Russian | Soviet | USSR Lens Survival Guide

[Ilya O.]

Tommaso, my friend, you're welcome!

lately me too, I can not manage keep informative posting level high ahaha

oks2-100-2 f2.8 is really a Planar killer lens, but it is rather rare so I didn't use it yet (but I have a couple for coming testing. It was made to greatly improve performance over oks1-100-1 f2 lens; it is actually a 65/70mm wide format lens, but with some mods of the back to narrow the coverage for s35.

If you consider Jupiter-9 gorgeous, than I guarantee you'll worship any Tair-11 lens Simply said, wide open it is the best portrait crème de la crème lens on earth in the 135-150mm ball park. I will add minireview a bit later here. Yeah, 11a is black anodized finish with swappable back; as for coating I'm not sure, but there must be MC version (actaully, there is no need in it).

oks1-150-1 shares the same basic optical design (tair is the name of original russian tele design), with the Tair-11, but with some mods for higher resolution wide open, it is standard/regular sharp lens, no special effect at f2.8. Oks is significantly lager and heavier than Tair. I actually skip it for that reason, and one day I skipped it totally ah ah ah: I lost fine-tuned oks1-150-1 together with my beloved Helios-40 85mm f1.5 (a heavy couple in a waist pouch) in a forest...shit! That was the consequence of too much gear on me in one man band approach...

On a shoot I tend to use 85mm, then 135 Tair-11 (for people) or Jupiter-11 f4 (for ultrasharp pics), and after that I switch to 300mm skipping 150-180mm as being not so tele compared to 85-135mm.

 

[Sean Keen]

2-100-2 is not a 65/70mm wide format lens, rest of nonsense i just don't want to comment

 

[Ilya O.]

I've been doing the lathe work my self...Now 10+ years later I have a pretty extensive little machine shop...

I very much admire and respect DPs who can do this by their own hands, they are Renaissance kind of men;-)

...I was experimenting with a bake on enamel. I don't like it. Once everything is done and engraved with footage scales etc, I'll just have them all anodized.

Yeah, that is the only way! Any type of paint on the metal lens barrel is not appropriate for the job, it simply and very soon become very shitty looking. I find that bare or brushed/sandpapered aluminum looks much better and stays looking fresh longer.
KMZ recently started to produce many of its vintage lenses, and I can say with a huge disappointment that they using now black enamel coating on the barrels, no anodizing! What a bad! Worse, that paint is rather soft...the lenses will look rubbish very soon you start using it;-(
By the way, Nick, do you know that the cold anodizing process gives maybe ten times harder and thicker coat? You should try to find the facility for that.

The zenitar-16mm is ... made by KMZ, which also of course made all the others...

Nick, I zoomed in you lens' pics, and I would correct you in a way that actually none of your lenses are from KMZ;-) Except the Zenitar, it was made by KMZ only. I see that your Mir is from VOMZ (Vologda Optical and Mechanical Plant), Helios is made at Valdai (Optical and Mechanical Plant "Jupiter") and Jupiter-9 is by LZOS (Lytkarino Optical Glass Factory).
Here is all Soviet optical factories logos:
http://goo.gl/tqYgTy

I have no experience with MC Peleng 2.8/17A, but found this thread with some samples and it seems Peleng do the fisheye effect in another way than Zenitar:
https://goo.gl/rzVOiq

Nick, do you know there is 8mm f/3.5 Peleng? Also found very funky review with the full res samples here:
https://goo.gl/RZ2GO2

 

[Ilya O.]

2-100-2 is not a 65/70mm wide format lens, rest of nonsense i just don't want to comment

thx for your time and 'correction', Sean. Take it literally, no irony.
Second, I wish I could be sometimes more like you, mean to be more straight and say/write people in the face here what I think without any sweets since many sell their lifetime for shooting always the same looking fashion and advert slow-mo lustful shit.

Well, Sean, you are wrong about oks2-100-2
So I'd transmute your negative post into some useful info on 100mm OKS so that other users could use and appreciate.

So, to start with, my friends, what is behind Russian cine lens naming numbers?
OKS 2-100-2:
— OKS is a short for Motion Picture Lens;
— first number, here 2, designates the version of lens design (I mean number of lenses, glass type, curvatures, etc). Here we have the second design version of 100mm lens;
— second number is obviously is focus length in millimeters, i.e. here we face 100mm lens;
— finally, 3rd number shows modification version of the base optical scheme and also it generally means different barrel/casing of the lens unit.

Hence, we now see from the completely theoretical point, OKS2-100-1 (65/70mm film lens) and OKS2-100-2 (s35mm lens) share the same OPTICAL DESIGN #2 since 2 is the first number in naming. The only difference is the last digit, 1 or 2, that means there is some optical (minor) and housing difference.

OKAY, Sean can say all these points are bullshit since where are the sources and second one should always prove theory in practice, and all know that OKS2-100-2 is s35 lens cause so it's listed in all papers.
ahahah that is true, let's proceed to know more about OKS 100mm.

Well, first let's look into gorgeous NIKFI all-lens-review Catalogue of 1969:

So, there were originally OKS1-100-1 f/2 for 35mm and 2-100-1 f2.8 for 70mm wide-format cinematography back at 1969. And I have 2-100-1 #643022 made by LOOMP (LOMO's former name) in 1964. Thus, people were using these lenses for 35 and 70 back at 1960-s.

Decade passed, and it occurred, though, not everybody was happy with the OKS1-100-1 so GOI designed 'another' 100mm lens for 35mm and it was OKS2-100-2. NIKFI Cat of 1978, page 9:

It says:
"Nowadays OKS1-100-1 is widely used for shooting regular format 35mm film. However, the lens does not perform very high optically. Because of this one should use instead OKS2-100-1 100m f/2.8 wide format 70mm lens, available in a modification with the different barrel with the reduced front element — OKS2-100-2 100mm f/2.8 lens for regular 35mm film. This lens, OKS2-100-2, delivers higher quality images than OKS1-100-1, and it's also used in BAS22-2 Anamorphic lens."

So, Sean, that is my proof. I said that OKS2-100-2 "is actually a 65/70mm wide format lens, but with some mods of the back to narrow the coverage for s35" and I was a bit mistaken since posting from tired memory after a long shooting day at -25° Celsius (-13°F). By now I can correct myself and say smth like "OKS2-100-2 "is a modification of an original OKS2-100-1 wide format 65/70mm film lens, the same base design optically, but with the reduced diameter of front&back lens and smaller barrel to narrow the coverage and gain less weight for s35mm work".

It is interesting now to take a look and compare both lenses. Here is OKS2-100-2 (35mm) and OKS2-100-1 (70mm) lens diagrams:

Notice the green, it's optical parameters, which are similar (minor difference due to the measurement error/production variability; besides, left graf is made at 1978, right at 1969).
Red is for difference, and here we see housing' diameters and, again, optical difference: front and back lenses pupil size does not match (that can mean both: smaller lenses and same lenses but masked with a field stop/aperture ring).
So I can add to the NIKFI 1978' description, that OKS2-100-2 (35mm) has not only front lens of a lesser dia than OKS2-100-1 (70mm), but also the back lens is smaller.
As for the weight, we can not judge (I think it's more or less the same) — OKS2-100-1 seems heavier (560g.) but it's said in the bracket that 560g. is the weight of a lens unit in some mount/focusing housing.
Last, the Light Transmission is different since OKS2-100-1 (69%) is older and has single coating (T~3.4), while OKS2-100-1 is always MC (86%) so expect T~3 to 3.1

Let's take a look at realworld lens photos:

Indeed, OKS2-100-2 has smaller front/back lens dia, and the barrel is smaller. Still, notice the right botton pic — light aperture dia is the same

I hope we finished with that 'nonsesne'.

Sean, could you please spend some time and point out other 'nonsense' in my post so I could correct and not put people into wrong beliefs?
I hope we both consider RedUser is made for sharing and finding the correct knowledge.

 

[Sean Keen]

Good job here, I know that you was a bit mistaken, no problem, still i have some reasonable doubts , your words "best" on some photo lenses and words like "some mods" on some cine glass a bit not correct... and words like "Sean you wrong" at the beginning of your post, and words like "that is my proof" in the middle, and words "I was a bit mistaken" in the end, make me smile

So 2-100-2 never was a 70mm film lens, 2-100-1 was , so you can ONLY say 2-100-1 with some modifications , not 2-100-2 with some mods, 2-100-2 with some mods will have different name


Just like Russian NIKFI catalog N:29 from 1978 page 9


text in Russian - "В связи с этим более целесообразно использовать объектив ОКС2-100-1, F=100 мм 1:2,8, предназначенный для съемки широкоформатный фильмов но в другой оправе с уменьшенным передним компонентом ... "


text in English - "In this connection it is advisable to use a lens OKS2-100-1, F = 100 mm 1: 2.8, intended for shooting widescreen films with different housing with reduced front component ... "

 

[Taylor Morrison]

i'm digging this thread! Lens battles! But seriously great info on some nifty lenses. Fun to collect and when your shot just needs that little extra flare ...out comes the uncoated 58mm! keep it up guys We are learning from all this.
Thanks

 

[Sean Keen]

Hope this will make it even better, set of lenses for 70 mm film

 

[Ilya O.]

...So 2-100-2 never was a 70mm film lens, 2-100-1 was, so you can ONLY say 2-100-1 with some modifications...

aha hh a I got it

When I wrote that OKS2-100-2 "is actually a 65/70mm wide format lens, but with some mods of the back to narrow the coverage for s35"
I mean OKS2-100-2 "is actually a 65/70mm wide format lens [lens here means OKS2-100-1!], but with some mods of the back to narrow the coverage for s35" refers to the OKS2-100-1 as a father 70mm lens for 2-100-2

Can you imply what I meant in a construction like that, in English?

And I never said 2-100-2 is for 70mm!

 

[Ilya O.]

Taylor, tnx^-)
Chime in and POST that ruined 58mm!

my Lord, this thread was started with little photo sets, and now we are lost in glorious 70mm bastards...

Sean, what a beauty!!!
mine 70mm share the same housings, here is the outer look of the oks2-28-1 lens (left mouse click for the full high res gallery, right for large image in new tab):



And, as a desert, have any of us seen 70OPF5-1 65/70mm zoom 40-240 f/4.5-5.6? (left mouse click for the gallery, right for large image):

 

[Taylor Morrison]

not ruined! Perfectly uncoated.

 

[Ilya O.]

aaaa I always feel bad for the uncoated lens...it was a pain for your Helios^-)

Taylor, do you want me to teach you how to uncoat a lens by yourself?

 

[Tommaso Alvisi]

Taylor, do you want me to teach you how to uncoat a lens by yourself?

Yes please!

usually at least the front and back have to be removed and polished, right?

Sometimes it's ok to just use a dirty cheap uv filter but it's not the same of course...

 

[Taylor Morrison]

Question... What is the difference between the 37mm Mir-1B and the Mir-1B-1V or is it a Mir-1V seems to be a few different listings out there. is there a version that has more "character" than others?
Thanks in advance

 

[Ilya O.]

What is the difference between the 37mm Mir-1B and the Mir-1B-1V or is it a Mir-1V seems to be a few different listings out there. is there a version that has more "character" than others?

Taylor, Russian letter "В" is transcribed as "V". (English "B" is "Б" in Russian).
"МИР-1В" lens which is listed at eBay as "MIR 1B" is actually wrong linguistically speaking. They must name "MIR-1V".
MIR-1V is for Mir form VOMZ, Vologda Optical and Mechanical Plant. It produced Mir since 1985 till the fall of Empire (and probably even till early 2000-s).
The same story happens with OKC and OKS abbreviation. OKS is the right way tho transcribe OбъективKиноCъемочный.

First two digits of serial number is the production year.
MIR-1 factories and dates:

1) late 50-s to 1963 — KMZ, Krasnogorsk Mechanical Factory; the logo is

Bare Aluminum housing. Have the most charming look, gentle res falloff and warm color. The coating is blue/violet. Check: http://www.reduser.net/forum/showth...rvival-Guide&p=1705466&viewfull=1#post1705466
МИР-1 | MIR-1 M39 Zenit SLR thread mount only

2) 1963 to early 70-s — ZOMZ, Zagorski Optical and Mechanical Plant (now it is Sergiev Posad), logo is an eye with an arrow

Bare Aluminum barrel. Since 1967 got the yellow coating, thus gained more contrast and neutral (really neutral!) color.
МИР-1 | MIR-1 | MIR-1-R |
MIR-1 2,8/37А prod.years 1973-1975 (usually listed as MIR-1A — redesigned more user-friendly body, "A" for interchangeable mount M39, M42, Nikon F (FX, DX), Pentax K), MIR-1A looks like this:

3) early 80s to ? — Optical and Mechanical Plant "Jupiter", Valdai, logo looks like "Ю" letter

Black anodized body, M42 mount.

4) 1985 to early 2000-s — VOMZ, Vologda Optical and Mechanical Plant, logo is like Russian B (for Vologda) or like a bow&arrow

or modern one

Black anodized body, M42 mount. Here is white Mir-1 KMZ and anodized Mir-1V appearance, notice the warm color through Mir-1 KMZ:

The name is usually МИР-1В | MIR-1V — this are believed to be not as good as others, wide open some say to be softy (could be a myth!).
There is also МИР-1Ш | MIR-1 SH — while being from the same Vologda factory, these are good optically and have more contrast than white MIR-1 (1964) from ZOMZ, there is interesting test of both by Sergey Elizarov (upper rows are white MIR-1 ZOMZ, bottom rows are MIR-1 SH), at edges:

Late MIR-1V has redesigned body which look like hand grenade:

 

[Ilya O.]

[to uncoat] usually at least the front and back have to be removed and polished, right?...

— that is the proper way if the lens for uncoating is pricey or has very good performance so you do not want to change the lens' curvature by the process. That could be pretty pricey process if done properly (!!!the facility actually should know the precise lens curvature and take the polisher of EQUAL curvature — but I can give you 90% nobody does that)

Any step below you'd better do after killing some cheap coated filter first!

1) The best way is to do the process by chemicals without any polishing since its destructive. Some say, for Soviet coatings Oxalic acid is (C2H2O4) best for uncoating. I did not try.

2) Second, I thought that toothpaste can do the trick. It did not!:

Maybe some whitening (it has abrasive particles) one could? Who will try?

3) Abrasive way. Find some finest polishing compound that would rather eat the coating first not the glass, put tiny bit of it on a cotton bud or soft cloth, add water or solvent, and move in circles gently, like when you are cleaning the lens. No need to disassemble the lens.
We here use green GOI (State Optical Institute) polishing paste (based on Chromium(III) oxide) for glass and metals, it does the trick easily without any big scratches on the glass itself (beware, some sellers on Ebay do that if the lens for sale have some coating problems, so they completely remove the coating! A coated lens surface should reflect colored image ALWAYS, if not, somebody did the destructive cheat!). So here is GOI paste effect on a coating:

This was done with the medium or rough GOI paste and looks okay to the naked eye, no scratches or matte, but you'd better look for the darker green one (№1), it has the finest grit of 0.1-0.3 microns.

I doubt you have GOI at hand , so one could use natural professional green paint for the artists, it contains Chromium(III) oxide (Cr2O3) which is a pigment of that green color. It is soft abrasive.

If not, find any soft polishing compound (not diamond based!) which has the grit size min of 0.1-0.3 micron (best, hard to find) or max of 1-7 micron.

 

[paulcurtis]

Hi Ilya,

A favourite thread here!

If i was to start collecting these lenses what era would you recommend for a sort of matched set. There seem to be so many revisions, coating changes and so on i'm wondering if there is a certain factory to focus on, one that has the most similar characteristics and coatings - like later lenses or earlier lenses?

thanks
Paul

 

[Ilya O.]

Hello, Paul

I'm happy you are reading the thread. Thanks.

The shortest advice is to stick to KMZ lenses as early as you can find. But that would cost you maybe 2x-3x and it it's the collectors' approach.

For us it is okay and of the same quality and coatings to search for lenses produced at 1960-s.: all have 10+ blackened iris blades, quality is superb, internals are super black matted!
But beware that would be M39 with the 45.2mm flange = no adapters with infinity; you need to mod the lens or CNC an adapter! WOW I'm wrong! I've checked Ebay https://goo.gl/qp091l and there IS some now (there were none for years!), anybody tested?!

So you just open the first post of the tread and copy my set But you'd better copy smarter than I did (mine are of various factories and Mir-1 has yellow coating), people usually take 37-58-85mm (but I'd take 20-58-135 for doc), so choose of KMZ ones:

37mm Mir-1 — take pre-1967 MIR with the blue-violet coating; here actually you also can take MIR from ZOMZ (Zagorsk, eye logo), they are in no way worse than KMZ.
58mm Helios-44 — take 13-balded version; if it's okay with you, there is okay 8-bladed one.
85mm Jupiter-9 — just KMZ, 60-s, any with the blue coating. (mine of LZOS, logo is C in a triangle and a circle, and the coating is too violet so mine tens to give some greeny-warm color). By the way, there is Jupier-9 for Leica LTM M39, do not buy it because the flange is shorter, it is 28.8mm.

Plz do not expect they give you a nice user experience — any lens need care, cause the grease degraded long ago and the focus would be stiff or jumpy, iris ring will fiddle, there'd be oil on the blades, the alu barrel can have gray corrosion spots etc...

Have you already opened Ebay? ahahah 200+$ per the described lenses nowadays, man, that's not 20$ it was back then, and after you add service and adaptation cost...
I bet you'll find these pretties are no more toys for tear&uncoat&grind experiments

Yet, guys, there's always the way for the most crooked smarts: search at the local Russian sales places — the price can be 7x lower!!! It's avito.ru and meshok.ru
Here is Mir-1 white one on avito through G-translate: https://goo.gl/6gwrsb and here is at meshok.ru https://goo.gl/DPhs8u

The second way is go simple less vintage M42 lens set. All have fewer shiny blades, but in a nice black anodized redesigned barrels, also MC in majority.

 

[Ilya O.]

Guys, pls welcome my beloved Helios-44 review and samples here http://www.reduser.net/forum/showth...rvival-Guide&p=1705828&viewfull=1#post1705828

 

[paulcurtis]

Hello, Paul

I'm happy you are reading the thread. Thanks.

The shortest advice is to stick to KMZ lenses as early as you can find. But that would cost you maybe 2x-3x and it it's the collectors' approach.

.

Great info, i started replying but must have lost that.

Looking on eBay the only M39 lenses i can see are the 37mm. Now M39 isn't a problem as i have a Leica Mount and it's pretty easy to adapt to that. But if the range of lenses aren't all M39 then that's a bit of a pain to use.

So is it true that only the 37 is M39 or is it i just can't see any of the others?

(edit just seem the helios review you have above is M39 as well). But i can't see on the 28mm version, the 35mm or the 20mm in M39?

thanks
Paul

 

[Ilya O.]

Paul, soviet M39 is for SLR, not for Leica rangefinders, so how would you adapt? If you just put Mir-1 on your Leica mount, you'll have only macro focusing ability.

All white ones and black Tair-3 300mm are M39. Only Mir-20 20mm is M42, and Mir-10A have that interchangeable backs which can be both M42 and M39. If a Soviet lens has "A" in its name that means it has swappable Adapter mount, it's like T-mount.