Reading mode: Light Dark

Preliminary report-Industar 61 LD

Go to last post
Well, re-greasing the helicoid was fun-good instructions available on internet, focus very smooth now. As for IQ, I like it. It definately needs a hood outdoors in the sun as it is suceptible to ghosting/flare. Wide open it is a good portrait lens. stopped down to f 5.6 it is very sharp to me. My sample was very clean, maybe NOS? The helicoid grease was very dry and needed to be cleaned and repacked bbbbut not a big deal to fix.

Here are the samples.

I did these to test corner and center sharpness. The first is wide open, the second f/5.6 and the third f/11. I hope that they are in the right order. Please don't complain about exposure or composition:













These are for show:





















These last two show the tendancy of the lens to flare. First one at f5.6 I think, second at f/16:









Tedolph
 
s_grins said:
WOW!!!

I'm waiting for my copy (mid May hopefully) and rhis post came just in time. All these I-61 I've seen on ebay are more than 20 years old, so I made some research how to clean them up. I've found 2 different procedures
http://www.mattdentonphoto.com/cameras/industar_relubing/index.html
http://www.pentax-manuals.com/repairs/i6ldservice.pdf .

and now I'm thinking about the way to avoid total disconnection of helicoid nut from the body. Putting this nut back is a nutty job.
Anyway, glad to follow and learn about this puppy
BTW, how your lens focuses to infinity?
--
MFT in progress
Click to expand...
Infinity foucs, etc. all fine. It is possible to re-thread the helicoid improperly if you take it off all the way. I have some experience with this and old Elmar style lenses. Just continue to "unscrew" (the focusing helicoid is threaded in reverse, that is righty loosey) the helicoid until you feel a click, then counter rotate. You might have to do this two or three times until you get the threads synchronized correctly but it is not a big deal and somewhat intuitive.

Tedolph
 
453C said:
LincolnB said:
s_grins said:
Try this I-61 with A=5.6 - 8.
Click to expand...
I did, I just haven't converted all the raw files to jpg and organized them yet. But don't worry, Tedolf has promised that I will self-publish a complete book on the subject by the end of the month. ;)
Click to expand...
Tedolph PMed me that you'll also include Adobe lens profiles for all of the lenses, including every FL of each zoom. Will those be downloadable or included with the book? I'd prefer downloadable, since you're also supposed to keep the profile database updated, but I'll leave that up to you - until Tedolph says different.
--
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Dont_be_a_dick
Click to expand...
That is correct, please proceed LinconB.

Remember, your reward is in Heaven!

TEdolph
 
Indeed those images are really in poor taste, even for test images.

Just do a search on Google Images of Flickr and you'll see that Industars are very able performers in good light. However for sharpness they must be stopped down, like all tessars. See Ken Rockwell too:

http://kenrockwell.com/tech/industar/55mm-f28.htm

They won't compete against CZJ, which I have, but being very small, you can easily carry them outdoors in your pockets if the need for their focal arises.

Apart from central sharpness, typically 50 lpm, they have very good mcirocontrast and colour. But they are not definitely lenses for low light.
One forgets that 30 yrs. ago people would never shoot without a flash indoors.

Am.
--
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric
 
tedolf said:
These last two show the tendancy of the lens to flare. First one at f5.6 I think, second at f/16:









Tedolph
Click to expand...
Well "flare" (low contrast) of a kind that I doubt you can get rid of by means of a hood in the first one (f/5.6). With respect to the second (f/16), I'd guess on a rather massive manifestation of the "digital-sensor-reflection-effect".

http://thesybersite.com/minolta/sensor-reflection/

Now what did we say about antireflective coating in that other thread about (among other things) old lenses from behind the "Iron Curtain"? ;-)
 
all for your insightfull and meaninfull comments. At least there were no comments about my Gallery. I knew I could count on this group!

To answer a few questions, I did not use the EVF except for the rail road set I believe. Focusing is a bit more challenging than with an f/2.0 or faster lens so the EVF will definately help. I lilke the f 5.6 photos (RR crossing gate, tracks, pipes comming out of wall) these were quick grab shots on an overcast day while I was walking from the bus stop in an industrial neiborhood to pick up my car. The subject matter does not require absolute sharpness.

The "portrait" I thought was interesting in that there is quite a lot of detail avialable in the eye area, even though the lens was wide open.

I did note flaring when pointing the lens toward the sun. I will do some tests to see what difference a shade makes, if any.

Here are a few DOF/zone focus tests while waiting for the bus, I don't remember what the F stop settings were:













I will be sure to report back here for your always helpful and uplifting comments!

Tedolph
 
453C said:
Anders, thanks for the link.

Still, that lens offers better IQ than my $19 m43 55mm prime.
Click to expand...
Is that possible? ;-) If so, what on earth did you get? ;-)

Personally, I am happy that I got the Minolta MD 50/1.7 and the Vivitar (Komine) 28/2 Close Focus instead, both at about the same price level as the Industar (about 20 dollars each). And no regreasing required either although both are about 25 years old. Very smooth and nicely dampened focus mechanism. With the Minolta, I can even use a snap-on hood. Very modern and convenient feature. :-)

OK. For the Vivitar, the price was sheer luck but for the Minolta it was rather normal.
 
tedolf said:
I will be sure to report back here for your always helpful and uplifting comments!
Click to expand...
Tedolph the Optimist? :)

I noticed the OOF background in the zone focus shots wasn't nearly as bad as I thought it might be after I read Ken Rockwell's comments. From what I've seen, one of the biggest advantages these bargain lenses have over native lenses is the ability to set focus so easily. Zone focusing sure looks like the way to go with one of these.

I thought I had a $19 m43 55mm, but then I realized it was just a boring, $19 m43 50mm EFL lens. Sorry to mislead.
--
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Dont_be_a_dick
 
Sample variation might be more significant than difference between lenses of different brands.

See the sharpness in this test here, at MFlenses:

http://forum.mflenses.com/epl1-and-industar-61-l-d-53mm-f28-rf-lens-a-brief-test-t37157.html

The Oly kit lens is probably sharper, so why get this lens? As someone wrote, sharpness is bourgeois, rendering is not. Thanks to Lanthane glass this lens has fine contrast and draws the subject very well. The kit lens is sharper, but to the point it etches it.

The point with Russian lenses is to make sure one gets a good sample, due to enormous sample variation, otherwise sharpness tests are worthless. OTH Russian production lines could afford to use fine glass, irrespective of the Western prices, since they produced it locally, although with Zeiss machines they confiscated in Germany.

So it's not true that 'you get what you pay for' - another bourgeois concept - you get much more.

At the moment the Industars are the cheaper RF lenses, but it might not last forever, because m4/3 will fatally increase the price of the good copies. 1 year ago a Zeiss Jena 50/1.8 was fetching 30 EUR, now the asking price goes up to 80.

The point of having a m4/3 system is to keep the form factor small, so L39 rangefinder lenses are ideally suited, but other than Russian lenses they cost a fortune. Also, Russian lenses L39 lenses are made of aluminium, instead of Leica's bronze, so they are ideal to carry in one's pockets - no bag needed anymore :)

This is another Industar, The I-69, which is well worth a review for m4/3:
By Dolmang at Flickr. There's no lens so small, and good, for 20$ :)



(but it must be modified)

Am.

--
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric
 
Anders W said:
453C said:
Anders, thanks for the link.

Still, that lens offers better IQ than my $19 m43 55mm prime.
Click to expand...
Is that possible? ;-) If so, what on earth did you get? ;-)

Personally, I am happy that I got the Minolta MD 50/1.7 and the Vivitar (Komine) 28/2 Close Focus instead, both at about the same price level as the Industar (about 20 dollars each). And no regreasing required either although both are about 25 years old. Very smooth and nicely dampened focus mechanism. With the Minolta, I can even use a snap-on hood. Very modern and convenient feature. :-)

OK. For the Vivitar, the price was sheer luck but for the Minolta it was rather normal.
Click to expand...
Well, I had Kiron made Vivitar 28/f2 briefly, and it was so much softer than Canon 28/f2.8 that I immediately sold it. As for Industar and Minolta MD 50/1.7, I have both, both are good, but I use Industar much more often because it's much lighter and smaller, especially with the adapter.

I also disagree with Amalric that Industar needs to be stopped down. IMHO its very, very good wide open. Of course optimal aperture is about f5.6, but f2.8 on this lens is very good. Its weakness is flare as tedolf correctly pointed out. Even a little sun in the frame is enough to kill the contrast.

Here are the samples, all wide open:













Click on the image to magnify. Here you can see a purple tint that I wrote above. Slight flare effect is seen in first picture. The lens also has a very distinct rendering that I quite like.
 
I am lucky to have a permanent Russian seller at the fleamarket here in Rome so he sold me a good sample of the I-61.

As for the I-69 I knew that it had to lose 0.7mm to reach infinity with an L-39 adapter, so by accident I disovered a Russian seller who confirmed that the sample i bought was already modified. Joy, it reaches perfect infinity.

His name on eBay is Grandseller, in Moscow. He has not a large stock, but I must suppose he has only good samples, and interesting lenses. Shipping was fairly quick too.

Am.
--
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric
 
fermy said:
Anders W said:
Personally, I am happy that I got the Minolta MD 50/1.7 and the Vivitar (Komine) 28/2 Close Focus instead, both at about the same price level as the Industar (about 20 dollars each). And no regreasing required either although both are about 25 years old. Very smooth and nicely dampened focus mechanism. With the Minolta, I can even use a snap-on hood. Very modern and convenient feature. :-)

OK. For the Vivitar, the price was sheer luck but for the Minolta it was rather normal.
Click to expand...
Well, I had Kiron made Vivitar 28/f2 briefly, and it was so much softer than Canon 28/f2.8 that I immediately sold it.
Click to expand...
You might have had a lemon if it was that bad, but based on the samples and reports I have seen so far, the Kiron-made Vivitar 28/2 is generally not in the same league as the Komine-made version. Apparently, the Kiron version also has systematic problems with oil on the aperture blades.

I have seen several reports suggesting that the Komine-made Vivitar gives really good lenses at that focal length, like the Minolta MD 28/2 and the Pentax FA 31/1.8 Ltd, a run for the money. Here's a test where it turns out to be superior (at least to my eyes) to, among others, the Zuiko OM 28/2, the Sigma 28/1.8 Asph., the Kiron 28/2 (probably identical to the Kiron-made Vivitar), and the Tokina-made Vivitar Series 1 28/1.9.

http://homepage3.nifty.com/3rdpartylens-om/Lens%20Test/28mm/28mmLensTest2.htm
fermy said:
As for Industar and Minolta MD 50/1.7, I have both, both are good, but I use Industar much more often because it's much lighter and smaller, especially with the adapter.
Click to expand...
How do you arrive at that conclusion (much lighter and smaller, with adapter)? The Minolta is 36 mm long and the adapter 23 mm so 59 altogether. The Industar is 38 mm and the adapter 8 mm so 46 altogether. The weight of the Minolta is 165 g versus 130 g for the Industar (based on the specs I have seen). The Minolta adapter is probably about 25 g heavier so a difference of 60 g or so altogether. So in my view, the Minolta does very well in this comparison based on my preferences (which of course do not have to be shared by everyone) for faster lenses (one and a half stop) that do well at wide apertures and do not flare a whole lot. ;-)
fermy said:
I also disagree with Amalric that Industar needs to be stopped down. IMHO its very, very good wide open.
Click to expand...
Can't tell from your pictures but based on the samples provided by LincolnB, I'd certainly disagree. That's decidedly bad wide open by my standards, especially when considering that wide open in this case is no more than f/2.8.
fermy said:
Of course optimal aperture is about f5.6, but f2.8 on this lens is very good. Its weakness is flare as tedolf correctly pointed out. Even a little sun in the frame is enough to kill the contrast.
Click to expand...
Yes, I see the flare unfortunately, in Tedolphs pictures as well as yours, and I am afraid it is not at all to my liking. I also suspect that this is flare of a kind that cannot easily be cured (at least not removed altogether) by means of a hood but you know that better than I do.
 
Anders W said:
You might have had a lemon if it was that bad, but based on the samples and reports I have seen so far, the Kiron-made Vivitar 28/2 is generally not in the same league as the Komine-made version. Apparently, the Kiron version also has systematic problems with oil on the aperture blades.
Click to expand...
Anders W said:
Anders W said:
As for Industar and Minolta MD 50/1.7, I have both, both are good, but I use Industar much more often because it's much lighter and smaller, especially with the adapter.
Click to expand...
How do you arrive at that conclusion (much lighter and smaller, with adapter)? The Minolta is 36 mm long and the adapter 23 mm so 59 altogether. The Industar is 38 mm and the adapter 8 mm so 46 altogether. The weight of the Minolta is 165 g versus 130 g for the Industar (based on the specs I have seen). The Minolta adapter is probably about 25 g heavier so a difference of 60 g or so altogether. So in my view, the Minolta does very well in this comparison based on my preferences (which of course do not have to be shared by everyone) for faster lenses (one and a half stop) that do well at wide apertures and do not flare a whole lot. ;-)
Click to expand...
It's very easy to arrive at that conclusion since I have both lenses. The difference with adapter is 70 g (250 g v 180). Numbers are numbers, what they don't tell you is that Minolta is also quite a bit fatter in addition to being longer, so the difference in bulk is quite substantial. I know for sure which one I would rather have in my pocket.
Anders W said:
Can't tell from your pictures but based on the samples provided by LincolnB, I'd certainly disagree. That's decidedly bad wide open by my standards, especially when considering that wide open in this case is no more than f/2.8.
Click to expand...
Should I interpret this as you need ruler shots to judge the lens?
Anders W said:
Anders W said:
Of course optimal aperture is about f5.6, but f2.8 on this lens is very good. Its weakness is flare as tedolf correctly pointed out. Even a little sun in the frame is enough to kill the contrast.
Click to expand...
Yes, I see the flare unfortunately, in Tedolphs pictures as well as yours, and I am afraid it is not at all to my liking. I also suspect that this is flare of a kind that cannot easily be cured (at least not removed altogether) by means of a hood but you know that better than I do.
Click to expand...
I am puzzled at what you mean here. Flare by definition arises from reflection of light from a bright source in the lens. If you cut the source with a hood there wouldn't be any flare.
 
I can confirm that flare is not an issue, at least on the samples that are MC. I just use a hand, having IBIS not a problem shooting with one hand.

Also I might have mised up the i-61 and I-69 performance. The I 61 is really a nice lens and can be shot wide open.

However I was told that typical Tessars are sharp at the center, 50 lpm, and 25 at the edges. The more you close the aperture the more they will be sharp. It can go up to f/16 and be better at each step, but then you'll hit the diffraction limit.

So to me they are really fair wather lenses, but in a good sense. They have film rendering, fine contrast warm colours.

And they disappear in a pocket.

Am

--
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric
 
The edges are cropped on m4/3, which really helps tessars performance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
Just got a new old FZ-1000 II... see ya, Leica!
Replies
2
Views
3K
sherman_levine
sherman_levine
B
The Lens from Genoa.
2
Replies
20
Views
654
Bosun Higgs
B
Keith Herrin
Tanzania Safari with GFX: Initial Report
Replies
17
Views
2K
Keith Herrin
Keith Herrin
B
The King of the Ernostars
2
Replies
31
Views
7K
T-Rex Mark
T
B
Brought Back from the Dead
Replies
1
Views
378
simple-joy
simple-joy

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top