Vega-11U 3/54 (MMZ) is a zoom lens adapted for modern cameras. Review from Rodion Eshmakov

Material on this lens especially for Radozhiva prepared Rodion Eshmakov.

Vega-11U 3/54 (MMZ) - enlarger lens adapted for modern cameras

Vega-11U 3/54 (MMZ) is a zoom lens adapted for modern cameras. Appearance of Vega-11U after adaptation. increase.


The nomenclature of Soviet lenses for photographic enlargers is not too large and is represented by different variations of the four-lens Industar 50 / 3.5 (I-22U, I-50U, I-96U). There was also a rather rare version of the Industar-26m - I-26m-U, which was distinguished by the lack of the ability to focus. The Vega-11U is the most complex of the Soviet small format zoom lenses and is considered the best of them, since it uses a more complex optical design and is ahead of other lenses in resolution (according to the data from the instruction manual). In fact, Vega-11U occupies almost the same niche as Rodenstock Rodagon 50 / 2.8, however, with an asymmetric scheme, the Soviet lens, of course, does not possess orthoscopicity.

Specifications:

Optical design - 5 lenses in 4 groups, Biometar;

Schematic diagram of Vega-11U from archival documentation

Schematic diagram of Vega-11U from archival documentation

Focal length - 54 mm (marking on the lens, in meaning it is indistinguishable from the usual 50 mm);
Relative aperture - 1: 3 (marking on the lens, in meaning it is indistinguishable from the usual F / 2.8);
Aperture - 11 rounded petals;
Aperture limits - 1:3 - 1:11;
Posterior focal length - ~35 mm (experimental estimate);
Features - this version does not have a focusing mechanism and even attachment to the camera.

Design and adaptation features

I purchased the lens a very, very long time ago, and it was always waiting in the wings. The main problem was the unusual body design, which did not allow the lens to be conveniently converted to the Canon EF-S system (then I still used Canon 600D as the main camera).

The original view of the lens. Photo from the web.

The original view of the lens. Photo from the web.

In general, after being freed from unnecessary details, the lens block did not look so scary, but its dimensions did not fit the common helicoids of Soviet lenses. Recently, I have been actively studying the 17D modeling method, which helped me quite accurately transplant the lens block into the 31-42 M42-MXNUMX macrohelicoid, which was freed up after finishing work with lenses PNV-57e 37/1.0. At the same time, it was possible to keep the M42 mount with the ability to focus on infinity. The minimum focusing distance when using a 14mm stroke helicoid is approximately 0,35m.

Front view of the adapted lens.

Front view of the adapted lens.

For adaptation, a sleeve is printed that fits snugly on the lens barrel and enters the interior of the focuser. The diaphragm drive was implemented using a second sleeve, which is connected to the lens block diaphragm driver and serves as a diaphragm control ring. A Jupiter-8M nose piece with a thread for 40.5 mm filters is inserted into the diaphragm ring. Yes, the filter will rotate when you change the aperture, which is inconvenient, but even more inconvenient when there are no filters at all.

Vega-11U, front view with a closed aperture.

Vega-11U, front view with a closed aperture.

Unlike Industarov 50 / 3.5, Vega has a beautiful round aperture. This is a nice bonus since the pentagonal bokeh Rodagon 50/2.8, for example, looks more distracting and ragged.

View of the lens through the open aperture.

View of the lens through the open aperture.

With eleven petals, the shape of the pupil opening will be round at any aperture value.

View of the lens through the lens with a closed aperture.

View of the lens through the lens with a closed aperture.

Despite the fact that the adapted lens uses the M42 mount, it is not possible to put it on all cameras.

Adapted Vega-11U with M42-EOS adapter.

Adapted Vega-11U with M42-EOS adapter.

So, due to the back of the lens block going too far beyond the bayonet plane, focusing to infinity will become inaccessible to users of full-frame SLR cameras - there will be mirror engagement. And for some crop cameras, it will probably still need to be adjusted. There will be no problems when using the lens on mirrorless cameras, even with medium format Fujifilm GFX (see below).

The back of the lens block protruding beyond the bayonet plane is the reason for incompatibility with full-frame SLR cameras.

The back of the lens block protruding beyond the bayonet plane is the reason for incompatibility with full-frame SLR cameras.

Thanks to the modest size of the lens block and the small rear focal length, the lens turned out to be extremely small - about the same as my favorite Industar-26m. I love compact optics and I always have, in addition to “productive” or “interesting” lenses, also small ones that you can always take with you. Often a lot of shots are taken not with the lens that is better, but with the one that is easier to carry around (examples: 1, 2).

Perhaps my way of adapting this lens is not the most cost-effective, given the market value of the lens block and the price of the helicoid. But a lens made in this way is a pleasure to use.

Optical properties

I have used a similar lens before Vega-3 50 / 2.8, but it had a much longer back focal length that allows it to be mounted without risk to the mirror, even on full-frame SLR cameras. I managed to compare these lenses with each other even before the adaptation of the Vega-11U - then it turned out that the Vega-11U has much worse sharpness in the center than the Vega-3, at focusing distances to infinity. It was problematic to compare the level of field aberrations, according to an indirect assessment using bokeh, we can assume that the Vega-11U is somewhat better corrected. There is also a correlation between the level of coma and the ratio of the back focal length (PFO) to the focal length (FR) for classic lenses of the “double Gauss” type: the larger the PFO/FR, the greater the level of coma. Since the optical schemes of Vega-11 and Vega-3 are similar, it is logical to assume that Vega-11, which has a smaller back focal length, will be better corrected at the edges of the frame.

As for the difference in sharpness in the center of the frame for Vega-11 and Vega-3, it was assumed here that the zoom lenses, in particular Vega-11U, are corrected for use at short finite distances. This is indirectly indicated by both the marking and the data of the instruction manual. In addition, this method of correction is widely known for older specialized macro lenses, which are far from brilliant at long focusing distances. And as a macro lens, Vega-11U is praised.

To test the hypothesis of Vega-11U correction for operation at finite distances, we compared the sharpness of the formed image at different focusing distances and different apertures with the lens Industar-26m 50 / 2.8.

The first test was performed at infinity with apertures of F / 2.8, F / 5.6 and F / 8. Focusing on the central region of the frame was performed every time after changing the aperture. Below are paired photographs taken on Vega-11U and Industar-26m.

It is noticeable that the vignetting of the Vega-11U at F / 2..8 is more pronounced than that of the Industar-26m.

When considering 100% crops of the central frame area, it can be noted that the advantage is rather on the side of the Vega-11U.

Crops (100%) of the central frame area.

Crops (100%) of the central frame area.

At the edges of the frame, the situation is less clear. Up to F / 5.6 inclusive, Vega-11U is in the lead, but Industar-8m is also pulling up to F / 26, which becomes at least as good as Vega.

Crop (100%) the edge area of ​​the frames.

Crop (100%) the edge area of ​​the frames.

It is important to note that when comparing the sharpness in the thirds of the frame, the Industar-26m turns out to be better, that is, the drop in resolution from the center to the edge is not as pronounced as that of the Vega-11U.

Crop (100%) areas of the third frames.

Crop (100%) areas of the third frames.

Thus, Industar-26m, which is very old and unpretentious in terms of optical design, is slightly inferior to Vega when operating at infinity, and in some ways it is even better.
But at a distance of ~40 cm, the results are somewhat different.

In this case, the superiority of the Vega-11U over the Industar-26m in terms of image sharpness at both F / 2.8 and F / 5.6 is clearly visible. Therefore, the Vega-11U is indeed a macro-corrected lens. Today, to ensure equally good performance of lenses at all distances, manufacturers use optical elements that move during focusing (for example, a system Nikon CRC).

After this test, I had a question: is the lens Industar-26m-U a version of the Industar-26m lens with modified lens spacing to ensure better performance in the macro range? I have not had a single such lens yet, but it would be interesting to check.

Thus, Vega-11U in normal use gives a fairly soft image at an open aperture. By the way, initially the lens had a noticeable misalignment (a coma on the axis), which was more or less eliminated when servicing the lens by selecting the angle of rotation of the rear group of pancakes with lenses - apparently, the production culture was very low. There is a very pronounced coma at the edges of the frame - a typical problem with lenses like "double Gauss", especially Biometar-like options. At f/8 the lens generally delivers good but not perfect field sharpness. Another thing is that in the macro range (at distances <0.5 m) the lens is really very good even with an open aperture, it seemed to me much better than even the one that I once had Rodenstock Rodagon 50 / 2.8.

Despite noticeable vignetting, the lens covers a frame of 44x33 mm. I successfully used the Vega-11U in conjunction with the Fotodiox EOS-NEX shift adapter, which allowed me to receive frames in the format "36x45" mm (4:5) and "24x56" mm (2.33:1). At the same time, the pincushion-shaped distortion of the lens becomes noticeable - the Vega-11U is not an orthoscope, unlike Western magnifying lenses of this class.

The color rendition of the lens with a green color characteristic of old optics due to the use of a single-layer coating. Much more influence on the color of the photograph is the blue reflections from the enlightenment of the lenses, which appear in the side and back light.

Under normal lighting conditions, the lens has a contrast ratio on par with older single-coated 50/2 type lenses. In backlight, the image contrast drops a lot due to fogging and flare - the Biometar lenses that I had in my hands, for some reason, were never good at this.

The bokeh of Vega-11U is as specific as that of Vega 3 - pronounced, scaly. The shape of the bokeh is determined in this case by a strong coma and spherical aberrations. Sometimes it looks interesting. But such a bokeh I like more.

In my opinion, Vega-11U is a very good option for macro photography - once I even used a similar lens for reshooting film negatives. You can solve other tasks, including portrait photography, with this lens, but there are more predictable optics for that.

Below are sample photos on Vega-11U and Sony A7s full-frame mirrorless camera,

as well as photos taken on Sony A7s using the Fotodiox EOS-NEX shift adapter - "shiftoramas".

Conclusions

Probably, I will not be too original if I say again that the Vega-11U is an excellent macro lens. But, in addition to this, it can be noted that the Vega-11U also provides work with medium format cameras with a frame of 44x33 mm (Fujifilm GFX) and, in general, does not work so badly at long distances, because the scope of the lens can be significantly expanded. And as an interesting vintage and compact 50 / 2.8 lens, I still recommend the Industar-26m.

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

Add a comment: Rodion

 

 

Comments: 13, on the topic: Vega-11U 3/54 (MMZ) - a lens from a photographic enlarger adapted for modern cameras. Review from Rodion Eshmakov

  • Sergei

    Much more common is the Vega-11U manufactured by LZOS, which is very compact and has a minimum aperture of 11 (in fact, it closes to 13). But it has a drawback - weak blending of the front lens, which reduces the contrast on the backlight.
    There is a rarer version of the Vega-11U produced by the Azov Optical and Mechanical Plant (AOMZ). Here it has very good blending of the front lens and an aperture that actually closes to 32.
    Which is useful for gaining depth of field in macro photography.
    In the photo, both versions of this lens with the maximum closed aperture

    • Rodion

      It is unlikely that anyone seriously uses something narrower than F / 8 in macro. If this is not enough, they switch to staking.

      • B. R. P.

        Stacking is not suitable for everything) Maybe then stop producing autofocus macro lenses then?)

        • Rodion

          And what about AF?

  • Sergei

    Despite the risk of reduced resolution due to diffraction at tightly clamped apertures, leading companies (like Canon) have minimum apertures of 32 on their macro fifty dollars.
    Apparently, for some tasks, this feature is still in demand in the era of digital and multi-pixel matrices.

    • Rodion Eshmakov

      I remember that whale 18-55 also has this. But whether it has a sacred meaning is the question.

      • Specialist

        In the sense: “does diaphragm 32 have a sacred (i.e. sacred)” meaning? It's just simple meaning.

        • Rodion Eshmakov

          You missed the irony

          • Specialist

            Ah. Something I look like “the waves fell with a swift jack”.

  • Alexander Rifeev

    professionals in macro photography sometimes sneer at the ingenuity of amateurs who also graze macro photography in the field: - and what they just don’t come up with (additional lenses, sliding furs, extension rings, etc.) - just not to buy a normal and good macro lens :-)))) ... am sorry, no offense - nothing personal :-))) ... if there is a plastic lens CANON f = 50mm df-1,8 or the same from Nikon, then why torture poor Soviet technology? :-))) well, just for the sake of sporting interest, like when unknown and excellent artists of the present time copy the old masters of the Renaissance so accurately that all experts on the paintings of the old masters are only amazed - and how it helped! :-))))

  • Alexander

    Is there any info on more details about shift or tilt-shift adapters? This topic is interesting.

    • Rodion

      I heard, I will try to make a separate article about the adapter that I have.

  • Rodion Eshmakov

    The scheme presented earlier in the review was erroneous. Replaced with the correct one from the archives, indicating the brands of glass.

Add a comment

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

English-version of this article https://radojuva.com/en/2022/04/vega-11u-3-54-mmz/?replytocom=530178

Version en español de este artículo https://radojuva.com/es/2022/04/vega-11u-3-54-mmz/?replytocom=530178