce Helik-44 under the brand name “Zenitar 58/2”. Well, at least these helices were stamped 1000 years in advance.
... now ARAX makes lenses: http://araxfoto.com/ru/specials/
I understand that Volna-8H and 4H have the same owner who thinks that these glasses are made of pure gold and with diamonds instead of lenses broken by a fungus.
based on the collectible value - yes.
Nobody thinks of fighting, for example, on Lenin’s armored car, or discussing the real convenience of using the prayer book of the 14th century.
If it came to mass production, perhaps there would be a pretty decent lens.
I honestly tried to find at least some advantages of this lens. Well, yes, the aperture and transparency of the picture. But drawing is absolutely uninteresting. Any foreign 1.4 is much more interesting. I wonder if any of the engineers thought about the final result?
I shoot at Wave 4H, a good lens, sharp - it gives out good bokeh, on my copy it is original, since one of the 8 petals does not close completely. In general, the glass is excellent, you just need to get used to it, of course, there are minor nuances: when I shot it on Nikon, the mount did not allow fixing the bayonet to the end, after switching to the canon, the adapter solved the problem. I am in Kiev, I can provide for an overview)
Precisely, let Arkady test it, suddenly the results will radically differ from the above.
Tell me, is the shank kp-a / n Arsenal still producing?
To produce, it does not produce, but in the store at the factory they sell with passports and stamps of the late 80s.
Thanks! and they don’t send by mail, do not tell? Do they have an online store?
http://arsenal.co.ua/?page_id=1046
there is such a site, they should send it to Ukraine, but I don’t know to other countries, try to write to them. kp-a / n costs 5 dollaroff now.
Thank you ... I looked at the prices of Ukrainian sellers, and changed my mind. the .ua domain wants too much for it. I ordered a t2-mount nikon on aliexpress.
See here: http://araxfoto.com/ru/specials/
See here: http://araxfoto.com/ru/specials/
copyright tin, impossible to watch.
horror
Arkady, by golly, remove copyright to the bottom of the frame, it’s indecent and impossible to watch.
> Such a large watermark is one of the conditions of this review.
I will buy this lens, I will give a good price. i79@bk.ru
The thread diameter of the front filter, judging by the photo of the camera with the lens, seems to be larger than 52mm
more like 58mm
I had Volna-4, but not Kiev, and LOMO - for Almaz. The impressions are ambiguous. The fact is that, IMHO, the optical quality is not quite adequate to the mechanical one. Mechanically “Volna-4” is a masterpiece: in the helicoid there is a pair of duralumin-bronze, the crown of the diaphragm on balls. It can be compared only with the first version of “Era-6m”. But optically they are like twin brothers. Its sharpness is less than that of the usual “Wave” 1: 1,8, and, most importantly, there is spherical aberration. It comes out so sideways that if, with a hole of 1,4, infinity is at infinity (:)), then with a hole up to 5,6, you have to refocus at a distance of about 10m in order to get a perfectly sharp infinity. In short, “Wave-4” and the usual “Wave” (the one that is 1: 1,8) are antipodes. Regular “Wave” is great optically, but full guano in mechanics. And with wave-4, the opposite is true. I bought CANON FD 1,4 / 50 and got rid of it right there.
VOLNA-4 1.4/53 model for the rarest camera Kyiv-18 and the subsequent model Kyiv-118. The design was very good in the late 70s-early 80s. Very expensive to manufacture.
VOLNA-4 1.4/50 LOMO production for a series of cameras Almaz 101/102/104.
The yellow paint was smeared on the end, which is normal for the Soviet consumer.