PO 500-1 F9CM. 1: 2 P. Review from the reader Radozhiva

Overview of the projection lens RO 500-1 F9СМ. 1: 2 P (Novosibirsk Instrument-Making Plant), equipped with an aperture diaphragm and a focusing mechanism, especially for Radozhiva, prepared Rodion Eshmakov.

PO 500-1 F9CM. 1: 2 P

PO 500-1 F9CM. 1: 2 P

Perhaps, it was precisely with lenses of the type RO500-1 90/2 among amateur photographers that the enthusiasm for film projection optics began, which has “tasty” parameters at a low price. However, these lenses can be used for photography only after the installation of the focusing mechanism and, preferably, the aperture.

This review is dedicated to the infrequent instance released at the Novosibirsk Instrument-Making Plant (as indicated by the emblem on the title ring) and is the third in a row on the site. The most common LOMO release modification is presented here, and one of the oldest (pr-v LENKINAP) here.

Lens characteristics (Catalog of lenses by A.F. Yakovleva):

Optical design: Planar, 6/4 (the shape of the lens corresponds to the sketch in full), scheme
Focal Length: 90mm
Relative Hole: 1: 2
Back focal length: 60,64 mm
Light transmittance: 0,82
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).

Structurally, the lens does not differ from its counterparts, because the process of remaking on a SLR camera is no different from that described here. After adaptation, the lens looks like this:
ro-500-new-lens-review-1

Diaphragm installed in the refinery RO500-1

Diaphragm installed in the refinery RO500-1

 

Aperture control leash of the adapted oil refinery RO500-1

Aperture control leash of the adapted oil refinery RO500-1

Optical properties of the adapted oil refinery RO500-1

As shown in the photographs, the lens has a brightening of pink and purple tones, which is its main difference from the lens units manufactured by LOMO and Lenkinap. Therefore, this version has a specific color rendition: the maximum light transmission of the lens lies in the yellow-green region. This makes his picture warm and pleasing to the eye. And yet, as it seemed to me, this enlightenment copes with backlight much better, sometimes giving, however, large pink highlights.

The sharpness of the lens is quite high, although spherical and, especially, longitudinal are noticeable on the open aperture chromatic aberration. The aperture for the RO500-1 is extremely useful - even when aperture is up to F / 2.5, the resolution becomes acceptable for most tasks, on the F / 2.8-4 the lens is very sharp in the center. Further aperture is perhaps necessary to increase the depth of field, for example, in macro photography.

The picture of the RO500-1 refinery is soft and calm at F / 2, uniformly sharp at F / 2.8 onwards. It does not twist the bokeh due to small vignetting (you can read about the connection between background twisting and vignetting here: https://radojuva.com/2018/05/vega-interesting/), only occasionally highlights blurred circles with a bright edging. The RO500-1 can serve both as a good portrait lens and as a good macro head: a ~ 40 mm stroke of the helicoid allows you to achieve an MDF of less than half a meter, and the resolution margin is quite enough when shooting at this scale.

Photos taken on Canon 600D followed by development from raw to Canon DPP with a minimum of correction.

UPDATED

Gallery on the Sony a7s full-frame camera:

Other movie projection and movie shooting reviews:

  1. RO3-3M 2/50
  2. PO 500-1 F9 CM. 1: 2 P (review from the reader)
  3. 2/92
  4. F = 92 1: 2
  5. ОКП-6-70-1 F=70 1:1,8
  6. LOMO RO501-1 F = 100 1: 2 (+ materials from the reader)
  7. LOMO RO500-1 F = 90 1: 2
  8. 16KP-1,4 / 65 (review from the reader)
  9. 35KP-1,8 / 70
  10. 35KP-1,8 / 75 (review from the reader)
  11. 35KP-1,8 / 85
  12. 35KP-1.8 / 120 (review from the reader)
  13. 35KP-1.8 / 100 (review from the reader)
  14. LOMO P-5 F = 90 1: 2 (review from the reader)
  15. LOMO P-5 F = 100 1: 2 (review from the reader)
  16. ЛОМО ОКС1-40-1 40/2.5 (review from the reader)
  17. LOMO J-53 F = 75 1: 2 (review from the reader)
  18. LOMO J-54 F = 85 1: 2 (review from the reader)
  19. LOMO OKS1-300-1 F = 300 1: 3.5 (review from the reader)
  20. Tair-41 50/2 (review from the reader)
  21. KO-120 1: 2,1 120mm
  22. KO-90 1: 1,9 F = 9cm (review from the reader)
  23. KO-120M 1: 1.8 F = 120mm (review from the reader)
  24. KO-120M 120 / 1.8 with a diaphragm and helicoid (review from the reader)
  25. KO-120 1: 2.1 F = 12cm (review from the reader)
  26. LENKINAP RO500-1 F = 9cm 1: 2 P (review from the reader)
  27. Schneider Super Cinelux 70/2 (review from the reader)

The names of the lenses correspond to their exact spelling on the body.

Conclusions

The RO500-1 produced by the refinery is not much different from its counterparts: at the very least, it is no worse than the lens units manufactured by LOMO and Lenkinap and can serve well as a photography lens.

Thank you for your attention, Eshmakov Rodion.

You will find more reviews from readers of Radozhiva here.

Add a comment:

 

 

Comments: 31, on the topic: RO 500-1 F9CM. 1: 2 P. Review from the reader Radozhiva

  • Noa

    nice blur

  • Onotole

    Not bad. The flower leaves, of course, are much better than people. The nature of the bokeh is bueee, but sometimes, thanks to such bokeh, it is possible to catch a characteristic retro bow in the picture, which is very pleasant to the eye.

    • Rodion

      I compared the brane with the 80 / 1.8 pancolar - excluding the twist in the last one and the chromatic difference - practically the same thing. Taki pankolar bueee?

      • Rodion

        * bokeh

        • Onotole

          First, let me remind you that bokeh is perhaps the most subjective characteristic of an image.
          And secondly, it was not even close to Pankolar. It's like saying that Zhiguli and BMW, both of the 80s of production, are practically the same, because they have 4 wheels, 4 headlights in front, and both turn left when the steering wheel is turned to the left. And they differ, perhaps, in the size of the wheels and the color of the body. Does this mean that they will be almost identical in driving pleasure?

    • Andrei

      I also liked the butterfly flowers. Portals are somehow not expressive

  • Rodion

    Since I have pankolar and I have every right to compare them. Roshka gives the result no worse, with the exception of contrast and chromaticity on the open. In terms of weight and dimensions, the pancolar wins strongly, but the focusing of the RO is more convenient, and the range allows you to do without macro rings. In short, it's not a BMW and a Lada, but rather Saab and some Dodge)

    • Onotole

      Let it be your way.

  • zengarden

    Great alteration! and the diaphragm from some Jupiter?
    Blurring the background ("bokeh") is a big fan, yes.

    • Rodion

      Thanks. The diaphragm is microscopic.

  • anonym

    Rodion, thank you very much for your work! Very interesting and informative articles. It's just a pity that everything was filmed on the crop ... Maybe next time it will turn out to take from someone from your friends FF for review? It would be interesting to see the quality of the full frame ... Thanks again!

    • Rodion

      There are no friends with ff, but I'm not going to rent a camera for this.

      • anonym

        If you write reviews, you could “get together”.

        • Rodion

          Not understood. I am writing for my own pleasure, I am not obliged to anyone, no one forces me to. Free to decide what to shoot. One way or another, k1.6 is not m4 / 3 or pentax cue; and nothing bad will happen if you take 35 * 24 instead of 16 * 24. When there is nowhere to put the money - I will buy a Hasselblad with a digital back))))) Only it will hardly matter about reviews. So that…

          • zengarden

            This is the right approach! After all, FF is just a crop from the medium format, which, in turn ...

            • Onotole

              With this approach, you can shoot with phones and webcams.
              Well, what, it's just a crop from 1 / 2,3 ″, and that, in turn, is a crop from 1 ″, which is a crop from micro 4/3, and there, you see, it's not far from SF with FF.

          • anonym

            Think what you say. For your pleasure, fish and drink beer. Here, on someone else's resource, which is referenced by a huge number of users on the Internet, if you please keep your brand and not be offended by comments ... "for your pleasure" damn ...

            • Rodion

              When I stop holding the brand, Arkady, and not Your Grace, will inform me about this. Good?

              • anonym

                Good! But it’s more correct to contact me -Your nobility.

          • Onotole

            To react in this way to criticism is ugly, at least. Well, counterproductive, of course.

            • Rodion

              There is no criticism here.

  • anonym

    The question about FF, in its essence, did not hold anything forcing or offensive. It is rather a request, or a wish was ... Well, - no, no. Thanks for that. One way or another, the Author spends time, and also “saws” non-standard glasses. It's just amazing that a person with decent knowledge and experience has no friends and acquaintances willing to share a full-frame camera for half a day. Not such a luxury today. The second-hand option (we are talking of course about 5D) is cheaper on the secondary housing than the same D600. True, I'm afraid Rodion that after the “patch” you would not want to take D600))). But again, this is everyone's choice ...

    • anonym

      Correction, -))) This is of course 600D Canon))

    • Andrei

      And you are still wondering why the Fan Trumpet Master has no acquaintances and friends who are ready to share FF? - Patamushta costs in education ...

  • Alexey de Paris

    Thanks for the review, thanks for the good macro! Perfectly demonstrates the capabilities of the lens.

  • Rodion

    This is how we learned that acquaintances and friends should be chosen on the basis of their ff ... Writing such comments is a clear evidence of a greater lack of upbringing than the most accessible (in the only language that His nobility Anonymous and Sir Andrew understands) reaction to these statements. Moreover, these comments, in principle, are not so much the initiation of some kind of dispute, as a dull trolling that turned into a banal srach in the second or third remark. Welcome, as they say. What culture can His nobility and Sir Andrew talk about after what they wrote? Did you think, gentlemen, commentators, that the author may have 1000 + 1 objective reasons not to use / not beg / buy ff? And, in the end, who do you come to meddle in other people's affairs? In general, in the future, the topic “pachimu not ff” will be ignored by me.

    • Arkady Shapoval

      Offtopic went. Comrades, stop it.

  • Rodion

    Added photos to ff.

    • Artem

      Thank you very much for your work!

  • Michael

    From all projection at RO 500-1 F9CM. 1:2 peculiar pattern gives a glint in the eyes

  • Michael

    here's another photo

Add a comment

Copyright © Radojuva.com. Blog author - Photographer in Kiev Arkady Shapoval. 2009-2022

English-version of this article https://radojuva.com/en/2018/06/ro-500-1-f9sm-12-p-obzor-ot-chitatelya-radozhivy/comment-page-1/

Versión en español de este artículo https://radojuva.com/es/2018/06/ro-500-1-f9sm-12-p-obzor-ot-chitatelya-radozhivy/comment-page-1/