Originally posted by roentarre Hey, Voe. Volna indeed produces nicer bokeh. What another great effort from you. Zeiss jena 50mm is quite dissapointing and having the worst bokeh of all.
Thanks, James. Maybe we can do some controlled comparison shots between your Voigtlander Nokton 58mm and my Volna-9 one day.
I borrowed the Zeiss Jena from a colleague at work. He was not very excited either.
Originally posted by TourDeForce Love this comparison! Nice work. The Pentax 1.7 is obviously at a disadvantage wide open, but in the 2.8 comparison it shows much better.
The Volna presents a very smooth image & definately has a neutral bokeh. Seems the Vivitar has a very tight bokeh and is giving up NOTHING to the CZ and others in this comparison. Excellent lens.
Overall, I am SURPRISED by what I'm seeing. I actually like the Industar rendition of the scene and the Mamiya 1.8 is quite nice also - both are lenses I'd like to put on my camera for a while. Again, the Vivitar stuns me in that it is obviously showing quite well.
I would rate the Vivitar bokeh right after the Volna-9 in this test. The best thing about the Vivitar is also that it is a 1:1 macro lens, which makes it very flexible.
Originally posted by georgweb Aaah,
thanks for posting the 2.8-pics!!
If you have them with 3.5 and 4 and... :-)
About the Volna-9 2.8/50 vs. Industar 61LZ 2.8/50, some say it's different, some say not:
Typical confusion here,
USSR Photo Forum - Volna-9 50/2.8 question
Nice Tom-Tiger-comparison, again stating different lens schemes,
Volna 9 vs Industar 61 L/Z
This source seems to be reliable, it states that the Volna-9 has the same lens scheme like the Industar61LZ and very similar to Elmar-M,
KIEV VOLNA vs. the Industar61LZ-scheme
Krasnogorsky Zavod -- -- -- -61
I really promise to do like you did with those two lenses, should I ever get my hands on the Volna.
Georg (the other)
Hi Georg,
Unfortunately I did not test other aperture settings.
I have seen the Tom Tiger comparison, unfortunately his test was performed on a film camera, but it still gives us some idea about how the two lenses compare. I am also very curious how these lenses perform on digital, but did not see any comparison so far.
The Volna-9 is the least discussed lens I came accross in forums and on the Internet. It seems this is because it is not very easy to find. There is so much about Jupiter and Helios (which are very interesting lenses) but not much info on Volna-9.
I have the M39 Industar which acts as a close focus/macro on my K10D (using M39 to M42 ring). The rendering is beautiful, and it is a really great lens, unfortunately I cannot use it's full capabilities as it has a different lens mount register and I cannot focus further than 10-15cm.
I used google translaton to read the italian article on Volna-9 and the optic scheme is really very close to Leica Elmar 50mm f/2.8. From what I understand, Volna-9 s an evolved Tessar optical formula. And further down in the article the writer comments that this design have filled the gap that separated the Tessar type from the double Gauss.