"Russia is the homeland of elephants" or how KMZ made new lenses for professionals. Article from the reader Radozhiva

Note 'Russia is the homeland of elephants or how KMZ made new lenses for professionals' prepared Rodion Eshmakov (subscribe to Instagram!)

The prices for optics in the official zenit.photo store have already been seen by everyone who is interested, and you can discuss it here

The prices for optics in the official zenit.photo store have already been seen by everyone who is interested, and can be discussed here. Enlarge Image.


Summer 2020 years appeared information on the release of a new line of optics for modern SLR and mirrorless cameras by Krasnogorsk Mechanical Plant. In December, another lens was announced - Zenitar 50 / 1.5. And now, in the spring of 2021, all of the listed lenses, as well as those previously produced, have become available in the official online store. zenit.photo at rather immodest prices not only for the CIS market, but also for the world as a whole. Many of these lenses are significantly more expensive than some of their more advanced counterparts. A reasonable question: what is “under the hood” of the new optics of KMZ? Read the answers, guesses, and considerations in this very long, emotional, non-academic article.

List of lenses produced by KMZ at the time of 02.05.21/XNUMX/XNUMX:

number Name* FR, mm Aperture Weight, gram Diameter, mm Mount
1 Zenitar 3,5 / 8 8 F / 3.5 690 89 Canon EF, Nikon F
2 MS Zenitar 2,8 / 16 16 F / 2.8 350 60 M42, Canon EF, Nikon F
3 Zenitar 2 / 35 35 F / 2 300 61.5 Sony FE
4 Zenitar 0,95 / 50 E 50 F / 0.95 1200 85.5 Sony FE
5 Zenitar 1,2 / 50s 50 F / 1.2 690 74.5 Canon EF, Nikon F (APS-C)
6 Zenitar 1,5 / 50 50 F / 1.5 287 61.5 Sony FE
7 Selena 1,9 / 58 58 F / 1.9 450 73 Canon EF, Nikon F
8 Zenitar 2,8 / 60 Macro 60 F / 2.8 590 76 Canon EF, Nikon F
9 MS Zenitar 1,4 / 85 85 F / 1.4 580 78 Canon EF, Nikon F
10 Helios-40-2 1,5/85 85 F / 1.5 820 82 M42, Canon EF, Nikon F

* KMZ names the parameters of optics in the German tradition, in the text I use more loose designations.

At the end of April, a photo exhibition was held in Moscow, where everyone could see and even touch KMZ's fresh optics (buy a ticket there). I was able to visit her and find out some details concerning both the technical component of the new lenses and the peculiarities of their positioning on the market.

So, we have in front of us exactly ten lenses (I do not include the Zenitar 35/1 in the list, since it is not available for sale as a separate product), covering the focal length range from 8 to 85 mm, which is a fairly rich assortment.

What does dry data say?

1 fact... Currently, the line of KMZ lenses is focused primarily on users of digital SLR cameras (DSLR).

Only 3 out of 10 lenses are designed for mirrorless cameras (MCPs). This does not coincide with the global tendency to reduce the production of CPMs and optics for them, which may indicate the development cycle lagging behind the market needs. Naturally, SLR lenses work just fine on mirrorless cameras, but they are usually much larger and heavier than their counterparts with a short back cut.

2 fact... At KMZ they don't know about universal optics mounts.

It is difficult to blame the manufacturer for the lack of Sony and Pentax optics in the range of CZK, which are not popular. Plus, some of the lenses come with a fairly versatile M42 thread.

However, this does not apply to optics for the UPC: although the rapidly developing systems Fujifilm GFX (G), Nikon Z, Leica L (here also Panasonic L, Sigma L), Canon R, Canon M, FujiFilm X have been presented for a long time - KMZ optics (only 3 lens) is designed for Sone FE mount only (I add the letter F to emphasize that the optics are designed for full frame cameras), which is not compatible with other systems.

How did the Chinese manufacturers of manual optics for the UPC come out of the situation? - They use Leica M mountcompatible via adapters with all modern systems. You can also remember, at worst, about the existence of the old, inconvenient, but very versatile M39 LTM mount.

3 fact... At KMZ, when calculating optics, they do not really take into account the dimensions and weight of the final product.

So, probably, in Russia, the largest 8 mm fisheye is produced with weight and dimensions, as in a 300 mm lens. Rubinar 300 / 4.5 - "Soviet microcomputers are the largest in the world!" Korean counterpart, Samyang 8 / 3.5, one and a half times lighter and 1,5 cm smaller in diameter.

The giant Zenitar 50 / 0.95 has also become a talk of the town: its weight (1,2 kg) is only 140 g less than the weight of the long-focus lens for the Tair-3FS 300 / 4.5 photographic gun! It uses the same filter diameter as the aforementioned Tair (72 mm). For comparison: Mitakon 50 / 0.95 III, available for all modern full-frame UPCs has almost half the mass.

Much the same can be said about the lens for APS-C SLR cameras (endangered species!) Zenitar 50 / 1.2s, which is twice as heavy and even larger similar old lenses.

Helios-40-2 weighs as much as 820 grams! It is clear that the lens itself is extremely cumbersome. However, its technical version "Cyclops" has a mass of "only" 450 g, which is almost half the weight. The mechanism of the diaphragm itself does not weigh 370 g, you can believe it.

Apparently, the obscene dimensions are associated with the use of thick optical components, which allows you to do with fewer lenses. In the realities of underdeveloped and mediocrely equipped manual production, the development, manufacture and assembly of complex multi-lens circuits (hello Sigma) is not a trivial task. Thus, spending more glass, more metal, turns out to be easier and more economically profitable for the plant. It is also beneficial for private clinics, which will then treat herniated intervertebral discs with users of the new KMZ optics.

4 fact... A number of new lenses at KMZ seem to be based on old or very old designs. It is definitely not possible to say if the Zenitar 8 / 3.5 was a reimagining of the lens. Zodiac 10 with the same outstanding dimensions, but it is reliably known that Zenitar 2,8 / 16 is optically no different from similar lensWhich released 30 years ago.

In addition, it is not difficult to guess (however, representatives of KMZ do not hide it too much) that Zenitar 50 / 1.5 is a reworked Lomography New Jupiter-3 +, which, in turn, differs from the lens that has been mass-produced since 1952 only in enlightenment ( so what - there are still three groups of lenses!) and MDF (so what - the Chinese have an M39-NEX macrogelcoid with the required thickness!). Do I need to remind here that Jupiter 3 is a recalculation of the Sonnar 50 / 1.5 (L. Bertele) scheme from the mid-1930s?

The same can be said about the notorious "hit of sales", which began the history of manual hysteria in the post-Soviet space - Helios-40-2, which differs only in appearance and enlightenment from its Soviet counterpart.

Finally, the Zenitar 85 / 1.4 is based on the 1991 lens. MC Gelionar-1 85 / 1.4 (according to the KMZ engineers, some recalculation took place). Considering that the level of technology of the late 1980s in the USSR was 20 years behind the world, this product does not look innovative at all.

5 fact... Representatives of the KMZ plant believe that the provision of technical documentation for the lenses is not required to the consumer. What kind of documentation? First of all, this is an image of the basic optical scheme of the lens (this is what we used to call in jargon simply the optical scheme; indeed, the optical scheme includes the exact values ​​of all physical and geometric parameters of the lenses), these are graphs of frequency-contrast characteristics (MTF, MTF) of lenses ...

Without these data, the consumer buys a "pig in a poke", especially when it comes to lenses that are not copies of the old ones: it is not hard to guess how different quality can be calculated from a banal 85/2 lens. Even in the absence of MTF charts, it is almost always possible to determine what to expect from the sketch of the optical scheme. At the exhibition in the Zeiss pavilion, one could even find lenses literally cut in half, demonstrating the beauty, precision and conciseness of optical design. KMZ will not even give you a picture, considering that it only worries a bunch of fanatics.

In order to orient the consumer (and for the purpose of advertising), optics manufacturers often make special instructions for low-dispersion (ED, ULD, SLD, SED, etc.) or high-refractive (HR) elements, which no Russian manufacturer has done so far. Obviously, the same circuit can be implemented in completely different ways on the "old" and "new" glass (examples: Tessar 80 / 2.8 1939 and 1949, Industar-26m и Industar-61L), because the presence of such instructions really often plays an important role for the consumer.

In the palette of optical glass produced in the Russian Federation at the LZOS plant (the most relevant types of glass are marked in red), it is easy to find what can be called ED or HR glass.

Abbe diagram for glass produced in the Russian Federation at LZOS. Mass-produced glass grades are marked in red.

Abbe diagram for glass produced in the Russian Federation at LZOS. Mass-produced glass grades are marked in red.

6 fact... None of the KMZ lenses now belong to the budget price range: prices start at $ 250. While Chinese / Korean counterparts can cost 2-4 times cheaper with similar consumer properties. In the past, the prices of such lenses as Zenitar 50 / 1.2s and, in particular, Zenitar 16 / 2.8, were much more democratic and amounted to about $ 150.

It may also seem surprising that the cost (in Russia) of Zenitar 35/2 is almost ahead of the price of a high-end autofocus lens. Sigma 35 / 1.4, eg. In other words, the lenses are positioned in terms of price as premium solutions like the Canon L line, although both optically and structurally are hopelessly far from them.
Thus, the only possible consumer is a well-to-do Western lover of the Soviet legacy.

7 fact... According to the employees of the KMZ darketing department, all these lenses are intended for use by professionals (verbatim). I will leave this without comment.

Now that the general state of affairs is known, you can pay a little more attention to some of the lenses.

What's in the black box?

Unfortunately, I have not had the opportunity to do any on-camera tests of the new lenses. It is assumed that if the manufacturer is interested in having his optics tested and given feedback, he will provide the optics for study. However, this did not happen.

Zenitar 50 / 1.2s (patent RU 2592746 C1) is the only new CMZ lens I've actually shot for a long time. And now I continue to use it.

Photo Zenitar 50 / 1.2s from the lens page in the zenit.photo store.

Photo Zenitar 50 / 1.2s from the lens page in the zenit.photo store.

According to available data, the lens was calculated by order of the Lomographic Society, calculated from scratch. First, the lens made for Canon's APS-C cameras had an aspherical component, then it was simplified to reduce the cost of production and the letter "s" was added to the name - "spherical".

Optical design Zenitar 50 / 1.2s.

Optical design Zenitar 50 / 1.2s.

By design, the lens is a descendant of the Planar, the outlines of which are well traced in the optical scheme sketch. 8 lenses in 7 groups provide a fairly high degree of aberration correction at an angle of view of 32 °, therefore, even despite the sacrifices associated with increasing the rear focal length of the lens for use with a DSC, the optical quality of this Zenitar is high. For example, it is definitely better than all the old (from the 1970s - 1980s) lenses of the 50 / 1.2 or 50 / 1.4 class and is not inferior to similar Chinese lenses for mirrorless cameras, which are much easier to develop. For example, this lens is significantly sharper in the center of the frame than 7artisans 50 / 1.1.

The KMZ specialists responsible for information in the zenit.photo store, however, believe that the lens layout is 7 lenses in 8 groups.

The KMZ specialists responsible for information in the zenit.photo store, however, believe that the lens layout is 7 lenses in 8 groups.

They also found it difficult to agree on the number of aperture blades among themselves.

They also found it difficult to agree on the number of aperture blades among themselves.

Despite the fact that Zenitar 50 / 1.2s was designed in the 2010s for APS-C frame, it works without problems with APS-H format frame. Cropping a full frame to a 4: 3 aspect ratio is also a good idea, just like in the application narrow film lens.

But there is also a big fly in the ointment. The lens is available for both Canon and Nikon cameras. But, apparently, all lenses for the Nikon F mount due to its small diameter have a partially shielded rear lens, which is why the geometric aperture drops to f / 1.4. Many copies are broken about the fairness of the F / 1.2 indication on this lens for this reason. Canon's EF mount showed the same shutter speed and luminance when compared to 7artisans 50 / 1.1 at fully open apertures. The lens entrance pupil diameter is also F / 1.2.

Another problem with the lens is, as noted earlier, the large mass.

Thus, this lens can be attributed to the number of interesting ones: given the appropriate optical quality, the lens can be a very interesting solution for users of Canon SLR cameras. However, I like to use it on Sony's full-frame mirrorless camera too. However, this lens is rapidly running out of time with APS-C DSLRs.

Helios-40-2 in the new design can be obtained with Canon EF (-C) or Nikon F (-N) mount, version with M42 thread has a traditional "Soviet" body.

Photo of Helios-40-2-N from the lens page in zenit.photo store.

Photo of Helios-40-2-N from the lens page in zenit.photo store.

In reality, apart from the finishing and coating of the optics, this product does not differ from the Soviet lens in any way. Although I have come across opinions that the versions with a bayonet mount are “twisted wrong,” I don’t believe in it. The consistent optical design is both a plus and a minus. Helios-40 is a lens of mediocre quality, but that's why it is loved.

Optical design of Helios-40.

Optical design of Helios-40.

Unfortunately, the lens hasn't been redesigned at all. Its layout has not changed since the 1950s. It uses all the same star-shaped aperture, because of which myths are formed that you can shoot with a lens only open (yes, really - I would not want such saws in bokeh either). By the way, this form was originally made for the purpose of linearizing the stroke of the diaphragm.

The lens is still heavy, albeit made lighter by the tripod foot.

Thus, there is nothing fundamentally new in this lens. There are no design improvements. Fortunately, there are also deteriorations. There should be benefits from multilayer enlightenment, but even it is not all equally useful (for example, MC Jupiter-9 frankly worse in color rendering than Jupiter 9 KMZ 1959). But this is still the same Helios-40, which cannot but please his admirers.

Exactly the same can be said about the lens. Zenitar 50 / 1.5, which is the dubious reincarnation of Jupiter-3.

Optical design of Jupiter-3.

Optical design of Jupiter-3.

The lens design evokes mixed emotions: it's a non-universal Sony E mount, it's a weird skirt at the bottom of the lens.

Render Zenitar 50 / 1.5 from the lens page in the zenit.photo store. The lens on the store page does not even have a photo of its appearance.

Render Zenitar 50 / 1.5 from the lens page in the zenit.photo store. The lens on the store page does not even have a photo of its appearance (UPDATE: new pictures appeared, with a soiled euro coin, no comments)

Lomography Jupiter-3 + under the archaic M39 thread looked much nicer, but ... it seems that everyone was too lazy to rework its design and it was decided to make a "blown" shank for the existing product.

Taking into account the cost of the new lens, it is 10 times more than the cost of Jupiter-3 in the secondary market and the same as that of the Carl Zeiss C Sonnar 50 / 1.5 ZM (2005 lens, calculated on the basis of the original Bertele lens), in the absence of any "Killer feature" - not a drop of meaning is visible in this lens.

Zenitar 16 / 2.8 in its consumer properties, it does not differ at all from the 1989 lens, except for its design. Perhaps the new enlightenment is a little better than the old one, or, perhaps, the Nikon F variant is nice. Otherwise, this is an ordinary ancient fisheye, although by no means the worst. KMZ is positioned as dust and moisture resistant, although the lens does not even have a rubber seal on the mount.

Photo of MC Zenitar 2,8 / 16 from the lens page in the zenit.photo store.

Photo of MC Zenitar 2,8 / 16 from the lens page in the zenit.photo store.

Before the price increase, it was like the most affordable ultra-wide-angle lens in the CIS, “people's fish-eye”.

Zenitar 85 / 1.4 Is one of the strangest lenses in the lineup. This is no longer fanned by legends "Big Gel", but not even Samyang 85 / 1.4, which has a modern optical design with an aspherical element and internal focusing.

Photo Zenitar 85 / 1.4 from the lens page in the zenit.photo store.

Photo Zenitar 85 / 1.4 from the lens page in the zenit.photo store.

Yes, it is definitely devoid of all the disadvantages of Helios-40, including weight, aperture design, and a number of optical features. He even looks very handsome. But it does not have any outstanding features - it is an ordinary 85 / 1.4 lens at the technological level of the 1970s with a rather unoriginal picture.

Optical design Zenitar 85 / 1.4.

Optical design Zenitar 85 / 1.4.

Such modest properties are caused by the use of an absolutely ordinary planar seven-lens scheme. This lens would have been good in the USSR, it was late with its release by 30-40 years. Good? Yes, it seems. Interesting? Not.

The same can be said about the "late" circular fish. Zenitar 8 / 3.5 (patent RU 2626298 C1).

Optical design Zenitar 8 / 3.5.

Optical design Zenitar 8 / 3.5.

Zenitar 50 / 0.95 is trying to compete with both eminent brands and Chinese manufacturers in the niche of especially fast lenses.

Photo Zenitar 50 / 0.95 from the lens page in the zenit.photo store.

Photo Zenitar 50 / 0.95 from the lens page in the zenit.photo store.

This lens is the most bulky among its counterparts, with only 9 lenses in 8 groups. As noted earlier, this is a consequence of the absence of aspherical elements in the scheme (Leica Noctilux 50 / 0.95 has only 8 lenses, but 2 of them are aspherical) and the ability to assemble optics with more complex schemes.

The concept image of the lens is unpublished. However, an analysis can be performed using two of the 50 / 0.95 design types known for full-frame (lenses with a smaller field of view!)

1. Type "Noctilux Asph" - the ancestor of the Planars with a negative anterior component, which evolved into a complex "afocal wide-angle attachment". The brightest representative is Zeiss Otus 55 / 1.4.

Optical design Noctilux 50 / 0.95 Asph.

Optical design Noctilux 50 / 0.95 Asph.

2. Type "Mitakon" - development of the "Herzberger lens", Planar with a collecting system of lenses in the rear ("speed booster"). The scheme is especially popular with Chinese manufacturers, in particular 7artisans / TTArtisan / Laowa.

Optical design Mitakon 50 / 0.95.

Optical design Mitakon 50 / 0.95.

Now let's compare both schemes and the result of their work with the appearance of the Zenitar 50 / 0.95 lens and with the result of its work. Note:

  1. Zenitar has a smaller number of elements in comparison with Mitakon in the absence (at least, their presence is not declared) of special elements in the optical scheme - aspherical or low dispersion. This casts doubt on the possibility of calculating a lens with a sane optical quality according to the Mitakon scheme.
  2. Zenitar has a relatively small rear lens group, which is unlike the Mitakon design. The existing Mitakon counterpart from TTArtisan has a larger number of elements with a smaller rear lens, incl. special (including 1 aspherical).
  3. Zenitar's image clearly shows that the first lens is negative, like Noctilux. There is currently no 50mm Mitakon type lens with such a negative lens. But there is 35/0.95.
  4. KMZ has not mastered the mass production of products with aspherical lenses in the circuit. The larger number of optical elements in comparison with Noctilux can be explained precisely by the need to improve lens correction due to lens splitting.
  5. Zenitar has a similar Noctilux, but generally more pronounced aberration profile (a type of spherical aberration and coma correction).
  6. KMZ has recently collaborated with Leica and even released a Leica (a kind of Maybach with the VAZ emblem) turned into Zenit.

Based on the combination of factors, it is reasonable to believe that, most likely, Zenitar 50 / 0.95 was developed not without the participation of Leica (KMZ bought a license for the optical scheme?). Simply put, this is an adaptation of not the newest aspherical eight-lens lens to the realities of Russian production, where instead of one small aspherical lens, it is easier to produce and use a dozen huge conventional ones. But in fact, it is not simpler - multi-lens circuits, too, have not yet been assembled.

In fact, this is what raises interest in the lens. It is definitely far from ideal optically, it is definitely too heavy, but at least it differs greatly from its Chinese counterparts in the picture (here it is really closer to the original Noctilux), which makes it stand out. Moreover, Zenitar is many times cheaper than aspherical Noctilux 50 / 0.95. Another plus is that the Russian manufacturer has not yet adopted the Chinese aperture measurement system, when F / 0.95 in fact turns out to be F / 1.3 - I personally trust KMZ in this respect more than Mitakon or 7Artisans / TTArtisan.

Despite the massiveness of the body elements, Zenitar 50 / 0.95 has a large MDF for fifty dollars - as much as 0.7 meters with a "norm" of about 0.5 m. It is clear that at 0.95 no one will even shoot in a 1: 3 scale (MDF 30 cm), but for this the lens still has a diaphragm, and half a meter is quite a large-face portrait with a claim to artistry and compositional innovation :). There is no feeling more disgusting than when you rest against the composition of the frame in MDF. The travel of the lens focusing ring, moreover, is of the order of half a turn - I don't know how to focus with this at an open aperture.

By the way, about the diaphragm. Its design is another odd thing. They again made irregular petals. If this is done to linearize the travel of the ring, then why does a conventional photographic lens need it? This is more true for cine optics controlled by stepper motors in real time. Most likely, the laurels of Helios-40 do not give rest to designers.

In general, the product is quite interesting, with character, but made “not for people”.

UPDATE (08.05.21/XNUMX/XNUMX): Found patent RU2726264C1, containing the optical schematic diagram of the Zenitar E 50 / 0.95 lens.

Schematic diagram and MTF Zenitar 50 / 0.95

Schematic diagram and MTF Zenitar 50 / 0.95

Thus, the lens is still designed with an eye on Chinese samples and belongs to the "Mitacon" type. The patent paid a lot of attention to the manufacturability of the lens: the engineers abandoned glued components whenever possible, resorted to maximizing the radii of curvature of the lens surfaces (in the lens, 6 out of 9 lenses have a flat surface). Apparently, this is indeed a very compromise lens in terms of design, which must be as simple as possible to manufacture.

Zenitar 50 / 0.95, apparently, does not use any special types of glass: the patent contains a table showing that the lens contains neither low-dispersion (dispersion coefficient> ~ 70), nor high-refractive (refractive index> ~ 1.8) glasses.

Lens parameters and glass grades used in Zenitar 50 / 0.95

Lens parameters and glass grades used in Zenitar 50 / 0.95

Lens parameters and glass grades used in Zenitar 50 / 0.95

Lens parameters and glass grades used in Zenitar 50 / 0.95 (continued).

Therefore, it is rather impossible to attribute any additional designations to the optical elements.

Further, it is easy to see that Zenitar 50 / 0.95 has a front lens group somewhat different from the usual type of planar-like lenses, with a very massive rear one. Such a pronounced asymmetry of the design, as well as the use of a negative lens with a characteristic profile as a front lens, reminded me of the optical scheme technical lens of the special camera PUSK-16.

Comparison of optical schemes of Zenitar 50 / 0.95 and a PUSK-16 50 / 2.8 camera lens

Comparison of optical schemes of Zenitar 50 / 0.95 and a PUSK-16 50 / 2.8 camera lens

On the whole, this helps to a certain extent to understand the reason for the poor correction of Zenitar 50 / 0.95 field aberrations, as well as the high distortion (its sign, however, is the opposite of PUSK-16). Zenitar 50 / 0.95 has a design asymmetry that is too significant for a planar lens - this usually makes it difficult to correct distortion. Artificial limitation of the number of correction parameters due to the use of flat lenses and the introduction of a “booster” into the scheme (collects the image field into a small frame) also hardly contributes to the improvement of the field quality.

In general, miracles do not happen: designed to simplify assembly and reduce the cost of manufacturing components, a lens is not able to provide high image quality. The scope of Zenitar 50 / 0.95 is extremely limited by its mediocre optical quality and its substantial weight. But the lens It has remarkable bokeh, acceptable near-field behavior and fairness aperture - in this he can be much more interesting than his Chinese counterparts.

Zenitar 35 / 2which (as we would have liked!) was supposed to be a good everyday lens for mirrorless cameras is also shrouded in a veil of secrecy. On the store's website, only a render of the lens is available, not a photo. Sample photos are also not available. No documentation available.

Render Zenitar 35 / 2 from the lens page in the zenit.photo store. The lens on the store page does not even have a photo of its appearance.

Render Zenitar 35 / 2 from the lens page in the zenit.photo store. The lens on the store page does not even have a photo of its appearance.

All we know about this lens is that it was designed with 7 lenses in 5 groups and that it was originally "Lomography Mercury-2" (not related to the Summitar-like Mercury-2 20 / 2.5 ) for cameras with M39 mount.

Even the look of the old version of the lens speaks of a rather large back focal length. The same can be noted when considering the new Zenitar from the shank side. This immediately allows us to reject the "official version", which says that Zenitar 35/2 is a development of the lens Jupiter 12 - Biogon-like lenses have extremely short back focal lengths. Negative menisci, characteristic of later Biogon lenses (based on the Rusinov scheme), are also absent. Consequently, Zenitar 35/2 is built according to the classical planar-like optical scheme. However, there are two options here:

1. Type "50 / 1.4" - a scheme with a split rear component into 2 lenses, the most common among lenses of the 50 / 1.4 class of the 8th century. One of the well-known Soviet lenses built according to this scheme is the standard OKS35-1-XNUMX filming lens.

Optical design OKS8-35-1 35/2.

Optical design OKS8-35-1 35/2.

2. Type "Uran"- a rarer scheme traditionally used to create wide-angle lenses. The most modern known representative is Carl Zeiss Planar 35/2 (Contax G). In the USSR, large-format aerial photography optics and objectives for epidiascopes were manufactured according to this scheme. The Uranium 35/2 developed for the Leningrad camera did not go into production.

Optical design Carl Zeiss Planar 35/2. The front lens is on the left.

Optical design Carl Zeiss Planar 35/2. The front lens is on the left.

The optical schemes are very close and outwardly distinguishable little, at first glance. Especially when no one will let you climb inside the lens. In reality, there are a number of very important differences:

1. The diameter of the rear lens of Uranus lenses is usually greater than or equal to the diameter of the front lens. Lenses of the "50 / 1.4" type have a smaller rear lens group than the front.
2. The ratio of the back focal length and focal length for lenses with the "Uranus" scheme is in the region of 50-60%, and for lenses of the "50 / 1.4" type - 65-75%.

Zenitar 35/2 has a small rear lens, and its posterior segment is approximately 25-28 mm (70-80% of the focal length). Accordingly, the lens is designed on the basis of a very old and frankly "worn-out" optical scheme of the "50 / 1.4" type. An ancient evil has awakened!

A similar scheme has a lens for APS-C cameras. TTArtisan 35 / 1.4... Achieving an extra stop of luminosity or an extra stop of the angle of the field of view leads to approximately equivalent compromises in image quality when using this optical scheme.

In addition to the applied optical scheme, criticism is caused by a large MDF for a 35 mm lens - as much as 0.5 m.I can only recommend KMZ to honor traditions to the end, since we are talking about Jupiter-12, and make an MDF 1 meter at once. For comparison: very unusual in its properties 7artisans 35 / 1.2 has MDF of only 0.35 m.

The design and mounting to the camera have already been mentioned above.

Thus, for $ 900 (in the Russian Federation), the consumer is offered a lens made at the technology level of the mid-XNUMXth century. Even relatively inexpensive and not the most successful (in my opinion) 7artisans 35 / 2 may well be optically more interesting than the new Zenitar.

Thus, this lens cannot be called anything other than a failure. No high image quality, no unique features.

The lens left a slightly better impression Zenitar 2,8 / 60 Macro... Before us is a specialized macro lens capable of working at a 1: 1 scale without additional adapters. Optical design unknown, but includes 8 lenses in 7 groups.

Render Zenitar 60 / 2.8 Macro from the lens page in the zenit.photo store.

Render Zenitar 60 / 2.8 Macro from the lens page in the zenit.photo store.

As you know, in the USSR, only 1 specialized macro lens was mass-produced - it was Volna-9 50 / 2.8, which knew how to work at a scale of 1: 2 without macro rings. It is no secret that this lens itself is rather mediocre and in fact did not have significant advantages over the cheaper Industar-61LZ MS (macro scale 1: 3 without macro rings). It is also no secret that old macro lenses from Japanese or German manufacturers tend to perform well in macro, but are bad at long distances. All this suggests that Wave-9, apparently, was corrected to work at infinity and therefore had no real advantages in macro photography, and other lenses were corrected in the macro range. To overcome this limitation, manufacturers use floating lens systems, for example, Nikon calls it CRC - Close Range Correction.

The new KMZ lens uses precisely focusing due to floating elements. Strictly speaking, it is not entirely internal, but, nevertheless, it leads to a strong decrease in the required travel of the helicoid (for Zenitar it is ~ 45 mm versus the usually required ~ 75 mm) and, most likely, helps a lot with the correction of distortions at different scales shooting.

Such a scheme has never been used in any of the lenses produced in the USSR / RF. Of course, perhaps this is a truly original development, but, most likely, it was not without the influence of some famous lens. For example, Nikon Micro-Nikkor 60 / 2.8 D .

Optical design Nikon Micro-Nikkor 60 / 2.8 D.

Optical design Nikon Micro-Nikkor 60 / 2.8 D.

The new Zenitar also appears to use a planar-like design (even the number of lenses and groups are the same), and like the Nikkor mentioned, it has a floating element system with a fixed rear lens.

The rest can be noted for the pleasant design and good quality of finishing. Of the minuses - a six-blade diaphragm. What prevented to pour more - I do not know. But this diaphragm is electromagnetic, i.e. controlled from the camera. For the first time among Russian optics. Most likely, the control mechanism is licensed.

The lens seems to be good. But if it's inspired by the old Nikkor, why not just get a Nikkor?

The most interesting lens from the point of view of design and characteristics seemed to me Selena 58 / 1.9.

Render of Selena 58 / 1.9 from the lens page in the zenit.photo store.

Render of Selena 58 / 1.9 from the lens page in the zenit.photo store.

This lens is based on the Lomography New Petzval 58 / 1.9 (2015) design, which was produced in a XNUMXth century body. By itself, this scheme is indeed a "inverted" (to increase the back focal length) classic Petzval lens.

Sectional Lomography New Petzval 58 / 1.9.

Sectional Lomography New Petzval 58 / 1.9.

The new Petzval is now made in the usual modern case, but at the same time it has retained the main feature of its predecessor - the ability to control the aberration profile to change the bokeh structure. In a lens, this is achieved by moving the first lens relative to the rest, which leads to a sharp increase in vignetting and field aberrations. Visually, this looks like an enhancement of the swirling bokeh effect. Changing the blur mode is done simply by rotating a special ring on the lens barrel.

The design flaws are a large MDF (0.8 m) and (for some reason) 8 aperture blades for the Nikon F version, while a Canon mount lens has 12 aperture blades.

This lens is truly eye-catching due to its ingenious design and image flexibility. Moreover, it is not super complicated from the point of view of the optical scheme, but it serves as a really successful implementation of it.

Results

The currently proposed KMZ line of optics is mostly represented by either ordinary lenses that do not stand out among analogues (sometimes of better quality, convenient and cheap) lenses: these are Zenitars 8 / 3.5, 16 / 2.8, 35/2, 60 / 2.8, 85 / 1.4; or - in a pure form, reincarnations of old KMZ developments (Zenitar 16 / 2.8, Zenitar 50 / 1.5, Zenitar 85 / 1.4, Helios-40-2 85 / 1.5), most of which are quite available on the secondary market. Only 2 out of 10 lenses use any progressive solutions (bokeh control in Selena 58 / 1.9 and floating lens correction system in Zenitar 60 / 2.8 Macro). And, apparently, only 2 lenses are truly original developments of KMZ - and these are not such new Zenitar 50 / 1.2s and Selena 58 / 1.9. Both of these lenses appear to have been developed under a contract with the Lomographic Society. Leica's ears openly protrude from the "like Russian" Zenitar 50 / 0.95, although the creation of such a lens, even in the image and likeness of a well-known one, is still some kind of achievement. (Update: this lens is still an original development, albeit based on the experience of Chinese manufacturers).

The new KMZ lenses do not have a number of such important features for professional use as autofocus and aperture coupled to the camera (except Zenitar 60 / 2.8 Macro; principally for photographers) or support for focusing and aperture control (principally for filmmaking). Thus, they can at most be of interest to only a very, very limited circle of well-off material amateurs of Soviet-Russian optics, which the representatives of KMZ seem to be unaware of.

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

Add a comment: Arkady Shapoval

 

 

Comments: 190, on the topic: "Russia is the homeland of elephants" or how KMZ made new lenses for professionals. Article from the reader Radozhiva

  • Sergei

    The battle of KMZ / SHVABE began with the brand new Meyer Optic Gorlitz.
    The Germans woke up and announced the release of a new version of Biotar 75mm / 1,5 and 58mm / 2 (!?).
    https://photorumors.com/2021/08/06/meyer-optik-gorlitz-trioplan-35-ii-biotar-58-ii-and-biotar-75-ii-lenses-are-expected-in-q4-new-products-coming-next-year/#more-139831
    KMZ has a four month head start, probably the best price tag.
    But poor marketing and slowness.
    The Germans have the discipline and strength of the old brand.
    It will be fun…

  • StanislaVS

    Thank you for an interesting review. For the first time I saw the Zenitar 50 / 0.95 scheme. There is nothing left of the classics, either the program calculated the scheme according to the given parameters, or it is the result of creative frenzy ... This lens is one of the first I have, it is certainly more interesting in terms of the picture than the Mitakon 50 / 0.95III. It's definitely sharper in the center. In addition, the hemisphere of the depth of field is bent in different directions. The Zenitar 50 / 0.95 is the same as the Canon 50 / 1.0L, with the hemisphere forward. The lens is actually very interesting, especially when converting a frame to black and white. Many black and white pictures are even similar to BF. There are drawbacks, the main one in my opinion is mechanical vignetting in the very corners of the frame. However, this can be seen only on a white background, in ordinary shooting it is not striking.

  • StanislaVS

    I will add: looking at the optical scheme of Zenitar 50 / 0.95, several things draw attention to themselves. 1). Complete lack of logic in the design of the front (collecting) and rear (expanding) lens groups; 2) complete disregard for optical traditions when designing, in particular, the rear group after the optical center (diaphragm) is made larger than the front one. What for? 3) looking at the huge gluing in the back group immediately after the diaphragm, apart from the question why there is a feeling that the circuit was assembled from already mastered and accessible glasses. But really, why design a scheme from scratch, it is necessary to do the same with new molds for casting, new grinding machines for new surfaces, and so on. And then bam, they collected from what was, and it's ready. There are other oddities, but I will not say anything about them.

    • Rodion

      I'll tell you what. The circuit is designed in a logical way: from an inverted simplified Planar with additional. collecting lens system.
      A simplified planar is a conventional 6/4 lens with a strong asymmetry introduced. A typical example is planars with a reduced field of view or aperture ratio (five-lens biometars and veggies). If you turn over such a “simplified planar”, you can get, with certain tweaks, a lens with the ratio of the rear focal segment to the focal length> = 1 (example: OKS11-35-1 35/2, camera lens PUSK-16), you can also make retrofocus schemes ( example: Canon 24 / 2.8 STM). To the retrofocus inverted planar, you can also add a speed booster, which will increase the angle of the field of view and reduce the back section to “mirrorless”.

      Thus, in the Bogdankov scheme, an inverted planar is used, in which one of the lens groups is reduced and the posterior focal segment is greatly increased. Apparently, this is something like an 85 / 1.4 lens with a very large ZFO. Further, a collecting group of lenses was added to the objective, which increases the aperture and decreases the FR, “inscribing” the 85 / 1.4 field of the objective into a small format circle. Since in Russia there is still no tradition as developed as in China to openly lie about TX products, the zenith turned out to be vignetting, but f / 0.95.

      Further, it can be noted that in the Zenitar scheme there are few correction parameters, few glues and a lot of plane-parallel surfaces. You see, my uncle CARED about this factory so that it would be easier and cheaper for them to produce this lens. I am sure that if it were not for the increase in manufacturability, the lens would be much better. But it would also cost twice as much.

      Comments regarding “gathered from what was” is sheer nonsense, it just doesn't happen. You can take a lens and change the radii of curvature and distances in it, but this still means the presence of the already produced Zenitar 50 / 0.95. And it was not, exactly as there were no similar technical lenses. There were 50 / 1.2 and 35 / 1.0 on LZOS, but this is not at all the same.
      And as for your question 2, the ray tracing in the diagram answers them well.

  • StanislaVS

    I'll tell you what.
    Here no one is going to vilify KMZ and personally Mr. V. Bogdankov. Let them do at least something than nothing at all. Moreover, 50 / 0.95 turned out IMHO more interesting than the Chinese Mitakon 50 / 0.95III, I wrote about this above. As for the aperture ratio, yes, with the front glass diameter of the Chinese 41 mm, the lens they have is 50 / 1.2, and not 50 / 0.95. On the scale where F1.2 should be written, they wrote F0.95 and all business. From F2.0 onwards, their exposure pairs are more or less normal, comparable to other lenses.
    But let's talk about Zenitar 50 / 0.95, here's what caught my eye:
    1. In the front (collecting) group, lens 1 is at least slightly, but smaller in diameter than lenses 2 and 3. I have never seen such a solution anywhere, so the question naturally arose Why? Hence the thought arose: did they collect from what was?
    2. A biconvex lens 2 was placed in the front group, followed by a positive meniscus 3. And, to put it mildly, an unconventional solution. Usually 2 or 3 positive meniscus are placed, with the diameter of the first being larger than the subsequent ones. This should be logical, since this is a sibling group, the luminous flux should be compressed.
    3. If between lenses 1 and 2 there was a gluing, like the Geliars (although there were Geliars in this place and without glues), it would be clear that they were fighting aberrations by removing one glass-air surface. By the way, this was one of the first techniques in the development of optics. When the triplet was improved, for example, they stuck the gluing in the back - they got the Tessar, stuck in the front - they got the primotar. It is not clear here what role the plane-concave lens 1 plays, which is not glued to the lens 2. Apart from amplifying aberrations, this solution does nothing. About the obsessive thought "collected from what was" - I will not say anything.
    4. Group of lenses 4,5 and 6 - for me the most interesting place in the lens. You write that it is based on a simplified inverted planar. In fact, this is really HALF of the planar, and most likely the front part, which was turned over and put in this place. Perhaps this is the part of the "design" of the entire lens. Whatever you say about "impossible", I have the feeling that 4,5 and 6 were a ready-made solution.
    5. Group 7,8,9 - you will laugh, but this also looks like a ready-made solution. This is exactly HALF of any movie projector. They were produced both according to the planar scheme with gluing, and according to the scheme without gluing. This, by the way, would explain how lens 9 ended up in this place, since when designing a lens from scratch, such a decision looks very inappropriate. If you pull out two groups 4,5,6 and 7,8,9 from the lens and assemble them in the sequence 6,5,4… 9,8, 7 - you can get quite a working lens. I do such experiments on a regular basis, so I know what I'm talking about.
    That's it, I'm leaving, I'm not speaking on Zenitar 50 / 0.95 anymore, because I saw everything I wanted to see in the scheme (published here FOR THE FIRST TIME !!!). Thank you and good luck!

    • Rodion

      Well, your experiments and considerations for calculating real optics have nothing to do with it.
      From “ready-made solutions” it is not possible to make 50 / 0.95 of any acceptable quality. 7,8,9 is a typical booster scheme, in fact, this is the case in many Chinese lenses, and separately sold boosters are made in a similar way. The rest was commented on.

  • DM

    And I like their lenses. I have three of them Zenitar 85 1.4, Zenitar fish 16 2.8 and not long ago I took Selena for myself. 85 I am very pleased, I like her drawing, and the lens feels like a thing. Fishye was bought for pampering, but also an interesting lens. I haven't tasted selenium yet, but I think it will not be used very often, it is rather peculiar. Of course, the price tag for Selena is too high, but if the possibilities allow, then why not buy it.

    • Rodion

      85 seems to be not bad, but still it is just very outdated at the time of its creation. Selena they have one of the most interesting lenses.

  • StanislaVS

    I have Helios 40-2 USSR (2 pcs from the 70s), modern Helios 40-2S, Zenitar 85 / 1.4 and Zenitar 50 / 0.95.

    What have I to say:

    1). Both Helios 40-2 USSR from the 70s have the same optical quality, very good in my opinion. The only problem is that the CIATIM grease thickened, so one of the two greased it with Japanese silicone grease for optics with a slight damping effect. The glass is very interesting, courageous, there are no complaints. The second, in fact, therefore, grabbed out of greed, could not resist, since he was in a new state and for ridiculous money.
    2). The modern Zenitar 85 / 1.5C, aka Helios 40-2 bayonet, was bought during Fuji GFX's time for one simple reason: the diagonal of the 33x44 sensor is 55 mm, so the M42 mount (inner diameter 39mm) was not enough for it, vignette. The Canon EOS mount has an inner diameter of 48 mm, which is definitely better for the GFX. But another ambush came out, all modern bayonet Helios need to be checked “on the spot,” since in my experience they have a much higher quality spread than it was in the 70s. Well, and a plus, the mounts for Canon / Nikon they often dangle on the carcass. They sent me from the factory a paper signed by all those involved, from the director and ending with Aunt Dusya as a cleaner, that the “device” meets all standards and tolerances. Damn, I came to a friend, put on his carcass, if the bayonet dangles, then how to convince two adult sober men that he doesn’t dangle? And what is “bumpiness” on the bayonet with manual focusing and a very narrow grip - I hope there is no need to explain.
    3). Zenitar 85 / 1.4 is noticeably smaller and lighter than Helios 40-2, but it has no bokeh in it. In terms of optical properties, Helios 40-2 is sharper, even from the USSR, even the modern one. It is much better, one can say without a vignette, it covers the 33x44 sensor, which means that it has a larger coverage circle. I thought that this was his true purpose in this life, to shoot with GFX, until he bought Samyang 85 / 1.4 AS UMC (red stripe). It is both cheaper and sharper, and the coverage circle is much larger. In general, I don't even know what to do with Zenitar 85 / 1.4 now. Unless a new niche will open up for him. So far, I believe that this is a lens without a face and without charm. Although of course you can shoot.
    4). Zenitar 50 / 0.95. Oooh ... I liked this monster right away. Moreover, I noticed that if you correctly translate pictures from it into black and white, then you get the feeling of a medium or even large format. IMHO the lens is for BW. In the center with fair F0.95 it is sharper than the Mitakon 50 / 0.95III, although it takes on a more uniform resolution across the field. I have never seen such curvature of depth of field as in Zenitar 50 / 0.95. And this is super! In his open center it is quite sharp, about 20-25% of the frame diagonal, and then the depth of field is curved. In general, for lovers of everything unusual and courageous, and not for those who are looking for sharpness in the corners on a flat surface, the lens is just the right thing. But they need to be able to use it (like the Canon 50 / 1.0L). If you shoot in the open, then no further than a half-length portrait. On f1.4, one can stir up the growth one too. If you do not listen to various advanced bloggers who are always looking for sharpness in corners at infinity, then I highly recommend trying the lens!
    4). Selena 58 / 1.9. Judging by what I saw on the net, apart from the twist in the bokeh, which we can say the people are already boring, I did not see anything special in it. No 3D and even less the feeling of SF-BF. IMHO 50 / 0.95 is more interesting. If the price were lower, I would probably buy it for a trial, but for now we will wait ...

  • Sergei

    An interesting interview with A.N. Patsa.
    http://www.zenitcamera.com/rec/news.html
    Zenitar 50mm / 0,95 under E mount designed by respected V. Bogdankov was recognized as unsatisfactory by the enterprise itself. The optical design of this subject has been recalculated, significantly lightened, an aspherical element has been added. And now the plant is looking for a site on the side where this aspheric can be ordered. In the meantime, they are selling the remnants of the old version (at the same price!).

    • Rodion

      It's very funny that they stubbornly call Zenitar 35/2 a descendant of Jupiter-12, although these lenses have nothing in common, except for FR.

      • Sergei

        As the respected Webmaster (moderator of the KMZ memorial site) writes:
        ... If the new lens is designed in the "spirit" of the old one, with all the features of the drawing, but with some or other improvements, for example, a faster one, with a higher field resolution, then why not talk about similarity? You can even call it the same.
        Now there is a technical, computational ability to go from a lens drawing to a specific design of the circuit. This is exactly what was done in the new "Jupiter-12". The scheme is different, but the lens for the photographer is the same, only better ...

        • Rodion

          Complete nonsense, there is no such identity - this can be seen from the examples of the photo. And it is from the drawing that engineers can still proceed with very great difficulty, this task is one of the most difficult even today. The contradictory 7artisans 50 / 1.1 is an example of this.

        • Denis

          “The scheme is different, but the lens is ... the same, only better ...” I didn’t understand anything :)

  • R'RёS,R ° F "RёR№

    Arkady, isn't it time to delete articles with any mention of rush? I think that not only I am interested in one single question - how many more Russians have been added today to fertilize our black soil? And then with one hand you collect funds for the Armed Forces of Ukraine, and with the other - forgive the articles as if nothing had happened. Thanks to Rodion, but he is among the orcs, and one way or another - one of them. Now, if he helped to dispose of his fellow tribesmen in any way, that would be another matter. Now there are no semitones - either with us or against us.

    • Arkady Shapoval

      Do you propose to remove all articles by Rodian?

    • Alexander

      … changed shoes? … change layout

      • Oleg

        vytaly

  • mr.swar

    “As the respected Webmaster (moderator of the KMZ memorial site) writes:
    ... If the new lens is designed in the "spirit" of the old one, with all the features of the drawing, but with some or other improvements, for example, a faster one, with a higher field resolution, then why not talk about similarity? You can even call it the same.
    Now there is a technical, computational ability to go from the lens design to a specific design of the circuit. This is exactly what was done in the new "Jupiter-12". The scheme is different, but the lens, for the photographer, is the same, only better ... "

    I'll tell you more, you can stupidly copy old lenses without counting anything, only by making technological amendments, but you will face litigation. The USSR-Russia does not care about patents and litigation, Nikon and Pentax mounts smoothly migrated to cameras. The Hassel mount also migrated beautifully to the cameras.
    In a couple of evenings I can reengineer a simple lens, determine the brands of glasses and surfaces a little longer and move on to production.
    ________________________________________________________________________________________

    “Arkady, isn’t it time to delete articles with any mention of rush? I think that not only I am interested in one single question - how many more Russians have been added today to fertilize our black soil? And then with one hand you collect funds for the Armed Forces of Ukraine, and with the other - forgive the articles as if nothing had happened. Thanks to Rodion, but he is among the orcs, and one way or another - one of them. Now, if he helped to dispose of his fellow tribesmen in any way, it would be another matter. Now there are no halftones – either with us or against us”

    Let's turn to history. Since the late 40s, Japan has been actively developing its own cameras and lenses. R&D peaked in the late 50s-mid 60s. Japan is written on cameras and lenses. Cameras and optics are sold in the USA, the buyer is actively buying the goods, despite the multimillion-dollar losses in the Pacific Ocean. It's just business, nothing personal.
    There are several options for how to resolve the situation. The first option is to remove all the words associated with Russia, but leave the posts, adding Zhovto-Blakitni colors with the words No war!. The second option is to hide posts until Victory. The third option is decided by the owner of the resource.

    • B. R. P.

      Option one - you don't have to be a moron, regardless of nationality or passport.

  • Konstantin

    Hate article. With a primitive structure - a detailed presentation of some details, with absolutely unrelated conclusions, also based on the subjective nature of the assessments of aesthetic components. There is a clear sense of order.

    • Rodion Eshmakov

      And whose order, tell me?

      • Oleg

        Feel the cookies from the State Department 😀

    • B. R. P.

      Constructive criticism is yours.

  • Sergei

    Already the second KMZ online store abroad is closed and hung out the flag of Ukraine.
    At first it was a KMZ online store in the USA:
    https://zenit.store/
    Now a similar store in Germany
    https://zenit.shop/
    And the Russian official store KMZ/Shvabe has sharply increased prices in € and $ due to the strengthening of the ruble.
    https://www.zenit.photo/en/catalog/camera-lenses/

    • B. R. P.

      They are reaping the fruits of their own policies. (starts right now)

      • Sergei

        I'm afraid KMZ will have to curtail the production of civilian photographic lenses. They will not be bought in the West for political reasons, in Russia and China - for economic ones.

        • Andrei

          More Africa, Pvdenna America and Australia. Let's try it there.

    • Dmitry Kostin

      I was interested in the Selenium 1,9 / 58 Lens, but 3 things confused me:
      1) The price is the same as for 85 / 1.4D on the secondary
      2) Number of aperture blades: 8 (Nikon), 12 (Canon)
      3) In Nikon DSLRs, when installing a manual lens, with a focal length of 58mm, you could choose f / 2.0 (for example, like Helios), but I don’t remember f / 1.9. If f/1.9 can't be chosen, then set f/2.0 ?

      • Sergei

        Why overpay on the KMZ website?
        On ebay, the same lens made by KMZ for the Lomographic Society (only under a slightly different name) is half the price.
        https://www.ebay.com/itm/284880984752?hash=item42543adab0:g:FyIAAOSwqGRiwDDh

        • Rodion

          So do not order anything in the Russian Federation from eBay now.

        • Dmitry Kostin

          2 reasons:
          1) Does not ship to: Russian Federation | See delivery details
          Located in: London, UK
          2) It is impossible to pay on ebay with a Sber card

          • Rodion

            Well, wait, there will be a couple of interesting glasses from LZOS soon. They even promise reasonable prices.

          • Dmitry Kostin

            Thank you!

      • Arkady Shapoval

        f2 is also possible, it does not play a special role

  • Potapov

    fish eye 3.5/8 is now the only circular that can be bought new

  • Sergei

    On the platform of the online store KMZ / Shvabe, the collection of pre-orders for the Zenitar 75mm / 1,4 Helios edition for the Sony E mount has begun.
    Expensive however - 56400 rubles. 
    This optics, in terms of the nature of the torsion of the picture, is very similar to the well-known Helios-40, only it is more compact and better matches the cropped frame (in addition to the classic full frame).
    Probably, the plant does not want to release this subject in reserve when foreign markets are almost closed.

    • Arkady Shapoval

      It's easier to take a wonderful 7Artisans 75mm F / 1.25 (Leika M, there is an adapter for any mirrorless) for $ 500 and do not bathe with POST-Soviet crafts.

    • Rodion

      I tried the lens in their store, it turned out to be even worse than Helios-40 in sharpness. The picture is the same. Complete game, another failure of KMZ. It’s better to really take an artisan or a cheaper G-40.

  • Sergei

    Most likely, before the serial production of this Zenitar 75mm / 1,4, they simply will not get the required number of orders.
    In December 2017, also on the KMZ website, a pre-order for Zenitars 20mm / 2,8 and 28mm / 2,8 was announced at a rather high price. As a result, the number of orders received was small, and serial production was canceled.

  • Rodion

    Update on the reincarnation of G-40: TK6 glass in the GOI catalog is a “trick”, in reality it corresponds to TK14 glass from the LZOS / IPZ catalog. Further, for the G-40, flints are used by Chinese (analogues of TF LZOS) because of the best quality class (blistering, lack of strength ...).

  • Rodion Eshmakov

    Found a patent for Zenitar 35 / 1.0: https://new.fips.ru/registers-doc-view/fips_servlet?DB=RUPAT&DocNumber=0002771147&TypeFile=html

  • Sergei

    A review of the ZENITAR 60 mm / 2,8 MACRO for Canon SLRs has appeared with a large number of noted shortcomings and frank jambs.
    First of all - problems with electronic control of the diaphragm.
    https://youtu.be/RJGnTvYQv1M

  • Demyanov

    “SLR lenses work great on mirrorless cameras, but they are usually much larger and heavier than their short-back counterparts.”

    From the very beginning, the article is a lie, compare at your leisure lenses for Sony half-frame bzk and lenses for Nikon and Canon DSLRs - you will be surprised that Sony has them heavier. After such a blunder, I didn’t want to read any further corny.

    • Rodion

      Oh well, really?

      Sony FE 35 1.4 G - 524g, 96mm length + 18mm cut = 124 total system length
      Canon EF 35 1.4 II - 760 g, 106 mm + 44 cut = 150 mm total length

      FE 28/2 - 200g, 60mm + 18 piece = 78mm
      EF 28/1.8 USM - 310 g, 56 mm + 44 cut = 100 mm

      FE 50 1.8 - 186 g, 56 mm + 18 mm cut = 74 mm
      Nikkor 50 1.8g - 185g, 53mm + 46mm cut = 99mm

      Oh, and what happens? A bunch of DSLRs with some kind of fix is ​​always larger than mirrorless ones with a similar fix) At the same time, mirror glass weighs more, and in most cases it is worse in terms of MTF.

      FE 24-70 / 2.8 GM - 886 g, 136 mm + 18 cut = 154 mm
      EF 24-70 / 2.8 USM - 806 g, 113 mm + 44 cut = 157 mm, but check out the difference in the MTF graphs - you will be very surprised.

      My advice to you: “compare at your leisure…”)

    • Andrii

      “From the very beginning, lies in the article ...” (c)
      “After such a blunder, I didn’t want to read any further.” (C)
      Chergovy narosієts, which is not zdivuvav.

  • sylphidae

    I went to the light, hoping that the swindler from Radozhiva would offer not only graphics and a catchy title of the article, but also photos on these lenses. But no, apparently a reviewer from the representatives of the titular nation. )) Or from those who sympathize with them.
    Where is the money, Zin? ©
    Photos are needed. Portrait for the most part. We will evaluate lenses on them. And this dregs, under a loud name, shove it into .... In general, determine the place of this mess yourself.

  • Amateur photographer_

    I don’t understand the hype of Moscow optics.
    Vaughn doesn’t show anything special about herself - copies of German and Japanese optical schemes, no need to be clear about it. The polymer parts of the assets are the same as on the Radiansk optics, from the same material.
    Again, Moscow photo optics accounts for, perhaps, as much as 0,1% of the light market for photo assets.
    No sweetness, no sourness, no modern technologies – nothing.
    Why advertise here?
    As for me, during the war, there’s absolutely nothing to do.

    • Arkady Shapoval

      so this is anti-advertising

    • Rodion

      “I haven’t read it, but I condemn it”?

      • Amateur photographer_

        I respectfully read it, right?
        Anti-advertising can be done differently.
        Perhaps, in the simplest way – a long story about the enemy.

        P.S. More I know a lot about Radian optics. That was a long time ago, in the 1990s.
        There's a lot of chewing to be done. Particularly long-focus. Because enlightenment is more primitive.
        It used to be a Muscovite magazine “Photo&Video”, at the beginning of the 2000s. In this case, the same percentage of transmittance in 3 parts of the visible part of the spectrum was determined.
        The lenses were mainly of Japanese brands, and a few of the Radian ones. And it was clearly visible that it was like a Radyanska was chewing.

        How is the situation now?
        Have Muscovites mastered or bought the technology of rich-ball enlightenment?

        • Rodion

          The technology of physical multilayer coating has been known since Soviet times and has been actively used since the 1980s. There are also chemical two-layer coatings, a technology from the 50s. What is there to master? You can only completely lose production capacity and competencies, as Arsenal did, for example.
          Only the lazy don’t talk about yellowness when it comes to old optics. But you are not aware of an even more serious problem, which also applies to optics with MS: this is the problem of “dirty colors”, which is not visible to the eye when looking through the lens, but is sometimes noticeable in the photo. Very often, yellowness is the least of the problems, which brings more psychological discomfort (?) rather than being a real problem. I've changed dozens of spectra, so I know what I'm talking about.

Add a comment

Copyright © Radojuva.com. Blog author - Photographer in Kiev Arkady Shapoval. 2009-2023

English-version of this article https://radojuva.com/en/2021/05/about-new-kmz-lenses/?replytocom=444825

Version en español de este artículo https://radojuva.com/es/2021/05/about-new-kmz-lenses/?replytocom=444825