Material according to MC Rubinar 5,6 / 500 Macro specially for Radozhiva prepared Rodion Eshmakov (subscribe to Instagram!)
Rubinar 500 / 5.6, adapters for installation on a camera and a microscope head (also LZOS) in the background - for entourage. increase.
MC Rubinar 5.6 / 500 Macro - one of 4 lenses presented by the Lytkarino Optical Glass Plant 30 декабря 2020 года :
- Rubinar 4.5 / 300
- Rubinar 8 / 500
- Rubinar 5.6 / 500 (presented in this article)
- Rubinar 10/1000 (will also be)
The new Rubinars differ from the lenses produced in the USSR by their fresh design, high quality finish and antireflection coating, made in accordance with modern requirements.
This lens is a fast version of the ultra-compact Rubinar 500 / 8... It is already much larger than the "dark five hundred", but still more compact and lighter than lens counterparts. The diameter of the Rubinar 500 / 5.6 aperture - 90 mm - has reached the apertures of quite sane amateur telescopes, however, unlike the Rubinar 1000/10, this lens does not have a special version for astronomers (Astrorubinar).
The lens was provided by representatives of the LZOS plant specifically for writing a review for Radozhiva.
TECH SPECS
Optical scheme - mirror-lens, development of Maksutov-Cassegrain scheme;
Focal length (FR) - 500 mm;
Aperture ratio (F-foot) - 1: 5.6;
Aperture taking into account the central screening - 1: 8.4;
Field of view - 5 ° (frame 36x24 mm);
The minimum focusing distance is 2.2 m;
Filters thread - М105 * 1 mm;
Mounting to the camera - M42 thread;
Dimensions (without covers) - 118 * 130 mm;
Weight (without covers) - 1.6 kg;
Features: tripod ring, manual focus only, constant relative aperture.
Design features
Rubinar 500 / 5.6 is made in the same design as other lenses in the line in an anodized aluminum body with a rubberized focusing ring and a tripod foot.
Rubinar 500 / 5.6, adapters for installation on a camera and microscopes (also LZOS) in the background - for entourage.
The advantage is the good quality of the finish: all the markings on the lenses are engraved, not just painted. The rubber ring fits snugly.
The disadvantage stems from the size of the lens: due to its large diameter, it cannot be mounted on SLR cameras with a built-in flash. The "beak" prevents the lens from being screwed onto the camera. Owners of mirrorless cameras will not encounter such problems.
The M42 mount is universal, but SLR cameras with a flash beak are geometrically incompatible with this lens.
The lens has two moving parts - a tripod foot and a focusing ring. Wide and responsive, with a smooth ride and even no extraneous crunch. The angular travel of the focusing ring is almost a full turn, and the dimensions of the lens change little. The minimum focusing distance of 2.2 m provides a macro scale of 1: 4, like all lenses in the line. In my opinion, the angular movement of the ring with such an MDF is not enough: although the lens can quickly transfer focus according to plans, accurate focusing requires patience and skill.
Rubinar 500 / 5.6 when focusing at infinity.
Rubinar 500 / 5.6 when focusing on MDF.
When focusing, the entire front part of the lens rotates, so it is problematic to use light filters with it. If you can find them, of course, filters with a diameter of 105 mm are rare and expensive. There are no filters included in the kit, the Soviet versions were equipped with UV and color filters, which are no longer very relevant today.
The tripod foot has a 1/4 "thread. It is fixed on the lens with a screw and can be rotated in any way, which is very convenient when using a tripod. A tripod to the lens can come in handy: although aperture and ergonomics allow take off, the mass is noticeably greater than that of Helios-44 :).
Also, a tripod and an eyepiece attachment of the "Tourist-FL" type, which is still found on the secondary market, make it possible to turn the lens into a small-sized telescope.
Rubinar 500 / 5.6 on an ordinary photo tripod, even with some random eyepiece attachment, proves itself well as a tool for visual observations.
Although the best choice so far is to make the eyepiece assembly with a 1.25 ”fit (2”, most likely the lens will cover with vignetting when the eyepiece uses the entire field), it will not be possible to install a diagonal mirror. As an instrument for astronomical observations of deep space objects, Rubinar 500 / 5.6 is very attractive: it is extremely light, light and compact in comparison with other 90 mm telescopes, has a large field, and has a field corrector, which is usually quite expensive as a separate item.
According to LZOS, the lens received a new enlightenment, which in this case is like the truth: the optics of museum exhibits looks different. The objective lenses are cast in pink, purple and orange with a three-layer antireflection coating.
The enlightenment for the rubies was not matched to the color of Al2O3: Cr2O3?
Rubinar 500 / 5.6 in terms of the totality of parameters claims to be a very multifunctional solution for telephoto and astronomy. Although it is no longer as surprisingly small as the Rubinar 500/8, it offers a large aperture, large aperture, which means more opportunities. The design of the lens is simple and reliable, with good, no longer Soviet clumsy designs and finishes.
Optical properties
One of the main conditions for obtaining good photos on the Rubinar 500 / 5.6 is either a reliable support, or - using shutter speeds shorter than 1/640 s (for a full-frame 12 megapixel sensor). The lens is quite comfortable in sunny weather take off, working in the shade will require raising the ISO to less than rosy numbers.
Rubinar 500 / 5.6 has a significant margin, which allows it to be used without restrictions on medium format cameras with a 44 * 33 mm sensor (Fujifilm G) and with a shift adapter on full-frame cameras ("36 * 48" mm). However, shooting at such a focal length with a shift adapter without a tripod is not a trivial task.
The resolution of the lens is sufficient for at least a 12 megapixel full-frame sensor. The image quality in the center of the frame and across the field differs slightly. The main advantage of the lens is the almost complete absence of chromatic aberrations and good field distortion correction. However, the Rubinar 500 / 5.6 has a simple pincushion distortion noticeable when photographing architecture. Often, the sharpness of photographs is limited by atmospheric refraction and blur.
The picture contrast is satisfactory under normal lighting conditions. A noticeable veiling appears in the backlight - the lens should be used with the supplied hood. I did not use it at work.
Due to the large aperture, the lens has a small depth of field and pronounced bokeh with characteristic bagels. Good or bad it depends on the subject and, of course, taste. Bokeh rings are an essential feature of catadioptric lenses. For creative ideas, it is quite an additional tool.
Below are examples of photos taken with a full-frame Sony A7s, part of which was taken using a shift adapter.
See also comparison of Rubinar 500/5.6 with Samyang 500/6.3 here.
Conclusions
Rubinar 500 / 5.6 is a lens with great possibilities: it is also a good telephoto lens with a high focal length for such a focal length aperture and small dimensions, it is also a promising instrument for astronomical observations and astrophotography.
You will find more reviews from readers of Radozhiva here... All Rodion reviews in one place here.
Someone there talked about the boring picture of such lenses, about the scary and terrible bagel bokeh.
And it’s nothing. And it draws very much) and the bubuliki do not spoil the picture))
Reply
In the sense of not spoiling? This is a wild horror, except for "boke" there is nothing to be seen.
Reply
a successful telephoto ... ..mdeee, Rodion rolled down, for such a pittance it's easier to take a 70-300 boot pipe + ITF and here you are ... ..600 \ 5.6 :) I only consider the return to the lens production line a positive note ... industrial 61 l / s, it would be very interesting to see, the objective lens at one time, IMHO, was the most successful fifty dollars in the USSR.
Reply
In the foreseeable future, I will certainly do tests in comparison with modern lens systems, then you will see everything for yourself.
To release i-61 lz would be complete madness. Do you need 50 / 2.8 for 20k? Optics cost nothing, and mechanics and production setup cost everything.
Reply
why did you decide what would cost 20k? they once had human prices (for example, KMZ 2016) ...
Reply
Rodion, no, no, if it will be a similar "job", comparing lenses and uploading photo cuts, then do not waste your and our time, reviews of this kind imply the presence of examples, and not processed and cropped, but originals, RAW files, finally, otherwise it is absolutely impossible to assess the quality of the image. Any review of a lens without RAW files is not worth the time to read a project, but to talk about EVIL, but without original photos, in general blasphemy, it should be low-contrast by default, and in this case also with chromatic aberrations, which have now appeared in connection with the inclusion of one front lens in the circuit, and not just mirrors as in the old versions.
Reply
Terrible. How can you, without RAVok, choose where to invest your saved 7tyr?
Honestly, no lens has ever been chosen by RAV. Moreover, the more expensive glass was, the less need for raw materials. Here it is to sit, measure out with a pipette, here the corners are 3% better, but the light transmission is 5% worse ... Tell me, which one is better for Helios - m6 or m7?
Reply
Do you really not understand that when testing lenses and cameras, you need to lay out the originals, otherwise everything is empty? It's like coming to the clinic to pick up the result of an extended blood test and at the reception they will tell you: - Yes, everything is fine there, go home.
Reply
And you suggest that they give you something in the hospital like "Here are the preparations for your tests, see for yourself at home what is there and how ..."
From extreme to extreme. If you really dig so deeply to the smallest details, then you understand that the Rav is also important than opening and through which profile to drive?
Reply
Zenitar 2,8 / 60 Macro Isn't this his new reincarnation? Although they added an electronic aperture control ..
Reply
Nikon 1 (crop 2,7x) + ft1 adapter + any Nikon lens - we get anything, and even with autofocus
Reply
With autofocus with an af-s lens, naturally.
Reply
Very good, I understand correctly, you can't put it on a DSLR with a built-in flash?
Reply
Yes, unfortunately you can't. Can be worn 300 / 4.5 and 500/8. On a 300 / 4.5 crop it might be even more appropriate.
Reply
This lens, given its characteristics, makes little sense. Almost any lens 100-400 will “stick it in the belt”. There will be more resolution (“The resolution of the lens is quite enough at least to work with a 12 megapixel full-frame sensor”) and better enlightenment. Not to mention the use of autofocus for ordinary photography and the availability of any filters. Including Light pollution, which are not available for the diameter of EVIL. There are no examples of astrophoto in the article (it is written that it is good for astrophoto), so we cannot assess its quality. Only baby bokeh pictures with "bagels". For pictures "with bagels" there is a 3M-5ca 500 mm f / 8 for 7 thousand rubles!
Reply
Examples of astrophoto for Rubinar 500 / 5.6 are easily searched for on the net. As for the lenses, we will look at the test results. The rest - no comment)
Reply
I know perfectly well where to look for examples of photos, I know perfectly well where the databases of examples in various formats are, I am surprised by your persistence with which you do not provide full-size samples in reviews, although without this all the work loses its meaning, I want to see the originals from that lens, about which you read, and not from a hypothetical “on the Internet”, I hope you don’t need to convince that only the original photo (RAW) can show all the advantages and disadvantages of the lens under discussion, by the way, this even more applies to camera reviews. It would be nice if you get the hang of providing examples later on.
Reply
Ops, he answered in the wrong place, although there was nothing to answer.
Reply
For its price, it's easier to take Tamron 150-600 5-6.3.
Reply
When there is a dark background in the bokeh, the pictures look unnecessarily gloomy. When light is very good (as in the photo with peonies). But the donut holes in the bokeh are much worse than just circles or shurikens) Although the taste and color ...
Such attempts by LZOS look like nothing more than an attempt by the plant to remain at least somehow in the photographic industry. But this is already the century before last. At that price, I would buy a 100-400 Keno zoom. And hanging such a thing on a mirrorless camera will twist your hands. Or, at least, carry a monopod with you. Rodion, you would post a picture of how this EVIL looks on your Sonya, it would be interesting to see.
Thanks for the review!
Reply
Yes, and what is too blue - glass or a camera?
Reply
All the sins of flowers are strictly on my side.
Reply
googel nonche is on fire, have you seen the auto-translation?
Rodion
30.06.2021/13/27 at XNUMX:XNUMX Reply
All the sins of flowers are strictly on my side.
Reply
Absolutely correct translation, by the way. An auto-translator does not take into account the context, unlike a person. Although I recently watched something on the History Channel, I don't remember what it was about, but they mentioned the LEDs that are part of something. What does the LED have to do with it? Ah, lead, I see. Someone confused LED and lead. And there it is just a person who translates, even by ear.
Reply
yes, but this is an example from the category “a bare conductor ran along the car” instead of “a bare wire stretched along the car”
and the word LEAD also means "lead, leading" - "All roads lead to Rome" and "leading zeros"
Reply
I liked the photos taken by Rodion with this lens. There are many of them, and they give a good impression of the capabilities of this optics. The only thing missing is astro photographs (constellations and nebulae), but many of them need special equipment (guiding). And it is better to shoot the moon at 1000 mm.
I agree with the author that a bold pixel is better suited for this optics (12 Mp on full frame, 8-10 Mp on crop).
I was surprised that Rodion refused to use the hood. From my own experience, it is very useful, given the sensitivity of EVIL to backlight. Moreover, it should be in a new factory set.
In this article (technical specifications) for this Rubinar there is MDF 4 meters, and in the text - 2,2 meters. Perhaps this is a refinement of the design in 2020 compared to the Soviet version.
Reply
I am not particularly good at astrophotography, there is a lot of fuss there - it's not mine, I have to go somewhere far away from the light, besides. And even now, in general, white nights, what an astrophoto ...
I think that it will allow more than 12 megapixels at ff, just the requirements for exposure will be much tougher. And the resolution should be enough there.
I refused the hood on principle - LZOS did not make it so that I wanted to carry it with me. I don't like hoods that don't fit backwards, don't fold, etc.
I will correct the mistake about 4 m, this is a typo.
Reply
So Soviet rubies are very flimsy. This one is much more reliable. The hull was considered not to float from temperatures and external stresses.
Astrophoto I have seen many examples of this glass, incl. on lance.
Reply
You can immediately see what was brought to the reviewer. Not worth the money that is asked for it. You would test it at 20MP and compare it to its counterparts.
Reply
And what kind of aperture? You need to express yourself in a more modern way. You don't call food food.
Reply
the word Aperture is internationally understood. the whole world speaks like that.
Reply
They brought me LZOS so that I could use it)))
Reply
What else do you propose to call the aperture?
Reply
Apparently, the "diaphragm".
Reply
Aperture is a common word in optics in general and astronomy in particular: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%80%D1%82%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B0_(%D0%BE%D0%BF%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0)
Reply
An interesting example of the capabilities of the old ZM-5SA 500 mm / 8 from the same LZOS on a Pentax K-1 digital SLR (36 Mp).
Posted by Jacques Bonsergent from Penta-club. Shooting distance 2 km, ISO 800, 1/1000 sec, stub on the matrix is on. JPEG 0,9 Mb
https://onedrive.live.com/?authkey=%21AOsVM3mGgrq%2D2UI&cid=68193B132A3A9DB7&id=68193B132A3A9DB7%21642480&parId=root&o=OneUp
Reply
I can compare with my 500 Tamron SP 1983 and say that enlightenment has stepped far forward.
But I can't say for sure without RAW files. Maybe my hands have not yet stepped far forward))
Reply
This subject (500 mm / 5,6) is very clearly narrow niche.
It is less mobile-friendly than the 500/8.
And the manufacturer (LZOS) has clearly swung into foreign markets (in Russia it will not be bought at such a price).
Samyang once released its 500 / 6,3 (much lighter, but has complaints about the picture), but today from EVIL it focused on 300 / 6,3 for mirrorless crop (which is optically much better).
There is a lot of EVIL on the secondary with parameters 500/8, incl. inexpensive and at least comparable in quality to the new Rubinar 500/8.
Therefore, from the “five hundred” segment for LZOS, only narrow-niche sales of 5,6 over the hill are shining.
Where astro photography is likely to be soloed. Moreover, the image of EVIL among amateur astronomers is higher than that of photographers.
And most likely they will shoot on a crop.
From all this it follows that LZOS should think in the future about the version of this lens for crop with a decrease in the image field, but with an increase in the resolution in the center (especially at infinity).
Reply
Right now, they just needed to count the lenses specially for the 500 mm crop. The resolution of this ruby is limited at infinity by the atmosphere rather than by the ruby.
Reply
In the meantime, Tokina has scheduled a new SLR 2021/500 in winter 8 (in addition to the recently launched 400/8).
Probably the answer of the bourgeoisie to the new reincarnation of Rubinar!
The price is still unknown, but I suppose it will be cheaper than that of LZOS.
There will be a reason to compare both new items in 2021 directly, but I expect that the Japanese EVIL will be somewhat more interesting.
Reply
I can not help but share - from the Moscow site of the company-sold photographic equipment:
“Lens Rubinar 5,6 / 500 Macro.
Macro lens with multilayer coating, suitable for full-frame cameras with a frame size of 36x24. Focal length from 650 to 800 mm depending on the camera with which it is used. "
Yes, against the background of current prices for imported optics and KMZ products, it no longer seems absurdly expensive.
Reply
The focal length is always the same regardless of the camera
Reply
Yes Yes! Only those sold do not know about it!
Reply
It is very interesting that a ready-made profile for correcting distortion and lowered contrast in Adobe Lightroom (Adobe Photoshop) of all EVIL has only Samyang / Rokinon 300 / 6,3
This option is interesting for inexperienced users.
Therefore, it would be nice to have it at least for the Rubinar 500/8.
Reply
Thanks for the review!
Reply
Razreshalovo at the advanced Russian product, the campaign is even worse than the Samyang 800 \ F8, which for 6-8 thousand per BU is quite suitable for such an EVIL, and all this for 40 thousand rubles or lope it costs there ..
Photos are monstrously overcontracted to bloody green from the eyes, which is impossible to comprehend the real quality of the optega
Reply
How is Kamlan, Mr. Yankovsky? When will the review be? Show me the geranium on the windowsill. Or a photo of a sunset. The main thing is to have a branded watermark. Thank you in advance!
Reply
Kamlan is bathed in luxury - I blow dust off it, wipe it with rare VIP-elite collectible rags like everything else ..
I wrote everything I needed about him at the Lens Club, there is nothing more to add.
In a class of its own. products for this money on the market there are no fifty dollars better than him.
I think you saw my photos from Kamlan at the Lens Club. Unfortunately 1000pix stubs do not give an adequate perception of the quality of any lens. For you have to watch the originals on a large 4K monitor so that your jaw drops.
Some of my photos from Kamlan have already brazenly stolen Avito-shops for the resale of this glass, having erased the signatures
I advise you to buy it and personally test it - it sometimes comes across at a flea market inexpensively. By the way, I bought it from the hands of a man who shot him on A7S in complete delight
Reply
Examples of photos that are beautiful for my taste. I'll take it to the desktop
Reply
Thank you for the article. Enjoyed reading and watching. It's funny to read some of the comments - give them RAVki. It's funny because these letter-eaters boast in such an unsightly (and childish) way, first of all in their own eyes ("here, they say, how well I know the subject" - a sweet feeling, yes). At the same time, they do not sit in optical laboratories, do not professionally do calculations and do not write or shoot reviews. Sit down, unfortunate holivarshchiki.
Reply
Hey, anyone from 2022? Is the resource alive? I bought Rubinar 8/500 a long time ago. Then I took a couple of shots on the Pentax K110D. Bought a K50 this year. Tried to screw it on. 1,5 mm does not reach the carcass. Somehow took a couple of pictures. Seems to be OK. The fact is that he was lying without a cover in a small container made of translucent plastic, such in Ikea and Leroy are sold ... And the container fell from a shelf from a height of 1,5 m. There was everything else. In short, Rubinar broke through the plastic with a back thread. It was 5 years ago. It remains to buy a teleconverter 1,4 or 1,7 and go on a photo hunt.
Reply
Live nowhere
Reply
“Mirrorless camera owners will not encounter such problems.”
You just need to shoot with a “One” mirror ;-) On EOS 1Ds it gets up freely ...
Reply
Well, yes. "Beak" is not.
Reply