For the opportunity view of the lens Industar-22 1: 3,5 F = 50mm P Many thanks to Vadim Shkurat, who sent me a lens from another area for review.
Lens overview Industar-22 1: 3,5 F = 50mm P
Industar-22 1: 3,5 F = 50mm P - lens from a rangefinder camera, folding version, with a focal distance of 28,8mm, therefore its use on modern SLR cameras is difficult. On SLR cameras, it is only suitable as a macro lens, in more detail here... There is also a version of the lens for enlargers - I-22U 1: 3,5 F = 50mm P.
Industar-22 P lens aperture hole
How to use with modern cameras?
Lenses with an M39 thread (for rangefinder cameras, M39 X 1/28.8), such as the lens from this review, are very easy to use on almost any modern digital camera (both SLR and mirrorless), for this you just need to choose the right adapter (adapter). There is no need to carry out any additional actions to remake the lens. The cheapest adapters can be found at Aliexpress.com.
For mirrorless cameras
- SONY: For cameras with 'E'/'FE' mount series SonyNEX и Sony Alpha need here is an adapter M39 -Sony E (aka L39 -Sony Nex).
- OLYMPUS / PANASONIC / KODAK / XIAOMI: For cameras with a bayonet mount Micro 4/3 (Micro 4:3) need here is an adapter M39-Micro 4/3.
- CANON M: For cameras with Canon EF-M mount need here is such an adapter M39-Canon M.
- CANON R and RF-S: For cameras with Canon RF mount need here is such an adapter M39-Canon R.
- Nikon 1: For cameras Nikon 1 Series need here is such an adapter M39-Nikon 1.
- Nikon Z: For cameras Nikon Z series (FX/DX) needed here is such an adapter M39-Nikon Z.
- FUJIFILM X: For cameras with mount X need here is such an adapter M39-Fuji X.
- FUJIFILM GFX: For medium format cameras G-mount need here is such an adapter M39-Fuji GFX.
- SAMSUNG: NX mount cameras require here is an adapter M39-Samsung NX. There are no adapters for the NX mini camera yet.
- SIGMA / PANASONIC / LEICA: For cameras with L mount need here is such an adapter M39-Leica L.
- LEICA: For cameras with a bayonet mount Leica M need here is an adapter M39-L / M.
It's important: for SLR cameras, only macro mode is possible (can only shoot at very close focusing distances).
For SLR cameras (macro mode only)
- Canon: For cameras Canon EOS with bayonet mount EF / EF-S need here is an adapter M39 -Canon EOS.
- NIKON: For cameras Nikon DX / FXas well as for cameras Fujifilm и Kodak with Nikon F mount needed here is such an adapter M39 -Nikon F (some cameras will only work in M-mode).
- PENTAX: For Pentax K-mount cameras, you need here is such an adapter M39 -Pentax K.
- SONY/MINOLTA: For cameras with a Sony/Minolta A mount, you need here is an adapter M39 -Sony A.
- OLYMPUS/PANASONIC/LEICA: For cameras with 4/3 mount (not to be confused with Micro 4/3!) here is an adapter M39 -4/3.
When installed on camera Canon 350D using adapters M42-Canon EOS + M39-M42, the back of the lens catches the mirror, be careful.
Attention: there is a rangefinder version of Industar-22 and a mirror version of Industar-22 and Industar-22 for enlargers.
View of the lens lens Industar-22 P
The focus ring rotates 180 degrees, the minimum focus distance is 1 meter. On the lens you can find the depth of field scale and focusing distance. It is very interesting and unusual to work with such a lens, this is not some modern autofocus super-zoom.
Two lenses: Industar-50-2 and Industar-22
The aperture setting is smooth, with no intermediate values from F / 3,5 to F / 16.0. The number of diaphragm blades is 8 pieces. The optical design, like that of most Industars, is very simple. Industar-22 1: 3,5 F = 50mm P has anti-reflective lenses, for which the red letter 'P' in the lens name is responsible.
Industar-22 P lens from different angles
Sample photos on Industar-22 1: 3,5 F = 50mm P
All filmed without processing. Of course, it was not possible to shoot seriously with a SLR camera and a rangefinder lens.
Lens Industar-22 P on a digital SLR camera
Catalog modern brand lenses 'Zenitar' и 'Helios' can look at this link.
Comments on this post do not require registration. Anyone can leave a comment. Many different photographic equipment can be found on AliExpress.
Conclusions
Industar-22 1: 3,5 F = 50mm P - an interesting old lens from rangefinder cameras. Has excellent lens sharpness and clarity.
Material prepared Arkady Shapoval. Training/Consultations | Youtube | Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | Telegram
The I-22 in a retractable frame can be placed on a DSLR without risking a mirror, if in the recessed state the frame is firmly fixed with glue and the “extra” rear part of the retractable tube is sawed off.
I respect YOUR work, but I don’t understand why to write about all kinds of junk? are there really few good new (or not so) lenses? I never understood why to sculpt any old junk on new cameras on d600 or d 800 ?! if there is no money for decent optics, buy a Soviet camera and shoot. good cameras - good native (or decent non-native) lenses!
Everything was filmed not on d800, but on 350d, this time. Give me some 135 2.0 for review, then I'll write about it - that's two. And three, this is that people are not sorry to provide trash for review, but of course they regret good optics. So please be more lenient with my reviews.
I completely agree with you, and in general, I dug up the floor of the network in search of a high-quality review, thanks for your efforts, it helped a lot, I from a series of people “found my grandfathers fotik, what to do with him” ... tomorrow I'll see what I clicked there =)
“Old stuff” here is far from “all”. Among the new (or not so) good ones, there are really few. Alas, replacing glass and metal with plastic (and in lenses too) does not improve the quality of modern optics, especially the "whale" one. In addition, high-quality glass optics in metal frames do not age. In particular, the rating of the best Soviet lenses only grows over time, not dropping below 9 in the 10-point system today.
the prices for foreign optics are still not small. plus the cheaper plastic in the housings. it’s some kind of horror, but old lenses and high-aperture and they have a decent picture ... so I am “FOR” reviews of old optics
It is very rash to call a lens that did not work as trash. Try it, preferably on a film with a small ISO, compare the drawing with the drawing of "decent optics" and then draw a conclusion.
Just a lot of people iterate exactly this junk, in other matters like me
Not all photo enthusiasts can now afford modern expensive lenses. Therefore, reviews of available lenses are just very relevant in demand by the masses. For which Arkady many thanks and many human thanks.
The reviews are good! no questions! I just can’t understand the amount of target audience for this optics. and rush off from 135 .2.0 or 105 .2. I can’t because I don’t have it (I'm an amateur), there are 16-35 :) but I’m not in Kiev, unfortunately. and you can’t rent it? or is it expensive and not worth it?
It's expensive, it makes no sense for me to spend my money on reviews.
I will give my d600 and 28-300 and 16-35 in Kiev for tests.
agreed)
But are you not afraid to cry by comparing the test results of your blind-eyed 28-300 and 16-35 with the Soviet ones Mir-1, Industar-50 (and 50-2), Jupiter-37-A and Tair-3?
No. They are good in terms of drawing under certain conditions, they are good for their price. But technically, this optics is outdated. It is not necessary to fault her godlessly, but it is also not necessary to consider the peak of possible progress.
Valentine, how are we going to compare? In the laboratory, or in real combat conditions?
Naturally, laboratory with equal relative openings.
I will be in Kiev I can give a Voitghlander of 1924 for tests ....))))
like this - http://fotking.net/equipment/cameras/analog/voigtlander-bessa-69
Good afternoon, optics tests are interesting even from the point of view of development history. I am sure that many young people reading this blog do not even imagine what glasses are and where they came from. I am not advocating the protection of old optics or modern (although there are glasses that can easily surpass modern plastic) - this is a philosophical question. For example, I have acquaintances who shoot with Voitlander 40-60 years old and will never switch to modern glass, others have only one AF lens and are happy. I think one of the options why they switch to “old” glasses - I want to be creative, or will get it for “ adequate ”price lens with good aperture. I shoot myself not so long ago, but very quickly switched to manual, but on trips I often use my native AF. I think that a person who is serious about photography will in any case have “old” optics in his arsenal. Usually I don’t write comments, but something broke. Some of the “old” glasses in my reviews by Arkady were inherited, always I will keep them as history ... IMHO ... ..Arkady thanks for all the tests of photographic equipment .... It's nice when a person is engaged in "quality" favorite business ... Odessa is with you.
Thank you :)
I don't know ... ... I look at these old dead glass and somehow in my soul, well, absolutely nothing happens (I have been photographing since 1983. Not a professional.). maybe they are not bad in their own way. but their place is in the dump. I will progress the road. sculpt "humpbacked to the wall" as "not kosher". moreover, not everything is molded directly to Nikon. and it looks ugly :)) not glamorous like that :))))
On kosher it is correct to say “kosher”, believe the old Ashkenazi :-)… ..let’s throw the original Mona Lisa to the dump, and hang a copy made by a computer on a punched card, road to progress !!!! Be objective ...
Yeah ... Not glamorous ... Once, when I was in a photo club, I watched a picture more than once: Newcomers come with proudly hanging on their belly (then still newfangled mirror-mirrors). They gaze around - who has what. Oh, well, I seem to be cooler. And then, having relaxed, they condescendingly glance at colleagues with film Kievs, zeniths, old Nikon f, etc. At the same time, they can talk for a long time and in detail about the latest achievements in photographic technology, optics, etc., drawing on information from specialized glossy magazines. The denouement usually came when it came to the exchange of pictures, their discussion ... Here, the newly minted gurus, looking at the photos of the participants shot with modest equipment, could usually show one or two mediocre pictures, indistinctly mumbling that they say it was just at hand, and so their “masterpieces” remained in the office, at home, at the international exhibition - it is necessary to underline the necessary :) Why am I? And besides, dear prof. Technicians are many excellent photographers, but they rarely put their equipment on display, usually confining themselves to discussing photography, shooting conditions, and technique is usually spoken of as something secondary, and more as a means and not a goal. The very old D70 has been serving faithfully since 2006, and has run into more than one thousand reports. Yes, there is more modern technology, for work you have to use different cameras, of course, autofocus, with good modern lenses. But this is at work. When I take a tent and break out into nature for a couple of days, I slowly, with pleasure, use the old manual optics. And often the shots made by her - catch more than some 2.8 af. Well, if you shoot and love photos ... And if you measure yourself with pipis - then of course ... The old one is not glamorous somehow pipka less. Excuse me, but for me this trip looks like a perverse photo-exhibitionism. In addition, you need to define tasks for yourself - naturally, in sports or reporting, no one will bother with a manual. But this does not mean that one should confuse hot with heavy.
Z.Y. I can provide the Soligor 350 \ 5.6 fix manual for the test
Are you a Jew?
Did you get a bullet for the lutche bi serzze?
“… Not everything is molded. and it looks ugly :)) not glamorous like that :)))) ... ”I understand: it is one thing to show off glamorously with a top-class CPC and quite another to get a high-quality picture, which can be done with a tin can (Cartier-Bresson). Feel the difference! Of course, if there is something behind the soul, except for the Torricellian emptiness ...
the lack of autofocus gets bored very quickly and you don't want to “create” in a week :)) believe me. and if you shoot sports? !! hands 2-3 pictures will be successful. and on modern lenses 70 percent. Well, the time of any anachronism has gone. so for fun, you can experiment. there was a time and I filmed all this junk. Thank God there are already more convenient lenses, cameras, flashes. and in "combat conditions" manual optics "to autofocus in general" as to Kiev crustaceans. " how many professional photographers shoot weddings on a manual ?! and sports?!. Yes. they can make a high-quality picture! but how long will it take! and even a fix, but if you urgently need to zoom in 3 times ?? not ... ..the time of all the old stuff is gone.
A gramophone is expensive and it's stylish
“And I don’t want to“ create ”in a week”
strange ... six months ago I bought a manual lens, but they still want to shoot. What am I doing wrong?
You wanted to say "watering" is not convenient and tiring. Everything that is not a reportage is simply obliged to appear in the manual.
gramophone yes ... :) BUT HE DOESN'T PLAY (MAINLY). and on this old stuff the antediluvian people shoot and tell that there is nothing better. :)) I had a lot of manual optics, I know what it is. everything was GIFTED FOR FREE :)))
Thoughts after reading the comments above - why categorically separate old and new glasses? Why throw away old lenses for progress? All lenses have their own tasks, for which, in fact, they are bought. I have both new autofocus and old Soviet ones - Gilios 81H and Helios 77M-4. From the picture, they easily make modern optics, but there are genres in which they are helpless, yes. If you want to shoot a beautiful portrait - take Jupiter-37A, if you want to photograph a football match - take an autofocus fast telephoto lens, and there are no problems.
And many thanks to Arkady. Thanks to this site, I became interested in Soviet lenses, which I have no regrets about, but I plan to buy a couple more lenses)
That's right, there is work for each lens, be it super cool shooting or just collecting dust on the shelves of a photo collector.
I agree in opinion!
Thank you for the pictures.
Arkady, tell me please. Will it be possible to reshoot a 24x36 mm film frame on an APS-C digital SLR camera using this lens with the appropriate adapter? The fact is that this lens is available, it just never crossed my mind to attach it to a modern camera)))) In general, what will be better: Helios 44m with an adapter m42-Nikon F or this Industrial with an adapter? (and what kind of adapter is this?) Thank you.
I re-read your articles on rangefinder optics and adapters.
I do not need an answer anymore. Thanks for the useful information.
Sorry, forgot to provide a name. If Soligor 350 (m42) is interested, tell me how to contact. I live in Kiev.
Z.Y. I haven't used it yet, although I’ve seen the d7 shot by him. Ndo pick up kp-a \ n and find the time itself :)
Find my contacts here. https://radojuva.com.ua/about-radojuva/
Statements of a friend about the impossibility of using all kinds of trash say only that he does not really like photography. On an old Rikoh Singlex with a manual lens, I’ll sharpen faster than you just deploy with your autofocus. The reason here is one and only: Many Years of Experience.
Many thanks to Arkady for real, material and not hypothetical work. Whenever I can’t remember the characteristics of the lens and the impressions of his work, I read your reviews. A very necessary and useful work of an enthusiastic person. Thanks!
Thank you very much for your work. Very informative. It is always very helpful to broaden your horizons. And about the use of only modern optics - I think this is a delusion. He collided himself when, after the whale lens, he picked up old Helios and the difference is felt with his hands. Not that loose plastic. Yes, it loses in hover speed, but metal, unlike plastic, creates a completely different feeling, and you want to create.
And if a person has no desire after a couple of weeks of using manual optics, maybe he missed a little with his hobby? (Well, he is not the seller of modern optics :)).
Thank you very much for your reviews. I rummaged at my grandmother in the attic - I found Industar 22, Helios 44 - 2 and Helios 44M-4, we will practice :)
but there is also "i22" at the zenith, though rare-infection, as the old photographers said, they must be distinguished by the quality of the glass, with the red letter "P", these are still Germanic glasses, and then ours went, I compared different enlightenment, and color rendition too
Good time of the day! Perhaps my question will seem a little silly ... Can you please tell me how to separate this lens from the Zorky carcass? And then this union seemed inseparable to me.
If you come across one that was once produced for Zenith, take it, you will not regret it. A little expensive, but the I-22 is the best of the real Tessars ever copied by the Soviet "anti-aircraft construction". According to the resolution, he did not go far from his later colleagues, but according to the drawing, he was lovely. Can work as a portrait painter. The tube can also be attached to mirror ROs, but it's just a pity to break it. I managed to find several very well-preserved tubes, but I have them for the Zorkikhs.
how to distinguish rangefinder from non-rangefinder:http://www.zenitcamera.com/archive/lenses/industar-22.html
Speaking of the obsolescence of optics. Recently I came across an article where they gagged all fans to argue which lenses are better comparing the optical schemes of old lenses and new ones. As a result: there are about 6 optical circuits in the world. The new ones differ from the old ones only in the added lenses to soften distortion, and in a different number of aperture blades. Everything. Everything else affects the drawing of the picture scanty. The plastic used for lenses is now on a level comparable to optical glass. The difference in the case material affects only the weight - towards the modern, and durability - towards the old.
With the help of a file and some mother, I slightly modified this lens and put it on my pentax K-01 mirrorless. I had to cut down the ears, with which the lens was fixed in the folded state, so that the tube would enter the shaft without clinging to it. The result is a lens that can work both distance and macro - the minimum focusing distance is about 20 centimeters with the tube fully extended. Focusing, of course, turned out to be very peculiar - first you need to set the focal distance, then catch up with the focusing ring to optimal sharpness.
So far they haven’t been able to shoot seriously, but from what I saw on the Internet and from my test shots, it seemed that the picture was very, very similar to the Industrial-50-2, but not so hard.
http://s008.radikal.ru/i305/1410/a5/4a8c4546fbe2.jpg
http://s010.radikal.ru/i314/1410/03/d2b75bc005bd.jpg
http://s020.radikal.ru/i715/1410/ed/0017aad5a410.jpg
About sawing and fixing with glue, as some here advise, I have some suspicions that the trim will still cling to the mirror, and the macro will not work either. Therefore, it is better not to spoil the grandfather and leave until better times. He will still please you with good pictures.
Thank you Arkady for an interesting review. I unscrewed this lens from the old Zorkiy, put it on Fuji, through the macro rings. So it allows you to shoot macro well.
Or so :)
Please tell me how much is Industar 22 1: 3,5 f = 50
Such as in this review is inexpensive. Usually no more than 300 rubles (and then - if the state is just ideal). The most expensive is the DSLR version, the review of which I posted)