Russian | Soviet | USSR Lens Survival Guide

[Ilya O.]

Updated the Mir-10A vs Distagon 2.8/28mm review, read upwards.

 

[Vladimir Cazacu]

I've noticed this as well in some tests I did a few years back, that some of the russian lenses I had (MIR 20, MIR 10A, Jupiter-9) showed "shallower depth of field" at the same aperture as Zeiss Contax lenses (same focal lengths compared).


Ilya, do you have any information on the 10mm T3 LOMO lens, OKC6-10-1? There doesn't seem to be much about it out there (especially about it's distortion characteristics and if it covers modern sensors) and it seems like a very unique design (or is it a recalculation for russian sourced materials of the Kinoptik Tegea 9.8mm ?)



https://i.imgur.com/KexFGx7.jpg - this test shows that the lens hood makes it vignette quite badly on S35 but without it it's hard to tell if it would cover or not.

 

[Ilya O.]

I've noticed this as well in some tests I did a few years back, that some of the russian lenses I had (MIR 20, MIR 10A, Jupiter-9) showed "shallower depth of field" at the same aperture as Zeiss Contax lenses (same focal lengths compared)...

You know, I've just realized one more thing and it is paradoxically contradicts to our findings about the shallower DOF impression of some classical soviet lenses. You see, spherical aberration draws an overlapping circle of scattered light around the "sharp" core dot, so the resulting image is an object surrounded by a soft and hazy halo. So, the sharpness disappears, no object has hard edges now and thus — that is the contradiction — the depth of the field significantly increases. The latter is well-known fact in monocle / symmetric aplanat / petzval / soft-focus photography (classic soft-focus lenses were Bush-Perscheid Soft-focus, Astro-Gesellschaft Berlin Rosher Kino-portrait).
So, spherical aberration should give WIDER DOF, not lesser like that in Mir-10A example.
Or, this is my theory, small spherical aberration gives shallower DOF impression, whist huge sphercial aberration, like of classic soft-focus lenses, gives huge DOF for real, not sujectively.

 

[Ilya O.]

...Ilya, do you have any information on the 10mm T3 LOMO lens, OKC6-10-1? There doesn't seem to be much about it out there (especially about it's distortion characteristics and if it covers modern sensors) and it seems like a very unique design (or is it a recalculation for russian sourced materials of the Kinoptik Tegea 9.8mm ?)
https://i.imgur.com/KexFGx7.jpg - this test shows that the lens hood makes it vignette quite badly on S35 but without it it's hard to tell if it would cover or not.

Yeah, here you are, the datasheet for LOMO / CKBK OKS6-10-1 10mm f2.8 T3 multi-coated lens:

[35OKS6-10-1 lens diagram / scheme and main optical data]

No way, Kinoptik was decades older and had different optical diagram, while this lens was calculated before 1980 as an original design and produced in 1980-199(?).

As for the coverage, it is not clear whether it hard portholes on aps-c or not, see bottom (and dark edged shots) shots of Edwin Lee album on Flickr where he puts OKS6-10-1 on Sony NEX-5:




If there's a hard vignette there at edges of Lee shoots, I'm pretty shure one can avoid that by shaving the petal hood out.

Performance wise, here's 4.6K image taken with Panasonic GH2 by Stanislav Shubert:

 

[Vladimir Cazacu]

Thanks for the information, Ilya.

About OKS6-10-1M, I've read pretty much everything else there is out there on the internet but I've yet to see any proper high resolution video shot with it.

Most DP's seem to go for the EKRAN OKS-2-14-1 14mm T2.5 for ultra-wide coverage.

 

[Ilya O.]

You're welcome! Indeed, there's lack of info in the net, and that's why I put what I can here

35OKS2-14-1? Where on earth you come across this rarity? By now, it's close to impossible to encounter any of the EKRAN superspeeds here in Russia.

That complex OKS with 11 separate elements is the only late USSR cine lens which incorporates a floating component to compensate sharpness when at close focus. Here's the datasheet for OKS2-14-1 f/2.5 T2.7, multi-coated:

[35OKS2-14-1 lens diagram / scheme and main optical data]

 

[Florian Berutti]

Would love to have this lens in my set....but really never saw it.
There is a slow and fsat version of this 14mmEKRAN ?

 

[Ilya O.]

Florian, this OKS2-14-1 is the "slow" version, being f2.5 T2.7

As for the fast one, there was OKS3-14-1 f1.5 T1.7:

[35OKS3-14-1 lens diagram / scheme and main optical data]

 

[Ilya O.]

Here one can find soviet photo lens look and character, collected in one gallery:

 

[Ilya O.]

Hello anyone using Russian lenses?! PLZ share images here

 

[Lee Kelly]

I have the classic set of Russian lenses. From 20mm to 135mm all the usual suspects like Mir, Jupiter, Helios, Tair. I actually love them but I have not shot much with them that I can share at the moment. What I did notice was that in real world situations all mine matched quite well, as in it didnt feel like you were swapping different lenses for different focal lenths. They all shared pretty similar vibes. I actually really like my 20mm f2.5 and even though it focus the wrong way, compared to everyone else, its not a big deal and its super sexy at close focus and although wide, focus is shallow wide open and its still a pretty flattering lens in close.
I had a friend who wanted to shoot something on 5d this weekend and asked if he could borrow some gear. I talked him into the Russians and even though he had little to no experience with manual photography, I essentially told him to keep the iris open and find some flare and go nuts. Hes loving them.

 

[Ilya O.]

Lee, thank you for sharing your experience

As for shooting wide open, I completely agree, and not because of the shallow dop, but for most evident lens' character.

And what about OKS cine lenses?

 

[Fred Ansaldo]

Lomo Nikfi charts and internal lenses layout

Lomo Nikfi charts and internal lenses layout

Hey ladies and gents !

I have a 35OPFP-1 and a 35OPF25-2-a and I'd love to have a copy of the NIKFI charts for these, as well as a diagram of the internals for lenses layout if someone has that around.

(Also because I cleaned up all the lenses in the 35OPFP and think that, even if I was super careful, I reinstalled one either in the wrong position, or backwards, so... just to be sure... )

Cheers all !

 

[Ilya O.]

Hi Fred, sorry for delay, I now spend most of my time at Instagram and Facebook.

Well, you'd better not go into the zoom's guts, it can be pretty easy misaligned:-(

So plz welcome the hard Soviet docs with all lens' data and measured parameters.
All PDFs have text layers (OCRed) in RUSSIAN so you can select & copy txt lines you are interested in and google translate em.

35OPFP1-1 50-150mm f2.2 is 16 lens in 4 groups, it's late NPO EKRAN projection lens (anamorphic attachment included in the basic kit, to de-anamorph the film at projection). Special feature is that it is also purposed for a front / rear projection film shootings. Bonus is that 35OPFP1 has the OCT-19 additional mount bayonet (68/61mm) so you can mount it not only on the single frame (frame-per frame) projector (as intended) but also to any soviet film camera with OCT-19 mount.

Should be very sharp with 100lp/mm center and 80lp/mm edge resolution (regular lenses measured to USSR standards have 50lp/mm center, 30-25 lp/mm edge). Weights ~3.5kg (7.71 lbs).

35OPF1-1-01 is the same lens but coupled with a 2x doubler so 100-300mm f3.5.

35OPFP1-1-01 Passport (with text layer).pdf




35OPFP1 User Manual and lens diagrams (with text layer).pdf



***

What is 35OPF25 family for? It was designed in mid 1980-s to shoot both regular movies and animation/cartoons. 20 lenses in 4 groups. 25-250mm f3.2 T~3.9, mfd 1.7m, weight is 6.2kg (13.66 lbs). Supposed to have OKAY resolution of 65-55 lp/mm center, 25-30 lp/mm edge.

35OPF25-2 User Manual and lens diagrams (with text layer).pdf



35OPP25-2 Passport (with text layer).pdf



Family names:

35OPF25-2 — a regular lens with unknown today working conditions -30 to +40 Celsius (-22 to 104 F) .

35OPF25-2M — "M" ("Мультипликационный") stands for animation/cartoons, has the huge ~195mm Dia and heavy 3-element front spherical attachment which makes close focus (0.96m (3.14'') from the film plane) possible, so a lens would look like that:

This 35OPF25-2M mod is supposed to work when mounted vertically (has internals modified to that working conditions?), and indoors only at temperatures +10 to +35 Celsius (50 to 95 F). Weighs 9.5 kg (2.11 lbs). Close focus is 0.96m (3.14'') and far focus is 1.19m (3.28''). The most evident difference from the cine version is that this one has the zoom ring scale engraved not in mm-s, but in magnification ratios in light green and yellow color.

35OPF25-2MA — is M-mod + 3-lens back anamorphic attachment, hence the f stop of 4.5. Made to shoot widescreen animation/cartoons (WOW!). Lens becomes a glass beast, see the diagram:

 

[Ilya O.]

Hi guys.

Helios-44-2 2/58 is pretty popular nowadays, especially as a no-cost-but-nice-IQ basic lens for the front projection anamorphic mods and rigs.

Yet other Helioses and other Soviet 50mils or their genealogy remain unknown, abd now and then people ask me at FaceBook to give some info on other Helioses or what's the difference etc...

So to not let FaceBook bury my answers under piles of comments and new kitty-N-flowers posts, I let it here on eternal RedUser

First, about the naming convention, here concerning the Helios-44-2, some people think that "the digit after "-" sign is the quality control label, which means what resolution in lpm this actual sample is able to deliver (or WAS able at the moment of measurements). Here is the almost-official source of the information, use Google translate for details http://www.zenitcamera.com/archive/lenses/helios-44.html "

— well, -4 to 7 as a QC label refers ONLY to the -44M-X model (models like Helios-44m-4,..44m-5, till -7) whist 2 in Helios-44-2 is just a m42 thread mount designation.

Helios-81 2/52 is the end and top hallmark Helios in the USSR lens evolution (I speak here only about the ones mass-produced and easily found on the market). It has 6 elements in 4 components, it is the most classical double Gauss lens formula since the group pioneer, Cooke Series 0 (zero) lens by Horace William Lee (Taylor, Taylor & Hobson Ltd.), 1920.

So, guys, if you're in search for top IQ (MC, multi-coated and superb contrast and sharpness and very low swirl in bokeh) and price friendly Helios, plz stick to the Helios-81, it is damn close to the classic and optically groundbreaking Zeiss Planar 2/50 (5/6 formula, late 1970-s.): believe it or not, Zeiss worshippers, Helios-81 has the same as Planar resolving power in the center (~52 lp/mm, measured with film stock), and only ~5 lp/mm less at the outer image fields (10 and 20mm off axis). Put in other form, compared to Planar as 100% reference, Helios-81 is 100% in the center and only 88% at the image field (resolution on film).

How is that? Helios-81 uses Ultra Heavy Crown (or Extra Dense Crown) glass types (СТК in Cyrillic and at LZOS factory, also known as LaK or Lanthanum Crown types at Schott optical glass factory) which were tamed by the Soviet optical industry. Planar 2/50 used that glass types.

Lanthanum crowns have pretty high refractive index (determines how strong light is bent), and that makes possible to create glass elements with a large optical power and at the same time with a relatively small curvature of the element' surface — impossible before (that's why all speedy and nice Panchros and Biotars etc have a tendency of using very curved glass)! So СТК or LaK or Lanthanum Crowns give better aberration correction, especially the curvature of the image surface. In simple, these glass type lets the optical design to get more resolution, speed and field flatness with minimum and simpler in form glass elements.

And what about the grandfather Helios-44 2/58? It uses regular Dense Crown (TK at LZOS factory, or SK types at Schott). But is it optically inferior (resolution wise) compared to advanced Planar and Helios-81? Well, not at all! H-44 has 46 lp/mm center, 33 lp/mm at 10mm off center and 26 lp/mm at 20mm edge resolving power.

Compared to Planar as 100% H-44 is only 6 lp/mm less in the center and at the outer edge (or 88% of Planar's res), and 9 lp/mm less at mid-field (81% of Planar's res).

Compared to Helios-81, H-44 is is only 6 lp/mm less in the center (or 88% of Helios-81 res), 5 lp/mm less less at mid-field (89% of H-81's res), and almost equal (1lp/mm less) at the outer edge (20mm of axis).

Get what all that means?

Any Helios is a nice performer. It's just the image character you chose which depends on the coatings and the bokeh type. The later the model the more clinical and contrasty you get.

In lens design evolution, especially a classical double Gauss ones, only a relatively minor advance like 10-20% in characteristics (lets take resolution) is taken at a cost of very high price and efforts and time.

Third. Price does not reflects the optical performance if we speak about vintage glass produced in socialistic economy. So guys plz forget that western idea that the pricier the better quality (or cheaper means worse). It is a total miss if we speak about former socialistic economies where all the population finances the lens development and production in a hidden manner.

 

[Ilya O.]

Now some info on other nice nifty fifties of USSR.

Here is the photos of Zenitar-M f1.7 50mm (52):

[Image courtesey of LensClub.ru]

Zenitar 1.7/50 was in production in late 1970-s and 1980-s. See the USSR Pat. 527683 of 1975, by Yu.F. Yurchenko:

Seems Zenitar is an optical derivative of the famous Voigtlaender Ultron (1950) and Schneider Xenon (1937) both developed by Albrecht Wilhelm Tronnier, one of the best 20th century lens designers.

So expect more or less the same image character for the Zenitar. Optical performance and image quality should be pretty high, even wide open; no swirly bokeh though.

Derivative does not mean a copy but a design solution within the same lens family and layout.
Plz note that Zenitar's layout is a bit different form Xenon and Ultron: the latter use
positive->positive->negative lenses before the iris, whilst Zenitar uses
positive->negative thin->positive thick tele meniscus — all to get f1.7 speed together with relatively high resolution across the whole image area and at the same keeping the lens simple and ready for cost-effective production (as stated in the patent).

Worth mentioning that the combo of negative->positive lens in front of the iris is relatively rare found in Double Gauss types.

Personally, I did not ever used Zenitar. Who tried it? Share here, please.

By the way, the successor of this optical design (by adding 1 more lens in front) is the advanced and - some say - a design and cost overkill - vintage Planar 50/1.8 by genius Erhard Glatzel of Zeiss, 1972 (7 lenses in 6 groups), which is available as a real lens as the Rollei Planar 50 1.8 (could also be branded as Oberkochen Opton / Carl Zeiss Planar 1.8 50 / Voigtländer Ultron on rebranded VLS camera bodies), and it was manufactured between 1970 and 1995.

!!! Addendum: before the Zeiss Planar 7/6 of 1972, there was the first and thus the real Xenon succesor and the father of this Planar 7/6 — I mean the Voigtlaender ULTRON with the concave front element, patented by Tronnier in Swiss in 1968 (CH486708) and a bit later in USA (US3612663):

WOW I said that the neg+positive lens in front of the iris is rare in Lee Opic derivatives. Now I see it is hell rare combo.
And you know what lens has the same as Zenitar-m 1.7/50 layout?!
It seems to bee literally a copy of Zenitar, see the famous Konica Hexanon AR 1.8/40mm lens diagram, 1979:

[Hexanon and Zenitar optical diagrams]​

 

[Ilya O.]

As for Zenitar-M 1.9/50, despite the same name to 1.7/50, a totally different lens from late 1980-s.

[image courtesy by photohistory.ru]

It was made in small batches at KMZ just before USSR collapsed, so early 1990-s, with multi-coating as general. Usually comes in M42 (Zenutar-M) or Pentax mount (Zenitar-K)

The genealogy and the opt design is different to Zenitar-m 1.7/50, see the USSR patent 1691806 by A.A.Tokarev, 1989:

It's not symmetrical like usual Double-Gauss lenses like Planar and Helios. See that 3th component (the lens after the iris) is a single lens and a 4th component is a doublet?

It's an optical derivative of a post-War 5-element medium format Biometars (of Carl Zeiss Jena), but Zenitar has an advanced 6-lens formula, notably the last lens is not a singlet but a doublet. Image character should be close to Biometars.

Interesting, this USSR patent cites Japanese patent JPS589117 of 1983 as its base https://worldwide.espacenet.com/pub...T=D&ND=3&date=19830119&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP and says nothing about the real initial patent of Zöllner registered on January 15, 1957 (DD17933) https://worldwide.espacenet.com/pub...=17933U&KC=U&FT=D&ND=3&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP

Biometar as a 5-element lens design is simplified derivative of the 6 or 7 element Biotar / double Gaussian type lens, and it uses thin meniscus with very strong radii of curvature to correct the aberrations. Developed by Eastern Zeiss, DDR, Jena. Well-known and respected representatives are medium format Biometars 2.8/80mm and 2.8/120mm.

[optical layout/diagram of Biometar prototype as from the DDR Patent DD17933, by Zöllner, 1957]

 

[Fred Ansaldo]

Oh my god !

I don't know why I didn't see this before !

Thank you so much Ilya !

 

[Ilya O.]

Hahaah

You're welcome, Fred!

Maybe because of only me posting here, rare, so the thread goes down to 2nd page

 

[Sabovic Adis]

Heh, telling secrets here aren't you, Иля?
Shame on you, the KGB will find out about this. :smile5: