Russian cameras/lenses compatible with Nikon lenses/camera

<p>Is anyone here familiar with old soviet cameras, and can you tell if there were lenses compatible with Nikon F-mount. ? I lived there as a kid very long time ago, and have some notion that there were. Don't remember which cameras, though </p>

<p>the guys in the classic manual cameras forum are all the time talking about their old russkie leica knock-offs. you'd probably do well to search the archives over there for more info. i can't recall reading much discussion of nikon F-mount compatibles, however, but i could have very well overlooked it and been none the wiser.</p>

<p>The Kiev-17, Kiev-19, Kiev-19M, and Kiev-20 were all Soviet-made SLRs with Nikon F mounts. They typically came with Helios 81M, 81H, or Arsat-H f/2 lenses.</p>

<p>The Kiev 17-20 models (I believe) all had Nikon mounts. I had a Kiev 17 and the Arsat was pretty sharp. But if I remember correctly the ai coupler on it was a little different than on Nikkors and would couple properly on Nikon bodies--or maybe the Nikkors wouldn't couple with a Kiev body. One way or the other it wasn't worth the trouble</p>

<p>A quote from a buddy selling a Nikon S3 rangefinder:</p>

<p>" I'll even throw in a Russian 50 mm f2 lens that you'd need to shim to properly make it focus (it has the same mount as the Nikon lenses but was actually made for the Russian Kiev cameras which were Contax copies and have the same mount but a slightly different pitch to the focusing helicoids)."</p>

<p>Best regards,<br /> /Clay</p>

<p>Why is everyone talking about these cameras in the past tense? <a href="http://kievcamera.net/product.php?id_product=20">They're still available new apparently.</a></p>

<p>FWIW, Norton Safe Web says the site at Rodeo Joe's link (kievcamera.com) is a "known malicious web site."</p>

<p>It's clean according to Mcafee site advisor, and I can't see anything on the page that could possibly cause any issue. There are no popups, animations or even any XTML or Java stuff to worry about. In fact the whole page looks bland to the point of boring!</p>

<p><strong>DON"T CLICK ON RODEO JOE'S LINK! - MALWARE ALERT</strong></p>

<blockquote>

<p>It's clean according to Mcafee site advisor, and I can't see anything on the page that could possibly cause any issue.... ...the whole page looks bland to the point of boring!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>An intrusion was blocked here. I wouldn't declare an 'all clear' based on this one source when others are reporting otherwise. Weighing the balances of some warnings recieved vs. clicking on an an unimportant link, I would advise that any risk, even if it were low, is not worthwhile.</p>

<p>We got the message on the cameras in any event.</p>

<p>Ha, that is nothing!</p>

<p>If you want real excitement, thrills, and chills, try downloading a Linux distro from a Russian source. ;)</p>

<p>The weirdest Soviet item in these lines was, for me, the Almaz, which was a Nikon lookalike, but with a Pentax K mount lens.</p>

<p>I'm not sure why a legitimate commercial site would knowingly distribute malware and get itself blocked. Is that considered good business in the Ukraine?</p>

<p>Anyway, I apologise if that site is genuinely infected with some unseen malevolence, and ask the moderator to remove the link.</p>

<p>I have doubts that its purposeful. No need for apology. You're intentions are all very good.</p>

<p>No Russian Nikon mount digicams?</p>

<p>Oh FFS. If you're using Symantec (and thus Norton) or MacAfee anything you might as well just uninstall your web browser and call it a day. The only thing worse than paying for and trusting MacAfee or Symantec for security is parroting its useless warnings. Oh, the joys of being stuck with Windows. lol. There are plenty of proper security programs that are free for home and non-commerical use that rank far better than Symantec/Norton whatever or MacAfee whatever. kievcamera.net is fine, and didn't even try to open any popup windows for me.</p>

<p>In answer to Dima's question, yeah a number of the Soviet lenses work just fine on Nikon bodies. I've got a Mir 24N 35/2.0 lens that I use from time to time. It's nice, but I seem to, optically at least, prefer the Sigma 30/1.4. In terms of build quality, the Sigma is, of course, worse. You can pop in on the mflenses.com forums for more information and sample shots if you're interested — altho the M42 mount lenses seem to be the most popular. Also, check the Flickr groups.</p>

<p>There's also the horrible 200mm f/3.5 Telear-N lens. Heavy, poorly coated and fuzzy as a hangover tongue. Avoid like the plague. - Drat, probably shouldn't have said that until I'd sold mine on Hehebay.</p>