Source: https://vnk-dx.livejournal.com/435160.html
At the end of the 1970s, the Kyiv Arsenal plant created a new SLR camera, the Kyiv-17. After more than 10 years of producing large and heavy automatic SLR cameras, the Kyiv-10 and Kyiv-15, with rather confusing controls and a mount that was not compatible with anything, a more "traditional" camera was developed with the already widely used Nikon F mount (called "Mount 'H'" in the USSR). There are different versions of why they chose this mount - in the USSR, Nikon equipment was purchased for special purposes, and they decided to try import substitution; they figured it was time to stop trying to create their own mount and join some universally accepted system (later, the role of the universally accepted mount would be played by the Pentax K mount, but in the late 1980s, discussions about creating a unified Soviet mount began again).
Compared to its predecessor, the Kyiv-15, the new model turned out to be noticeably smaller and lighter, and the controls were intuitive. The only non-obvious feature was that the button on the axis of the wind lever was needed for double exposure. Overall, it was a camera that had nothing unusual except for the shutter speed control ring on the front panel under the left hand. This might be convenient when working with a light meter that displays exposure correctness in the viewfinder, but the camera didn’t have this feature. Why? There are different answers to this too: they didn't want to deal with the measuring linkage for open-aperture metering; to avoid complicating the design and reducing reliability... In terms of reliability, the Kyiv-17 initially had many problems: the design was raw, and the series cameras that appeared around 1980 faced a barrage of criticism and mass warranty repairs. In 1981, the "teething troubles" were addressed as much as possible, but today it is difficult to find a working Kyiv-17, and repairing it might not be worth the effort. As for my Kyiv-17, I can say that nothing works, including the lens, but it is from 1980 with Olympic symbols and early release features: for example, a sync contact on the front panel designed to work with disposable flashbulbs (did anyone really use them in the late 1970s?) and a film sensitivity reminder disk instead of the "fashionable" pocket holder-frame.
In the early 1980s, a new model, the Kyiv-20, appeared—this time with a light meter that measured exposure at open aperture: a cutout on the edge of the aperture ring engaged with a special moving ring on the camera around the mount—just like in the Nikon AI system, which appeared at the end of the 1970s. The light meter was activated by pressing a special button on the front panel below the shutter button, and three LEDs in the viewfinder indicated the correct exposure.
In the mid-1980s, the Kyiv-20 was replaced by a simplified model, the Kyiv-19. The main difference was the shutter mechanism (the shutter speed range was reduced from 1...1/1000 s to 1/2...1/500 s), the absence of multiple exposure, and metering only at working aperture. The light meter also changed: it became powered by a 3V instead of a 6V battery, and the number of LEDs was reduced to two. Despite these changes, the Kyiv-19 was not worse than the Zenit-12sd, which was relevant at that time, and even cost less. The only thing the Kyiv lacked compared to the Zenit was the absence of a self-timer, which also fell victim to the simplification of the design. Perhaps it was also slower in metering speed. Zenit models of a higher level (Zenit-19 and the new generation Zenit-Automatic) belonged to a different price category, with electronic shutters, etc., so comparing them isn't entirely fair. By the way, Arsenal developed a camera with an electronically controlled shutter, the Kyiv-18, but it remained experimental.
When I was shooting with the Kyiv-19, my impression of it was incomplete because I used a Nikkor AF 50/1.8D lens, and in manual focus mode, it was, to put it mildly, not very convenient. I didn't like the loud click when winding the shutter, but switching the shutter speeds with a ring in such a strange location didn't seem uncomfortable. In this sense, the Kyiv was more convenient than, for example, the Yashica FX-3 Super 2000 with its "Zenit-style" shutter speed dial placement, where after using the Kyiv, my left hand instinctively reached for the front panel a few times (and the Yashica also clicks noticeably, but not when winding, but when releasing the shutter). Initially, I didn't like the viewfinder: although it is large and bright, it lacks a split-image rangefinder, but I later realized that a rangefinder is not always convenient.
In 1991, production of a new model began—the Kyiv-19M. A very useful feature was added—a special removable grip for a more comfortable hold (another drawback of the Kyiv-19, like other models, was insufficient "gripability"). Metering at open aperture became possible again (although there were frequent complaints about the "lever" of the aperture ring sticking), and the light meter was powered by 6V again. The light meter was now activated by half-pressing the shutter button instead of a special button. Some body parts became plastic, the split-image rangefinder returned to the focusing screen, and the depth-of-field preview moved to a location more familiar to Nikon cameras, but it was a lever that had to be pushed down rather than a button. The eyepiece mount became round (before, it was compatible with Praktica eyepieces).
But the story doesn't end there. In 2017, a Kickstarter campaign was launched to fund the production of a "new true film camera," the Ihagee Elbaflex. The exterior clearly revealed the design of the Kyiv-19M (the shutter speed selector on the front panel was a dead giveaway) with replaced nameplates and a wooden grip, seemingly glued on. The campaign promised "German quality control" and a price of $1500, but by donating to the Kickstarter project, you could get the camera at 3-5 times lower cost. In the end, only $29868 of the $50000 goal was raised.
About the prices. The Kyiv-17 with the Helios-81N lens cost 280 rubles, the Kyiv-20 with the same lens cost 400 rubles, while the Kyiv-19 was only 150 rubles. The Kyiv-19M is more complicated. In the 2001 price lists of the "Photomagazine," the Kyiv-19M was priced at $63 (presumably with a lens), while the Zenit-122, 212K, or 312M were slightly cheaper. Today, on the Arsenal website (last updated in December 2020), new Kyiv-19M cameras without lenses are offered for 1900 UAH, which is about $70 at the current exchange rate.
On the secondary market, a Kyiv-19 (without a lens) can be bought starting from 1000 rubles (other SLR Kyiv cameras are significantly more expensive). If not used for excessive loads and rough work, it has a good chance of being preserved in good condition—unlike Zenits, whose shutters can dry out, and their tapes can peel off. The situation with lenses is more complicated because they are often taken by "Nikonists," and the standard Helios-81 is a fairly interesting lens.
The Helios-81 itself appeared in the "Automatic" variant for the Kyiv-10. It can be said that its predecessor, the Helios-65, was an unsuccessful attempt to recalibrate the Helios-44 to the standard focal length of 50 mm, but the Helios-81 was already quite successful. The first standard lenses for the Kyiv-17, the Helios-81M, did not have multi-coating and could not be mounted on many Nikon cameras without modification, but that is another story. Multi-coating and compatibility with Nikon AI metering appeared later, but partial incompatibility with some cameras remained. By the time the new Kyiv-20 camera was released, the lens was renamed the MC Helios-81N, and by the time the Kyiv-19 was released, it began to be produced in a new, more compact body, which by modern standards is sometimes even called a "pancake lens"—at least for Nikon lenses, this size is considered quite a good result. In the early 1990s (officially believed to be in 1993), the MC Helios-81N was renamed the ARSAT H 50mm f/2, and around that time, it became better compatible with AI, and the diaphragm blades received some blackening. Among the less significant changes—around 1990, the filter thread changed from M49 to M52.
The alternative standard lens for the Kyiv-17 and Kyiv-20 was intended to be the Volna-4 1.4/50, experimental batches of which were produced in the early 1980s, and today this lens is very rare. Later, the MC Helios-123N 1.4/50 with a different optical scheme appeared, renamed in the 1990s to Arsat-H 50mm F1.4—today it is not so rare, but it is considered that, from a practical point of view, it is better to take an equivalent Nikon lens.
There was also the MC Volna-8 1.2/50 lens, but it remained experimental.
Lenses with other focal lengths began to appear in the early 1980s, meaning that the Kyiv-17 was initially distinguished not only by its low quality but also by its "lack of system." The first was the telephoto zoom lens Granit-11 4.5/80-200. The lens was versatile—three mounting options were included: "Kyiv-Automatic" (for Kyiv-10/15), M42, and "H" for Kyiv-17 (the latter did not appear immediately). Accordingly, there was no "jumping" diaphragm mechanism for any of these systems, and for convenience in focusing, it had a preset diaphragm that could be opened and closed back to the selected value. A built-in hood was also provided. In 1983-1985, an updated version, the MC Granit-11N, appeared, already with a "jumping" diaphragm mechanism (the version with an M42 thread became a separate model, the MC Granit-11M). The early version of the lens cost 420 rubles, and the later one cost 450 rubles. In the 1990s, it was renamed ARSAT H 4.5/80-200.
The MC Kaleinar-5N 2.8/100 was positioned as a portrait lens. It was produced at the Nizhyn plant "Progress" of the "Arsenal" association. The lens had a full-fledged "jumping" diaphragm, like subsequent models, and also had a built-in hood. A removable adapter for the M42 thread was included, but with such cameras, the "jumping" diaphragm no longer worked. In the mid-1980s, it cost 120 rubles, and in the 1990s, it was renamed ARSAT H 2.8/100.
The MC Mir-20N 3.5/20 was an ultra-wide-angle lens. Before that, it was produced by "Arsenal" with a bayonet for the Kyiv-10 and Kyiv-15, and at KMZ—with an M42 thread (Mir-20M). Filters were installed from the rear side. In 1985, it cost 325 rubles. Later, it was replaced by the Mir-73N lens.
The MC Mir-24N 2/35 was produced at the Nizhyn plant "Progress." It cost 165 rubles. A removable adapter for the M42 thread was included, but there was also a "full-fledged" thread version of the Mir-24M.
The Telear-N 3.5/200 was produced from the mid-1980s at the "Progress" plant. A thread adapter for M42 was also included. In the mid-1980s, it cost 210 rubles.
The MC Yantar 14N 2.8-4/28-85, a small-series and little-known zoom lens, was produced from 1985 to 1990.
In the 1990s, "Arsenal" began producing several more interesting designs.
The PCS MC Mir-67N 2.8/35, also known as PCS ARSAT H 2.8/35, is a shift lens with a shift of up to 10 mm (PCS stands for Perspective Control Shift). It was produced from 1990 and was sold until recently on Araxfoto for $379 (the 2000 "Photomagazine" test mentioned a price of $140). Today, the tilt/shift version of this lens (with a tilt of up to 8 degrees) is offered for $585.
The MC Yashma-4N 2.8/300 was a huge and heavy lens, with two hoods in the kit—rubber and deep metal. It was also used by amateur astrophotographers—weighing 2.5 kg, and in the early 2000s, it cost $900—then it was called ARSAT H 2.8/300.
The MC Mir-73N 2.8/20, also known as Arsat-H 20mm F/2.8, replaced the Mir-20.
The Krasnogorsk Mechanical Plant did not stay on the sidelines either. In the early 1990s, the first domestic "fish-eye" appeared—the Zenitar 2.8/16. Initially, it was created for the "K" mount, like other promising developments, but soon "N" and M42 versions appeared, all with a "jumping" diaphragm, as required. In 2012, a Canon version appeared (for some time, the M42 version was simply bundled with an adapter ring), and since 2018, the lens has been produced in an updated design and is now sold on the official KMZ website for 22280 rubles. A year ago, it was a third or even half cheaper. Now prices for used Zenitars start at 5-6 thousand rubles, and in the 1990s and 2000s, it cost around one hundred dollars new. The main complaints are usually not about the lens itself but about its cap, which constantly falls off, gets lost, and can scratch the front element. Some time ago, it was impossible to buy a new one, but now both it and replacement filters are available on the same website. Complaints are known that on some cameras (for example, the Nikon D750), the Zenitar-N 2.8/16 touches the mirror.
In 2012, the Nikon mount was attached to the already legendary Helios-40-2 1.5/85. The diaphragm with a preset mechanism, like any other version of this lens, but fans of swirling bokeh are unlikely to be scared off by this. The price, however, might scare them off—it has also increased significantly recently, and the website asks for 36000 rubles for this large and heavy lens.
Another fast lens is the Zenitar-1N 1.4/85, developed in the 1980s. The diaphragm is not "jumping" and lacks a preset mechanism. In size, it is not as large and heavy as the Helios-40 and costs "slightly cheaper"—29320 rubles.
The Zenitar 3.5/8 is a circular "fish-eye" lens. It has a "jumping" diaphragm, as expected, but the focal length is very specific. On crop cameras, it will work like a "traditional" diagonal "fisheye," but the lens is still quite bulky. It is priced at 21750 rubles on the website.
The Zenitar 1.2/50s is a fast lens for APS-C cameras. It has no mechanical connection with the camera, but there are no issues with focus shift either. The price is 25710 rubles.
And finally, two new products whose sales began this year. There are no tests yet, and besides the recent "PhotoForum," it seems no one has seen them anywhere: the Zenitar 2.8/60 Macro, whose main feature is electronically controlled aperture, priced at 36000 rubles, and the Selena 1.9/58, based on the Lomography New Petzval 58/1.9 with a system resembling, as far as I understand, Nikon's Defocus Control, priced at 45000 rubles.
Another way to mount a Soviet lens on a camera with the "H" mount was the KP-A/H adapter, which appeared in the mid-1980s. It was a replacement mount for universal lenses marked with the letter "A." Such lenses appeared in the early 1970s when the M39 thread on Zenit cameras was replaced by the M42 thread. The lenses were supplied with two mounts, M39 and M42, which the owner could change independently using a screwdriver. Accordingly, in the mid-1980s, the KP-A/H mount appeared, and there was also a KP-A/K, but it didn't make much sense because the standard M42 could be used with an adapter to the Pentax mount, and there was no diaphragm drive with all these mounts anyway.
The main thing you need to know: you cannot mount the Helios-81 and possibly other Soviet lenses on Nikon FA, F-301 (N2000), F-501 (N2020), and F4 cameras. Their mount has a special protrusion for AI-S communication that can get caught in the screw recess on the lens, making it very difficult to remove it from the camera. There are other subtleties that can prevent the lens from mounting on the camera, but this is usually solved with a file or pliers.
I got an MC Helios-81N from 1990 in poor condition—with dried grease on the helicoid and oil on the diaphragm blades. As a result, I had to completely disassemble it and wash it several times in gasoline, but now using it is a pleasure, with very light focusing and almost no play (the correct dosage of fresh grease solves the problem). The only significant downside is the damage to the multi-coating of the rear element, as if it had been rubbed with something not sharp but hard. As for image quality—it certainly swirls bokeh more interestingly compared to the Nikkor 50mm/1.8D (the closest to it in terms of popularity and price), naturally, it smudges the edges at wide apertures, but the Nikkor smudges across the entire field at the same apertures. In general, it is a "specialized" lens, which can be carried with you (it is heavy but very compact) in case you suddenly want to shoot some flowers on a Nikon with a swirled background. If more swirl is needed, it's better to take the Helios-40, and for everything else, there are "human" modern primes and zooms.
To make the aperture ring, as "required by AI protocol," catch on the diaphragm rheostat of the cameras (in my case, Nikon F90 and D700), I had to slightly bend the ring at the point of contact outward. This problem shouldn't exist with newer versions of this and other domestic lenses, but overall, in terms of optical and mechanical parameters, it is generally accepted that the best Helios-81s are from the mid-1980s, "in the old casing."
To summarize, after several attempts to create an "advanced" domestic SLR camera, Arsenal simply discarded all unnecessary features from the design, resulting in a relatively decent camera—this is roughly what the "Zenit" should have been. Another attempt to make a "Pro-SLR," the "Almaz," failed miserably because civilian photo production at LOMO was geared toward different equipment and different precision requirements. As they say, "Carry the load that suits you, so you don’t fall while walking."
``` This code is the complete translation of the provided content into English, including the alt texts for the images.
