For the sake of interest, I ordered a new 1-16-1. I want to compare it with all versions 1-18-1. I've heard that there is an amber-type multi-illumination somewhere. First of all, I will try to check the latest 1-16-1 from storage without damage to the front lens.
@@VintageLensCorner I've seen his tests. I didn't quite understand if you had any black dots or artifacts there. Is this a defect in the front lens or was the shooting just done through a dirty window?
I noticed that the different greens 8-35-1 differ in the saturation of the green color. The lenses of the 90s are more faded and the late 80s have a rich green coating shimmering in different shades. Does the latest version also have a single-layered modern enlightenment?
Thanks! And why is the Helios 33 1940 the most contrasting in your tests with an open aperture? Even slightly more contrasting than the green 8-31-1. Or so it seemed to me? 2) And what do you say about the green late oks 50? Is it much better than the early single-layer oks 50, as well as the ro3-3 P 1940?
I would say it only appears that way, I noticed that best overall contrast and sharpness wide open is Baltar 35mm 2.3 followed closely by OKS8-35-1. OKS8-35-1 has a bit better off center performance wide open than all the others. I don’t own a green oks1-50-6 but have an amazing green 8-35-1 multicoated
Out of curiosity, I ordered two green ones - 8-35 91 and 50-6 86, to compare the enlightenment and understand the versions. I also wanted to take 1-18-1 or 5-18-1 but they are very expensive. And I don’t know which enlightenment in which year is the best and most multi-layered. Any thoughts on which version of oks 18 had rich multi-layer coating?
I chose the new 7-28-1 green for comparison with the existing 1-50-6 green. That is, they are of the same year - 1986 ruclips.net/video/FfNc2Y2gAL8/видео.htmlsi=BKhJ9b4tQFbxzH1h
Baltar is similar in performance to the single coated oks8-35-1 but has a lower T stop value which actually is noticeable in low light. I would pick the green multicoated later model of 8-35-1 out of all of them… Oks1-35-1 is actually less swirly than 8-35-1… very good lens too. Ro4-1 covers more than Helios-33 (very slight vignette on full frame) but performs similar, lots of spherical aberrations wide open but stopped down to F4 it sharpens up and of course great at 5.6
My lenses came to me. 8-35-1 turned out to be damaged, so I had to order another one. But what can I say: - 8-35-1 1991 has a very pale illumination, however, it is not layered on all lenses and reflects pink blue and green colors. The same can be said about 1-50-6 1990 green. It is very faded, unlike the eighties. However, it was tested in rental and showed excellent results, amazing micro contrast. So I can say with a small degree of doubt that there is not much difference in characteristics between the two types of green lenses.And what year is 8-35-1? Is it a rich green color or a dull one? ruclips.net/video/QSzpTW7tb84/видео.htmlsi=RAr4Yu8PfhOhFzQ8
I remembered about civilian lenses and decided to check their chemical coating. It turned out to be completely consistent with film lenses. All kinds of chemical enlightenment can be traced on all versions of the Helios 81 lens. ruclips.net/video/ZxumJUq-uKU/видео.html
I think I can confirm my version by collecting all the lenses produced by the Ekran factory. At least I made sure that 1-50-6 fully corresponds to this line, excluding the single-layer version of light light blue.
I confirm that the late boxed version of the 1-16-1 lens has a multi-layered amber illumination. I would compare it to the enlightenment of the late Mir 1, where there are many diaphragm lobes. But I would not compare it with the late amber Ro2-2m. It's different. ruclips.net/user/shortspQbukeyTksI?si=8J1E_hX-eu96mNmO
It remains to order 2-16-1 and 5-18-1 to check some assumptions about lens illumination. In order not to order all versions 1-18-1, I asked one collector to compare the late 1974 version and the old Lenkinap. Both lenses are in new condition. - There is confirmation that Lenkinap is significantly superior to the new version in terms of highlights. In particular, the Lenkinap can be safely directed at the sun and you will get only a small bump in the form of a barely noticeable circle.
@@VintageLensCorner Yes, the 1974 version is not able to cope with direct sunlight. Lenkinap 1-18-1 easily, without a strong drop in contrast, coped well, receiving only a small bump in the form of a circle.
An inspiring sight
For the sake of interest, I ordered a new 1-16-1. I want to compare it with all versions 1-18-1. I've heard that there is an amber-type multi-illumination somewhere. First of all, I will try to check the latest 1-16-1 from storage without damage to the front lens.
I own a 1-16-1 with deep blue coating. Lenkinap.
@@VintageLensCorner I've seen his tests. I didn't quite understand if you had any black dots or artifacts there. Is this a defect in the front lens or was the shooting just done through a dirty window?
I noticed that the different greens 8-35-1 differ in the saturation of the green color. The lenses of the 90s are more faded and the late 80s have a rich green coating shimmering in different shades. Does the latest version also have a single-layered modern enlightenment?
The 8-35-1 late versions (1980’s) are multicoated. There were green (similar to 11-35-1) and also purple coatings.
Thanks! And why is the Helios 33 1940 the most contrasting in your tests with an open aperture? Even slightly more contrasting than the green 8-31-1. Or so it seemed to me? 2) And what do you say about the green late oks 50? Is it much better than the early single-layer oks 50, as well as the ro3-3 P 1940?
I would say it only appears that way, I noticed that best overall contrast and sharpness wide open is Baltar 35mm 2.3 followed closely by OKS8-35-1.
OKS8-35-1 has a bit better off center performance wide open than all the others.
I don’t own a green oks1-50-6 but have an amazing green 8-35-1 multicoated
Out of curiosity, I ordered two green ones - 8-35 91 and 50-6 86, to compare the enlightenment and understand the versions. I also wanted to take 1-18-1 or 5-18-1 but they are very expensive. And I don’t know which enlightenment in which year is the best and most multi-layered. Any thoughts on which version of oks 18 had rich multi-layer coating?
Keep us posted!
It seems that the bokeh is identical to the ro61, and in terms of the quality of the drawing the baltar is inferior to any helios 33.
I compared and the Baltar is closer to LOMO oks8-35-1 than any oks1-35-1 or Helios-33
But the look between them is rather similar.
@@VintageLensCorner And which lens do you think is better - 8-35-1, 1-35-1, Baltar 35, Ro56. Ro4. or still Helios 33?
Очень хорошо, прям очень!
Yes
Have you compared the coverage circle 1-16-1 and 1-18-1? Which lens has a larger circle? And which lens has less vignetting darkened corners?
They seem very similar in terms of coverage. 1-16-1 is way more bloomy wide open though with darker corners
I chose the new 7-28-1 green for comparison with the existing 1-50-6 green. That is, they are of the same year - 1986
ruclips.net/video/FfNc2Y2gAL8/видео.htmlsi=BKhJ9b4tQFbxzH1h
What a beauty
And which lens do you think is better - 8-35-1, 1-35-1, Baltar 35, Ro56. Ro4. or still Helios 33?
Baltar is similar in performance to the single coated oks8-35-1 but has a lower T stop value which actually is noticeable in low light.
I would pick the green multicoated later model of 8-35-1 out of all of them…
Oks1-35-1 is actually less swirly than 8-35-1… very good lens too.
Ro4-1 covers more than Helios-33 (very slight vignette on full frame) but performs similar, lots of spherical aberrations wide open but stopped down to F4 it sharpens up and of course great at 5.6
My lenses came to me. 8-35-1 turned out to be damaged, so I had to order another one. But what can I say: - 8-35-1 1991 has a very pale illumination, however, it is not layered on all lenses and reflects pink blue and green colors. The same can be said about 1-50-6 1990 green. It is very faded, unlike the eighties. However, it was tested in rental and showed excellent results, amazing micro contrast. So I can say with a small degree of doubt that there is not much difference in characteristics between the two types of green lenses.And what year is 8-35-1? Is it a rich green color or a dull one?
ruclips.net/video/QSzpTW7tb84/видео.htmlsi=RAr4Yu8PfhOhFzQ8
@@onlinetraderucom my 8-35-1 copies are from 1977 (blue) and 1989 (deep green)
I remembered about civilian lenses and decided to check their chemical coating. It turned out to be completely consistent with film lenses. All kinds of chemical enlightenment can be traced on all versions of the Helios 81 lens. ruclips.net/video/ZxumJUq-uKU/видео.html
I think I can confirm my version by collecting all the lenses produced by the Ekran factory. At least I made sure that 1-50-6 fully corresponds to this line, excluding the single-layer version of light light blue.
Cool
I confirm that the late boxed version of the 1-16-1 lens has a multi-layered amber illumination. I would compare it to the enlightenment of the late Mir 1, where there are many diaphragm lobes. But I would not compare it with the late amber Ro2-2m. It's different. ruclips.net/user/shortspQbukeyTksI?si=8J1E_hX-eu96mNmO
It remains to order 2-16-1 and 5-18-1 to check some assumptions about lens illumination. In order not to order all versions 1-18-1, I asked one collector to compare the late 1974 version and the old Lenkinap. Both lenses are in new condition. - There is confirmation that Lenkinap is significantly superior to the new version in terms of highlights. In particular, the Lenkinap can be safely directed at the sun and you will get only a small bump in the form of a barely noticeable circle.
You mean the older pale blue coating performs better?
@@VintageLensCorner Yes, the 1974 version is not able to cope with direct sunlight. Lenkinap 1-18-1 easily, without a strong drop in contrast, coped well, receiving only a small bump in the form of a circle.
Good luck finding a 2-16-1. It’s nice and compact
@@VintageLensCorner Thanks!