quoting Bob Shell (at http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/kievlens.html):
You may just be surprised if you compare the 30mm Zodiak (now sold as
Arsat) to the Hasselblad lens. We've compared them at Shutterbug and there
is damned little difference other than that the Arsats show typically lax
Ukrainian quality control. Get a good one and no one could distinguish the
photos from ones taken with the Zeiss.
end-quote:

well, we can arrange to sell QGdeB some kiev lenses at a huge markup, so
they won't be cheap anymore - but I doubt that will impact their optical
qualities any, yes? ;-)

And the schneider lenses for the russian camera mounts are not cheap
either, even used - running $1,500 to $1,850 from B&H discount prices
(circa 1995 see http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/FAQexakta.txt more $ today? ).

As I've argued before, the high cost of zeiss lenses is due to the extra
layer of markups from mfgers like Hasselblad and Rollei using an
"out-[of]-house" lens maker, creating extra layers of markups which add
circa 40% to the cost of the lenses over similar lenses made "in-house" by
other mfgers (e.g., bronica). So in effect hassy and rollei zeiss lens
users are penalized by the lack of in-house optical works at Hasselblad
and Rollei.

Similarly, if you have to pay for a local importer markups (Mamiya/USA in
USA, Hasselblad/USA..), you end up paying substantially more for the same
lens quality versus those in other regions (e.g., U.K. for mamiya gear)
where there is not a trademarked or official importer, with its own
(30-50%+) markups too ;-)

If you work the cost of making a MF lens back thru these layers of
markups, you end up with costs to manufacture circa $300 (for non-leaf
shutter) to $450+ (for leaf shutter) lenses using top quality processes
(like Zeiss or Bronica).

Prices for used Kiev made lenses are pretty similar to used Nikkor prices
for classic bronica, also a focal plane 6x6cm lens kit. I'm suggesting it
isn't that Kiev made lenses are cheap, it is that the markups on zeiss
"out-house" lenses for hasselblad and rollei makes them expensive, esp. in
those first world markets where top prices could be demanded and obtained.

grins bobm

You're the first person I've read this from, guess you just have really crap
luck?

Also if you use it without the rear filter, they don't work right. It's
part of the optical formula. I'm sure though even if you didn't use the
rear filter you'd admit it at this point. No way a kiev lens can be any
better than a coke bottle bottom...

Interior reflections can also ruin contrast with a lens this wide, but of
course you'd never suspect a 50 year old blad could have any part in the
problem.

More likely, this is all total BS and you've never even had one of these
lenses in your hand.

Seems pretty sharp.

http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/ugly-c2.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/14770826/original

It's nice for panoramas.

http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/33533884

And I haven't noticed barrel distortion.

http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/22566107/large

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

It's a fun lens and mine seems sharp, then again I'm also happy with
non-zeiss lenses so I'm sure some people will say it's junk?

When the Fujiblad came out one of the Japanese rags tested the Mamiya,
Pentax, Contax, and Fuji 35/3.5 lenses and found that wide open, the Mamiya
was softer than the others, but that the lenses were indistinguishable on
real-life images when stopped down.

If you shoot test charts, the Fuji 35/3.5 is the lens you want, though. It
looks to me that the Zeiss redesign of the 40/4.0 Distagon was because they
were embarrassed that the Fuji 35/3.5 had better MTF charts than the older
40/4.0. Even Q.G. has bitched that slightly higher MTF at the cost of
significantly worse distortion isn't a desirable tradeoff.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

Yes. And i accept that. No problem.

What i do find amusing still is people not acknowledging that cheapness is
not a substitute for quality.
They, price and quality, are not (as for instance Stacey demonstrably
thinks) the same thing. Different categories alltogether.
So yes, there can be (no "are"!) good things that are cheap, expensive
things that are bad.
But bad things do not become good because they are cheap.