[Racer X 69]

The Super Moon Two days past full, shot with my NEX 7 and Tamron 55BB 500mm f/8, ISO 100. One thing I like about this shot is it is full color, not grayscale, and the subtle colorations of the moon's surface are clearly visible.

Looks like you nailed the exposure. Nice work.

[channeler]

How much does it foul the flash housing?

I tried using the lens on bellows and it did not make much difference to MFD which is 4m on mine which boasts macro.

But what you say about the filters suggests there is more than one version. Mine definitely has filters that look like plumbing fittings.

Difficult to say exactly how far the lens is fouling the flash housing. K-30 body does protrude a fair bit near the flash. Can't manage to even engage the thread. The hand grip also protrudes on the K-30 which also makes things more difficult. I have attached photos below along with a photo of the Rubinar showing the hood and filters. Please excuse the quality of the images. I just used my phone camera for quickness. Paul

[pentaxpete]

hi All -- I haven't posted on this Site for a while but I DID try my Russian MTO 500 by holding it over the lens mount of my 6x7 Mk II , using 'Spot Metering' on some outdated 2002 Fuji Provia 100 and got a good one to show ! Camera was on tripod, 2 secs delayed action, and good light on the subject which is one of my Wife's model Dogs with 'Solar Lights' for eyes !

[cooltouch]

Looks like you nailed the exposure. Nice work.

Thanks! Yeah, I have always used 1/125 @ f/8 @ ISO 100 as a starting point for moon shots. When using lenses with an aperture ring, I often set the lens to f/11. I find that often at this somewhat darker exposure setting, even more detail can be captured. But obviously with this mirror, it's f/8 or nothing, so you work with what you got.

[jcdoss]

What's the opinion among learned and experienced mirror lens users about the SMC 400-600 Reflex Zoom? I've read all four user reviews here, and am interested to see any examples that you guys might have. It also looks like it can do 0.4x magnification... wondering if anyone here has tried that?

[tim60]

Difficult to say exactly how far the lens is fouling the flash housing. K-30 body does protrude a fair bit near the flash. Can't manage to even engage the thread. The hand grip also protrudes on the K-30 which also makes things more difficult. I have attached photos below along with a photo of the Rubinar showing the hood and filters. Please excuse the quality of the images. I just used my phone camera for quickness. Paul

Paul, I dug mine out of the drawer and attach pictures here.


The first shows the mount end. There is quite a bit of space which clears the prism/flash housing on K100DS and K3 by a quite safe margin.
Second shows the front view with the filters and cap.
Third, side view side showing the Makro label and the MFD distance numbers and the serial number.
The fourth shows the front element which was concave facing out. This was done to manage the light reflection from the lens making it less likely that the lens would be spotted when in use.


Do these features look like yours?


BTW: does yours have a rather heavy focusing action, not like the old Takumars or M series lenses, which were so light that they could be moved by finger tip action, but firm enough to be secure when not touched? I find mine is heavy but does not feel wrong, just that they made it heavy.

[channeler]

Paul, I dug mine out of the drawer and attach pictures here.


The first shows the mount end. There is quite a bit of space which clears the prism/flash housing on K100DS and K3 by a quite safe margin.
Second shows the front view with the filters and cap.
Third, side view side showing the Makro label and the MFD distance numbers and the serial number.
The fourth shows the front element which was concave facing out. This was done to manage the light reflection from the lens making it less likely that the lens would be spotted when in use.


Do these features look like yours?


BTW: does yours have a rather heavy focusing action, not like the old Takumars or M series lenses, which were so light that they could be moved by finger tip action, but firm enough to be secure when not touched? I find mine is heavy but does not feel wrong, just that they made it heavy.

Hi Tim,

My version seems to be very similar to yours, but there seems to be a difference with the camera mount end. In the photo does yours have an extension ring on at the camera end or is that a fixed part of the lens? I have uploaded a photo of mine below. The other main difference is the size of the filters. FRont lens is concave. Yes, the focusing action is heavy but smooth.

With the "Made in Russia" on the tripod collar I wonder if my version was made for export. The tripod mount rotates around the lens clicking at 90 degree points, presumably so it can be fixed in place with the locking nut for landscape or portrait orientation. The focusing point seems to go a little beyond the infinity mark as far as the M mark. I read some lenses could focus "past infinity". If this is the case with this one I hope it might help if I have to use an extension tube.

Paul

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

---

Last edited by channeler; 12-27-2016 at 06:54 AM. Reason: Additional information

[tim60]

They are different.


The mount end of mine in the picture I posted is the lens. None of those pieces comes off, and it focuses to infinity.


All the writing on mine, including the manual, is in Russian. That made it hard to read, only knowing English and ancient Greek - which was the key. Mine was certified on 24/09/00 (handwritten in the manual). My manual is written for two versions: MC Rubinar-K 10/1000 macro AND MC Rubinar 10/1000 macro. Page 4 says the Rubinar version has M42x1 mount and the K has a bayonet mount named "oprava". Anyone have any clues as to what that is? Was there a Russian brand using the Pentax K mount?


Also the tripod mount ring on mine is different.


I would suspect that there may have been changes in the lens from the early official use version to the now commercial version which can be manufactured and sold surprisingly cheaply for the quality because the IP was almost given away in the commercialisation of former state factories.

[channeler]

They are different.


The mount end of mine in the picture I posted is the lens. None of those pieces comes off, and it focuses to infinity.


All the writing on mine, including the manual, is in Russian. That made it hard to read, only knowing English and ancient Greek - which was the key. Mine was certified on 24/09/00 (handwritten in the manual). My manual is written for two versions: MC Rubinar-K 10/1000 macro AND MC Rubinar 10/1000 macro. Page 4 says the Rubinar version has M42x1 mount and the K has a bayonet mount named "oprava". Anyone have any clues as to what that is? Was there a Russian brand using the Pentax K mount?


Also the tripod mount ring on mine is different.


I would suspect that there may have been changes in the lens from the early official use version to the now commercial version which can be manufactured and sold surprisingly cheaply for the quality because the IP was almost given away in the commercialisation of former state factories.

I did read somewhere that these lenses were latterly produced in both M42 and PK fittings, though the quantities in the PK fitting must have been less as they just don't seem to come up for sale. The rear design of your version gives a lot more room for manoeuvre with flash housings. I don't think I have much option other than to buy an extension tube set and see how it works out. Not sure if any of the modern Pentax DSLRs would have enough clearance to mount the lens without an extender? As I mentioned, I hope the fact that the focusing ring goes a little past the infinity mark may give me a little leeway. I read instructions on one website on how to adjust infinity focus on the Rubinar 500mm if an extension ring had to be used, but the writer cautioned against trying it with the 1000 mm because the ball bearings that would come out with dismantling would be impossible to put back in place. I would have preferred to buy an auto PK set of extension tubes for use with other lenses but I think I'll have to stick with a manual M42 set as I suspect that I'd just run into other complications over the electrical contacts with a PK auto set. I did a lot of research re new mirror lenses like the Samyang 800mm (which would have been significantly cheaper) before opting for the Rubinar which seemed to offer better overall IQ. Fingers crossed I can get things to work. You may have already come across this but in my searches I came across what is supposed to be an English user manual here:

User English Manual for MC Rubinar 10/1000 MACRO Lens

Paul

[goatsNdonkey]

I don't mean to speak sacrilege, but has anyone ever surgically modified the flash housing on any of the Pentax models that have a particularly protruding one? My old (Sigma-made) Spriatone T-mount f8/500mm has a long enough neck behind the rear mirror, so I don't have this problem using it with either my K110D or K10D, but I can see how this would be as frustrating as heck for people with compact mirror lenses who don't want to introduce an extension tube or teleconverter. Maybe someone has done some tasteful breast reduction surgery on a Pentax dslr to alleviate this problem. If so, this would be a good time to share how it is done for those brave enough to try it.

[cooltouch]

I have a question and then I'm gonna 'speak' some sacrilege. Question: does this lens focus past infinity? If so, I have a possible solution. Since it is threaded for M42, but you don't necessarily need M42, my advice is to mount a K-mount T-mount to the lens, cross-threading it over the M42 threads. Since the difference between M42 and T-mount threads is a minor difference in thread pitch, cross-threading is a rather easy thing to accomplish. The result? You'll have a K-mount with perhaps a bit more space to mount your camera, thus less of a chance of interference. And if the lens focuses past infinity, this slight additional focusing range may will be enough to compensate for any increase in length that may have occurred.

The way I see it, since this lens was available in PK and M42 mounts only, I doubt seriously it was made for two different registration depths. In fact, that PK mount looks like a T-mount to me. It might well unscrew, revealing either T-mount threads or cross-threaded M42 threads.

[tim60]

Cross threading would permanently diminish the value of the lens and if done wrongly might also make a mount not quite perpendicular to the lens axis.

A really short M42-M42 tube might be the deal. Could you find someone who could turn one up?

I am biased against modifying the core assets of the camera and the lens.

I will tell the man who gave it to me about these variations.

The Rubina was made for serious professional use so IQ is excellent. Best that could be done at the time at any price.

[channeler]

Thanks for the suggestion Cooltouch but like Tim I am a bit wary of modifying the lens. I even found a webpage on how to remove the infinity stop on the Rubinar so you could focus to infinity when using an extension tube:

APM Information System

There were one or two other guides but without any images which made understanding the instructions more difficult. They did seem to indicate that the information re the danger of losing ball bearings given on the rugift site was incorrect:

Using Rubinar Lenses with various cameras / Rugift.com

Apart from my reluctance to take the risk the additional problem seems to be that there are some variations of this lens around so I can't be sure that these instructions would apply to all variants.

There is some useful general information about the lens on the Kremlin Optics site:

Rubinar 10/1000 Telephoto Lens

In particular it warns: " "CAUTION" these lenses may not work on all 35mm cameras with built in flash or other protruding devices on the front. The lens diameter at the mounting flange is 125mm or 62.5 mm radius. Measure your camera from the center of the lens mount to determine if any camera part extends more than 4 mm in front of the mounting ring within this radius."

There is also some useful information on the LZOS site:

LZOS - MC Rubinar-10/1000 camera lens

They mention various adapters for different cameras. I have written to them but I am not optimistic.

I have been on the edge of buying an M42 extension tube set Tim, The smallest tube in the set I came across was about 11mm. I'm not sure that it would give enough clearance to mount the lens and from everything I have read recently any tube seems to drastically affect infinity focus. I may still take the plunge just to give it a shot. Another member in an old post talked about stacking 20mm of tubes to use the Rubinar on his K20D. I don't know what he did about infinity focus, but I am trying to contact him about his experience. Another option is to try it with my tamron 1.4x TC (using the M42 adapter on the TC rather than the camera body) which may still maintain infinity focus? I may give that a shot later today.

I am going to have to make a decision soon as to whether to keep persevering to try to find a solution or to contact the Ebay seller that I purchased it from to see about returning it.

Paul

[tim60]

If you have a use for a 1000 it would be a keeper, worth persevering with for a solution. Since you have it and the body it would pay to work out the minimum length you need to get it to fit. The M42 mount on the lens fits freely inside the K mount so you can se how much length is needed. Since the M42 mount is a simple metric thread it is reasonably easy to turn a piece of tube with a M F pair of M42 threads separated by probably 4 to 6 mm, being all the additional length needs to solve your problem. That would probably not lose too much long focus. If you can focus out to about 1000 yards it would be enough for wildlife but not good enough for aircraft or ships at sea.

The manual rates it as good for -10C to 40C. I have found scintillating is a real problem above about 25C.

[channeler]

Yes, I may give the tubes a shot. I just tried putting the M42 adapter into the lens mounting end of my Tamron 1.4x TC but couldn't get it to fit in place. Seem to be contacts that get in the way.