Pre-production MC Rubinar 8/500 MACRO. Review from Rodion Eshmakov

Material according to MC RUBINAR 8 / 500 MACRO specially for Radozhiva prepared Rodion Eshmakov (subscribe to Instagram!)

MC RUBINAR 8 / 500 MACRO

MC RUBINAR 8/500 MACRO. increase.

On December 30, representatives of the LZOS plant were 4 new mirrored lenses announced series "Rubinar". 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.

Review of the younger lens of the line, Rubinar 300 / 4.5, presented on the pages of Radozhiva here.

The hero of this article is the Rubinar 500/8 lens trial series (serial number - 000000), which is not the final version for mass production. The lens was provided by representatives of the LZOS plant specifically for writing a review for Radozhiva.

Specifications:

Optical design - a mirror-meniscus lens, a descendant of the Maksutov-Cassegrain design;

MC RUBINAR 8 / 500 MACRO

Optical design MC RUBINAR 8/500 MACRO

Focal length (FR) - 500 mm;
Geometric relative aperture (F-feet) - 1: 8;
Effective relative aperture (T-foot) - 1:11 (by this data);
Light transmission - 57%;
Angular field of view (for a frame 36 * 24 mm) - 5 °;
Minimum focusing distance - 2,2 meters (macro scale 1: 4);
Filters thread - М77 * 0.75 mm;
Dimensions - 102 * 82 mm (without covers);
Weight - 550 g (without covers);
Mounting to the camera - M42 thread;
Features - manual focus only, constant relative aperture.

Patent: SU 1458848 A1

design Features

Rubinar 500/8 in terms of its dimensions and weight turns out to be noticeably smaller than even its 300 mm counterpart. Thanks to the smaller body diameter, you can be sure about Rubinar's compatibility with crop DSLRs with flash beaks.

The design of the lens is no different from others in the line: it is a modern-looking aluminum barrel with a wide rubberized focusing ring. The bottom of the lens is ribbed to facilitate the lens exchange process. Rubinar 500/8 does not have a tripod socket on the body, which is apparently due to its low weight and short length.

"Zero" instance.

"Zero" instance.

The scope of delivery of the lens includes a box with an updated design, a carrying case, covers (rear screw and front with snaps) and a dark matte screwed glass hood. The hood was not supplied with the lens received for review.

Unlike the old MTO-500, ZM-5 and other similar lenses, the Rubinar 500/8 has a rather complicated optical scheme in comparison with the classic Maksutov-Cassegrain. The split meniscus allows for faster thermal stabilization of the lens and increases the number of correction parameters. The scheme, based on Maksutov's calculations (according to the plant representatives), made it possible to minimize the dimensions of the lens: it is almost 4 centimeters shorter than the compact ZM-5SA and 2 times lighter than the ZM-5A. At the same time, the designers managed to achieve a very small MDF - only 2.2 meters, and the dimensions of the lens during focusing change very slightly. The focusing of the lens is smooth, I have not experienced any problems with manual focusing.

Changing the size of the lens when focusing.

Changing the size of the lens when focusing.

However, due to the simple focusing mechanism, the Rubinar 500/8 has a rotating front part, which will not allow convenient work with polarizing filters.
In addition, in pursuit of compactness and in the fight against vignetting, a very controversial compromise solution was used in the lens design: the fact is that the secondary mirror hood ("carrot") does not completely protect the lens from flare. Thus, the scattered light tends to penetrate the camera sensor shaft, bypassing the focusing mirrors.

Light path in the Rubinar 500/8 lens.

Light path in the Rubinar 500/8 lens.

Naturally, this has negative consequences in bright backlighting - even on a full frame, highlights may appear at the corners of the frame. Due to the same feature, as well as the small area covered, the lens is not suitable for use with medium format cameras.

Rubinar 500/8 received renewed enlightenment. It, however, looks little different from that of the lenses of the Soviet production. One way or another, according to available data, it was led to the standard of light transmission and color rendering adopted in 2013.

Front meniscus and secondary mirror plug Rubinar 500/8.

Front meniscus and secondary mirror plug Rubinar 500/8.

Rubinar 500/8 uses a universal and well-proven camera mount - M42 * 1 thread. Owners of Nikon cameras, however, will not be able to use a lens with a lensless adapter at the entire temperature range of the environment - in the cold, the overshoot of infinity may not be enough.

In the rear part of the lens there is a lens field aberration corrector, which also works as teleconverter... It doesn't make a lot of sense to remove it: without it, the lens does not cover the full frame and can only work with APS-C mirrorless cameras through a thin adapter from the M42 to the desired system. For Rubinar 300 / 4.5 such a modification is more justified.

Shank with M42 thread and lens near-focal field corrector.

Shank with M42 thread and lens near-focal field corrector.

The Rubinar 500/8, in comparison with the old mirror-meniscus lenses, is very pleased with its dimensions and high-quality workmanship. The design, however, makes you worry about stray highlights. The possibility of operation of the lens on cameras with a matrix of 44 * 33 mm is also a cause for concern.

Optical properties

The lens is unreservedly sharp on the 12MP full-frame Sony A7s sensor and will hardly experience problems with slightly denser sensors. The image quality is noticeably higher than that of Rubinara 300 / 4.5: Higher sharpness, less vignetting and, oddly enough, better contrast, although there was no direct comparison. I would say that the sharpness of this lens is limited more by atmospheric refraction and matrix noise (it can only shoot without a tripod on a sunny day!) Than by its optical properties.

The lens, of course, does not tolerate backlight very well - there is a whitish veil, bar chart shrinks in the central area. For the most part, this should be corrected by a hood. Although I doubt that a full-time one would be enough. In addition, it is helical, uncomfortable to wear - all the charm of Rubinar's compactness is lost with it. When working with the lens, I didn't have any big problems with irreparable parasitic flares. Only sometimes it was possible to catch the light in such a way as to illuminate the corners of the frame.

Like all mirrored lenses, the Rubinar 500/8 has the typical donut bokeh. However, his bagels have a smaller hole in the center than those of Rubinara 300 / 4.5... The bokeh of the latter is more like rings, not bagels. The bokeh effect shows up well when focusing at medium and close distances, although a more or less uniform background can often be blurred quite watercolor.

Frankly, I was very skeptical about this lens, largely because of its extremely low aperture. His heavy and bulky older brother, Rubinar 500 / 5.6, looked much more attractive to me. However, after working with the Rubinar 500/8, I realized that this is the most pleasant super-telephoto lens I have ever had: it spares my back (!!!) and gives a very good image quality in sufficient lighting, which is definitely not inferior to achromatic lens lenses. class 500/8. Perhaps, on full-frame cameras, the Rubinar 500/8 looks even more interesting than 300/4.5.

Below are examples of photos taken with a full-frame Sony A7s.

conclusions

Very light, very compact, very dark, but high quality telephoto lens. 500 mm FR that fits in the palm of your hand, unusual and spectacular bokeh - this is the killer feature of the Rubinar 500/8 - the glorious successor to the famous Maksutov telephoto lenses. An excellent reason to test modern matrices at high ISO :)

You will find more reviews from readers of Radozhiva here... All Rodion reviews in one place here.

Add a comment:

 

 

Comments: 61, on the topic: Pre-production MC Rubinar 8/500 MACRO. Review from Rodion Eshmakov

  • Oleg

    Thanks. Quite good and Iso not outrageous, I think modern crops will do quite well, Kenon has superzoom with f11, so that is quite the case. And what is the expected price?

    • Rodion

      They have prices on the optics-group website. So far - it's expensive. Highly. But so far they have released only a trial batch. The more they release, the cheaper it will be.

      • TSerg

        Something on the site did not find a section with photographic lenses at all.
        It's interesting to know the price though. Pricing for Russian optics is a separate topic. Thanks for the review, Rodion. But I wouldn't buy it. Reanimation of old ideas is not the best way of development, although they say that everything new is well forgotten old. Russian consumer goods industry optical engineering has hopelessly lagged behind, even from the young Chinese. There are no new developments and will not be. Everything goes to the military commissar.

        • Rodion

          Here is their section: http://optics-group.ru/ru/21-fotoobektivy
          I would like to add that we, the majority of Radozhiva's readers, will not buy the vast majority of new lenses - the lot is the aftermarket and the budget segment. The main calculation of the manufacturer is the Western order, the market for freak lenses, the order of special companies (new rubies quickly found specific technical applications). Moscow was not built right away, because who knows - Maybe we will see something new and pleasant from LZOS.
          As for the new developments, China does not use them that much explicitly. But in the last century, a huge amount of what can only be realized today was calculated.

          • TSerg

            I would like LZOS to produce decent lenses not for the West and for freaks, but for its Russian photographer. And in the West, smart people also know how to count money. And much better than in the former soviet space.

  • Rodion

    How much will the 300/4 weigh with a converter and an adapter for the UPC? Well, I have a Zonnar 4/300. More than 2 kg. Honestly - I won't drag him anywhere “just like that”. Okay, modern ones will weigh about 1.5, but not exactly 500 g. Crop Fujinon also weighs almost 1.5 kg.
    Rubinar 500/8 - when you choose, put 85-135 mm with you to half a barrel, or don't waste time on trifles right away, but take a completely sane 500.
    If the 300 / 4.5 against the background of lens flares was some kind of compromise “with character”, then there are somehow not very many alternatives to the sharp and lightest 500 mm lens on the market. Well, there is samyang, like the tokin is still there. Samyang here on the site is available, the lens "from the owner of Polo D3000". Tokin 400/8 is far from super less than Rubinar, which has not yet really been produced. Will it be fundamentally better? From the photo - something does not look like.

  • Sergei

    The main competitor of the updated Rubinar 500 mm / 8 will be the earlier MS ZM-5SA of the same LZOS (but from the secondary market).
    They are very similar in size and compactness, although the Rubinar is slightly smaller and lighter.
    A tripod clamp is easily mounted on the ZM-5SA.
    But you have to buy a hood (there is no one in the kit).
    Rubinar has a very advanced MDF (2,2 m).
    The main trump card of the ZM-5SA is the price. On the secondary housing starts from 5000 rubles.
    I believe that the pictures from both lenses on a 12MP bold pixel (Sony A7s) will be very similar.

    • Rodion Eshmakov

      The main conkruential of the updated rubyar 500/8 will be the rubyar 500/8 old on the secondary - there are many of them and are inexpensive.
      The picture of ZM-5SA is unlikely to be similar to Rubinarovskaya. Still, the first is the classic Maksutov with all his shortcomings. Even according to the passport, there is a difference in resolution of 10 ("film") lines.
      I had a regular ZM-5A on the crop yet. Even if you look at the photo from it and from this lens without 100% crops, you can feel the difference, and it's not even micro-smears, but the banal spheres and vignetting.

      • Sergei

        Spherical aberration and vignetting are only important for the full frame.
        And most potential users will crop.
        And the conical hood ("carrot") could be deliberately cut by the manufacturer himself in order to avoid vignetting on MDF (2,2 m).

        • Rodion

          What? SfA is just the most relevant for a crop with a small pixel, if that. Carrots have little to do with vignetting on MDF - there the helicoid's travel is small.

  • Yuriy75

    MTO-1000 is our everything! Especially on the micro

  • Dmitriy

    Upload RAW, please, only by them you can judge the quality of the lens, and I think that it should be taken as a rule, again for the above reason.

  • Michael

    The obstinacy of the manufacturer in M42 * 1 is somewhat surprising ... Nikonists will understand what I was thinking ...

    • Rodion

      Yes, this is very incomprehensible - it cost them nothing to throw on 2.5-3 mm pieces for the lensless adapter.

  • Dima

    Look at the sharpness at 3.5MP resizes, it's certainly not at 640 * 480, but it still gives off a little "forums" from zero)).
    In general, even on such resizes, it is clear that the lens is not very sharp.
    And to be honest, I don't know why such a lens is needed. Why do we need non-sharp TV sets, why do we need manual TV sets. Why do we need telephoto lenses with a good level of light transmission? Some kind of nostalgic toy.

    • Dmitriy

      Lenses "class EVIL" are interesting only if they are "obtained" in the secondary market, where you get a long-focus compact lens for a small 3000-6000 money, with minimal chromatic aberrations, but not devoid of flaws, for such a price it is simply wonderful and you can close your eyes and on mediocre detailing and on “torn” bokeh and “bagels”, and on sensitivity to temperature differences, but LZOS marketers decided differently and now on the website MC RUBINAR 8/500 MACRO costs 36, this is the old version, according to the classic Maksutov scheme , they decided to continue this line by convincing them to make some adjustments to the optical scheme, while the engineers divided the front meniscus and made two refractive lenses out of it to reduce the size of the lens, plus the same lens field corrector, which will definitely entail an increase in the chromatism of the entire system and will deprive this lens of one of the most pleasant positive characteristics.
      That is why I would like to see RAW files.
      I'm not sure that the monitored lens will cost less than 36, like the old version, and therefore, I'm afraid that they will not be bought in any reasonable volume and will only interest a few “experimenters” and “looking” individuals with a surplus of material resources ...

      • Rodion

        When was the ruby ​​made according to the classic Maksutov scheme? When did splitting the meniscus into two components lead to an increase in CA? Or did the use of a near-focal field corrector result? Or Mangin's mirrors? Tell this to astronomers.
        This lens has no chromaticity from the word at all.
        Sensitivity to temperature changes is not significant enough to get in the way. The three hundred is well stabilized even at -20. Maybe Korean lenses are better?)
        Dmitry, frankly, it is a pity to see such unfair and poorly correlated with theory and practice judgments from you. Perhaps the question is worth exploring a little deeper.

        • Dmitriy

          Chromatic aberrations occur in the lens system precisely due to the use of lenses that refract light, they = because light waves of different frequencies are refracted to different degrees and as a result we have colored halos around bright contrasting objects, since the original "point" light source is not is assembled on the matrix to a point, and this is the reason for the large number of lenses in modern lenses, which are designed to compensate for this effect using the properties of various materials from which glass is made. Mirrors do not refract light, but reflect, and there is no such effect, because it is believed that there is no chromatism in EVIL, but this is not entirely true, because of the lens field corrector, which is in the system, it is, but very little expressed since the corrector the field is located at the very end of the scheme and due to the ancient method of compensation “crown - flint”. Therefore, adding at least one lens to the Evil mirror system leads to the appearance of this effect. By the way, it is because of this that Nikon's lens adapters affect the clarity of the image.
          It's very sad that you never heard the request for RAW files.

          • Rodion

            Dmitry, everything you say is true. But the truth is part of the truth.
            Tell us how the absolute value of aberration depends on the optical power of the element and the aperture. What is it for? And here.
            What is the key element of EVIL? Mirrors, and the main role in the formation of the image is played by the main mirror - that is why it is called that. It is free from CA, moreover, it has a maximum optical power. Next in strength is the secondary mirror, also free from CA. The rest of the elements of the scheme are “small corrections” to the aberration profile of the Cassegrain scheme, since they have a small aperture and optical power. To the same, they themselves are totally achromatized.
            The lens objective has the main refractive elements of glass, i.e. the aberration profile of the base elements already has a large CA contribution by default, if it is not a very good APO.
            Thus, for EZO, the contribution of the optically weak lens component to the aberration profile is “o-small” of, for example, the value of CfA for this scheme. And for an all-lens objective with the same parameters, the CA will be at the “O-large” level of the magnitude of other aberrations. Therefore, as long as EVIL is a “cassegrain with a full-aperture + near-focal corrector”, it will be free from HA when used with real matrices. Obviously, there are some HA by definition, but we will not be able to measure or see them.
            As soon as strongly refractive glass elements with an optical power and an aperture of the order of the force and aperture of the MS appear in the Evil scheme, we will lose the property of a good CA correction for the lens.

            • Dmitriy

              We take the facts and conduct an experiment:
              two lenses ZLO, old USSR bearing, unfortunately cloudy weather
              1st 500/8
              2st 500/6.3
              What is this purple little thing there? this is probably something that “we cannot measure, see”
              I am sure that if I take out the lens field corrector, then we really will not see this "violet", but removing it we will worsen the whole system and I do not want to do this yet.
              p / s, while processing, the “haze” was slightly removed and the contrast was increased.
              http://vfl.ru/fotos/53111da834047010.html
              http://vfl.ru/fotos/ace2c13b34047009.html

              • Rodion Eshmakov

                Yeah, now compare it to the 500/8 lens. Or even with some kind of APO thing) Then we'll talk. And the Maksutov-Cassegrain correction with a proofreader (are you talking about ZM-5A and ZM-6A?) And Rubinar's correction is hardly good to compare - Rubinar has two times more parameters. No wonder the resolution is noticeably higher. By the way, ZM-5A in my memory did not show chromatism even at 5x during visual observations. When shooting with these lenses, you should think more about the state of the atmosphere than about their negligible chromatism of their own. Believe me, it has much more impact.

              • Dmitriy

                I just wanted to express the opinion that adding another refractive lens to the optical scheme, which happened when the meniscus was divided, entails a mandatory deterioration in the lens characteristics, and it would be very nice to compare the old lens with the new one, under the same conditions.

              • Rodion Eshmakov

                I'm afraid this opinion is far from reality.

      • Dima

        My point is that when you buy a super televik, you are most likely going somewhere.
        Yes, you take 85 or even 135 to get the right angle of view or perspective - that's understandable. Even 70-200 are often used for staged portraits. But 400, 500, 600, 800 are more often than not. Perhaps there is some kind of purely creative use of a mirror-lens telephoto lens, such as shooting super-long portraits with bagels, I don't know, maybe ... But I would warn anyone who decides to look at this lens really as a telephoto camera, so that animals can be photographed there or something else. such. To “reach out”.
        Each of the things I have indicated in the previous message separately makes this glass meaningless, if you look at it from any practical side. Well, when they gather in a place, it's just rubbish.
        If you give a 500mm soap lens to some safarite, he will say “why do I need it? I have 300mm, which will give a better picture when cropped up to 500mm scale than this one ”.
        If you give the poultry house a telephoto camera with a full stop light transmission penalty, he will say “you know what, yes, we can sacrifice a little bit for the sake of depth of field, but we do it with a heavy heart, since we are already working at 6400 in dark forests. in order to be deprived of the degree of light for nothing - we do not like it at all ”.
        And about the relevance of a manual lens, in a world where cameras are able to track a sparrow's eye and give a cunning rate for this eye of about 90%, I generally keep quiet ...
        And you know what - no matter how cheap this stuff is. $ 100, $ 50, $ 10, they'll pay extra for it - it doesn't matter. Some 70-300 4-5.6 IS II will be much better and more convenient in practice. Yes, it costs 550 dollars. But it is not so expensive, and if it is dear to someone, then I still advise you to accept the fact that photography is not a cheap pleasure for telephoto, and this is kind of a threshold if you want to get beautiful pictures and a normal workflow. Better to accept this than, sorry, digging through the trash cans.

        • Rodion Eshmakov

          Feels like the main application of this lens is landscape and architecture from unusual angles. He has sufficient depth of field, acceptable sharpness. For hunting, definitely too dark and low contrast in difficult light. But for photography, it is much easier to use guns of the 500/4 type, where no one cares about weight and size.

  • Yuri Molchanov

    Thank you! A very interesting lens!

  • Sergei

    The Tokina SZX 400mm / 8 is a very interesting competitor for this Rubinar.
    It costs $ 250 on Amazon, which is much more affordable than LZOS products.
    Lighter, MDF 1,15 meters.
    The optical design is not as sophisticated as that of the Samyang 300mm / 6,3
    Interesting direct comparison by the picture.

    • Rodion

      As they say, give me a reference lens in hand, and I do not promise to turn the Earth, but I will compare the ruby ​​with it.
      Well, in general, according to the examples of photos from that tokina - all the same Evil contrast problems, strangeness of MTF and not the most razor sharpness. Although clearly not worse than Rubinar.

  • Alexander

    Thanks for the work done, I liked the review and the lens! It is also interesting to look at this version with aperture 5.6 in the future))

  • tryamer

    There is nothing wrong with a dark telephoto. I did not use EVIL for photography, but only because in search of a cheap apochromat, I took a different path: I took a dark projector. Apo-germinar 360/9, and it did pretty well with bird photography. But only from 9:00 to 17:00 (in summer), and not in the wilds. and it cost me three times less than the 75-300 f / 4-5.6 III, which I eventually bought too.
    which will go for portraits, but not for birds. And autofocus, too, does not always speed up the process.
    This I mean that to start, try photography, achieve good (albeit not stable) results, you can at low cost. and the telezoom for this is not the best, and not the cheapest solution.
    and at the expense of the price of the new Rubinar, there are some users who want a new one, and immediately. and not the old, from the hands, and still look.
    At the expense of too large MDF. By the time 300mm was not enough for me, the objects that can be approached at a distance of 3m were already over.
    At the expense of the ugly bokeh. if the subject fills 60-80% of the frame, the bokeh is no longer striking. And a portrait without a background is just one of the ways. All these bagels and rings: if you don't like it, shoot so that you can't see them, and that's all :)

    • Rodion

      Write a review on germinar?

  • Anatoly

    Just the other day I bought a 500 mm RF for the Minolta Md collection in perfect condition, the lens suddenly turned out to be sharp enough and contrasting enough for EVIL, much better than the ZM-5SA. But with similar parameters to the subject of the article, Minolta still cost three times cheaper =)

  • olimp.ru

    we have these lenses in stock

    https://olimp.ru/shop/sgroup72512/

  • Sergei

    Prices in Euro for new optics KMZ / LZOS / Shvabe on the website of the online store for the EU countries
    https://zenit.shop/

    • Arkady Shapoval

      2/35 under Sony E for 860 just right :)
      I've always advocated affordable optics for amateur photographers. This allows the general public to use a variety of lenses. This idea is now well developed by a Chinese manufacturer (examples: 7Artisans 35mm F / 1.4 and TTArtisan 35mm F / 1.4 DJ-OPTICAL for $ 400).

      Any Helios, Industars, Zenitars - it was a good help in the secondary market to get interesting light (and not so) fixes. The tradition could be continued. But apparently KMZ / Shvabe reoriented exclusively to the western market, where such price tags are acceptable. But these price tags are not acceptable for photographers from the countries of the former CIS.

      And who scrupulously chooses optics, instead of the same Zenitar 2/35 for Sony E, they will prefer the same modern Voigtlander Nokton Classic 35mm f / 1.4 II ($ 650) or Voigtlander Ultron 35mm f / 2 ($ 700) or the recently presented handsome Voigtlander Ultron Vintage Line 35mm f / 2 ($ 860 in one of three colors - feast for the eyes, a masterpiece!) Or, at worst, Voigtlander Nokton Classic 35mm f / 1.4 ($ 600). I would have preferred the Voigtlander Nokton 35mm f / 1.2 Aspherical SE (under the Sony E with microprocessor). Or something from the modern ZEISS C Biogon T * 35mm f / 2.8 ($ 900). That said, it will be 'Voigtlander' (even though it's Cosina) and ZEISS (with his super T *), not ZENIT ZENITAR. Of course, there will be a buyer for these products. I sincerely wish all the best KMZ / Schwabe and all a little regret that there will be no more available optics from him. We can only continue to be nostalgic, filming on some kind of Helios series of the 44th series.

      • Andrei

        I don't think it will be big in the West with such a horse price tag. A couple of surveyors and fso will buy.

  • Sergei

    The respected Canon company has started patenting optical circuits for its new EVIL.
    Probably with AF and stub.
    400mm / 3,6
    800mm / 5
    1200mm / 8
    2000mm / 15
    https://petapixel.com/2021/05/15/canon-might-be-planning-super-cheap-super-telephoto-lenses/

    • Rodion

      Well, we don't know about AF and stub yet, but since they have F / 11 AF telephoto lenses, AF is probably not a problem to make. There, nothing is a problem at all. In principle, it is good that leading manufacturers have finally begun to pay attention to EVIL.

      • Sergei

        In the new schemes, two points are fundamentally important:
        1. Refusal of the ligament of the secondary mirror with the anterior meniscus
        2. Metal spraying of the rear surface of the main mirror, which protects the metal from oxidation, but complicates optical correction.
        Canon apparently does not plan to use sitall for the manufacture of the main mirror, so the thermal stabilization of the new product is still debatable.

        • Rodion

          What's new in the first paragraph? Rubik's secondary is also not connected with the meniscus in any way. There is a separate mangin. Well, Mangin is the main one - this is, of course, such a decision ... It will force the lens to be more LENS, for a week to be mirrored.
          Thermal stabilization will be the same as everyone else. Sitall is opaque - do not make mangin out of it.

          • Sergei

            Even if sitall were transparent like optical glass, its use in a secondary mirror (mangen) would only slightly reduce the thermal stabilization time due to its small diameter.
            Another thing is the main mirror on large focal lengths (1200 and 2000 mm).
            LZOS is one of the few sitall manufacturers in the world, and there would be chances to sell at least semi-finished products to the Japanese.
            If not for the political moments, because of which such cooperation becomes a fantasy. Would snatch your share of small ...

            • Rodion

              A mangen mirror is not necessarily a secondary. Its meaning is that it is also a lens. Those. GZ, like Mangen, is a rejection of sitall at once.
              And IMHO, sitall not only does LZOS.

    • Sergei

      There is no auto focus in the text of the patent. It means that it cannot be in a serial lens either. Do you need stabilization when there is no autofocus when you can use high preset ISOs or a tripod? Probably not. But they must compete with LZOS and Chinese lenses, which means that a significant difference must be applied in the patent, and this is an image stabilizer.

  • Sergei

    Sitall from LZOS is becoming obsolete.
    There are two alternative mirror technologies with very low thermal stabilization requirements.
    This is Zerodur
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zerodur
    And ultra-low expansion glass:
    https://wikichi.ru/wiki/Ultra_low_expansion_glass
    The latter is transparent, therefore it gives more opportunities for optics designers.
    A mirror for the famous Hubble Space Telescope was made from it.
    I'm afraid that LZOS has nothing to shine ...

  • Sergei

    Judging by the LZOS company booklet, the last order for sitall mirrors for astronomers was made in 2008-2012.
    And silence ... There are no new orders.

  • Sergei

    The lens is used for work. The lens is comfortable, gives a high-quality picture on Canon 5D. The lens is used when photographing the nodes of railway cars on public tracks without going out on the track. In the near future I will try a lens with Canon r6, I wonder how it will behave on a camera with a stabilized matrix and high ISO. The lens is very compact and comfortable, it gives a very juicy, contrasting picture, but with the hood installed. Compared to the Rubinar 5.6 500, its photos are more contrasting and sharper, the lens itself is much smaller and lighter. Attached a fragment of the photo, tk. files can be added up to 2MB in size.

    • Andrei

      Wonderful picture.
      For such photos, the Canon R6 is a must.

      • Jury

        R5 will be even better :)

        • Andrei

          Do you think this wire on the left will turn out better for the R6? Well, I don't know, I have to try.

      • Rodion

        Laughter and laughter, but Rubinarv actually order offices for technical use, as far as I know. Including for the more serious.

        • Andrei

          Is that much more serious? A cable and a wire - only a rubyar paired with a Canon P6. Better than P5, of course, but this is at the discretion of the customer.

  • Andrei

    I inherited it from my mother (I was a professional photographer) But the problem is that there is no small lens. In the rear part of the lens, there is a field aberration corrector. What to do where to get it? I was very interested in this lens. Is there also a CFNON 400 D / Is it possible to tie this lens with it?

    • Rodion

      If you are in Moscow, somewhere I had a proofreader from MTO-500. Not ideally, not Rubinar's, but you can try.

      • Andrei

        St. Petersburg. Delivery is possible, if not a burden. What will I be obliged to do other than delivery of course?

    • Andrei

      Well, here is the answer from the manufacturer. ☹️

      • Rodion

        I'll clarify myself, wait a while)

        • Andrei

          I'm not in a hurry. I am slowly dismantling the boxes with cameras, studying what I can apply to CANON 400 D. It's a pity that a lot of lenses were lost.
          It would be great, of course, to give the Rubicon a second life. Very interesting to me.

          • Rodion

            Yes, the letter says it is, except for the lens alignment issue. The design was really changed.
            In general, I don't need anything for that lens, write me somewhere about it, write me the landing diameter for this lens in ruby ​​- my MB won't fit.

            • Andrei

              I wrote to you on Instagram. Thank you very much for not staying indifferent !!!

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/2021/04/mc-rubinar-8-500-macro-year-2021/comment-page-1/