Reading mode: Light Dark

Preliminary report-Industar 61 LD

Go to last post
fermy said:
That's not what you see. What you see at least in my picture, is the sun impinging on the front element at an angle. When the angle gets bigger the contrast improves. Even if its a winter sun, it's still a strong light source, not some "diffuse light". I can assure you that I don't get any problems with diffuse light sources with that lens.
Click to expand...
I am sure you are right that the sun is just outside the frame. It's still a diffusely backlit scene, because of the relatively cloudy weather (very weak shadows). Yours is perhaps the least clearcut case in this respect though. Tedolph's first picture of the house (the second is a special case) and the second and third picture in the thread I link to below are even clearer:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1041&message=38198021&q=industar&qf=m
fermy said:
It is either or. Again the problem here are strong light sources impinging on front element. To see if you get a flare or not you draw a ray from the source to the lens. Hood either intercepts this ray or it does not. If it does not, then it has no effect. There are some borderline cases, related to the fact that sun is not really a point, so it's possible to block it partially. These cases have very little practical significance.
Click to expand...
Again, this holds only if you have a point source, like the sun on a clear sky, not when you have a diffusely counterlit scene.
fermy said:
fermy said:
And how much of a difference the hood will actually make in a particular scenario cannot possibly be determined by looking at a non-counterlit situation but only by comparing how things look with the hood on versus hood off.
Click to expand...
One does not need to conduct experiments to know that a lens will fall down if you drop it. Same here. If nothing impinges on the front element, there would be no flare.
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree. If you take pictures in a darkroom, there will be no flare. In other cases you have to test in order to see what difference a hood makes (unless you have all light sources behind you).
fermy said:
fermy said:
Finally, I can definitely not understand how you can draw the conclusion that if indeed the hood works perfectly the picture will not only be as good as, but better than in a non-counterlit situation.
Click to expand...
More precise statement would be "as good or better than in non-counterlit situation". The strength of the flare is dependent of the angle at which the sun impinges on the front element. In a non-counterlit situation (say sidelit), there is some impinging, but the angle is such that flare is negligible. With a hood even this negligible effect is gone.
Click to expand...
As good as, yes, but why would it ever be better ? Everything I have seen so far suggests that the Industar does best when the sun is behind you.
fermy said:
Btw, Industar has such design that the front element is completely unprotected from stray light. This is probably one of the reasons why it's so susceptible to flare. On the other hand in your MD 50 f1.7 front element sits somewhat inside, giving it sort of a natural hood, which might account for some of the differences in flare handling.
Click to expand...
You may well be right. I have a very good, long hood for the MD 50/1.7 however: the clip-on hood originally made for the MD 85/2 (which I also have). On FF, that hood would of course lead to vignetting on the 50/1.7 but on m43, I am sure it wll be OK.
 
fermy said:
Anders W said:
tedolf said:
The two photo's of the house were on a very overcast day with the lens poinitng directly at where the sun was behind the clouds. I think flare ghosting may well be a problem with this lens. Perhaps not insurmoutable. The zone focus tests of the shrubbery were taken with the lens barrell pointed directly North, with the sun/overcast at my back.
Click to expand...
Yes, that agrees with the impression I get from the picture itself. Would be nice if you could test what difference a hood might make in scenarios like these. As I said, I doubt that it will solve the problem completely when you are dealing with diffuse overlight which you cannot possibly cut away completely. But I hope I am wrong. ;-)
Click to expand...
In a scenario like that hood will make no difference. Even if the sun is behind the clouds, strong light is coming from the direction of the sun right onto your lens and hood blocks none of it.
Click to expand...
Now you're talking. ;-)
 
Anders W said:
... and the second and third picture in the thread I link to below are even clearer:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1041&message=38198021&q=industar&qf=m
Click to expand...
Hehe, that's the thread we all participated in. I don't see how it supports your argument though. Words that the "sun was not the full strength" could mean a lot of things. I am sure that if the OP in that thread used the hood, he could have eliminated the flare completely as I don't see the sun in the frame.
Anders W said:
Again, this holds only if you have a point source, like the sun on a clear sky, not when you have a diffusely counterlit scene.
Click to expand...
Sure, the cloud cover somewhat diffuses the light, but still there is a clear spike in intensity in the direction on the sun and only that direction is problematic from the point of view of flare and should be blocked.
Anders W said:
As good as, yes, but why would it ever be better ? Everything I have seen so far suggests that the Industar does best when the sun is behind you.
Click to expand...
Well, that's exactly what I just said. Hood sort of gives you that "sun behind you" situation, regardless where the sun really is (unless, of course, it's not blocked by the hood).
 
fermy said:
Anders W said:
fermy said:
In a scenario like that hood will make no difference. Even if the sun is behind the clouds, strong light is coming from the direction of the sun right onto your lens and hood blocks none of it.
Click to expand...
Now you're talking. ;-)
Click to expand...
See, and we don't have to conduct experiments to figure that out :-D.
Click to expand...
Sometimes you can make do with theory alone but I know on an experimental basis that this is not always the case. ;-)
 
fermy said:
Hehe, that's the thread we all participated in. I don't see how it supports your argument though. Words that the "sun was not the full strength" could mean a lot of things. I am sure that if the OP in that thread used the hood, he could have eliminated the flare completely as I don't see the sun in the frame.
Click to expand...
Yes I kind of figured we had both had hand in there before. ;-) As to the description of the weather, I honestly did not even look at it a second time around. If the weather is sunny in images 2 and 3, then that lens is outright desinformative. ;-)
 
tedolf said:
tedolf said:
1. G1 body does not hive me magnification to assist focusing (all M43 lenses do not have this problem). What am I doing wrong? Can somebody coach me?
Click to expand...
I ahve a pen, but I know Panny has a mannification feature just like it.
Click to expand...
This problem is solved: I can set focus via PASM dial switching from custom mode with magnification to M or A mode for committing the shot. This is not straight forward way, but it works after all
tedolf said:
tedolf said:
2. Lens lands on the body upside down. All scales (F & A) locate on the opposite side facing floor. Is this is lens problem or adapter problem, I do not know. I know only this is my problem I have to solve.
Click to expand...
There are three radially directed set screws on the adapter, loosen (do not remove) these, rotate screw mount part to correct orientation and re-tighten set screws.
Click to expand...
Well, this simple solution is not for me. Penny wise and dollar stupid: my adapter is one piece of aluminum, so I missed these 3 adjusting screws
tedolf said:
tedolf said:
Cheers.

I love old and well forgotten feel of manual focus ring. I love how this lens renders the image. I shall overcome all the problems (hope with your assistance, guys)
Click to expand...
I like the rendering too and can see it in your photo's-very nice.
tedolf said:
S.

--
MFT in progress
Click to expand...
TEdolph
Click to expand...
Regards.
S.

--
MFT in progress
 
Hi, how do you mount the lens on the m4/3 body?
Is it the L39 lens used for rangefinder cameras as FED-3?

I have several pieces at home plus other russian lenses, some for L39 (rangefinder) some for M39 (SLR) - the llate I used on my E-x bodies sometimes ...
Thanks for thge explanation
pka
http://www.karlach.net/
 
Anders W said:
453C said:
Anders, might this link from an earlier post by a smart guy be what's seen in Tedolph's photos?
http://thesybersite.com/minolta/sensor-reflection/

It sure looks similar to the examples in the article. If digital sensor reflection is the cause, or at least partially to blame, what effect would a lens hood have on minimizing the problem? My guess is point source or not, more light will create a greater likelihood of sensor reflection. If that's the case, a hood won't hurt, but it probably won't be able to eliminate the DSR problem when used in bright light.
Click to expand...
Hmm ... you seem to have a somewhat short memory. ;) It was I who gave you that link earlier in this thread, suggesting that it might be the reason for the big blue center reflection in the last image in Tedolph's first set of samples (the picture of the house), taken at f/16. This indeed fits very well with the examples provided in that link about digital sensor reflection, just a lot bigger and more intense. It also fits very well with the fact that this type of reflection usually appears (or gets worse) at very small apertures.

And no, I don't think a hood would help here at all. The only cure is to shoot at wider apertures. F/16 on m43 is a bad idea anyway. You shouldn't go lower than f/8 unless you absolutely have to because of diffraction. Diffraction at f/8 on m43 is as bad as it is at f/16 on FF.

As you can see, the big blue reflection disappears when the same picture is taken at f/5.6 (the immediately preceding picture in this set of samples). There is still flare and low contrast, but I am pretty sure that this is normal flare, in which case a hood might help at least a little bit. But for reasons developed in my replies to fermy, I doubt that it will eliminate the problem completely.
Click to expand...
Yes, I was referring to the "smart guy" known as "Anders W".

If Tedolph or someone else with the lens, but minus a proper hood, wants to experiment to see how to induce and minimize this effect, it shouldn't be hard. A hood proxy should be easy to fabricate out of card stock or some other material with low reflectivity for temporary use. I wonder how many non-digital lenses are affected by this issue.
--
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Dont_be_a_dick
 
pka said:
Hi, how do you mount the lens on the m4/3 body?
Is it the L39 lens used for rangefinder cameras as FED-3?

I have several pieces at home plus other russian lenses, some for L39 (rangefinder) some for M39 (SLR) - the llate I used on my E-x bodies sometimes ...
Thanks for thge explanation
pka
http://www.karlach.net/
Click to expand...
L39=LTM (leica threaded mount) = M39 x 1 all the same mount for old era range finders.

other Russian lenses for SLR: most of them have M42 x 1 thread mount for Zenit family of cameras, some have K-mount (Pentax-like) for newer Kiev cameras. There are also few exotic mounts for very specific applications.
Cheers.
S.
--
MFT in progress
 
453C said:
Yes, I was referring to the "smart guy" known as "Anders W".
Click to expand...
Hmm. That was too subtle for me. I thought you referred to the guy who wrote the story on digital sensor reflection that you linked to. So I was not so smart after all. ;-) But thank you anyway. :)
453C said:
If Tedolph or someone else with the lens, but minus a proper hood, wants to experiment to see how to induce and minimize this effect, it shouldn't be hard. A hood proxy should be easy to fabricate out of card stock or some other material with low reflectivity for temporary use.
Click to expand...
Yes, it would be nice if Tedolph or someone else who has the lens would do some simple tests of the impact of a hood in conditions like those we have seen exemplified (diffuse counter-light). Some black/dark cardboard should do for a provisional hood that will do the job all right.
453C said:
I wonder how many non-digital lenses are affected by this issue.
Click to expand...
I guess you are talking about the digital sensor reflection here. Yes, I'd be interested as well. There are some Minolta MD lenses mentioned in the link I gave you but as far as I understand, these are tested together with an adapter that contains lens elements (for infinity focus on a Konica Minolta camera) so it's hard to say here how much is due to the adapter and how much to the lens itself.

A more clear-cut case is the following thread about a Konica AR Hexanon 50/1.4 on this forum a week ago:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1041&message=38324285&q=Hexanon+50+14&qf=m

Fortunately, in this case (and others) the problem seems to be visible only at small apertures, often smaller than those we should use on m43 anyway because of diffraction. Personally, I am not so worried about this since I plan to use my legacy lenses primarily at wide apertures (for shallow DOF in general and for low-light situations with less than perfectly stationary subjects) and stay with zooms otherwise. But for those who want to use legacy lenses as all-round lenses, it may be an issue or at least something to look out/test for. It's always good to know if you have a problem or not, and where the limit is in terms of aperture setting if you do.
 
453C said:
Fabricate a hood and post your findings.

Lincoln said he's putting his work on hold until you complete this study.
Click to expand...
Frankly some are drowning in a glass of water. Indeed, use a hand or a piece of cardboard.

There are conflicting reports on the Web: some say that the I-21 is very flare resistant. Mine is but it is one of the latest versions, the L/M type, with better multicoating.

So perhaps Tedolph got himself an earlier version. I will soon post some I-69 images, another triplet some reported to be flare prone. Mine so far gave me a problem only when I shot it directly against the sun.

But that's crazy. If I do the same with a m.zuiko, I'll get all sorts of firefly artefacts. What is better?

It is really a pity that an interesting discussion was lost in mean nitpicking by the usual suspects.

Basically one chooses a lens 40 years old only if one likes the interesting rendering. Getting recent legacy lenses won't give any photographic advantage compared to native lenses. Not only they'll be bigger and heavier, they will also be boring.

Am.

--
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric
 
amalric said:
It is really a pity that an interesting discussion was lost in mean nitpicking by the usual suspects.
Click to expand...
As it seems, your idea of an interesting discussion is one in which everyone sings halleluja. And anyone who dares to interrupt the song is by definition a nitpicker.
amalric said:
Basically one chooses a lens 40 years old only if one likes the interesting rendering.
Click to expand...
Personally, I do not as a rule find flary, low-contrast rendering interesting, but if I do there are of course diffusion filters as well PP tricks (like the contrast slider). It's a bit more difficult to add contrast, especially micro-contrast, by similar means.
amalric said:
Getting recent legacy lenses won't give any photographic advantage compared to native lenses. Not only they'll be bigger and heavier, they will also be boring.
Click to expand...
As you already know, they are not bigger and heavier if they are equally slow (for focal lengths of 40 mm upwards). And if fast, sharp, yet light-weight lenses with good micro- as well as macro-contrast and good flare resistance are boring, then I certainly prefer to be on the boring side.
 
Anders W said:
Personally, I do not as a rule find flary, low-contrast rendering interesting, but if I do there are of course diffusion filters as well PP tricks (like the contrast slider). It's a bit more difficult to add contrast, especially micro-contrast, by similar means.
Click to expand...
Let's get the record straight. This lens has no worse contrast than MD 50mm f1.7 that you find adequate. Flare yes, it is a tradeoff.
Anders W said:
As you already know, they are not bigger and heavier if they are equally slow (for focal lengths of 40 mm upwards). And if fast, sharp, yet light-weight lenses with good micro- as well as macro-contrast and good flare resistance are boring, then I certainly prefer to be on the boring side.
Click to expand...
MD 50mm f1.7 is also nothing special in terms of speed, micro and micro contrast or sharpness. It's an adequate lens, whose chief advantage wrt to better optics is size, weight, and price. Here we are discussing the lens that is yet lighter and does have a very distinct rendering compared to more common Japanese optics. In return of that you have to fight flare and accept a slow maximum aperture. There is no right choice here. No need to poo poo other people choices, especially since you have only hearsay idea about the lens in question.
 
fermy said:
Let's get the record straight. This lens has no worse contrast than MD 50mm f1.7 that you find adequate. Flare yes, it is a tradeoff.
Click to expand...
I am sure that both lenses do about equally well when stopped down to f/5.6 or so in non-counterlit scenes. I am also sure that the MD 50/1.7 does better than the Industar at wider apertures. Just look at the samples provided by LincolnB at f/2.8 and the performance of the Industar versus the Canon and Nikon (which are likely to be very similar to the MD 50/1.7).
fermy said:
MD 50mm f1.7 is also nothing special in terms of speed, micro and micro contrast or sharpness. It's an adequate lens, whose chief advantage wrt to better optics is size, weight, and price. Here we are discussing the lens that is yet lighter and does have a very distinct rendering compared to more common Japanese optics. In return of that you have to fight flare and accept a slow maximum aperture. There is no right choice here.
Click to expand...
The MD 50/1.7 is nothing special compared to lenses like the Nikon and Canon used for Lincoln's samples, although I have reasons to think that it might be a tad better than some other alternatives when it comes to bokeh. Virtually all these lenses (ordinary SLR normal lenses from the early 80s or so) are very good because it is easy to make a relatively fast lens with an FL of about 50 mm on FF, provided you have good antireflective coatings so that you can use an assymetric double-gauss design. I would guess that my MD 50/1.4 will do even better than the 50/1.7 at really wide apertures but that they will be about equal once you stop down to f/4 or so. Haven't had the opportunity to test it yet but will be happy to report the outcome when I am done.
fermy said:
No need to poo poo other people choices, especially since you have only hearsay idea about the lens in question.
Click to expand...
I poo-pood amalric's choice a bit because amalric was poo-pooing mine (and since this was not the first time he was acting in such a way). If others poo-poo me, I might poo-poo back. Otherwise I try to abstain from such exercises.

And no, I do not have only hearsay about the lens in question. I have images like those posted in this thread (and in other places) by yourself and others. And I base what I say primarily on what I see in those pictures (plus what I know about the Tessar design in general). You don't need to own a lens to form an opinion about it. You do need to look at images however.
 
If I'm scanning a long thread, I'll often take the time to read an Anders W or fermy (alphabetical order, of course!) post, as I think both of you have interesting, informed opinions. It's a little disheartening to see the two of you grinding it out like this. Agree to disagree, and all that?

How about we return to making fun of Tedolph and his $19 lens? I just want to see if a paper hood makes a difference on the milky blue blotch on those house images.
--
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Dont_be_a_dick
 
453C said:
If I'm scanning a long thread, I'll often take the time to read an Anders W or fermy (alphabetical order, of course!) post, as I think both of you have interesting, informed opinions. It's a little disheartening to see the two of you grinding it out like this. Agree to disagree, and all that?

How about we return to making fun of Tedolph and his $19 lens? I just want to see if a paper hood makes a difference on the milky blue blotch on those house images.
Click to expand...
I hope/think fermy and I will work this out all right. We have so far been arguing in a perfectly orderly way, which I think is fine.

Amalric is another matter.
 
Am and I don't see eye to eye on the topic of Fat Americans and Their Epic Love of All Things BIG! ... ahem ... but otherwise, I'll read him, too. :)

What, no mention of how the E-PL1's lack of an AF Assist Lamp is the real culprit here? How soon we forget how good we've had it lately!
--
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Dont_be_a_dick
 
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
17K
sherman_levine
sherman_levine
B
The Lens from Genoa.
2
Replies
20
Views
8K
Bosun Higgs
B
Keith Herrin
Tanzania Safari with GFX: Initial Report
Replies
17
Views
11K
Keith Herrin
Keith Herrin
B
The King of the Ernostars
2
Replies
31
Views
39K
T-Rex Mark
T
B
Brought Back from the Dead
Replies
1
Views
6K
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