Last week, I received my brand-new Arsat-H 20/2.8 in Nikon mount. First, I shot quite a few test images with an adapter on Canon 5DmkII. A few days after, I went out and used it on the street. Let’s see how it performs.

Build

This lens is quite diminutive, about the size and weight of a Nikkor 50/1.4. It’s made in the Ukraine by Kiev Arsenal factory. According to the serial number, my sample was manufactured in 2002.

After handling and using the lens for some time, I find its build quality barely adequate. My copy is brand new, it was sealed in a box; yet its aperture already forms a very irregular shape, and its focusing ring is far from being even or reasonably smooth. The front of the lens barrel slightly wobbles. I haven’t seen many lenses built worse than this. However, it can still be mounted and used on the camera, and that’s what really matters. (Hope it lasts enough time for me to use).

Optical Construction

According to the manual, its optical construction includes a floating element, allowing it to maintain its optical quality across the focusing range.

[Arsat-H 20mm f/2.8 Optical Diagram will follow - I'll need to take a shot of the user manual]

Contrast, Flare and Chromatic Aberrations

It’s a great lens when it comes to shooting in contra light; flare is nearly non-existent. I was unable to produce any purple fringing, which is nice. Chromatic aberrations are pronounced. I guess it’s hard to correct in a UWA lens without aspherical elements. The CA are correctable in RAW workflow. The lens exhibits great contrast; kudos to Arsenal for getting the coatings and blackening right.

f/11

Flare is mostly under control; maybe not absolutely the best performance in this department, but more than acceptable. Minute ghosting when shooting into the sun.

f/11

Vignetting

Vignetting is stonger than I would like on a wide-angle lens though. Vignetting is very pronounced at f/2.8, almost but not completely gone by f/8, and still slightly visible (but correctable in the post) at f/11.

Sharpness and Colors

Optically, it’s nothing to rave about wide open. Center sharpness is reasonable, but edges and corners are very soft, exhibiting wide halos. At f/4, corners remain soft. However, by f/5.6 the lens improves, becoming rather sharp in the center and reasonable in the corners. At f/8, it’s sharp across the frame except extreme corners, which never reach even the ‘good’ territory. By f/11, diffraction starts to show, decreasing resolution slightly; the corners are sharper still. F/16 is soft due to diffraction. I mostly used this lens at f/11 for maximum sharpness across the frame; in lower light, f/8 and even f/5.6 can be used. Wider apertures are unusable to me.

f/11

Colors seem to be nicely saturated. The color balance is on a neutral side. Quite a nice performance here.

f/11

Distortion

Geometric distortion is noticeable, and is of a complex type. Barrel distortion in the middle of the frame turns into pincushion distortion near the edges. This lens is hardly suitable for architectural photography.

Verdict

Used between f/5.6-11, this lens can produce reasonably sharp images. Being a 20mm full-frame rectlinear ultra wide angle lens, this one competes with some much more expensive lenses as well as used UWA’s such as Tamron and Tokina 17/3.5. If you’re going to use an UWA lens infrequently, this is a good, reasonably priced choice. I paid $113 for my copy; that’s about right for this lens. For $150, there are better alternatives, and $200 buys a really nice manual focus UWA lens. For serious wide angle fans, I guess this lens won’t cut it. To me, it’s fine.

It’s a great lens when it comes to shooting in contra light; flare is very minimal. I was unable to produce any purple fringing, which is very nice; some CA are present in the corners, but those are easy to correct in the RAW processor.

Vignetting is stonger than I would like on a wide-angle lens though. I don’t mind vignetting for portraits, but not in landscape shots. Keeping the lens at 49mm filter size may had seemed a good idea at the time, but this design has its drawbacks. Nevertheless, this is a minor headache.

Below are a few pics I shot around my place just before the dusk and in the twilight (the colors are accurate).

#1: Contra Light

#2

#3

#4

#5: The Bokeh Shot

#6

#7: Geometric Distortion close to Zero

UPDATE: I discovered the reason causing vignetting in my previous shots: the aftermarket hood was slightly too narrow; without the hood, the lens still vignettes at 3.5-4, but not at 5.6 and on.

#8

#9

#10

#1 This kind of bokeh (Yashica ML 50/1.9 at f/1.9):

However, I didn’t want the dramatic decrease of resolution towards the edges, and required much better coatings so that I could shoot into the light.

#2 Wide open, contra light. See the flare?

#3 I wanted this kind of contrast; f/4

Out of many, many 50-55mm lenses that I tried, Yashica was the closest bet. I respect sheer resolution provided by Takumar 55/2, adore rendering and coatings of SMC Takumar 50/1.4, and still use Helios-44 and 77 for occasional portraits. Volna-9 and Industar-61 have their own strengths, but they’re too slow at ‘just’ 2.8. Yashicas seemed to be the only lenses that were more or less modern and still having that ‘swirly’ look.

#4, 5 Wide open

First, I tried Yashica DSB 50/1.9 in C/Y mount. It’s OK, but its coatings leave much to be desired (I couldn’t use it as an all-purpose walkabout lens). Then, I tried an even older DS 50/1.9 in M42 mount, and it was even worse: weaker coatings, weird colors, fast resolution falloff towards the edges. I didn’t want another Helios-44 in Japanese disguise.

So finally I received this Yashica ML 50/1.9 in mint condition. Despite of what’s said about the lens, it’s a very good (even if not the best) performer. Stopped down to f/4, it’s almost as sharp as my better lenses, and by f/8 it’s Tak-sharp.

#6 Tak sharp f/8

Wide open, however, while acceptably sharp, it’s no competition to my Takumar 55/2. Coatings are very good already, maintaining good contrast in contra light just fine, but not keeping up with side flares. In this respect, no comparison to SMC Takumar 50/1.4. Resolution is relatively even across the frame – and that’s on a 21MP full-frame body. CA and purple fringing are non-existent.

#7 Sheer resolution f/5.6

Its weaker point is vignetting wide-open and at 2.8. It goes away by f/4.

#8 Vignetting – wide open (I know, I know, no one shoots landscapes wide open, but…)

Am I satisfied with what I found? Well, I guess a Zeiss normal lens would be much better, but for $20 I paid for it I can just as well shut up and use the thing.

#9, 10 Sunset colors f/5.6

#11 The end

Resolution of the Yashica is superb in the centre, declines to the edges of the frame (full-frame body), and is never great at extreme corners. Compared to 28/3.5 Takumar, it is visibly sharper in the centre (21 MP body shows this quite clearly), but falls off much faster towards the edges. This behavior is persistent at all f-stops from 2.8 to f/8. The Takumar, despite of being a much older design, demonstrates more even resolution across the frame. I would even say that extreme corners are better with the Tak at all respective f-stops!

Colors and contrast are great. The Yashica delivers the ‘punch’ in producing contrasty pictures that simply stand out. Resistance to flare is also great; I was unable to produce any in field conditions.

Low-light performance is excellent. I used the lens after dusk wide open with very usable results.

Bokeh is to my liking. The lens draws ‘swirly’ OOF highlights, a quality that I specifically looked for in Yashica 50/1.9. Overall rendering is pleasant.

Vignetting is generally not a problem stopped down to f/4-5.6.

Conclusion? A great wide-angle lens, extremely sharp in the centre, less so at the edges, with great colors and contrast and very nice rendering. Maybe it’s not a Zeiss, but a truly great one if worked within its limitations. Interestingly, it produces images that are visibly different from those captured by S-M-C Takumar 28/3.5.

#1: Wide open, bokeh

#2: Wide open, low-light performance

#3: Landscape, f/5.6

#4: Flowers, wide open

#5: Fisherman, wide open

#6: f/8

#7: f/8

#9

#10

#11

#12: f/4

#13: f/4

#14, f/2.8