December 30, 2020 took place official announcement three (or four?) mirrored lenses of the 'RUBINAR' series from the LZOS plant (Lytkarino). 1st of February additional information appeared.
Announcement: Rubinar 300 / 4.5, 500 / 5.6, 500/8 and 1000/10
- MC RUBINAR 1000/10 Macro
- MC RUBINAR 500/8 Macro
- MC RUBINAR 500/5.6 Macro
- MC RUBINAR 300/4.5 Macro
There is no additional information on lenses yet. I wrote a letter to JSC "Lytkarinsky Optical Glass Plant" with a request to provide some of the new products for review. The management heard me and has already allocated new items for review.
UPDATED: review MC RUBINAR 300/4.5 Macro I'm ready now
UPDATED: review MC RUBINAR 8 / 500 MACRO I'm ready now
UPDATED: review MC RUBINAR 500/5.6 Macro I'm ready now
Rubinar 300mm, 500mm, 500mm and 1000mm
Rubinar 300mm, 500mm, 500mm and 1000mm
Comments on this post do not require registration. Anyone can leave a comment. Many different photographic equipment can be found on AliExpress.com.
Material prepared Arkady Shapoval. Training/Consultations | Youtube | Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | Telegram
The three hundred is interesting, but I think the price will not be lifting
Focal 300 mm today overlap (or almost overlap) inexpensive mass telezums of the 55-250 or 70-300 mm type.
But they have autofocus and, as a rule, stub.
And the aperture ratio of 5,6 at the far end (which allows you to compete with the mirror analogue of 4,5 in real light transmission).
They are quite compact, but the picture on the long end is not always as good as on the short one.
I saw on the network a review of the old MTO-500 and the new “Rubinar-500” (and so I couldn't find this review on the fly), what they had previously released a couple of years ago, and so the old MTO was even better optically, but the price is ten times more, I do not think that something has changed now, the mirror-lens scheme has been worked out for a long time and it is unlikely that something significant can be introduced into it, even taking into account new technologies for processing mirrors, most likely there will be "plastic" pathetic semblance of MTO.
most likely there will be a "plastic" miserable semblance of MTO
There is no plastic anywhere. In principle, no.
In the old ones, no, of course, but to save money, in the new ones, they may well be screwed in, I won't be surprised at all.
To exclude or confirm it, you need to compare the weight of the lens of the old version and the new one (at least from their descriptions).
Hell quietly !?)))
There is nothing wrong with plastic. People just got used (like in that movie) that “heaviness is good. severity is reliable ”and so on in the text)) But they forget that a good composite upon impact, for example, has elastic deformation, while having excellent strength, and the metal is predominantly plastic.
Metal behaves more confidently in the cold, and plastic and rubber sometimes crunch and gnash so that everything will crumble in his hands.
Have plastic lenses scattered in your hands? At what temperature, can you specify? Doesn't it bother you that the camera also contains plastic parts? Maybe you shouldn't risk it at all and take the camera out of the house at negative temperatures? :)
Myths are such myths :)
Myths?
The screwdriver turns steel Nikkors and at -20-25C.
Motor and especially plastic ones have problems after -10C and below.
The focusing ring is dubbed, the zoom ring is dubbed and something is dubbed in the lens itself.
Walk for 4-5 hours in the cold with a camera and then think about my words.
Pokemon, you're just a storyteller.
Let's start with the fact that there are no steel nikkors, we will attribute this to technical illiteracy, it does not hurt.
Secondly, I walked repeatedly in minus 10 and minus 15 with motor lenses, I did not observe the described problems. CHYADNT?
Nothing was tanned, not thickened (and on the MOTORLESS 35-70 it was by the way), and in general it depends solely on the lubricant used, no more.
“Something is dubbing in the lens itself” - how to understand this? DOES YOU SEE that something is dubbing or it stops working? In any case, see above.
among many other cameras I have D2Xs, you need to try very hard to find plastic parts in it, there are about the same number of them as in the AK-47))
I don’t know how in d2x, but there are enough of them in d700) although, of course, less than in the initial ones.
> "Pokemon, you're just a storyteller."
No, Victor, it's just that you and I have different experiences.
And yes, I pointed out, note -20C and -25C.
“Let's start with the fact that there are no steel nikkors, let's write it off as technical illiteracy, it doesn't hurt.”
Victor, and 80-200 / 2.8D you have a plastic case, exclusive, right?
I'm talking about the case, of course. And I don't give a damn what steel the same Tokins are made of, they are not plastic.
“Secondly, I went to minus 10 and minus 15 several times with motor lenses, I did not observe the described problems. CHYADNT?
Nothing became tanned, not thickened (and by the way it was on MOTORLESS 35-70), and in general it depends solely on the lubricant used, no more. "
I do not know. At the temperatures I indicated (I wrote them above), Sigma Art no longer wanted to focus. Sigma 28 / 1.8 staked, as did 24-135 / 3.5-4.5.
““ Something is dubbing in the lens itself ”- how is this to be understood? DOES YOU SEE that something is dubbing or it stops working? In any case, see above. ”
And what should I look at above? Autofocus has stopped, the motor is not turning.
Should I pick Sigma Art right in the cold with a screwdriver and fill it with grease or vegetable oil with machine oil?
The zoom ring dulls, it starts to change badly relative to above-zero temperatures. This also applies to several types of Sigma 24-70 / 2.8 that are in the possession. The focus ring is also dubbed.
The trombones did not have anything tanned. 35-105 / 3.5-4.5, 35 / 2D worked perfectly in cold weather.
Motorized lenses focus worse in frost, give bad sounds when focusing or zooming. While the non-motorized Nikkors practically never fail.
>> Victor, and 80-200 / 2.8D you have a plastic case, exclusive, right?
The metal body parts of most lenses are made from aluminum-magnesium alloys, less often from brass (for example, bayonet rings).
And by the way, don't you know that even the 80-200 has plastic parts, for example, one infamous ring for switching from manual focus to automatic. Japanese quality, you say?
Regarding the temperature, you clearly indicated that after -10 the engine windows start having problems, I clarified that I personally have ok, up to -20. I did not check for a lower temperature, there was no need.
As you can see, the experience is really different.
by Sigma - Sigma 24-135mmD 1: 2.8-4.5.
Not 3.5-4.5 ..
Nikkor has such aperture of 28-105 / 3.5-4.5D and it is more reliable in the cold than Sigma both in design and optically much better.
Everyone has their own experience. I like the screwdriver on older cameras. Works quickly, almost always accurately, albeit noisy and unpretentious in different weather conditions.
So 24-135d is also a screwdriver. And does it work worse than nikkor in the cold?
“Regarding the temperature, you clearly indicated that after -10 the engine windows start having problems, I clarified that I personally have ok, down to -20. I did not check for a lower temperature, there was no need.
As you can see, the experience is really different. ”
We're talking about different lens models that each of us had.
Accordingly, the experience is also different.
“And by the way, would you not know that even the 80-200 have plastic parts, like the infamous manual to auto focus ring. Japanese quality, you say? "
I am aware of this defect. Yes, Japanese quality. you can still find many lenses from the 90s and 00s in good condition at flea markets for a penny. There are no ideal things, but there is something close to the ideal.
And also such a curious fact - more non-motorized lenses of those years survived than motorized ones.
“So 24-135d is also a screwdriver. And does it work worse than nikkor in the cold? "
Yes I know. But this particular lens did not like negative temperatures.
After -10C, the lubrication apparently began to tan and the change in focal, as well as focusing, was difficult. At -15C, problems began, at -20C, nothing.
Nikkor 28-105 / 3.5-4.5 feels better and lasts longer. Anyway, there is no such discomfort. 35-105 / 3.5-4.5 and at -20C because of the trombone did not cause any questions in the work.
I got the feeling that Sigma itself is not designed for such negative temperatures, unlike Nikkor D series.
Perhaps this was the approach of engineers to reduce the cost of construction.
The pricing policy has not yet been announced, but on the website of the online store at LZOS Rubinar 1000/10 has fallen in price to 40500 rubles.
http://optics-group... .21-fotoobektivy
And a new price for this subject began from 79900 (September 2018), then dropped to 58800, and now 40500.
I am afraid that the entire new line of Rubinars is doomed to a serious markdown with such overshoots in pricing.
It would be better to resume the release of Jupiter-9 with MC.
It cost 60 rubles in the USSR, but today one could safely ask for under $ 100.
It is categorically impossible to allow lzos to Jupiter-9, enough, ate their handicrafts.
You can admit anyone, you just need to implement the appropriate standards and follow them, as well as quality control at the exit. In modern conditions, this is not so difficult to do. You can, of course, completely re-equip the existing plant, supply the latest equipment (this is done in China, for example). It's all about the price of the product and the price / quality ratio. Or you can arrange production on ODM terms in China, since now there is everything for this, and in this way you can get a normal price, and at the same time try to sell lenses in China itself, since there are a lot of potential consumers here. There is also such a moment - without a certain amount of circulation, it will not be possible to reduce the cost price. So, the importance of that market, that country, where there are more people and buyers, the economic situation is normal, and so on immediately arises. That is, large countries and, first of all, China.
How many letters nothing. It will be like an anegdote, well, I didn't, I didn't
And immediately 3 thank you:
First THANK YOU - that your answer makes the greatest sense!
Second thanks for showing an example of good manners and politeness!
The third thanks - for the keen eye, noticing the printing on the cell phone while sitting on the bus.
And since, apart from you, everyone else understood the meaning of the simple message written, there is nothing you can do about it, you just had to continue your studies after the eighth grade ...
And please - in this message I made one mistake on purpose! Try to find it and report it to everyone on the forum!
A Chinese man teaches people to spell. Hmm ...
I made one mistake on purpose - everything is clear here. And the rest?
Intentional mistake in the word "typos".
Sorry for the broken link in the previous post.
And the prices for Rubinars appeared in an online store close to LZOS.
http://optics-group.ru/ru/21-fotoobektivy
Yes sir. Rubinar
Oh, how interesting! I hope these lenses will be sent to you for review)
The most interesting thing is that the unsold remains of Rubinar 1000 mm / 10 from the period of the dashing 90s were labeled by LZOS as Limited Edition.
(Take a closer look at the photo and description). And he tries to sell at a new price.
God forbid from such a Limited Edition - everyone knows how the quality fell at the Soviet / Russian factories of that time.
For some reason, I suspect that if you buy a "film" Minolta 500/8 for 15 tr, it will still be better than a similar new Rubinar for 36.
I don't understand why not take and make an autofocus fifty-kopeck piece and a thirty-five point on the kenon and nikon mounts. The guys on YouTube manually manage to redo them, but the plant clearly has more opportunities for this.
in reality it is very difficult. both technically and legally.
It's not very difficult for guys on YouTube, but it's difficult for a whole factory. Yes of course.
I see no reason to explain something to an amateur. go to the factory, and try to do at least something, and then write this nonsense. I, for myself, remodel the optics. and I know all the problems. including legal ones.
Because the plant has neither the resources nor the know-how for this, and in general there is practically no industry (except for mining) in Russia.
In addition, the competition is so strong that it makes little sense to start something in this area. Ours will not be able to make the lens cheaper than the Chinese, with all the desire.
Quite right, this is the difficulty.
Something has already been given out for review. Thanks to the LZOS management.
Two years ago, LZOS attracted the famous photoblogger Dmitry Evtifeev to review the updated Rubinar 1000 mm. He did a good overview of the plant, but he did not find any differences in the picture between the old MTO-1000 and the new Rubinar.
http://evtifeev.com/59153-ekskursiya-na-zavod-opticheskogo-stekla-lzos.html
Now it's your turn…
The review of the plant is really good. Evtifeev and Vlador.com have recently practically stopped publishing materials
There is a group on Flickr that takes pictures of the 1000mm Rubinar Moon.
https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=Rubinar%20moon
These interesting pictures were obtained on a crop by the stacking method (computer stitching of 10 or more frames).
If Vem is given 1000 mm, then try to create something similar (in winter it is much more difficult). LZOS will scream with joy!
See another Flickr group on Rubinar 1000 and the Moon:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/wng555/albums/72157662230984744
Arkady, thank you for your kind words! I haven't stopped. But the intervals between reviews have become larger - a fact. And the economic situation is affected by the fact that I am now doing more diverse and deeper reviews. In the same filters, a test for density and vignetting, for example, appeared. And even now the results of the spectrometer began to be added. In the lenses, too, the new slips. Decent labor costs remain behind the scenes ..
At one time, I advised LZOS to produce other things, but they did not listen to me and released essentially the same thing. So it will be very interesting to read what you write about the new Rubinars.
Just today we received a mailing list about your new review of Pentax 85 1.4.
It is good that the plant does something to the consumer market, too. But they have little chance of success. As if glasses are almost the same, only more expensive than Soviet ones. There is no progress on the hole either, what's the point? For many years, the secondary housing will be a bulk of Soviet glasses of this type for a penny.
Just last month I just took a used ZM-6A - 500mm f6.3 for space. I was pleasantly surprised by the sharpness on the mic, well, in the sense I thought it would be worse. And the price tag - less than 50 bucks came out.
Generally speaking about metals, I am still in favor of composites, incl. with a selected coefficient of thermal expansion. Otherwise, MTO and ZM have a problem - in the cold, the frame pinches the optics and astigmatism appears. I hope the forums have read a little at the factory and have fixed this defect.
There was an official press release from Shvabe about the resumption of the release of Rubinars.
https://shvabe.com/press/news/shvabe-vypustil-obnovlennye-zerkalno-linzovye-obektivy-rubinar/
But this release has one phrase that puzzles me:
“For amateurs of astrophotography, the LZOS developers offer an additional service for adjusting the lens“ MC Rubinar 10/1000 Macro ”.
It is that LZOS releases a lens to the retail network poorly adjusted to infinity, and offers the consumer to purchase an additional service to bring this copy to mind. Or the 1000 mm lens is adjusted at the factory to close range by default, and then there are complaints about the poor quality of the Moon images.
Almost all such lenses have a significant overshoot for infinity, this is the norm and even a blessing for those who are trying to put them on amateur cameras through a conventional adapter, which is why they rest against the beak of the built-in flash. Therefore, the problem is often solved with a thin macro ring, and running over infinity allows you not to lose this very infinity. And what they adjust there, of course, is very interesting
The Penta-club has a commentary by Nikolai Tarfeev (nitar58), an authoritative specialist in Soviet optics.
“A noticeable drawback of Rubinars is the misalignment of the multi-thread axis of the focusing unit and the optical axis. To fix who can only be for one distance, by moving the front component. The main mirror is glued and I think it will not work to make the optical axis and the multi-thread axis coaxial. "
Thank you
I advise you to read a detailed review of Rubinars and Evil.
A lot of material.
https://traditio.wiki/%D0%A0%D1%83%D0%B1%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%80#%D0%9D%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BA%D0%B8
Prices are already there
http://optics-group.ru/ru/21-fotoobektivy
Prices are high
New Samyang 300 / 6.3 - 300 $, new Rubinar 300 / 4.5 - 400 $.
Lenses should be good, as Schwabe's message pointed to milled metal housings.
But why is the M42 mount?
Can't you do it with different mounts at once?
The adapters are not perfect, the distance is often not kept ...
There are astronomers in Kiev who can assess the quality of Rubinar's alignment from the diffraction pattern. They already evaluated MTO-1000 three years ago.
http://nightspirit-observatory.blogspot.com/2016/10/testing-of-mak10-mto-1000-first-light.html
M42 for the same reason as the 7-partisans Leica M.
LZOS, meanwhile, resumed the production of the simplest 2,5x theatrical binoculars according to the Galileo optical scheme for 8800 rubles.
http://lzos.ru/press-zentr/news/827/
They cost 7 rubles in the USSR.
http://optics-group.ru/ru/binokli/30-binokl-25-5kh35.html
The secondary housing is full of them with a price order (10 times!) Cheaper.
Review of the new MC RUBINAR 300 / 4.5 Macro is already ready and is available by reference.
Review New MC Rubinar 8/500 MACRO ready and available here
MC Rubinar 5,6 / 500 Macro (LZOS, 2019)
https://radojuva.com/2021/06/mc-rubinar-56500-macro-lzos-2019-obzor-ot-rodiona-ehshmakova/
Rubinar lens patent links:
SU 1675826 A1 - Rubinar 1000/10 https://patents.su/3-1675826-fotograficheskijj-zerkalno-linzovyjj-obektiv.html
RU 2000587 C - Rubinar 500/5.6, 300/4.5 https://patents.su/6-2000587-zerkalno-linzovyjj-obektiv.html
SU 1458848 A1 - Rubinar 500/8 https://patents.su/4-1458848-fotograficheskijj-zerkalno-linzovyjj-obektiv.html