• 5DmkII
• EF 24-70/2.8L
• EF 70-200/4L
• EF 85/1.8
• Tokina 100/2.8 Macro
• Kenko Pro TC 1.4x

Leica R

• Elmarit 180/2.8 2nd gen

Nikon F

• Nikkor 20/2.8 AIS
• Nikkor 20/3.5 AI
• Nikkor 24/2 AIS
• Nikkor 24/2.8 AIS
• Nikkor 28/2 AIS
• Nikkor 28/3.5 K & AIS
• Nikkor 35/1.4 AIS
• Nikkor 35/2 AIS
• Nikkor 50/1.4 AI
• Nikkor 50/1.8 AIS (Mk I & Mk III)
• Nikkor 50/2 AI
• micro-Nikkor 55/2.8 AIS
• Nikkor 85/1.8 K, AI’d
• Nikkor 85/2 AIS
• Nikon Series E 100/2.8 AIS
• Nikkor-P 105/2.5 (silver 6 & 9 blades)
• Nikkor 105/2.5 K, AI, AIS
• micro-Nikkor 105/2.8 AIS
• Nikkor 135/3.5 K
• Nikkor 135/3.5 AI
• Nikkor 135/2.8 AIS
• Nikkor 180/2.8 AI
• Nikkor*ED 180/2.8 AIS
• Nikkor 200/4 AI
• Nikkor ED*IF 300/4.5 AIS
• Nikkor 43-86/3.5 pre-AI

Olympus OM

• Zuiko 24/2.8 NMC
• Zuiko 28/2.8 NMC
• Zuiko 50/1.4 MC
• Zuiko 50/1.8 MIJ, J
• Zuiko 50/3.5 MC Macro
• Zuiko 100/2.8 NMC
• Zuiko 35-70/3.6 Zoom

Pentax M42

• S-M-C Takumar 28/3.5
• SMC Takumar 50/1.4
• S-M-C Takumar 55/1.8
• Super & S-M-C Takumar 135/3.5
• Super Takumar 150/4
• S-M-C Takumar 200/4
• Fujinon 100/2.8

Rollei QBM

Rolleinar 85/2.8

Russian

• MC Zenitar 16/2.8
• MC Peleng 17/2.8
• Arsat-H 20/2.8
• MC Mir-20M 20/3.5
• Mir-10A 28/3.5
• MC Mir-24M 35/2
• MC Zenitar 50/1.9
• MC Helios-77M-4 50/1.8
• MC Volna-9 50/2.8
• MC Industar L/Z 50/2.8
• Helios-44M-4
• Arsat-C (Volna-3) 80/2.8
• Helios-40-2 85/1.5
• Jupiter-9 85/2.8 (M39)
• MC Jupiter-9 85/2.8
• MC Kaleinar-5N 100/2.8 (Nikon F, M42)
• Tair-11A 135/2.8
• MC Jupiter-37A 135/3.5 x2
• Jupiter-6-2 180/2.8
• 16OKC7-200-1 200/2.8 (Kinor 16)

Yashica ML

• 24/2.8
• 28/2.8
• 35/2.8
• 50/1.4
• 50/1.7
• 50/1.9
• 50/1.9c
• 50/2 x2
• 100/3.5 Macro
• 35-105/3.5-4.5
• 2xTC

Zeiss/Contax

• Zeiss Distagon 28/2.8 MMJ
• Zeiss Planar 50/1.4 MMJ
• Zeiss Planar 50/1.7 MMJ
• Zeiss Sonnar 85/2.8 MMG, MMJ, AEG
• Zeiss Planar 85/1.4 MMJ
• Zeiss Sonnar 135/2.8 AEG
• Zeiss Sonnar 180/2.8 MMJ
• Zeiss Vario-Sonnar 28-80/3.3-4 MMJ
• Zeiss Vario-Sonnar 80-200/4 MMJ
• Zeiss Mutar II

Carl Zeiss Jena

• CZJ MC Sonnar 180/2.8
• CZJ MC Sonnar 300/4

Mirror optics

• Yashica ML Reflex 500/8
• RMC Tokina 500/8

Third party

• Samyang 85/1.4 (EF)
• Mitakon 85/2 (EF)
• HQ-7 2xTC (C/Y)
• Vivitar Series 1 35-85/2.8 (Nikon F)
• Vivitar Series 1 135/2.3 (OM)
• Vivitar Macro Focusing 2xTC (NAI, 7 elements)

Other stuff

• Hanimex 105/2.8 pre-set (Tokina)
• Prinz Galaxy 135/3.5 pre-set (Tokina)
• Mamiya-Sekor N 150/3.5

1. Contax CZ Planar 85/1.4
2. Contax Sonnar 85/2.8
3. CZJ Biometar 80/2.8 (alu)
4. CZJ Biometar 80/2.8 (P6)
5. CZJ Biotar 75/1.5
6. CZJ Pancolar MC 80/1.8
7. CZJ Tessar 75/2.8
8. Helios 40-2 85/1.5
   
9. Jupiter-9 85/2
   
10. MC Jupiter-9 85/2
    
11. Kaleinar-5N 100/2.8
    
12. Meyer Primoplan 75/1.9
    
13. Meyer Primoplan 80/1.9
14. Meyer Telefogar 90/3.5
15. Meyer Trioplan 100/2.8
16. Nikkor 85/1.8 ('K' version)
    
17. Nikkor 85/2 (Ai, Ai-S)
    
18. Nikkor 105/2.5 (Sonnar design, white nose)
    
19. Nikkor 105/2.5 (Gauss design)
    
20. Nikon Series E 100/2.8
21. Rolleinar and Voigtlaender AR 85/2.8 (QBM)
    
22. S-M-C Takumar 85/1.8
23. Super-Takumar 105/2.5
24. Samyang 85/1.4
25. Vivitar 85/1.8
26. MC Volna-3, Arsat-C 85/2.8 85/2.8 (P6 mount)
    

1. Contax CZ Planar 85/1.4
   

   Need I say more? Soft(ish) wide open, it's perfect for portrait shots. Stopped down to 2.8 or smaller, becomes one of the sharpest lenses on the planet. Perfect Planar bokeh, perfect colors, perfect contrast. One of my favorite portrait lenses.

2. Contax Sonnar 85/2.8
   

   Currently my favorite portrait lens, this one is small, light, super-sharp and uber-contrasty at all (and I mean – all) apertures. Its contrast is simply amazing – I have not seen another lens with such a high contrast. Extremely pleasing Sonnar rendering at f/2.8 and f/4 (I rarely shoot at other apertures). Can't praise it high enough. Highly recommended.

3. CZJ Biometar 80/2.8 (alu)
   

   A bit uncommon, but quite sharp lens. My copy still waits for more testing…

4. CZJ Biometar 80/2.8 (P6)
   

   Sharp and contrasty lens, but bokeh isn't as smooth as on the faster lenses. Anyway, it's the best price/performance lens if sharpness matters and speed doesn't.

5. CZJ Biotar 75/1.5

   One of the most expensive M42 lenses; I think only M42 version of Macro APO Lanthar would go for higher price on eBay I'm not sure, if optical quality corresponds with current price, but price aside the lens is good. I'd say it shares many characteristics with Helios 40, but sharpness at f/1.5 is better. But both of them have
   significant difference between borders and centre.

   I think Biotars are prized just because of its price. It sounds strange, but the price is rising significantly and this lens isn't bad investment. It's not easy to find a copy with optics in really good condition. It's often affected by cleaning marks or fungus (these old coating layers were quite soft).

6. CZJ Pancolar MC 80/1.8

   I'd say this is the best choice for versatile and sharp M42 80mm lens. It's contrasty, it has the best wide-opened performance of all f/1.5-f/2 M42 portrait lenses. Center is close to Biotar, but borders are much sharper. Great colours (MC) + great bokeh. It also isn't as risky as the early post-war lenses, because its coating is much harder, so cleaning marks are not an issue. For me it's the best post-war Jena lens.

7. CZJ Tessar 75/2.8

   This lens was used on B or C exaktas. It's nice collectors item, but it has low contrast (no coating), so it isn't suitable for general usage.

8. Helios 40-2 85/1.5

   A bit skittish lens. A lot of patience is needed, results are very variable. Sometimes the crazy bokeh and softness works, sometimes not. It's simply a bit longer model of Biotar with more optical aberrations.

9. Jupiter-9 85/2

   A bit risky choice, many copies are lemons (significant soft glow visible even on downsampled image or/and uneven sharpness). Good copy can be better than Helios-40. The older model, the lower chance to get a lemon. Jupiter has perfectly smooth bokeh if the background isn't busy (lights or distracting background creates bokeh full of circles)

10. MC Jupiter-9 85/2

    Oh well… Lots of aberrations wide open, quite harsh background rendering at f/2. However, by f/2.8 it's super sharp and has extremely nice, vintage rendering – I just love shooting J-9 at f/2.8 and f/4! Does not work against the sun, and not the best choice for shooting in the shadow. Give it good lighting conditions, stop to f/2.8-5.6, and you'll get pleasing pictures with smooth rendering and vintage look.

11. Kaleinar-5N 100/2.8

    Surprisingly, it's sharp at all apertures straight from wide open. Contrast is high enough to be practical, yet the image turns into a hazy rainbow when pointed against the sun. Fit it with a deep hood (forget the built-in one) and avoid shooting into the sun, and you'll have an inexpensive and surprisingly good 100mm lens. Bokeh
    is similar to Rolleinar 85/2.8.

    (This is NOT a copy of Nikon Series E 100/2.8 – I have optical diagrams of both lenses; the Kaleinar is very different, and has one more lens element than the Nikon.)

12. Meyer Primoplan 75/1.9

    This lens is rare, it's softer than Biotar, but as all Primoplans it has lovely bokeh. My copy isn't in good optical condition; old Meyer coating is even softer than CZJ T-layers and layers on inner surfaces aren't hardened, so even a harder brush can damage than (many users don't have this
    information and despite they are trying to make optical performance better, they damage the lens…). Maybe M42 Primoplan 75/1.9 in good condition is the only lens, which has comparable price to Biotars. But Primoplans are more rare. I have no idea why, because their original price was almost half when compared to Biotars and according to some old articles they had really good value for the money (it was even way cheaper than standard f/1.9-f/2 lenses). I'd like to know, why it is so rare now.

13. Meyer Primoplan 80/1.9

    Another Primoplan in this focal length (originally medium format lens). Always uncoated (maybe one surface has some early form of coating)… anyway, contrast isn't bad, character and sharpness is identical to other Primoplan lenses – unique bokeh, a bit soft wide-opened and extremely low CA. Primoplans are the only fast lenses in this list, which doesn't show almost any sign of CA in bokeh.

14. Meyer Telefogar 90/3.5
    

    This lens is common in altix mount, but a bit rare in M42 or exacta mount. It uses simplified Sonnar formula (like Sonnars 135/4 and 135/3.5), but isn't as sharp. Good for retro effect.

15. Meyer Trioplan 100/2.8

    3-in-1 lens. Soft + retro effect at f/2.8 (+ bokeh full of circles), smooth bokeh at f/4, quite sharp rendering at f/5.6. Good for close-up, too. Just like many
    Meyer early post-war lenses, even this one has very low CA.

16. Nikkor 85/1.8 ('K' version)

    A rare find. Optical construction similar to CZJ 80/1.8 and, notably, Helios-40. Beautiful colors, nice rendering, slightly swirly bokeh, uniform sharpness across the frame. Sharp and contrasty straight from wide open (unlike its successor, Nikkor 85/2). The only drawback is the diaphragm that consists of 6 straight blades; most K-version lenses had 7 curved blades, producing more even OOF rendering. A much better lens than its successor.

17. Nikkor 85/2 (Ai, Ai-S)

    Quite common on eBay. I had 3 samples, all similar; one slightly better than others, but still consistent regarding wide open performance. Wide open, it has a lot of
    spherical aberrations, making the image lack in contrast and micro-contrast while (mostly) retaining spatial resolution. In theory, this is good for portraits; in practice, I prefer either 105/2.5 (Sonnar and Gauss are both great) or 85/1.8. Bokeh is quite ugly wide open but becomes very smooth at f/2.8. Interestingly, this lens behaves very much like a perfect copy of MC Jupiter-9!

18. Nikkor 105/2.5 (Sonnar design, white nose)

    A classic design. This is a single-coated lens, but contrast is surprisingly great even if shooting in the shadow or against the sun. Sharp from wide open. Common versions have 6 straight aperture blades; I was able to snatch a 9-blade version, and it gives superb rendering at all apertures. Bokeh slightly swirly at corners – very Sonnar!

19. Nikkor 105/2.5 (Gauss design)

    Slightly 'better' than the lens it replaces. My favorite versions are 'K' and Ai 'cause they have rounded 7-bladed apertures (Ai-S has 7 straight blades). Perfect for portraits. Nice 3D rendering. Bokeh smoother than of the Sonnar-type. Technically, this is the better lens. However, I prefer the older Sonnar-type to it.

20. Nikon Series E 100/2.8
    

    A very nice, Ernostar-derived design. Although single-coated, this lens delivers
    sharp and contrasty images with great resistance to flare. It only loses
    contrast when shot straight into the sun; a much better performance compared to
    budget Pentax series such as Takumar Bayonet 135/2.5.

    Compared to Kaleinar-5N, this lens has much
    better flare resistance (the Kaleinar shows all sorts of rainbows when the sun
    is in the frame), is built better (the Kaleinar has more plastic parts than this
    lens, and has vague tolerances), and is slightly sharper. Kaleinar gives a bit
    more contrast, slightly better colors, and offers a bit smoother rendering.

21. Rolleinar and Voigtlaender AR 85/2.8 (QBM)
    

    Rolleinar and Voigtlaender AR (note the AR designation) are the same lens. Optical design similar to Zeiss Sonnar 85/2.8 with extremely similar sharpness and contrast (read: super-high contrast and great sharpness), with colors being the same or better than the Sonnar. Bokeh is slightly edgier than Sonnar's. Can be had for
    ridiculously low prices! Easily adapts to EOS (w/o infinity with cheap QBM-EOS adapter – I couldn't care less). Rounded, 6-bladed aperture (same as Sonnar).

22. S-M-C Takumar 85/1.8

    Contrasty lens, it is able to produce quite 3D-looking results (I'm not very good in this discipline, but you can find very interesting pictures taken by this lens). But… I expected a bit sharper results at f/1.8. In absolute scale the sharpness is good, but Pancolar is visibly better. I'm looking forward to this spring and summer, I'll give more chances to this lens. I think it has potential – the S-M-C coating is more effective, than CZJ MC coating – it doesn't create almost any ghosting when shooting wide-opened in contrasty situations.

23. Super-Takumar 105/2.5

    A disappointment. Renders similarly to Nikkor 85/2, although not as sharp. Tried two copies; both were soft and showed low contrast wide open, hardly improved stopped down. Should cost less than used samples sell for. I rarely sell lenses,
    especially of the Takumar range, but sold this one.

24. Samyang 85/1.4

    I wrote about it before. Sharp from wide open, it does not improve when stopped down; no super-sharpness at f/4-8 like in the CZ Planar. Perfect for portraits though. Little to no CA. Good (but not extremely high) contrast. Neutral colors. Very smooth bokeh – some think it's too smooth (read: boring). I grab this lens when I need to shoot in the dark: it's sharper than CZ Planar 85/1.4 wide open. In my opinion, this lens represents the best value for money among all lenses reviewed.

25. Vivitar 85/1.8

    This lens is underrated. It isn't very common, it has unclean history and origin, but it's the cheapest 85/1.8 lens – very sharp stopped down, a bit softer than 1st grade lenses wide-opened, but still good. It has nice bokeh, round aperture, T/T2 mount (adaptable to many systems)… Very good price/performance.

26. Arsat-C 85/2.8, MC Volna-3 85/2.8 (P6 mount)
    

    A Biometar clone. Sharp from wide open, typical Planar rendering, nice
    colors. Don't try it against the sun, it turns the image into a hazy rainbow.
    Contrast on the lower side, but still good.

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