Pre-production MC RUBINAR 4,5 / 300 MACRO (LZOS, 2019), review from Rodion Eshmakov.

Material according to MC RUBINAR 4,5 / 300 MACRO specially for Radozhiva prepared Rodion Eshmakov (subscribe to Instagram!)

New Rubinar 300 / 4.5 on Canon 600D. In the background - Tair-3A 300 / 4.5

New Rubinar 300 / 4.5 on Canon 600D... On the background - Tair-3A 300 / 4.5. increase.

On December 30, representatives of the LZOS plant were announced 4 new mirrored lenses of the Rubinar series. According to the manufacturer, the new lenses are identical to those optically produced in the USSR, but they have a revised production technology: improved body quality, modern enlightenment and, of course, an updated design.

The smallest lens in the line - Rubinar 300 / 4.5 - was provided by the plant specifically for writing a review for Radozhiva. It is important to note that this copy belongs to the first trial series, i.e. not final for mass production.

TECH SPECS

Optical design:

MC RUBINAR 4,5 / 300 MACRO

MC RUBINAR 4,5 / 300 MACRO

Focal length (FR) - 300 mm;
Geometric relative aperture (F-feet) - 1: 4.5;
Effective relative aperture (T-feet) - 1: 7.4 (by this data, almost coincided with my measurements);
Angular field of view (for a frame 36 * 24 mm) - 8 °;
The minimum focusing distance is 1.7 m;
Filters thread - М77 * 0.75 mm;
Tripod mounting thread - absent;
Dimensions (without covers) - 102 * 92 mm;
Weight (without covers) - 0.7 kg;
The thread for attaching to the camera is M42 (size 45.5 mm). [source]:

design Features

Lenses with the beautiful name "Rubinar" are descendants of Maksutov's mirror-lens lenses, the history of which is briefly described here... Unlike Maksutov's lenses, Rubinars use a much more complex design: instead of a secondary mirror found on a full-aperture corrector, the lenses have a separate Mangin mirror, and Maksutov's thick meniscus is split into two thinner lenses. What's new with fresh Rubinars in comparison with the widespread XNUMXM and MTO?

New Rubinars have a nice modern design. The body is made of aluminum alloy. The focusing ring has a wide rubber pad. For the convenience of attaching the lens to the camera, the tail has a large corrugation. Despite the large diameter of the body, it turned out to be possible to mount the lens on an amateur crop camera Canon 600D: The flash beak is not a hindrance. But large-caliber Rubinar 1000/10 and 500 / 5.6 cannot be installed on a similar camera with a built-in flash without tweaks.

By the way, the packaging of lenses, according to the site http://optics-group.ru/ru/, is no longer of a "Soviet" design either. The lens is supplied in a solid box, the set includes a case-bag for the lens, a screw-type rear and a simple front cover with snaps, a matte dark glass hood screwed into the thread. There was no hood supplied with the lens provided for this review.

Lenses "Rubinar" are much more compact than classical lenses of the Maksutov-Cassegrain system. This is especially noticeable when comparing the dimensions of the MTO-1000 1000/10 and Rubinar 1000/10: the length of the MTO body is 260 mm, the Rubinar - 210 mm; the weight has decreased by almost 1,5 kg. And, of course, the descendants of Maksutov-Cassegrain are much smaller than their lens counterparts: Rubinar 300 / 4.5 is almost three times shorter and 2.3 times lighter than a classic lens telephoto Tair-3A with the same optical parameters. The light weight, however, noticeably interferes with handheld lens shooting and forces the use of shorter ones in comparison with the same Tairom-3 excerpts.

Lens lens Tair-3A 300 / 4.5 and Rubinar 300 / 4.5 (on Canon 600D camera). Rubinar is almost three times shorter.

Lens objective Tair-3A 300 / 4.5 and Rubinar 300 / 4.5 (on camera Canon 600D). Rubinar is almost three times shorter.

A larger number of components in comparison with old mirror-lens lenses provides an opportunity for better correction of aberrations and an increase in the geometric relative aperture: in comparison with MTO and 500M, it has doubled (for lenses with a FR of XNUMX mm).

The small lens at the rear of the objective is a field curvature corrector. Known among astronomers as the "Field Flattener", it is a negative lens ("Barlow lens").

The small lens at the rear of the objective is a field curvature corrector. Known among astronomers as the "Field Flattener", it is a negative lens ("Barlow lens").

However, due to central shielding (the presence of a secondary mirror), mirror-lens lenses have a rather low light transmission: in T-stops, Rubinar loses 300 times to lens 4.5 / 2.5 (more than 1 stop).

The front lenses Tair-3A 300 / 4.5 and Rubinar 300 / 4.5 have the same diameters, but different working area.

The front lenses Tair-3A 300 / 4.5 and Rubinar 300 / 4.5 have the same diameters, but different working area.

Moreover, central shielding distorts the frequency-contrast characteristic of the lens, as a result of which mirror-lens lenses reproduce image details in a rather peculiar way (as a rule, they are somewhat worse than well-corrected lens counterparts). The last drawback in reality turns out to be not so significant, if we recall the main advantage of mirror-lens optics - the almost complete absence of chromatic aberrations, which often limit the resolution of long-focus lens systems.

Mirror-lens lenses are very sensitive to stray flares, so the multi-layer coating of Rubinar lenses should be very useful.

View of the Rubinar 300 / 4.5 lens from the front lens. A decorative black stopper conceals the secondary mirror mount.

View of the Rubinar 300 / 4.5 lens from the front lens. A decorative black stopper conceals the secondary mirror mount.

Rubinar lenses use thinner full-aperture correctors in comparison with MTO and 90M, which should speed up the process of thermal stabilization of lenses. For amateur telescopes of the 1250/300 class, it takes up to an hour and a half to reach equilibrium. Although even a small Rubinar 4.5 / XNUMX needs about half an hour. This drawback could be corrected by using expensive crystal glass (sitall) as the material for the main mirror. The negative influence of the ambient temperature on the image quality is structurally reduced due to the use of a body milled from a solid blank: such parts have less stresses and are more isotropic in their mechanical properties than parts made of a pipe. This had a positive effect on the quality of the assembly of the lens and its alignment.

One of the "Rubinars" business cards is the minimum focusing distance for lenses with such FR, which is reflected in their name by the "MACRO" prefix. Due to the limitations of the travel of the helicoid, it is very difficult to achieve shooting for similar lens objectives of this scale. At the Rubinar 300 / 4.5, with such a small MDF of 1.7 m, the body length changes by only a couple of centimeters when focusing.

Changing the dimensions of the Rubinar 300 / 4.5 body during focusing.

Changing the dimensions of the Rubinar 300 / 4.5 body during focusing.

There is one insidious drawback in this property of the lens: the focusing ring travel is only 270 °, with such a small MDF this makes the focusing ring extremely sensitive to any movement. For comparison: the helicoid Tair-3A makes a full revolution, providing an MDF of 2.2 m. In other words, it is very difficult to focus with the lens. I keep in touch with representatives of LZOS, information about this serious miscalculation (and about all others) was transmitted and taken into account: in future games, the revealed defects were promised to be corrected.

Alas, when the lens is focused, the entire front part rotates, which limits the use of polarizing and gradient filters.

Despite the fact that Rubinar 300 / 4.5 is designed for use with cameras with a frame size of 36 * 24 mm, it covers (albeit with noticeable vignetting) a much larger field. Thus, the lens is suitable for use with medium format cameras with Fujifilm G mount or with shift adapters. I used a Fotodiox EF / FE adapter to get 72 * 24 and 36 * 48 panoramic shots (excluding cropping).

Operation of the Fotodiox Shift EF / FE adapter with a Rubinar 300 / 4.5 lens.

Operation of the Fotodiox Shift EF / FE adapter with a Rubinar 300 / 4.5 lens.

Mount the lens to the camera - archaic thread M42. Rubinar 300 / 4.5 has a large overshoot for infinity, which is associated with the need to leave the power reserve of the helicoid to compensate for the focus shift during thermal stabilization at low temperatures. Thus, in theory, the lens can work with Nikon cameras (F-mount) with a lensless adapter, but only at temperatures close to room temperature. With other systems, no problems should arise: the use of bayonet adapters will make it possible to level the disadvantage of a threaded mount in the form of a lengthy lens change procedure.

Rubinar 300 / 4.5 pleased with the level of workmanship and quality of finishing. The ability to work with medium format cameras turned out to be a pleasant bonus. On the Fuji G system, Rubinar 300 / 4.5 turns into "234 / 3.5", and, for example, Rubinar 500 / 5.6 - into "390 / 4.4". The only significant drawback (fortunately, quite correctable) of the pre-production version of the lens is rough, inaccurate focusing.

Optical properties. Comparison with Tair-3A

Rubinar 300 / 4.5 forms a fairly high-quality image with all the features inherent in mirror-lens optics. The lens resolution is quite enough for a 12MP full-frame Sony A7s sensor, but not enough for working with an 18MP APS-C sensor (equivalent to 46MP full-frame in pixel density) Canon 600D... The lens is chromatic-free and has well-corrected field aberrations: at F / 4.5 it is ahead of CZJ Sonnar 4 / 300 at F / 4 at the edge of the frame. The disadvantages of Rubinar 300 / 4.5 are the uneven illumination of the frame - ordinary telephoto lenses do not have such a pronounced vignetting, as well as reduced image contrast in comparison with lens lenses.

One scene shot by Rubinar 300 / 4.5 and Tair-3A 300 / 4.5 at F / 4.5:

Rubinar 300 / 4.5

Rubinar 300 / 4.5

Tair-3A 300 / 4.5

Tair-3A 300 / 4.5

An interesting feature of the Rubinar 300 / 4.5 is, of course, its unusual bokeh: the discs of confusion of mirror-lens lenses (EVL) turn into bagels. Due to the noticeable geometric vignetting along the edge of the frame, the bagels take on the appearance of sickles. You can love or hate this kind of background blur, inherent in EVIL - it will hardly leave you indifferent. A relatively short (by EVIL standards) focal length makes it possible to use the Rubinar 300 / 4.5 for portraits, small MDF makes it possible to introduce unusual bokeh into shots of small objects in close-up.

Below is a series of images on the Rubinar 300 / 4.5 and Tair-3A, which allows you to compare the blurring of the background of the Evil with a conventional telephoto lens.

Rubinar 300 / 4.5 is at least as good as Tair-3A 300 / 4.5 in terms of sharpness in the center of the frame on a 12 megapixel full-frame sensor.

Rubinar 300 / 4.5

Rubinar 300 / 4.5

Tair-3A 300 / 4.5

Tair-3A 300 / 4.5

Crop of the central areas of frames and pre-focal points made by Rubinar 300 / 4.5 and Tair-3A. Center sharpness is indistinguishable, but Rubinard's image is noisier. Rubinar has no colored fringe (spherochromatism) in the frame.

Crop of the central areas of frames and pre-focal points made by Rubinar 300 / 4.5 and Tair-3A. Center sharpness is indistinguishable, but Rubinard's image is noisier. Rubinar has no colored fringe (spherochromatism) in the frame.

In this case, the image formed by Rubinard is free from chromatic aberrations (HA), which distinguishes it favorably from the purple-green Tair.

Images taken with Tair-3A at F / 4.5 (left), Rubinar 300 / 4.5 (center) and Tair-3A at F / 6.3 (right).

Crops of the central area of ​​the frames taken with Tair-3A and Rubinar 300 / 4.5 demonstrate similar sharpness in the absence of CA in Rubinar.

Crop of the central area of ​​the frames taken with Tair-3A and Rubinar 300 / 4.5 demonstrate similar sharpness in the absence of HA at Rubinar's.

Rubinar's near-field resolution is noticeably inferior to Tair-3A. The lens is inferior to him in terms of working with backlight. An interesting feature of Rubinar is the almost complete absence of the Focus Breathing effect (i.e., a decrease in the angle of the lens's field of view during focusing on the MDF), which, on the contrary, is strongly pronounced in Tair-3.

A ball of wool on the battery shows the differences in the performance of conventional and SL lenses in the near field. Left - a photo by Rubinar.

Thus, Rubinar is hardly able to outplay good telephoto lenses in terms of image quality - a relatively low resolution in the center of the frame, vignetting and lower contrast are the price to pay for its small size and weight. But Rubinard also has such an important feature as ringed bokeh, which will definitely find a niche for itself in the application to artistic photography.

Sample photos on Canon 600D (crop factor 1.6)

Sample photos on a full-frame Sony A7s camera

Conversion 300 / 4.5 to 230 / 3.5: remove the field corrector

Rubinar 300 / 4.5 is a lens for SLR cameras and has a large rear focal length. This is partly achieved through the use of a near-focal field corrector - a negative lens (by the way, with blackened ends). The field corrector can be removed, and the back focal length is reduced so much that Rubinar can only work with mirrorless cameras. To connect the lens with the field corrector removed to the Sony A7s camera, I used a thin 1 mm M42-NEX flange. After removing the field corrector, the angle of view and aperture lenses are enlarged 1.3 times - from 300 / 4.5 it turns into 230 / 3.5. In other words, a field corrector is essentially a 1.3x teleconverter.

Combined photos taken with Rubinar 300 / 4.5 without field corrector and with field corrector (red area).

Combined photos taken with Rubinar 300 / 4.5 without field corrector and with field corrector (red area).

Of the minuses - there is a strong drop in resolution at the edge of the frame and an increase in vignetting (nevertheless, the lens still covers the frame 36 * 24 mm). Also, with the lens put on through a thin flange, it is impossible to grip the camera handle - there is no room for fingers. The operation to remove the corrector is questionable, but could possibly be useful for owners of mirrorless crop cameras. Below are examples of photos taken with a lens without a field corrector on a Sony A7s full-frame camera.

Findings. What's next?

Reincarnated Rubinars are pretty promising lenses. The most interesting of them, the youngest in the Rubinar 300 / 4.5 line, showed quite good optical properties. He could well be a welcome "marching" super-televik, which is not afraid of any adversity due to the simplicity of the design.

Large-caliber Rubinars, which in their current form are too inconvenient for both photographers and astronomers, could be further processed into high-quality compact telescopes - ideas for appropriate design changes were proposed by me to the representatives of the plant. Theoretically, Rubinars are not only not worse than the popular Maksutov-Cassegrain / Schmidt-Cassegrain telescopes, but are also ahead of them in terms of weight and size parameters, aperture ratio and image quality.

The KMZ plant produces night vision devices with 100 / 1.2 class EVIL, which makes us think about the possibility of producing high-quality telephoto lenses of the 300 / 2.8, 200/2 types, compact, free from chromatism and equipped with a unique prominent bokeh. Who knows: maybe someday LZOS will be able to please with really unique and valuable offers and will no longer be associated with Jupiter-9.

You will find more reviews from readers of Radozhiva here.

Add a comment:

 

 

Comments: 56, on the topic: Pre-production MC RUBINAR 4,5 / 300 MACRO (LZOS, 2019), review by Rodion Eshmakov.

  • Oleg

    In the review, the word is very often used: EVIL, I don't even know where to find a practical application for this optics, some 70-300 will have both autofocus and real T stops will be better, which will allow not to bully the ISO. A few questions: how much will this subject cost and is it possible to adapt longer lenses for astrophotography for shooting or high ISO and long exposures make it unpromising

    • Oleg

      I will recover for shooting stars, in general, use it as a replacement for a telescope in astrophotography, does anyone have such experience?

      • Rodion

        Because of the low aperture ratio, mirror-lens schemes should be primarily considered as optics for visual observations - these are excellent traveling telescopes.
        On the other hand, the conditional 500 / 5.6 ~ 500/8 lens will obviously be better in aberrations (especially in CA), and good optics of the 500 / 5.6 class lens will cost colossally more. You can also use a bundle of Rubinar 1000/10 without a flat-field corrector with a full-frame mirrorless camera, which will make it ~ 750/8, devoid of chromatism - very tasty.
        Rubinar 300 / 4.5 is interesting for photography (if weight and dimensions are taken into account) and creative photography (especially without a flat-field corrector).

        • Oleg

          Yes, here 500 / 5.6 could be interesting as a golden mean, if you have the opportunity to review it. For 300mm many low-cost AF solutions, the only bonus is aberration

        • Dmitriy

          Rodion, what is a "traveling telescope" with a focal length of 300mm? This is just 7x magnification for binoculars / monoculars. At the same time, for this money, we can have quite modern German or Japanese binoculars of a good level. There will be wearing comfort, use without a camera and a high aperture ratio (pupil 5 mm). I'm not even talking about the convenience of focusing, light weight and generally binocularity in the case of binoculars.

          "What makes ~ 750/8 out of it." On a full-frame camera, there is not much sense in such magnifications. You understand that the larger the crop with a high pixel density, the more profitable it is for shooting the same Moon (and what else can you shoot with an EGF 750mm?).
          This article sorely lacks comparison shots with a conventional 300mm autofocus lens. Even with a modest, budget one. I am sure that it will resolve more than 12 megapixels and will be more convenient.

          • Rodion

            And what have you counted among the traveling telescopes of 300 mm? I didn't do that. Whether it's 500 / 5.6 ...
            The article contains a photo on the Tair-3A, which is an optically higher quality lens than the cheap 70-300 AF zooms.

            • Dmitriy

              ".. Due to the low aperture ratio, mirror-lens schemes should be primarily considered as optics for visual observations - these are excellent traveling telescopes."
              Here you did not specify, but the article is about MC RUBINAR 4,5 / 300.
              and also “The most interesting of them, the youngest in the Rubinar 300 / 4.5 line, showed quite good optical properties. He could very well be the coveted 'marching' super televik ”

              500 / 5.6 is already 12x. More important, but alas, not even a telescope. Those 20-60s usually. This corresponds more to the word "marching" and even more "telescope". Will budget binoculars at 10x (10x42, for example) be more convenient as a "traveling telescope"?

              Tair-3A. Year of development: 1953 - the middle of the last century!
              First, zooms are zooms, and Tair is a fix. Secondly, zooms are not cheap and also autofocus polls. Thirdly, what is the good optical performance at 12MP in the 42-63MP era?

              Those. still wondering what is the purpose of the old 300-500mm EVIL? who is their potential buyer? you write that you think 300mm promising.

              • tryamer

                For 450 $, fixed 300 / 4.5, without chromatic aberration, with good resolution, weight 700 grams,
                which will not break (nothing to break);
                versus 300 / 4.0L, apochromat, for $ 1000-1500, weighing 1200g, which will turn into a manual fix with a non-adjustable diaphragm when it breaks. Repair of old L-nuts, out of production, is a big problem. And an expensive pleasure.
                Therefore, I, as a lover of photography, who does not make money from photography, prefer Rubinar. Better yet, the one that is 500 / 5.6.
                But I won't buy it, because I already have a manual FD 300 / 2.8L :).

              • Rodion

                As if you haven't heard about interchangeable eyepieces, talking about fixed magnification. Or in 60s telescopes, is it equoplastic?)

      • Vladimir

        There was a little experience on ms mto 11 sa
        In addition to the fact that this pipe is dark kapets f10, there was also a jamb. If you shoot some kind of star, a small dot in the sky .. Then, when focusing, I got either its obscure, or in the form of a ring. And all because of this mirror. There they called something like this effect, I don't remember the name. But in general, not ice, as for me. Although telescopes with both f11 and f13, I generally go nuts

        • Rodion

          Telescopes are divided into visual and astrographs. The latter are designed for astrophotography and, as a rule, are quite fast, up to f / 4. Maksutovs with F / 11 were never intended for astrophotography.

    • Rodion

      It's like EVIL mirrorless cameras)

    • tryamer

      in my experience, at 300mm the 70-300 zoom has only one plus - autofocus. And then, in a limited time, during the day. in terms of resolution, chromatichm, luminosity - loses to Tair.
      Tair, in turn, is limited to use - on a sunny day, and only what is on a dark background. a bird sitting on a branch will work well only on a cloudy day.
      The apochromats available are only very dark. I had to constantly find a compromise, between Tair with f / 4.5, and Apo-Germinard f / 9.
      Mirror lenses have the main drawback, for my taste - too large diameter of the focusing ring. True, I used only MTO 100cm. and it was more convenient to focus by grasping the edge of the hood. By the way, to get 100cm, you need to hang so many converters on an ordinary lens objective that MTO will win in both aperture and resolution. But that's another story:)

      • Rodion

        300 / 4.5 and 500/8 in terms of the diameter of the norms, but 500 / 5.6 is still a bomb.

  • Oleg

    I don’t know it would be better if they looked towards 7artisan 35 / 1.4. All these attempts to revive Helios, Jupiter and Evil are doomed, it is necessary to release a line of high-aperture fixes as the Chinese do.

    • Rodion

      They cannot compete with the Chinese in the field of cheap mass high-aperture fixes in any way, but to create a line of really interesting and, most importantly, NEW (and not taken from the USSR archives) lenses as a whole would clearly not be superfluous. In this regard, I have been communicating with representatives of the plant recently.

      • Lynx

        who is interesting then? multiple reviewers of old fixes?

    • tryamer

      So the Chinese also have mirrored lenses in stock.

      • Rodion

        True, all their products are noticeably inferior to rubies in terms of parameters.

  • Vladimir

    This drawback could be corrected by using expensive crystal glass (sitall) as the material for the main mirror. The negative influence of the ambient temperature on the image quality is structurally reduced due to the use of a body milled from a solid blank: such parts have less stresses and are more isotropic in their mechanical properties than parts made of a pipe.

    Sitall will not help radically improve the situation with resizing. As is the use of a solid milled (ha ha ha three times) body.

    I wrote a post about converting this lens into a truly dimensionally stable design.
    https://lazy-flyer.livejournal.com/893767.html

    • Rodion

      Thank! A very interesting observation.

  • Ry

    Donut hole for you, not bokeh!
    ...
    But seriously, then:
    The designers have tried! The style, although it copies the Leuko / Chinese fashion design, does not cause rejection, even nice.
    The technologists, judging by the anti-reflective films and the milled body, also tried their best.

    But marketers and decision makers were clearly mistaken both with the positioning of the lenses and with the promotion:
    Half an hour for the thermal stabilization of a telephoto camera only 300 mm? And this is a "type of travel lens" ??
    Who needs a comparison with the ancient and murky tahir? Who shoots them at all? Here is a comparison with the excellent Nikon full-frame 70-300vr (for 15 thousand on the secondary) would be helpful. Or their analogue from Sony / Fuji / Canon.
    Next:
    I love DSLRs, but the trend of the year is bzk. And crop and ff. Everyone is looking for glass under the bzk. Why produce mirrored glass in 2021?
    Now about positioning.
    Televisions, excellent, with corrected everything, everything is now more than available. At the same time - telephoto zoom up to 300-400 ether.
    All of them are better than any meniscus suitable for reporting, portrait and simply any practical shooting, they are zooms!
    But astro-photo-fix and an inexpensive fix for birds - has its own niche, provided the focal point is from 500 and above, it seems to me.
    Astrophotographers and wildlife enthusiasts alike are ready to wait for thermal stabilization and will be delighted with an inexpensive and lightweight telephoto.
    Especially under nikon z, sony and canons. And fujists can pull themselves up on SF

    And as a "fix for 300 for everyday filming" and the usual telephoto, few people need it. Not to mention the new one, with a taxicab and all other restrictions

    • Rodion

      You will probably be very surprised if you read comparisons on mflenses, deep-life and other sites of this very Tair-3 (or even Tair-33) with budget 70-300 class zooms.

      • Lynx

        I will not be surprised. Filmed at both 3 and 33 on the sphere.
        But I don't see any informational content in this. Tairami is filmed “for fun”. And 70-300Vr - on the case and even a good level of reporting.
        The main thing is not to confuse the ancient cheap 70-300 and 70-300vr or Fujik's 55-300.

  • Michael

    Arkady, typos:
    "This is the properties of the lens"
    "Which is related to necessity"
    "There is no less"

    • Trueash

      Mikhail, you also have typos: not “Arkady”, but “Rodion”: D

      • Michael

        Corrects the administrator, so everything is correct)

    • Arkady Shapoval

      Fixed

      • Dmitriy

        It's a pity that we never heard the "head of the transport department" :) (c)

  • Anonymous

    “On the Fuji G system, the Rubinar 300 / 4.5 turns into“ 234 / 3.5 ”” Some magic, not physical parameters. And this childhood sore is like chickenpox ... What, and the diaphragm has increased due to the size of the matrix ?! Seriously?

    • Rodion

      What about 1.1 for Kamlan?

  • Sergei

    In vain did Rodion decide to remove the field corrector during these tests.
    It was fundamentally important for LZOS to show the good performance of this lens as it is (without modifications and improvements).
    Improving the optical properties of a subject for a crop or medium-format Fuji using this technique is already a topic for further testing.

    • Rodion

      Why - by buying 300 / 4.5 we get free ff bzk 230 / 3.5. And this is already a tasty, albeit rather long, portrait. Not bad.

  • B. R. P.

    You spun the factory outright on the lens. Malattsy!

  • Leonid

    Why did you decide that “The resolution of the lens is quite enough for a 12MP full-frame Sony A7s sensor, but not enough for working with an 18MP APS-C sensor (equivalent to 46MP full-frame in pixel density) Canon 600D”?

    • Rodion

      Probably because I had the opportunity to see 100% of the cropped images from both cameras? I would like the best for the 600D, especially when it comes to working at distances close to MDF. But the 600D matrix of manual 300s was really well resolved only by the Sonnar 4/300 (zebra), which can compete with modern 4/XNUMX in terms of the level of aberrations.

      • Leonid

        It goes without saying to compare and see 100% crop, but it seems to me that on the basis of this it is not entirely correct to assert that the resolution of the lens is sufficient in one case and not in the other, in relation to cameras. We need measurements and quantification. For example, Sony a7s has a matrix resolution of 45 lines / mm, which is the ultimate for a camera + lens system and other lenses with better characteristics cannot change this. But, if the same lens is rearranged to a camera with a higher resolution Canon 600D, this resolution camera + lens can turn out to be 90 lines / mm. Passport values ​​of photographic resolution Tair 300 / 4,5 and Rubinar 300 / 4,5 in the center 45-50 lines / mm - this is a very good resolution and if you measure not in the world, but according to Rayleigh on Canon 600D, the resolution may turn out to be close to the limiting resolution cameras.

        • Rodion

          What are you talking about? I shot them for 600d and said - not enough!

          • Victor

            The thing is that Rodion is most likely a practitioner, and his opponent is a theorist, so it can be difficult to achieve complete mutual understanding :)

            • Rodion

              Yes, I am also familiar with theory enough to understand what Leonidas means. Only Leonidas seems to be juggling these numbers out of place now. If you really want to talk about this topic - we need the Rubinar Cheka for the central region - all questions will disappear by themselves.
              A qualitative comparison of the type of MTF for lens and SL lenses predicts not very good performance with a small pixel - problems of high frequency transmission. This is confirmed by observations.

          • Leonid

            About the real resolution of the tested lens. For example, a German also tested a 300mm telephoto lens, including your Sonnar 300 Zebra 1: 4.0, but how ?! https://zeissikonveb.de/start/objektive/objektivtests.html
            I am skeptical about statements like the lens resolution is not enough for some kind of matrix. Look at the German, so in general the resolution of the camera is 276 lines / mm and nothing, the “zebra” does not bother, it gives an excellent picture.
            Here is a link to the Rayleigh criterion, pay attention, where we are talking about the resolution of the eye, if you replace the lens with a lens, and the retina with a matrix, you get what I'm talking about. https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D0%A0%D1%8D%D0%BB%D0%B5%D1%8F

            • Nicholas

              The real resolution of the lens-receiver system is the intersection of the MTF curve of the lens and the Threshold Contrast Function of the receiver, and this is for an object with high contrast, for real objects it will be worse. In camera matrices, the limiting resolution is 50-100 lines / mm, and the Rayleigh criterion on the open one is usually much higher, therefore the contrast is important for photography, which the lens can transmit at spatial frequencies corresponding to the capabilities of the matrix. High visual resolution is critical first of all when using a lens for astronomical observations, for a photo it is also not bad, but not so important.

              • Leonid

                At the present time, camera matrices have a limiting resolution reaching almost 400 lines / mm. APS-C up to 120 l / mm, FF cameras are still lagging behind. Otherwise, I agree.

            • Rodion

              I explained to you that because of the CE, Rubik has a clumsy MTF with a drop in contrast in high frequencies. This says that it will not work very well with dense matrices.

              • Leonid

                I know about this, besides, because of this element, she also has a characteristic bokeh in the form of bagels and rings.

              • Rodion

                Why are you arguing then?

        • Nicholas

          Explain what you mean by mentioning Relley? According to the Rayleigh criterion, the resolution at a relative aperture of 1 / 4,5 should be 330 L / mm.

          • Leonid

            It is true, but with an aperture of 8, 586 lines / mm and in conjunction with a Canon 600D with a resolution of 90 lines / mm, we get by the Kotz formula: N = (586 * 90) / (586 + 90) = 78 lines / mm. It remains to check this result with a pencil ruler in place of the world by placing the camera at a distance equal to the camera resolution multiplied by the focal length of the lens, we find the distance at which the millimeter divisions are still distinguishable and divide by the focal length, we get the photographic resolution of a particular camera with a particular lens.

  • Vadim

    Of course it's glad that LZOS is alive and moving. But it would be a good idea to do some market research before starting production. 500mm and more, will be in demand, by the distribution of the bzk, where there is a pick, LP, and you can shoot a stub on the matrix. But for 300mm, the demand will still be very doubtful. Really, if only on Fuji under-SF. In short, you should think carefully about whether to tinker with 300mm, or focus on 500 or more. Too many options af 300mm, and only manual junk with much better characteristics of the sea. Tokina released a new "evil" 400mm, they probably also understand that 400 is already sharply fewer options

  • Yuriy75

    Another useless glass

  • Rodion

    Today a new Rubinar 500/8 was presented for review. Then they will give 5.6. Review - will be!)

    • Andrei

      Give a refund?

      • Rodion

        Alas)

        • Andrei

          Zhlo (crossed out). Greedy.

  • Sergei

    The lens is used constantly in work, when it is necessary to photograph the elements of freight cars without going out on the track. Compact, lightweight, gives an image with very good detail. Used in tandem with Canon 5D. With him it is convenient to photograph portraits of people in a natural environment for them, without attracting attention to themselves.

  • Rodion

    In the official store LZOS Optics-Group Rubmnars fell in price. Now 300 / 4.5, for example, costs 27500 rubles, while Tokina 400/8 new costs 24000, Samyang 300 / 6.3 costs 18000. The difference is not so great, however. Meanwhile, the ruby ​​is lighter, covers the SF and is hardly worse than the indicated lenses ... Prices for LZOS products have dropped by 25%, and that is hardly the limit.

Add a comment

christening photographer price Photography for lovers

Copyright © Radojuva.com. Blog author - Photographer in Kiev Arkady Shapoval. 2009-2021

English-version of this article https://radojuva.com/en/2021/02/mc-rubinar-4-5-300-macro-lzos-2019-2020-2021/