Kiew lens quality opinions ?

[bianchetti_massimo]

I read on the Net that Kiew lens quality is poor ; moreover the absence of a MC treatment can worse contrast and flare problems.

Is true that Pentacon six lens is more better quality?

I'm in difficult to make a choice between a pentacon or kiew

tele lens to fit it on my Pentax645 body.

thanks for any opinion.

[a._t._seliotis]

I don't know where you got your information from but Kiev lenses are actually quite good. They're no Zeiss but far from poor. The lack of multicoating has not really interefered with my photography. Most of my lenses lack an MC treatment.

 

<p>

 

Tom Seliotis

[j._law]

Well, let's stop a minute and compare resolutions. <p>

The yashinon 4-element Tessar clone has performance listed at: <a href="http://home.att.net/~j..harper/lens.html"> The Yashica 124G Page</a> which shows that wide open, it has a resolution of 35/25. Even at f5.6 it has 63/32, and only until f11 does it have 79/50 and at f16, 71/50. <p>

 

According to Kalimex <a href="http://www.dedal.cz/Ln_MF_EN.html"> Optics of Kiev Lenses</a> the Standard 80/2.8 has a resolution of 50/20. Now, if this were wide open, this isn't bad! The 65mm wide has a resolution of 42/18, which isn't so good at all. But if it were stopped down, that isn't bad. The 250mm Jupiter has a 55/40 which is decent. <p>

 

After all, the yashinon 80/3.5 is a tessar clone (although i THINK it's a 3-element Triotar clone, rather than a 4-element tessar clone, i'm not sure) which means that it really ought to be somewhat lower than, but comparable to tessar performance. <p>

 

If the kiev ratings are wide open, that's great. If they're stopped down...well...that's painfull bad. <p>

 

Just my take on it.<p>

 

-jon

[kenny_chiu1]

In your case, save your money and buy a Pentax lens. The adapter

seems very expesive if you want to fit Kiev/p-six lenses to your Pentax 645 body.

In general, uncoated lenses are good for available light and flash

photograph. The flare will show if you shot your subjects in shadow

or indoor and has a strong back light.

[randolph_carlisle]

Between the wife and I we have almost all of both Kiev and aus Jena lenses. I have yet to encounter a bad one and most are very sharp. The problems appear to be in the Kiev bodies and lax quality control - if one can rely on the anecdotal "evidence" The one thing that has most impressed me is that a large part of the criticsm about this glass comes from folks who have never used it and are only repeating what they have heard - often from others who have never used any of these lenses. There is no product made by man that is entirely free of defects - you can include Leica and Hasselblad among those.

[m._czekalla]

Answering to the cost of a K6 to Pentax/ Mamiya adaptor It csots made by Zvrk( http://www.zoerk.com) 230.- DM or 130 $. Is this much if you can use a really good 30 mm fish eye lens for additional 200-300$? Regards Markus

[ryszard_stasinski1]

I really doubt that Kiev lenses have no multicoating. I have several

Carl Zeiss Jena lens for MF and 35 formats, and some (post-)Soviet for

35 mm. I am using them through converters on Mamiya M645, and

Canon EOS 10. Except for one or two _all_ of them are multicoated,

some being up to 20 years old. I have been considering the purchase

of 250/5.6 for Kiev 60 - it has an abbreviation 'MC' in its name,

what do you think, what does it mean?

 

<p>

 

My experience with flare in East-European lenses is quite good. For

example, Biometar 120/2.8 MC for Pentacon 6 (and Kiev 60) seems to be

not worse from this point of view than Mamiya 645 80/2.8 N, but

Sonnar 180/2.8 MC is not so good. Coating of post-Soviet 20/3.5 for

35mm cameras is quite good, too. BTW Biometar was CZJ name for

Planar (5-element), CZJ had no rights to this name.

 

<p>

 

Kiev fish-eye has a very good reputation. The name for Kiev

standard lens is Volna. I have a 35mm format Volna-9 50/2.8 for macro.

This is my sharpest lens at around f=8!

 

<p>

 

General opinion is that unless you have no luck Kiev lens

represent very high value for money, the price of a converter

included.

 

<p>

 

Hope this helps.

 

<p>

 

Ryszard

[ivan_i._singer1]

I cannot compare the other lenses of the line, but the Volna 80/2.8 MC is rather sharp at f8 or smaller. I tend to agree with others that it is not so sharp at larger apertures. Considering the larger negative size, I find that my micro-nikkor 55/2.8 is much sharper at the same large f-stops. The difference is that with faster speed films, I have more cropping options that do not produce objectionable grain. Try vertically cropping a horizonatal 35mm and watch your grain size grow like wild grass. For this purpose, I find shooting the kiev square 6x6 a better option when I don't know how I plan to print the image in the lab. Horizontal, vertical or square. I'd be happier with the Volna 80/2.8 if it was perhaps not as fast and just a little wider like 65mm. I guess I should be looking at the Flektogon 50/4 instead.

[gennady_kulikov]

In my opinion, Kiev lenses are not really worth the money they charge for them (I am talking about Soviet-period stuff and US prices). It is much more sensible to pay just a little more and go for used Mamiya 645 lenses. I have some first-hand experience with Kiev 60 and several lenses for it. All or them have flare problems when the subject is backlit, and build quality is rather low (both lenses and body). Also some time ago I tried using hyperfocal technique with 45 and 30 mm lenses (never did it before - or shot landscapes on infinity, or close subjects focusing right on them), and the results were catastrophic - in some cases nothing was really sharp! (and it wasn't some calculation mistake - I just used a hyperfocal scale on the lens itself). In addition there was very noticable sharpness falloff near edges (of course, these are wide-angle lenses, but still it was too much). To make it short, don't buy Kiev stuff if it's price is comparable to that of Japanese cameras. I bought my set of Kiev 60 body and 5 different lenses secondhand (actually it was brand-new in sealed factory boxes, but bought from a private person, not from a shop) for all of $450, and for this price I guess it's OK, but new Kiev prices in the States are plain crazy (I bought my set in Israel, and the market here few yeas ago was full of Kiev equipment, thus the low price). Anyway, as soon as I can afford it, I'll buy some decent Mamiya or whatever. After all, your camera is your working tool, and at least it must be working!

[abdul_qadir]

DEAR

i have experienced several cameras and lenses to operate. some time i read that quality of russain lenses are poor & worse. it makes me astonish that how they judge its quality. actually i think it is biasness with russia. i have experienced Pentax Takumar lens, Yashica and other japanese lenses, truly i havenot found any difference between their quality i found that russian lenses produce good result especially Jupitar 9 85mm/2 produce stunning result. it is upto u how u shoot control of light is important factor. Russian lenses are of good quality every person who denies its quality may problem with him. Even i have medium format Yashica Mat 124g camera i read several articles about the quality of Yashica mat 124G but sorry to say it is not a camera of outstanding performance even u cannot take a normal quality closeup with this camera ok nature photography is good with it.

[dale_dickerson2]

I agree the Kiev optics are very nice. I like them as much as my Europe made optics.