Wide angle: compromise, or resolution through a workaround?

[Kav]

I feel like the odd man out here, but if you have a wide angle lens that works for you then why does it matter if it's retrofocus or not? I have a Nikon 15mm f5.6 that I love to use. it's not at all a fast lens, but with it's low distortion it always seems to be ending up on my camera. The built in filters are a plus for B&W work too. It's a retrofocus lens too.

Two samples:

Hooking up

Watching over

 

[cuthbert]

I apparently got a good one, and I have negatives from a prewar Biogon to compare with. My Arsenal 1961 Kiev mount J-12 performs like a coated prewar Biogon in this instance, I'm very pleased with it.

Yeah, the J-12 is good glass when found in decent condition, so is the symmetric Orion 15 and the Russar MR-2, ironically these wide angles are small enough that you could mount them on a SLR...nobody ever tried tough.

These are two shots with the J12, not too bad.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Yeah, the J-12 is good glass when found in decent condition, so is the symmetric Orion 15 and the Russar MR-2, ironically these wide angles are small enough that you could mount them on a SLR...nobody ever tried tough.

These are two shots with the J12, not too bad.

Because it's impossible as they are constructed - you'd have to fabricate an entire new mount. Locked up mirrors would be mandatory of course.

There was a Nikon F mount 20mm non-retro lens that is still very highly regarded.

 

[cuthbert]

Because it's impossible as they are constructed - you'd have to fabricate an entire new mount. Locked up mirrors would be mandatory of course.

There was a Nikon F mount 20mm non-retro lens that is still very highly regarded.

The Russar and Orion series are VERY small lenses, some of them were used on spy satellites or in microcameras...no way they would be needing locked up mirrors, they are NOT like the pre war Biogon.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

The Russar and Orion series are VERY small lenses, some of them were used on spy satellites or in microcameras...no way they would be needing locked up mirrors, they are NOT like the pre war Biogon.

I think you'd better check again. Most SLRS have a flange distance from the filmplane of around 45mm. 28mm Orion?? A Russar? No MLU?? Show me how. I don't think you know what you're talking about.

 

[georg16nik]

I think you'd better check again. Most SLRS have a flange distance from the filmplane of around 45mm. 28mm Orion?? A Russar? No MLU?? Show me how. I don't think you know what you're talking about.

+1

 

[Dan Fromm]

The Russar and Orion series are VERY small lenses, some of them were used on spy satellites or in microcameras...no way they would be needing locked up mirrors, they are NOT like the pre war Biogon.

Which Russars and Orions do you have in mind? I ask because most Russars and Orions are large lenses intended for large cameras. Go http://www.photohistory.ru/index.php and poke around. You might also want to download the 1963 GOI catalog from http://www.lallement.com/pictures/files.htm and poke around in it.

Be aware that Russar and Orion are trade names. Each name was applied to variety of design types.

 

[cuthbert]

+1

I KNOW you! You're the Leica fanboy with anger management issues I met here:


(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

The one who blamed McArthur for the end of the Great German Photographic Empire after 1945...I would suggest you and your Distinguished colleague to read this article so you learn something before calling "ignorant" other people:

http://www.marcocavina.com/articoli_fotografici/Soviet_and_wide_lenses_on_Leica_M/00_p.htm

Perhaps you'll find out that the Orion and Russar were a series of lenses originally designed for aeronatic use, in particular the first Orion entered in production (Orion 2) was designed for the 18cmx18cm format, therefore its distance from the film plan wasn't 21.73 mm like in the RF version Orion 15.

Which Russars and Orions do you have in mind? I ask because most Russars and Orions are large lenses intended for large cameras. Go http://www.photohistory.ru/index.php and poke around. You might also want to download the 1963 GOI catalog from http://www.lallement.com/pictures/files.htm and poke around in it.

Be aware that Russar and Orion are trade names. Each name was applied to variety of design types.

At least one who knows what's talking about finally! Russar and Orion are names of designs (not trade marks...there wasn't anything like a trade mark in SU) and they were originally used for photo reconnaissance during WWII, then they made so many variants (also for cinema, if I remember correctly) that I lost count. Making an Orion or a Russar for SLR keepind their symmetric design wouldn't be difficult at all.

BTW, I know Andrei, he's the guy who owns the website on the Almaz 103 and helped me in finding the information to restore the camera I have that was broken, he's a great guy, very kind and helpful even if his command of English is not great.

 

[flavio81]

http://www.marcocavina.com/articoli_fotografici/Soviet_and_wide_lenses_on_Leica_M/00_p.htm

Marco Cavina's website is just fantastic, excellent, great reads. I wish I could meet the guy.

Recommended website!!

 

[cuthbert]

Marco Cavina's website is just fantastic, excellent, great reads. I wish I could meet the guy.

Recommended website!!

Yes, ALL his articles are VERY knowledgeable and he has a good understanding of optical engineering, unlike certain self appointed "experts" here who rant about Leica glow and they don't what they are talking about BUT they think they're very smart because perhaps they waste thousand of dollars/pounds/euro for rebadged Minolta gear.

 

[Dan Fromm]

At least one who knows what's talking about finally! Russar and Orion are names of designs (not trade marks...there wasn't anything like a trade mark in SU) and they were originally used for photo reconnaissance during WWII, then they made so many variants (also for cinema, if I remember correctly) that I lost count. Making an Orion or a Russar for SLR keepind their symmetric design wouldn't be difficult at all.

Sorry, follow the links I posted and look at the cross sections. The name Orion was applied to many design types. The name Russar was applied to many design points.

Short Orions and Russars don't have enough back focus to be used on 35 mm SLRs.

I don't see the point of adapting long ones to 35 mm SLRs, their coverage would be entirely wasted and there are plenty of good long lenses for the format. That's why I've never chased long focal length w/a lenses for use on my 2x3 Graphics. Too much trouble and expense for no benefit at all.

 

[Dr Croubie]

I'm not sure who's complaining about whom here, but anyway...
Orion 15, 28mm f/6.8, 75°, is a rangefinder lens. 28.8mm flange distance, as with other LTM mounts (also made for kiev/contax mounts). Yes, it will mount on an SLR with enough adapters, and you might not even need to lock the mirror up. If you're very lucky, it might even focus more than a few mm away from the glass for some extreme macros.
Most other Orions, as mentioned, are aerial lenses. Orion 1, 200/6.3, 92°, Orion 2, 150/6.0, 8°, etc etc (I know there are a few dozen more and I think even more than one version each, from what I remember of that 300-page GOI catalogue, not that I'm going to read it now to find them). They'll also fit on an SLR (if you make an adpater) without mirror lockup. But 200mm on your average 135 camera is hardly what I'd call a 'wide-angle' anymore...

 

[georg16nik]

Here, I prepared something for the speculators, the ones who never even seen Russar MR-2, let alone shooting with it.
MR-2 versus a good ole 50mm.
Bon appetit!

 

[georg16nik]

Some more.

 

[Xmas]

FYI

Not sure but a FSU Russar may not clear the Bessa double shutter

The Orion-15 should mount ok on a Canon with baffles like a P or VI

The J12 I had would foul on all my Canon P and VI

YMMV but check carefully, a Bessa mistake very expensive

note several of my Canons baffles had witness marks from previous close encounters with lenses. Sharpie makes excellent salvage

 

[pdeeh]

[offtopic]
Dunno where f/6.8 comes from for the Orion-15, mine is marked f/6 and everything I ever read about it says it's an f/6.
Fine on my Bessa R2A with LTM-M adapter, btw.
[/offtopic]

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Thanks. I´m asking because I think about upgrading to the 50FLE in the future... Like to come back to Summicrons argument about how "better" is defined. The Hasselblad 40/4 IF for example has clearly better resolution figures across the whole frame than the 38mm Biogon, but distortion is a lot worse. So which lens is better? Rather philosophical question I think...

The MTFwill tell all.

 

[John Koehrer]

Here, I prepared something for the speculators, the ones who never even seen Russar MR-2, let alone shooting with it.
MR-2 versus a good ole 50mm.
Bon appetit!

Apples & oranges isn't it?

Do you have a pic of either lens mounted on an SLR?
Neither of the cameras are SLR's so the argument that they'll fit is silly. Even the 50 won't work on the SLR.
Earlier post have shown that a lens that needs a 28.8mm Flange distance won't work on a camera with a 45mm flange. distance

 

[georg16nik]

John, I surely keep somewhere the Zenit I bought in Moscow, in the summer of 1990 but never even thought about mounting the Russar on it
The Zenit is M42, so I am sure the Russar will “fit” the hole but can you imagine what kind of a mud pie will show in the eyepiece?
The pics I posted earlier were to demonstrate that what was commented earlier was on the border of humour and science fiction.
Neither the Russar, nor the J12 will fit and be usable on any SLR the way they are on RF, unless someone wants to invent new style.

Apples & oranges isn't it?

Do you have a pic of either lens mounted on an SLR?
Neither of the cameras are SLR's so the argument that they'll fit is silly. Even the 50 won't work on the SLR.
Earlier post have shown that a lens that needs a 28.8mm Flange distance won't work on a camera with a 45mm flange. distance

 

[georg16nik]

Huh, how big the Zenit was?

 

[Dr Croubie]

Well, it's ridiculous, but someone had to do it.
I don't have a Russar or Orion, but I grabbed my 21mm Colour-Skopar and put it on an L39->M42 ring, then M42->EF adapter, and put it on my EOS3.
It didn't even hit the mirror with it down (but I'm not going to take a photo with it because it'll probably hit on the up-swing).
But the Skopar has a lot less intrusion than the soviets, especially the Jupiter 12 (I'm not buying a Jupiter because I only have Bessas, ergo can't safely use them)
To actually take a photo with it I'd want to put at least a 5mm extension in there so the mirror wouldn't hit it, with a Russar 20 or Orion 28 I'd want at least 10mm extension tubes.

And it even focusses! With a total of 24mm working distance! Almost as much FOV as a 1:1 macro! Sarcastic enthusiasm!

The Russar and Orion series are VERY small lenses, some of them were used on spy satellites or in microcameras...no way they would be needing locked up mirrors, they are NOT like the pre war Biogon.

So this is technically correctly, if you mount a 28mm Orion or a 20mm Russar on an SLR, you can probably do it without locking up the mirror, if you use enough extension tubes to get it out of the way.
With any luck, you can get some great pictures of ants crawling on your front element too.
(But if we add the qualifier "and focus at infinity" to the above quote, then that ain't gonna happen).

 

[georg16nik]

Hey Dr Croubie!
the asymmetrical CV Colour-Skopar got such large back focal length compared to the Russar, that they have nothing in common.

I toke a chance tru the eyepiece of the Zenit - the difference between with and without lens is negligible

The exit pupil of symmetrical wide-angle lens like the Russar is meant to be closer to the film gate for a reason. The beam tilt is huge, compared to Distagons, Skopars and such.