A review of the film projection lens RO500-1 90/2 (Leningrad Zd-cinema equipment, 1957) with a built-in aperture diaphragm and a helicoid focusing mechanism, examples of photographs from it specifically for Radozhiva, prepared Rodion Eshmakov.
LENKINAP RO500-1 F = 9cm 1: 2 P
PO500-1 is one of the most commonly used projection lenses on the aftermarket. The relatively low price and large aperture make this lens attractive for amateur photographers. However, the absence of a focuser and aperture requires effort before the lens can shoot.
The review presents one of the oldest RO500-1 lenses - not produced by LOMO, but by the Leningrad Cinema Equipment Plant.
The characteristics of the lens [of which plant and time are unknown, according to the “Catalog of lenses” A.F. Yakovleva]:
Optical design *: Planar (6 elements in 4 groups)
Optical design of LENKINAP RO500-1 F = 9cm 1: 2 P
* In the lens from the review, the gluings are squandered differently: the negative component has a shape similar to gluing in Helios-44 (the diagram below) is “conical” and not “cylindrical”:
Optical design
Focal Length: 90mm
Relative Hole: 1: 2
Back focal length: 60,64 mm
Light transmittance: 0,82
Light diameter of the first surface: 49 mm
Luminous diameter of the last surface: 40,8 mm
Frame Diameter: 62,5mm
Features: projection lens - does not have a helicoid focuser and aperture; Apparently, it covers a format much larger than the declared one (most likely - about 6 * 6 cm).
Design and features of adaptation RO500-1
RO500-1 is an ascetically executed piece of pipe with lenses pressed into aluminum washers, with one spacer between them and two nuts. Due to its purpose, there are no aperture and focuser.
View RO500-1
Therefore, the tasks were:
- Selection of the diaphragm and its installation in the lens unit
- Drawing up terms of reference for the manufacture of a helicoid
- Blacking and component assembly
At first, brand new iris fourteen-petal diaphragms with a hole diameter of 36 mm were purchased - this was enough with some margin. The simplicity of the lens block design made it possible to install a diaphragm through the ordered adapter washer instead of the lens spacer, preserving the lens distance. At the same time, control of the diaphragm was possible to bring out - the length of the "native" leash was enough. The adapter washer turned by a turner was blackened (according to the method described in the Jupiter-21T review), a diaphragm was fixed in it. In the case of the RO500-1, the groove for the diaphragm leash was made in the right place, after which it was painted on the outside - the old paint was badly rubbed over time. Next, the lens block was assembled.
View of the closed aperture in the finished lens
The turner also made a focusing mechanism with an M42 mount (infinity is achievable on Nikon as well) - a helicoid with a twenty-way thread with a 15 mm travel (for smooth focusing), 45 mm long. This is practically the maximum length of the helicoid, at which it does not interfere with the diaphragm control. The helicoid was blackened from the inside, after which the lens was assembled. Then, in a hurry (I couldn't wait to test it), the diaphragm scale was marked. The result is such a pretty keg:
View PO500-1 after adaptation
The camera looks pretty solid:
PO500-1 after adaptation on Zenith TTL camera
Now let's move on to the most interesting subject of photography part.
Optical properties of the adapted PO500-1
Alas, my specimen has a front lens damaged by micro-scratches (as if someone had very inaccurately wiped the inner surface 40 years ago), because, perhaps, the result will be worse than for the lens in perfect condition.
PO500-1 manufactured by Lenkinap has enlightenment in light blue and light yellow shades. Due to this, the lens practically does not distort colors (later RO500-1 were also with blue-violet enlightenment - and were very yellow). However, enlightenment does not do very well with its task - the contrast of the lens is low (although it is most likely that microcracks, scattering rays are more likely to influence it here), it decreases strongly in backlight.
RO500-1 has good sharpness with an open aperture, which is mostly limited by small software and fairly strong longitudinal chromatic aberrations (fringing) - purple halos are clearly visible around contrasting borders. When the aperture is closed, sharpness quickly grows to F / 2.8 - chromatism and software disappear. At F / 5.6, the lens is very sharp, at F / 8 it does not cause any complaints.
F / 2
F / 5.6
Sharpness at f / 8
The lens is practically devoid of vignetting due to the use of a “full-sized” rear group of lenses (such as film-making and photographic lenses have a smaller rear group of lenses and, as a result, more vignetting) - this is a requirement for it as a projection.
The PO500-1 picture is smooth, rather calm and expressive - I liked its behavior at F / 2, where sharpness is combined with softness, and at F / 2.8-4 - when the sharpness becomes flawless, and the depth of field is still quite small. Unlike LETI 92/2 (by the way, also with a "reduced" rear group) and the well-known Helios-40, PO500-1 does not twist the bokeh due to very weak vignetting and insignificant coma.
Lens bokeh at f / 2
In general, the RO500-1 is pretty good optically, and only chromatism and low contrast can pretty annoying when using it.
Sources can скачать здесь.
All reviews of film projection and filming lenses:
- RO3-3M 2/50
- RO2-2M 75/2
- LOMO RO501-1 F = 100 1: 2
- PO 500-1 F9 CM. 1: 2 P
- LOMO RO500-1 F = 90 1: 2
- LENKINAP RO500-1 F = 9cm 1: 2 P
- LOMO RO506-1 F = 80 1: 2
- ЛЭТИ-60/60М F=92 1:2
- 2/92
- F = 92 1: 2
- 16KP-1,4 / 65
- 35KP-1,8 / 65
- 35KP-1,8 / 70
- 35KP-1,8 / 75
- 35KP-1,8 / 85
- 35KP-1.8 / 100
- 35KP-1.8 / 120
- 35KP-1,8 / 120 (with aperture)
- LOMO P-5 F = 90 1: 2
- LOMO P-5 F = 100 1: 2
- LOMO P-6M F=12cm 1:1.6
- LENKINAP OKS1A-75-1 F=75 1:2 P
- LOMO OKS1-22-1 F = 22 1: 2.8
- ЛОМО ОКС1-40-1 40/2.5
- LOMO OKS1-300-1 F = 300 1: 3.5
- LOMO OKS11-35-1 F = 35 1: 2
- LOMO W-53 F = 75 1: 2
- LOMO W-54 F = 85 1: 2
- LOMO OKP4-80-1 F=80 1:1,8
- LOMO OKP8-90-1 F=90 1:2
- ОКП-6-70-1 F=70 1:1,8
- Tair-41 50/2
- KO-120 1: 2,1 120mm
- KO-90 1: 1,9 F = 9cm
- KO-120M 1: 1.8 F = 120mm
- KO-120M 120 / 1.8 with a diaphragm and helicoid
- KO-120 1: 2.1 F = 12cm
- GOZ “KO-140” 1:2,2 F–14cm
- Vega-9 2,1 / 50
- MP RSFSR GLAVOCHTEKHPROM PLANT №6 ★ F=7.7cm ★
- MSO USSR SSD UPP-1 ★ KHARKIV ★ F-7 CM ★
- Schneider Super Cinelux 70/2
- Meopta Meostigmat 90/2
- Meopta Meostigmat 100/1.7
- RO2-2M 75/2 VS LOMO Zh-53 75/2 VS LOMO RO506-1 80/2
- Projection aplanates: "Petzvali" and "Richter"
The names of the lenses correspond to their exact spelling on the body.
Conclusions
The RO500-1 is one of the most affordable projection lenses. Good sharpness, good drawing and simplicity (in comparison with KO appanlates) of full adaptation make it one of the most popular projection lenses among amateur photographers.
Thank you for attention. Eshmakov Rodion.
You will find more reviews from readers of Radozhiva here.
Explain why all the girls have the same white faces, as if they were dead or sprinkled with flour?
Wipe off the monitor from flour and do not defame the girls.
This (pale faces), just because of the low contrast ...
Right Indeed, in real life they are all red, as if only from a bath.
Well, a little balance went green (noticeably on the curb), but do you rate it or the lens?
.
Chromatitis is noticeable, but many suffer from this at the open.
And you can try to improve the contrast with a deep blend - to remove unnecessary illumination of scratches.
I’m better to dig out a lens donor for him)))
I really don't like hoods - an extra thing that needs to be carried. Only on Uranus-27 did he make a deep non-removable hood, because with it there was simply nothing to do without it (in the review Uranus is still without a hood).
I have shots when close tones merge into one solid tone with the same brightness. In such cases, I open the “curves”, and with the help of an eyedropper I determine, for example, for the face, which part of the curve it is. Then I make an “S” -correction at this point on the curve - a certain increase in contrast. It should work better on RAW. The extra bits are those shades.
I also noticed that the color shades also merge if the white balance is shifted in any direction.
Everywhere they write that it is only suitable for a crop. What did you bet it on? Is there a vignette for FF? As for micro-scratches, they hardly play any role here. These scratches can be obtained even from fiber, their enlightenment holds very poorly and is easily scratched.
Its native format is indeed formally crop - however, as already noted, it covers the frame up to the medium format without much straining. Those. there will obviously not be a vignette on the FF.
I put it on crop 1.6.
About scratches - they play a role and what else. They are not visible in the photo of the lens, but if you take a photo of its view from a different angle, it is easy to find them from the photo.
I disagree about fiber, about enlightenment too - I've already cleaned enough lenses from the inside and outside to determine the degree of "flowability" of enlightenment, the effect of scratches on the picture, etc.
Well, if it is badly scratched, then of course it does, and if it's just a little micro-scratches, then you would hardly see the difference ON THE PICTURES. The variance in workmanship affects much more. On later copies of Soviet optics, enlightenment is more or less held, but specifically on projectors from the 70s and 80s and on old range-finder lenses with chemical. with enlightenment, you can blow on him. Even though there are three Japanese boots, nothing will happen. Exaggerating of course))
There you will not understand - either strongly or not. Half of the lens in about bright light shows some "haze" from scratches, the other is clean. And so - to the light - it seems like you won't see anything, no scratches. It seems to be bad, but sometimes it was much worse, but it was possible to get some result.
I have long wanted to see an overview of this projector here. There is somehow little information on the network. Thanks anyway! But was it worth bothering with the alteration of this particular instance? IMHO in bulk are quite decent in the market for inexpensive. Or was the goal to train on it?
Got almost free lens block. And to throw the lenses from a more worthy one is a matter of a minute. In principle, even this result suited me.
PS It all started with the fact that in the comments on the already existing RO500-1 review by LOMO, portrait pictures were posted that I liked. So I decided to make myself the same lyalka.
Yes, there are very decent photos in the comments. And the review itself from Arkady no)
Review as a review.
For portraits, it’s completely in my opinion. And the contrast can be twisted during processing)))
Nice glass, thanks for the review
Photos are cool, the author credit :-)
And why didn’t they blacken the diaphragm?
Strictly speaking, it is already blackened at the factory, although in bright light it looks gray.
I have no “technology” that will allow blackening a matte diaphragm.
Well done Rodion! Greetings to Vladimir Deev.
Thank you I remember you)
Greetings, please tell me where and at what cost can you buy a diaphragm for such a lens?
good result on the old man (glass)
and the approach to adapt to SLRs is good
Rodion Eshmakov - I would like your contacts, I myself have a couple of projectors, but I don't have enough mind to adapt them)
rudzil@yandex.ru
a rare fucker, for such photographs of this photographer
It was always interesting: why? Why put so much effort? The question is not ironic, I'm really interested. Is salt in the process of modification? Obviously not the result.
The result is important: even in this state, the TX lens is able to compete with the German Pancolar 80 / 1.8, for example, which is confirmed by the dry test.
And the experience gained will allow us to implement more complex and progressive adaptation options.
Able to compete with another fossil ... Apparently I am quite far from all this warm tube heat: (I shouldn’t ask
If I had an 85 / 1.8 trigger, I would have tested it in comparison with it. But I don't think he got far from the pancolar. And did it go optically?
Now I have a slightly improved version of this adapted lens from a 1950s refinery. If someone is interested in purchasing - please email: rudzil@yandex.ru.
Hello, there is Lenkap F = 10cm, why can I use it ???
Hello, there is Lenkap F = 10cm, why can I use it ??? or is it possible to sell it?
For what is written here. You can sell anything.
A question to Rodion.
At one of the photo forums I read that you have long ago gotten used to printing adapters for projection objects. Can you share your experience?
You are confusing me with someone - I have never been involved in 3D printing. There are several people at the lance club, experts in this - Liukk and nikitosmax, like, if I'm not mistaken in writing nicknames.
How does it compare to the F-92?
In my opinion, RO is more interesting.
Hello
Do you have the complete scheme on what helicoid do i need (i have a fotofox 17-31 m42-nex, probably will work with a ring) and most important where from can i get an helicoid with aperture blades that fits ? In a beginner and its hard for me to try to build this lens without more information. thanks
Hi, you should use M65-M42 helicoid and M65-LOMo 62.5 adapter. Also iris should be installed into the lens block in the middle. It is more complacated procedure than focuser installation.