Preliminary report-Industar 61 LD

s_grins said:

Don’t you think, guys, this is a time to stop this bitter bickering?

Click to expand...

I am certainly not in favor of bickering and welcome any initiative to stop it. What I just said was not bickering though. I merely defended the state of Soviet/Russian knowledge/science against the prejudices voices by Amalric.

s_grins said:

BTW, after WW2 USSR, as part of reparations, got all Karl Zeiss Jena, including patents, machinery, tooling, and several key engineers.

Click to expand...

Yes they did, only the US troops got there first and took quite a few things with them. ;-) I am sure that the USSR tried to take advantage of whatever they could learn from Zeiss Jena as best they could, I am also sure that they knew a thing or two of optics before that.

They won the war, remember, and they did so not only on account of the massive amount of Russians who gave their life but also on account of weaponry that was just as good, sometimes better, than what the Germans could come up with, and definitely successfully produced on a much larger scale.

LincolnB said:

Well, that was a self-centered and useless reply. Surely you can do better than that.

Click to expand...

I agree. Let's try to stay civil shall we? But that applies to both sides, not only one of them.

Nell27 said:

I have to admit, it's threads like this that make these forums interesting.

I didn't read all the responses because I was laughing too hard but I will say one thing.

If I owned a $19.00 Russian Industar lens I'd never come on these forums and brag about it.

These lenses have been around for years and have been pieces of junk for just as many years.

The only thing that might be funnier is when people get on these forums and tell you how great that CCTV lens they bought works.

Click to expand...

Funny thing is that it is exactly what I am planning to do next. Present 50mm f2.8 CCTV Cosmicar that I've bought for about 10 Euros (including delivery) and praise it to no end. Stay tuned.

I think Russian engineers did a fantastic job considering the crap they had to put up with. Atrocious quality control on the factory floor, a complete disregard for quality assurance at the management level, corruption at every level, first-nation expectations on a third-world budget, and so on. The resulting products were sometimes horribly bad if not actually dangerous to its owners (Chernobyl anyone?) but they always had a certain engineering-by-willpower-alone flair to them.

LincolnB said:

I think Russian engineers did a fantastic job considering the crap they had to put up with. Atrocious quality control on the factory floor, a complete disregard for quality assurance at the management level, corruption at every level, first-nation expectations on a third-world budget, and so on. The resulting products were sometimes horribly bad if not actually dangerous to its owners (Chernobyl anyone?) but they always had a certain engineering-by-willpower-alone flair to them.

Click to expand...

Yes that's a pretty good summary. I'd merely like to add two things. First, Russians are of course as intelligent as any other people and some of them managed to become very knowledgeable and educated in spite very difficult circumstances with respect to access to information, not to mention equipment, during Soviet times. Russia was always top-notch when it comes to pure logics/mathematics for example. Second, I have reasons to think that the first-nation expectations were indeed met in certain sectors, above all the military one. However, given resource constraints, that meant that many other things were a mess.

Anders W said:

Anders W said:

Yes that's a pretty good summary. I'd merely like to add two things. First, Russians are of course as intelligent as any other people and some of them managed to become very knowledgeable and educated in spite very difficult circumstances with respect to access to information, not to mention equipment, during Soviet times. Russia was always top-notch when it comes to pure logics/mathematics for example. Second, I have reasons to think that the first-nation expectations were indeed met in certain sectors, above all the military one. However, given resource constraints, that meant that many other things were a mess.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Yes, the Soviet education system seems to have been one of the few highly functioning aspects of communist life.

Russian military engineering was not always as good as the west feared it was. It was an army with much better operational capability on paper than it could put in the field. Engineering and productivity levels were astonishing but the resulting product was questionable in retrospect. For example in tanks such as the T-64 the autoloaders had a tendancy to feed the gunner into the tube. Ouch. Tank crewmembers had to be short due to cramped spaces. They could not operate in the field for long periods because of the typically Russian disregard for crew comfort. The Mig-17 is said by many to have been comparable to the F-86 Sabre, but the fact is it suffered very badly against the Sabre and was said to have a level of quality and attention to detail that would have been unacceptable ito American pilot standards. The submarine Kursk was typical of a fearsome Soviet weapon on paper but in practice poor quality control and the decision to fuel the torpedoes with highly volatile hydrogen peroxide is what ultimately killed the boat and its crew.

LincolnB said:

Yes, the Soviet education system seems to have been one of the few highly functioning aspects of communist life.

Click to expand...

Although one need to add that it was functional only in some respects. I have no reason to think that their training in social as opposed to natural science was any good.

LincolnB said:

Russian military engineering was not always as good as the west feared it was. It was an army with much better operational capability on paper than it could put in the field. Engineering and productivity levels were astonishing but the resulting product was questionable in retrospect. For example in tanks such as the T-64 the autoloaders had a tendancy to feed the gunner into the tube. Ouch. Tank crewmembers had to be short due to cramped spaces. They could not operate in the field for long periods because of the typically Russian disregard for crew comfort. The Mig-17 is said by many to have been comparable to the F-86 Sabre, but the fact is it suffered very badly against the Sabre and was said to have a level of quality and attention to detail that would have been unacceptable ito American pilot standards. The submarine Kursk was typical of a fearsome Soviet weapon on paper but in practice poor quality control and the decision to fuel the torpedoes with highly volatile hydrogen peroxide is what ultimately killed the boat and its crew.

Click to expand...

Yes, there are examples like those you mention. Nevertheless, this was an area were they managed better compared to Western technology than they did elsewhere. The problem was that they had to invest an ever increasing proportion of their resources into the military in order to keep up in that particular area. This eventually lead to stagnation in pretty much all other regards.

Nothing self-centered about it.

I don't own the lens and I'm not envious of any "photographer" who does own it.

I think it's great that you can satisfy your needs with a lens of this type.

Just proves there's something for everyone.

LincolnB said:

Well, that was a self-centered and useless reply. Surely you can do better than that.

Click to expand...

what he said!

Tedolph

I didn't praise it. When posting my examples I laid out exactly what I thought were the strengths and weaknesses of this lens. I own some very high quaitly M lenses so I know how good glass renders. The thrust of my post was to see what could be obtained for $19.00 USD. Does that have no interest to Mr. Nel27?

Funny thing also is this was one of the more informative u 4/3 threads I have seen in terms of user test data, chart measurements, etc. Also impresive for its lack of invective, ad hominem attacks, and general civility.

Considering who the OP is it must be a miracle!

Tedolph

tedolf said:

I didn't praise it. When posting my examples I laid out exactly what I thought were the strengths and weaknesses of this lens. I own some very high quaitly M lenses so I know how good glass renders. The thrust of my post was to see what could be obtained for $19.00 USD. Does that have no interest to Mr. Nel27?

Tedolph

Click to expand...

Ouch! That Mr. Nell27 part hurt.

s_grins said:

pka said:

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 ...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

s_grins said:

L39=LTM (leica threaded mount) = M39 x 1 all the same mount for old era range finders.

Click to expand...

Is not, I have several M39 lenses for SLR Like Zenit S and a lot of L39 lenses for Zorkis and FEDs, but thanks
pka

s_grins said:

Cheers.
S.

Click to expand...

--
pka
http://www.karlach.net/

tedolf said:

pka said:

Hi, how do you mount the lens on the m4/3 body?

Click to expand...

With an adapter. Mine is from Fotodiox, $9.95 I believe.

Click to expand...

The Fotodiox one is $19.95 plus shipment.

I have bought chinese one on ebay for ca $7 incl. shipment, will see and report the quality. I am looking forward to see results from my Jupiter-9 (2/85) L39 black plus my Industars 58/2.8 and Jupiters 50/2. I have Jupiter-12 35/2.8, too, but this lens has enormous rear elemen, I am affraid, it might touch the sensor or shutter. I have Orion-15 28/6.3 plus Jupiter-11 135/4, but they are probably not much useful here.

Yesterday I played briefly at home with my M39 Mir-1 37/2.8 Grand prix Brussels 1958 lens attached via MMF-2 + 42mm to m43 adapter plus 42 to 39 conversion ring with promissing results. When I have time to shoot outside with these, I will post some pics.

Any experience with some above mentioned lenses?

Nice weekend, pka

pka said:

tedolf said:

pka said:

Hi, how do you mount the lens on the m4/3 body?

Click to expand...

With an adapter. Mine is from Fotodiox, $9.95 I believe.

Click to expand...

The Fotodiox one is $19.95 plus shipment.

I have bought chinese one on ebay for ca $7 incl. shipment, will see and report the quality. I am looking forward to see results from my Jupiter-9 (2/85) L39 black plus my Industars 58/2.8 and Jupiters 50/2. I have Jupiter-12 35/2.8, too, but this lens has enormous rear elemen, I am affraid, it might touch the sensor or shutter.

Click to expand...

On flickr people reported it would hit the sensors cage.

I have Orion-15 28/6.3 plus Jupiter-11 135/4, but they are probably not much useful here.

Well the Orion, because it's a pancake, but too slow.

pka said:

Yesterday I played briefly at home with my M39 Mir-1 37/2.8 Grand prix Brussels 1958 lens attached via MMF-2 + 42mm to m43 adapter plus 42 to 39 conversion ring with promissing results. When I have time to shoot outside with these, I will post some pics.

Click to expand...

I did consider it but it's too heavy for my taste.

Am.
--
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric