Zodiak-8 30mm fisheye

Discussion in 'Medium Format' started by phillip_o'dwyer|2, Jul 6, 2007.

  1. Hi Guy's I just bought a Zodiak-8 30mm fisheye lens for my Mamiya Pro TL and
    wondered if anyone had any experience with it .. I was originaly after a Mamiya
    24mm f4 fisheye but couldn't find one for love or money 2nd hand and I'm off to
    live in Spain soon so I grabed this while it was on offer after hearing good
    feedbacks for it, but the feedbacks were for mostly 35mm so if anyone has used
    this lens on MF camera's I would like to hear what you think of it....regards
    Phil
     
  2. I have the newer Arsat version in P-6 mount--excellent lens IMO.
     
  3. I own the Arsat version - great lens, be careful with glare, though. Attached is a photo from my "Signs of LA," series - the middle image was shot with the Arsat. Thanks F
    00LmXh-37326784.jpg
     
  4. I have the Arsat 30mm which I use on my Pentacon 6TL. Great lens, sharp and with excellent contrast.<P>

    Here's two shots of the same scene, first with the lens leveled and second with the lens pointed down.<P>

    <img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/157/371636841_8e9b148a0e_m.jpg">

    <img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/180/371636840_3a1e3b554e_m.jpg">
     
  5. Phillip,<br><br>It certainly is a fun lens. But good, it isn't.<br>It may be sharper than one would first expect from a cheaply made lens, but compare it to (a bit) more expensive lenses, and you'll soon know why even moderately priced lenses cost more than this one.<br><br>But still, it is not bad enough to be unusable. And it certainly is fun.<br>So it gets used... ;-)
     
  6. Thank you for the feedback Robert, Q G, P C and Francisco, and for photo expamples( lovely shots) :).. that's good enough for me :) I'm off out today to give it a try and experiment with it .. I will try and post results altho I havn't a good scanner as yet .....kindest regards Pill :)
     
  7. "compare it to (a bit) more expensive lenses"??

    AFAIK (at least for 6 X 6) there's the Zodiak/Arsat for about $200 and the Zeiss Distagon, which costs several thousand dollars and is reputed to be slightly sharper.
     
  8. Robert,<br><br>Other fish-eye lenses aren't the only lenses you can compare the performance of the Arsat to.<br>The Arsat is not a very good lens. Adequate, but no more.<br>Usable, because of it being a fish-eye: the effect distracts from how mediocre its sharpness, contrast, etc. is.<br>And it gets used for its effect. Not to shoot resolution charts and count line pairs under a microscope.
     
  9. Sooooo opinionated--LOL
     
  10. I've had one for years and use it on a Hartblei modified Kiev 60. It's a superb lens. Mine is quite sharp corner to corner when stopped down to f/8. And it's not bad at 5.6.
    I also have Hasselblad lenses like the 50mm Distagon, and I'd say it compares very favorably. Not sure what Mr. de Bakker is comparing it to. Possibly he has a bad sample. Quality control was spotty at best in the old Arsenal factory, so it could be his example was poorly fitted.
    One thing to be aware of is that the rear UV filter must always be fitted. It is part of the optical formula and poor results may occur if it's omitted.
     
  11. Attached is a recent shot from my 30mm Zodiak. It's a fun lens. Just beware of flare!
    00LnC3-37348484.jpg
     
  12. Robert,<br><br>I have, and use, this lens. I have and use many other lenses too. It's not an opinion. It's fact.<br><br>And no, i do not happen to have found a 'lemon': the guy who worked on this lens for me congratulated me with finding such a good sample. (Which made - and makes - me wonder how the less good samples are.)
     
  13. We'll have to differ on that Q.E., but I do think it's better to compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges.
     
  14. And lenses to lenses, yes.<br>;-)
     
  15. Exactly--no offense intended :)
     
  16. Hello Q.E. de Bakker,

    the overall quality of the ARSAT 30mm fisheye lens is excellent, if one has picked a good adjusted piece. The quality control of the ARSAT lenses are in general often very weak. I've made a 130x100cm large infrared picture with the 30mm ARSAT on ROLLEI IR 820/400 film, with my CONTAX 645 from a high tower. You can see very fine details, even on the corner of the image, in a distance of over 10 km. I guess that tells a lot, about the quality of the lens, and the quality of the ROLLEI IR film! It may be possible, that I have picked a very good fisheye lens!

    Cheers
     
  17. Well, as an owner and user of a well adjusted (!) Zodiak/Arsat, i certainly would not call it excellent.<br>Unless, Robert, you don't use other, truly excellent, lenses to compare it too.<br><br>So i guess all we can agree on is that we don't agree.<br><br>But, Phillip, it still is a fun lens. Nice to have and play with.
     
  18. Hi Russ, you should look at the following website for good ROLLEI IR photos:

    http://www.digitaltruth.com/store/rollei_infrared2.html
    http://www.digitaltruth.com/store/rollei_infrared3.html
     
  19. There's definitely some sample variation. I checked my new arsat sample 30/3.5. It has a center resolution of 47 lps/mm wide open. It needs a stopdown to f/11 to get >74 lps/mm in the center. Somebody reported >70 lps/mm at f5.6 at center. Mine has 55-62 lps/mm at f5.6 at center and 62-67 lps/mm at f/8 at center. If I go for a big enlargement (20"x24"), I'll shoot at f/11 and f/16 with my lens. I believe the UV filter (sigle coated) at rear affects the resolution. A MC'ed UV filter will be a good investment. I'm not sure how good a distagon is for USAF test chart.

    Richard
     
  20. Richard,<br><br>The blank filter at the rear is not realy an UV filter. It is an optical blank, part of the optical design of the lens.<br>It's there to apply the same optical effect using any of the coloured filters would produce: being at the rear, with nothing else behind it, a lengthening of the optical path by a small amount.<br>Would you not use that glass, you would not get true infinity focus (DOF would help, though). When not trying to focus to infinity, it would not matter much whether it is there or not.<br><br>But yes, it should be coated too, to prevent it from adding many reflections.
     
  21. Under daylight conditions, 47 lps/mm at center is obtained (wide open)for vertcal lines while 67 lps/mm has achieved wide open at center for horizontal lines (USAF test chart). There are red tinted edges along the vertical lines while there are blue tinted edges along the horizontal lines. Under halogen light, 67 lps/mm for vertical lines can be achieved wide open. Astigamatism?
     
  22. And chromatic aberration. Probably both longitudinal and lateral.<br><br>Still: a fun lens.
     

Share This Page