Hasselblad lenses on a Kiev 88?

Hello everyone,

I recently aquired a rather quirky Kiev 88, with a Bayonet screw mount. Unfortunately, I've realized a little too late that

the B screw mount limits the potential lens range compared to the Kiev 88CM which has the Pentacon 6 lens mount.

With the Pentacon 6 mount, it must be recessed INTO the body itself, making it kind of a one way street if I get it

done to my camera body. Where as the B screw mount is rumored to be the same dimensions or thread size as the

Hasselblad 1000s or 1600f camera...hmmmm

Seeing as the Kiev 88 is a virtual clone of these two Blad models, my question is then, will any 1600f or 1000s

lenses fit the almost virtual clone, Kiev 88 body?

Information on the web is scarce, but it sounds as if the Hassy lens mount in these two models is a B screw mount,

but who can be sure! I'd be glad to hear from anyone with prior experience, or even better, an extensive Hasselblad

lens database inside their head.

Thankyou very much in advance,

Thomas

Thomas,

it is possible that lenses of for the Hasselblad 1600F/1000F cameras will fit your Kiev 88. The mount is very similar. But I have only 1600 F and 1000 F cameras with their Zeiss- and Kodak lenses and no Kiev 88 body to verify. However these lenses are costly and it would be more economic to sell your Kiev 88 and buy a model with P6 mount. A Kiev 60 can be a good camera.

Ulrik

It does seem like you have acquired a paper weight, unless you are lucky enough to find a lens made for it. At least

with Russian motorcycles, one can sometimes, with the appropriate degree of persuasion, get other parts to fit and

keep them running.

The Hasselblad mount thread pitch and Kiev-88 (and Salyut) mount thread pitch seem to be very close, but apparently not identical.

I think that the K88/Saluyt lens mount thread is frequently close enough to the Hasselblad thread to allow lens interchangeability. My lens examples fit the adapter. This might be lens-dependent or camera-dependent.

I have a Kiev 6C (predecessor of the Kiev 60, both P6 mount), a CZJ Sonnar 180 (Hasselblad thread) and another Ukrainian lens with the K88/Salyut thread. I use a K88/Salyut thread-to-P6 lens adapter ring (I bought a pack of 5) on both, to attach to my Kiev 6C, with good results. If for some reason I decide to buy an older Salyut (reputedly quite well-made), I currently have 2 additional lenses available.

The adapter also allows me to then mount the threaded lenses onto P6-to- (in my case) Pentax K Shift or Tilt Adapters. There’s little point in using the tilt or shift functions with an 80mm or longer P6 lens, but at the very least the lenses are not orphans. I also attach my 55mm Shift lens to my Pentax via a Tilt adapter. It does take a bit of checking to make sure that everything is correctly aligned, it requires more thought to use than my 5x7 view camera, but it is very much easier to carry.

Note: The lens adapters come with a new P6 mount locking ring, that has a slightly larger internal diameter. This locking ring must be swapped with the standard ring on the Kiev 6C / 60 camera to fit the lens adapter ring. The Kiev88CM might be different enough to have issues; specifically, the K88CM mount may be too small for the lens adapter, and the adapter might decide to stay with the camera instead of the lens.

I’ve seen the 45,65,80,150,180 and 250mm lenses in both mount types, recently, on eB. I’m not sure about the 90 and 120mm, and I think that the 30mm is P6 only. The Arsat 55mm Shift is P6 only, and I think that the Hartblei T/S and Superrotator lenses are also P6 only.

I’ve had good luck with the (very low cost) Ukrainian glass, and rather than spend the money for (not very low cost) Hasselblad glass, I’d get a modern dSLR. Cost is an issue for me.

I have some hesitation in buying K88/Saluyt/Hasselblad thread-mount lenses, but since I use the adapter, it is not much hesitation.

P6-mount lenses are probably a better choice.

If your Kiev88 is reliable, getting a couple of more lenses for it might be a reasonable and inexpensive option.

Worst case: if your Kiev88 becomes problematic, add the P6 adapter rings, and buy a Tilt adapter and a Shift adapter for your 35mm / dSLR camera, and continue using the lenses.

<p>Hasselblad 1xxxf lenses are way too expensive, compared to Ukrainian, you won't get 10 times less happiness and quality getting an industar 29 (<a href="mailto:80@2.8">80/2.8</a>) then getting a standard Tessar, i'll guess for a pessimistic 9/10 if not 1:1 comparison, getting a good one, scratched tessars exists too.<br>

The only H lens that can be worth the price would be the 135 Ektar or the Kodak standard, if not overpriced.<br>

Then, you have some very rare lens, but their prices usually rise up over even the current Hasselblad compur ones.</p>

<p>Hi,<br>

I know that this is a little late, but I wanted to say that in my experience there is no need whatever to worry about the Kiev 88 "B" mount and a lack of available lenses. WHAT lack? Keep what you have and add to it. I began assembling my system in 1997 and only lack two lenses. Frankly, if you cannot find an appropriate excellent lens in the original lineup, something is badly wrong!<br>

I have the following, all in original Kiev88 mount:<br>

30mm/3.5 Arsat B<br>

45mm/3.5 Arsat 26 B<br>

55mm/4.5 PCS Arsat B<br>

65mm/3.5 Mir 33 B<br>

65mm/3.5 Mir 3 (for original Salyut mount)<br>

80mm/2.8 Arsat B (several)<br>

120mm/2.8 Vega 29 B<br>

250mm/5.6 Telear 5 B<br>

250mm/3.5 Jupiter 36B<br>

Auto extension tubes, B<br>

1.4x and 2.x Teleconverters B<br>

Plus enough other Arsenal pieces to make up an absolutely total system if not a small camera shop!.<br>

I modified the old Mir-3 by removing its diaphragm actuator arm, thus allowing the lens to mount into the later Salyut-S/Kiev88 bodies, While I was at it I also removed the powerful preset diaphragm spring, making the lens totally manual. That preset spring could be used in the recoil starter on a lawn mower!<br>

I don't have two lenses. I was NEVER interested in the 150 Kalinear lens at all. It's big and heavy and not all that sharp. If I want softer focus, I can use a light diffusion screen on one of my sharp lenses, or one layer of Saran Wrap for that matter. I begged Arsenal about five or so years ago for a 500mm f'5.6 Apo Arsat in B mount when I heard they might produce a small run of them. They were agreeable since apparently the actual mounting part interchanges among several other lenses, but they never made the batch of lenses because they could not get the minimum order for ten lenses to allow them to at least break even since they would have had to manufacture some of the components as well as grind the glass. But with the really sharp 250 Telear and the 2x converter, it's not a problem in normal daylight.<br>

Do I miss the ability to mount Pentacon or even the Exakta66 Schneider lenses? Hell no! What I have is not only perfectly adequate, but so good as to defy comparison. You may find lenses as good, but you won't find many even marginally better. I own a number of Schneider lenses (Componon, Angulon, Symmar, Xenar) and they're consistently very good, but honestly, not really noticeably better. The only two that I have questions about are the Mir26, apparently a very old design. It's more than adequate, but doesn't like being wide open. I have two. The much older one with cyrillic writing is sharper. But then what about all f/2 Sonnars and long f/2.8 Sonnars? They are far from razor sharp wide open! The 250 Jupiters could be a bit better wide open, too. I am I glad that in my early inexperience and in the interest of maintaining 62mm filters across most of my lenses, I boought the 250 Telear. It's a stop and a half slower, but sharp wide open.<br>

The newer lens designs, the Arsat 30, and pcs 55 especially, are as good as anything on earth. The more modern 65, 80, 120 and 250 are also just about as good as it gets, with almost no room for improvement in performance. If someone GAVE me a 30mm Biotar ($7K in NYC) I'd either tell them to keep it or sell it to take a nice European vacation.<br>

There is only one reason that I might want the Kiev 88 CM body. I was told that the modified main casting was much improved and strengthened over the original when they added the side angled shutter release and "CM" breech block. Especially with the 55 PCS, the side trigger would be nice, since the extension trigger supplied with the lens screws into the tripod mount, making mounting the body securely on a tripod problematical.<br>

I might also mention that I have ALL "old technology" backs and see no reason to go to the new style, even though the swing away "Linhof Super Rollex" style design is pretty neat. I never saw a reason to bother to change from what cost me a lot less, and I shoot for the square format, so the available 6x4.5 "NT" back doesn't impress me.<br>

Reliability is always brought up as an issue with Kievs. I have damaged one of my bodies beyond repair from apparent incompetence on my part, and I had another inexplicably fail in service when it was a month old. The vendor replaced one, repaired the other, and the three bodies that I now have absolutely sing. No problems since 2001. BTW, the first Kiev88 that I ever saw was a Kiev-80 in a store in Florida in about 1995. It was for sale used, and it convinced me to buy a new system. Why? Because it was so worn that the chrome was brassing, the leather pebble grain finish was wearing off near the winder and the winder knob and the lens's focus and aperture rings were visibly worn bright from years of obviously heavy use. Yet the camera's shutter absolutely purred, if you can call that high pitched whine from the curtains' air governor a purr, that is.<br>

Keep your Kiev88. The longer I have my system the more that I respect its capabilities and its general ruggedness.<br>

Ed Lukacs</p>

<p> </p>

I just bought a Zodiak 30 mm that was modified from K88 mount to be used on a Hasselblad 1600. The previous owner shortened the lens body a couple of mm on a lathe. (So now I have the problem to reverse it for use on my Kiev 88.)

@edward_lukacs: Pls. tell me more about the extension trigger for the 55 PCS. I have that lens myself (but for P6) an not such a trigger.

Regarding the adaptation of P6 lenses to K88, I was tempted to do it, but in fact it makes not much sense. K88 lenses usually go cheaper than their P6 mounted counterparts. Even if you already have the lens in P6 for the expense of the adapter you almost can buy the lens in K88 and have the advantage of automatic stop down.

I just bought a Zodiak 30 mm that was modified from K88 mount to be used on a Hasselblad 1600. The previous owner shortened the lens body a couple of mm on a lathe. (So now I have the problem to reverse it for use on my Kiev 88.)

 

@edward_lukacs: Pls. tell me more about the extension trigger for the 55 PCS. I have that lens myself (but for P6) an not such a trigger.

 

Regarding the adaptation of P6 lenses to K88, I was tempted to do it, but in fact it makes not much sense. K88 lenses usually go cheaper than their P6 mounted counterparts. Even if you already have the lens in P6 for the expense of the adapter you almost can buy the lens in K88 and have the advantage of automatic stop down.

You are aware the post you are replying to was made in 2009? The poster you are questioning was last here in that year.

I just bought a Zodiak 30 mm that was modified from K88 mount to be used on a Hasselblad 1600. The previous owner shortened the lens body a couple of mm on a lathe. (So now I have the problem to reverse it for use on my Kiev 88.)'....

The lens was probably just shortened to clear the mirror, it should still fit on your Kiev-88, but without the auto diaphragm. The thread pitch is slightly different, and it was probably modified (filed) so it would thread onto a Hasselblad 1600/1000. It may be a bit loose on the Kiev now.

The lens was probably just shortened to clear the mirror, it should still fit on your Kiev-88, but without the auto diaphragm. The thread pitch is slightly different, and it was probably modified (filed) so it would thread onto a Hasselblad 1600/1000. It may be a bit loose on the Kiev now.

He shortened the part before the mount, so the lens back will go even more inside the mirror box.

He shortened the part before the mount, so the lens back will go even more inside the mirror box.

Hi Eugen,

Nice to hear from you!

I investigated the Hasselblad 1600/1000 and Kiev-88 mount issue in the intervening 3 years, and it turns out that they have the same flange back distance, diameter and thread pitch, but the Hasselblad version has the threads starting a little further into the mount than the Kiev versions. As a result, the Kiev lenses can only just start to engage the thread, and won't lock.

Machining the Kiev lens as you described will allow the lens to screw in and lock properly, but now the lens will be too close to the film, which will affect close focusing unless you adjust the helicoid - but if you do that, then lenses will not focus to infinity on the Kiev88.

Here is the thread where I mounted a Kiev lens on a Hasselblad 1000f without significant modification:

Saluyt-S / Kiev-88 lens on a Hasselblad 1600f / 1000f

Although not stated in that post, it also worked with my Zodiak 30.

Later, I replaced the mount on the Hasselblad body with one from a Kiev, this allowed access to a wider range of lenses:

Hasselblad 1000f + Salyut mount (and back) - see post #11

If you have some of the Ektar lenses, you may not want to do this, as this modification makes the native Hasselblad lenses mount inefficiently.