Kiev 45mm vs. Bronica 50mm

[k._rivkin]

I'm sorry for asking another question earlier and now jumping to this but:

 

After a lot of web searching and looking at some tests, there is a

question that I would really appreciate being helped with - did

someone compare Bronica's 50mm to Kiev 45mm in terms of

sharpness/contrast, I don't mean a rigorous test, I mean exactly

personal experience - is Bronica visibly better ? Is it better at f11

? I would really appreciate the answer.

 

Sincerely yours,

 

K.Rivkin

[robert_marvin]

This site has what you're looking for:

 

http://kievaholic.com/lenstests2.html

[k._rivkin]

Thank you, I've seen this one - I was wondering if this is actually seen in real life on 11x11 prints or so...

[kevin_ing]

Short answer: Yes. The Bronica 50mm is better than the Kiev 45mm.

 

The 45mm Mir has never been praised as one of the better lenses in the Kiev line. It suffers from extremely variable optical quality. Build quality is generally below average with lots of slop in the focusing ring and aperture clicks and movement. Sample variation plagues this lens more than any of the other Kiev lenses. It is prone to flaring badly if there is a bright light source anywhere near the field of view (not necessarily even *in* the field of view).

 

The Bronica 50mm in either S or PS version is a typically cleanly built Japanese lens with good focus ring damping. It is sharp and delivers good color and contrast. It's not surprising that you don't hear too many people complaining about this lens, because there isn't a whole lot to say. It's good. And at today's prices, it's a downright bargain.

[andre_noble4]

Whatever the Kiev lenses are, the bodies are JUNK. Avoid at all cost.

 

I had a Kiev 60 w/ 80mm and the Fisheye. Bought it in Moscow in '93.

 

Lenses were "O.K.", the 8omm was actually nice, but you'll find Bronica and Zeiss in another league still. With med format prices so low now, there is absolutely no reason to consider Kiev.

 

If you're that low in money right now, consider selling blood rather than spending what you do have on a Kiev system.

[kevin_ing]

From his other posts, he stated that he already has a Kiev 88 which he says works very well. The Bronica would be a totally new system purchase.

 

But I do think that the Bronica 50mm would deliver noticably better results than the 45mm Mir. And at today's prices it would be worthwhile to buy a Bronica with 50mm and be done with it, rather than taking a chance on another 45mm Mir, or two, or three, or four.

[skygzr]

I've used both, and the Bronica was noticably sharper than the Mir.

[richard_p]

I think a "good" mir or arsat MC will match the performance of either bronica 50mm or carl zeiss distagon 50mm when the lens is stopped down to f/11 or f/16. As Kevin Ing said, there's sample variations in mir lenses. If you want to go with one wide lens and one camera, I believe bronica sqai 50mm is the way to go. However, from what I read, one guy in another forum also complained the so-so performance of bronica 50mm. In the kevin's test, bronica 40mm beat both bronica 50mm and distagon 50mm. Bronica 50mm performed better than distagon 50mm in his test.

 

Richard

[ed_nazarko]

I have the PS version of the 50mm on an SQ-A, and it's excellent, every bit of what I expected. Actually think it's better than the 80mm, although that's not a very scientific comparison, and may just reflect my own personal preferences for perspective and field of view. If I don't keep careful track of the aperture used, it's hard to tell how far I stopped it down just by sharpness, have to study the depth of field.

 

I also have used it on a 36mm extension tube for some crazy floral images, and it was a champ, although I was careful not to open up more than f8.

[robert_marvin]

Andre Noble wrote:

 

"Whatever the Kiev lenses are, the bodies are JUNK. Avoid at all cost.

 

I had a Kiev 60 w/ 80mm and the Fisheye. Bought it in Moscow in '93...."

 

A GOOD Kiev 60 is NOT junk. I've been using my Arax 60 for over a year and am very happy with it. Picture quality is comparable to my Rolleiflex 2.8E, which is the highest praise I can think of. A Kiev 60 bought new in Moscow in '93 is likely to have sat on a shelf for years before purchase with the lubricants getting gummed up. Poor (non-existant?) factory quality control also means that these cameras must be adjusted before use. A re-worked Kiev 60, such as those sold by Arax or, I'm told, by Mike Forman, is VERY different and, IMO, is one of the best bargains in MF cameras.

[k._rivkin]

Thank you very much,

 

Concerning Kievs' on the market - I think shady dealers thinking more about trade's volume rather than about satisfied returning customers are also to blame for the situation.

 

I've decided to part with my Kiev, and yes, it is a _very_ good Kiev, hope someone will have good luck with it (after bidding mega$ for it :)).

 

I'll be watching a second hand Bronica coming about on ebay... Just lost the chanse on one for 400$... Hope something will turn up...