This is a brief overview of the rangefinder INDUSTR-50 1: 3,5 F = 5cm P with a M39 x 1 / 28.8 mounting thread, manufactured at KMZ with serial number N5863458.
INDUSTR-50 1: 3,5 F = 5cm P
There are a lot of rangefinder lenses of the 'INDUSTAR' brand and their versions and subversions. On the photo flea markets, their darkness is dark. They are mostly of no value.
INDUSTAR-50 1: 3,5 F = 5cm P from this review I got together with the ZORKIY-4 rangefinder camera for about $ 2. This Indus is one of the cheapest lenses I've ever used. The low price is due to the fact that this is a rangefinder lens; its use on modern SLR cameras is difficult. Nevertheless, INDUSTAR-50 gets a second life on mirrorless cameras.
My INDUSTAR-50 1: 3,5 F = 5cm P in a white metal case. The lens design is pretty simple. The focusing ring rotates 180 degrees, the minimum focusing distance is as much as 1 meter. During focusing, the front lens rotates and the barrel of the body moves forward (along with the focus ring itself). Aperture control is very inconvenient - the aperture ring is narrow and the F-numbers are printed on the barrel only on the front of the lens. To find out what number F is set - you should turn the lens with the front lens towards you. The aperture ring rotates smoothly without fixed values. There are two overlapping scales with F-values for F / 3.5, 4, 5.6, 8, 11, 16. The diaphragm consists of 8 blades and forms a hole in the form of regular polyhedra. The DOF scale is available for F / 3.5, 4, 5.6, 8, 11, 16. The optics uses a simple chemical coating (the letter 'P' in the lens name). There is a reddish metal thread near the front lens, who knows what it is for - write it down in the comments.
In the center, the 'Indus' is sharp even at F / 3.5, which is expected from the optical design of the 'Tessar'. At one time, the lens was copied / upgraded from Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar 1: 3,5 f = 5cm. At closed apertures, sharpness is even very good. But the main problem is that the lens has a very low contrast. Also, the lens is very afraid of flare, but at the same time does not create any glare in direct backlight (!). INDUSTAR-50 slightly yellows. The lens picture as a whole is similar to other Industars, with a 'twisted' bokeh.
Source files can download from this link (30 photos in the '.ARW' format, 659 Mb). On camera Sony a7 I used INDUSTAR-50 1: 3,5 F = 5cm P without any problems with the M39 (L39) -NEX adapter. On a Canon EOS camera 350D The digital lens was mounted using an adapter ring M39-M42 and M42-Canon EOS... On SLR cameras, the lens is only suitable for macro photography (see the photo of the penguin from 'Kinder Surprise'). Although INDUSTAR-50 does not have a high aperturebut at the same time its maximum geometric aperture 2.5 times more than that of Canon Zoom Lens EF-S 18-55mm 1: 3.5-5.6 IS STM or Nikon 18-55mm 1: 3.5-5.6GII VR II AF-S DX Nikkor or Sony DT 3.5-5.6 / 18-55 SAM or SMC Pentax-DA 1: 3.5-5.6 18-55mm AL at the same focal length. If you tighten the grain level (grain) in the editor, then the photos slightly resemble those from the film era.
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. Lenses and promotions on them look at Moyo.ua.
Results
INDUSTAR-50 1: 3,5 F = 5cm P - a rarity of the era of rangefinders with an absolute minimum of possibilities. Nevertheless, even in our time, you can something Yes, and remove :).
Material prepared Arkady Shapoval. Training/Consultations | Youtube | Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | Telegram | Assistance of the Armed Forces
Arkady, good afternoon.
Could you put in the plan a certain opus about which camera you are basically shooting now.
D700? A7 Or do you have a certain separation of tasks?
Each of them has its own advantages and disadvantages. I would like your opinion, as the owner and, probably, an active user of these devices in parallel.
Thanks (:
a7 only for reviews, rented on d700.
Just like in other “rangefinder” Industars 50, it is enough to unscrew the locking screw and twist the outer body extension and the inner black “dimmer” (attention, it has a left-hand thread!) - we get a regular mirror 50-2, albeit with a landing m39.
As for the “red thread”, it just wiped off the black paint from the rim of the front lens unit to the red primer-substrate. There is no thread there, just a series of concentric circles, similar to those found on the inner surfaces of good blends.
in fact, due to the erasure of the black coating, in places to the metal, and its "haughtiness" is explained.
The problem is solved with a simple black alcohol marker.
Lynx, is it possible to redo the rangefinder Industar 61 in a similar way?
alas, no .. 50-2 is perhaps one of the few that received a rangefinder from a conventional mirror simply by screwing an extension ring and a blackening tube.
Most other industries have a monolithic enclosure.
What other of those “few” rangefinder lenses can be converted to a mirror system? And then such an industar lies, one might say as an exhibit, but it turned out they can also be filmed)
offhand from common, and a simple alteration - FIG knows.
More complex alterations - you were given the links below.
I personally use rangefinders as very good makriki.
Thanks! in principle, before reworking, you can see what it can be in macro (infrequently in macro I shoot something, but I like it).
I really surprised by the simplicity of the alteration of Jupiter-11 contax-cues, took it by accident, remade it in 15 minutes, as a result, a portrait lens for cheap, such Jupiters are the cheapest of the eleventh series. I rummaged a lot in the net about reworking USSR lenses, but how the contax cues with an external bayonet are being altered is just a fairy tale, the working distance is 34.85mm, from the landing surface to the body is about 13, and with a thin ring I have about 10 km
What you call the blackening tube is the pusher of the range finder lever.
and that too.
There is also a mirror version of the I-50, it (like I-50-2) differs from the rangefinder smaller MDF
SURPRISING, the center of the 'Indus' is sharp even at F / 3.5, which is EXPECTED from the optical scheme of the 'Tessar'. After the step of correcting spelling and factual errors, it's time to move on to the “grammar” step)))) Thanks for the review! The only pity is that after the purchase of a mirrorless lens, the reviews were mainly about mirrorless lenses. DSLR owners yearn)))
and what is wrong with this sentence?
really, and what is wrong?
Well, one thing - either the lens is expectedly sharp, maybe this is a Tessar scheme, or the lens is unexpectedly sharp, in spite of, say, its venerable age or something else. And in the form in which your proposal has an internal contradiction - in the first half you are surprised by the sharpness, and in the second half it is no longer, because it is a tessar. You already decide))) well, or build the phrase differently.
examples:
1 in the center of the 'Hindu' sharp even at F / 3.5, which is expected from the optical circuit 'Tessar'.
2 in the center of the 'Hindu' is surprisingly sharp even at F / 3.5, which is expected from the optical Tessar
3 Surprisingly, in the center the 'Indus' is sharp even at F / 3.5, despite…. (time, state, etc.)
Fixed Write more often.
This I50 is interesting only in the full frame because of the twist. And so - it merges 61 by the interestingness of the picture on the crop and by other characteristics. And for convenience, this is generally something ...
my father left “Sharp” with Industar-22, the release of the camera in 1953 and the lens, too, in 1953…. made of German optical glass taken out for reparations .... as for the thread, the I-22 has a thread in front of the front lens for light filters .... if I'm not mistaken M22…. but the aperture setting ring on the I-22 is located right at the front end of the lens .... in contrast, the photos from the I-22 were of quite good quality….
Why is noise in photos with low ISOs?
Because it is processing with grain (grain) :), it is indicated in the review.
Why is noise in photos with low ISOs? Is it from the network?
Because it is processing with grain (grain) :), it is indicated in the review.
this alpha has no soul
Patience, thank you Arkady for what you are doing.
NUTRITION is global =)
Frkadia, why did V take the facebook button from “likes” = /?
Yes, good, but there is a better technique
Providence as they say
As for me, the lens is soapy. On a Barbie camera, even better photos can be taken.
A good review. It is good that Arkady spares no time and effort creating such reviews. Such reviews will bar people from buying such under-lenses.
there are soap. but this is understandable: age plus the well-known range of Soviet quality. but to claim that the camera barbie will do any of these Tessars is too bold. dealt with at least ten very different modifications. most of them were very good, two were so-so (I remember this well, because I'm used to much better quality) and two were real glass cutters. I sold one, because it was in a clamshell case, to the second I refined the case and constantly carry it in a photo bag.
something for a long time there are no articles ..
Who will tell you what Soviet widths are on m39 except for Jupiter-12 and Orion-15?
http://www.photohistory.ru/index.php
The design of the lens allows you to easily remake it under Nikon while maintaining infinity. But while there is no time to remake it.
The lens "Industar-50" 1: 3,5 F = 5 P No. 5917982 white. I installed it on my Nikon D3300 through 2 adapters - M39-M42 + M42-NikonF according to the method described on this site. He removed the adjustment rings and immediately appeared focusing on infinity! No additional settings were needed. Judging by the lens number, its year of manufacture is 1959. Lenses without visible defects, but still washed in a soap solution of plant origin (not chemistry). The rear and front windows are molded in purple. When focusing on the visor, a slightly yellowish tint is visible. Perhaps it should be so. When using "Industar-50-2" 1: 3,5 F = 5 (black) this shade is not observed. The lens is sharp. Contrast transmission is insufficient - edit in the editor. In the attached photo, the brickwork is clearly visible. The horizon is visible. The inscriptions on the banners are read.
What kind of rings need to be removed? Kenon 600 industar -50 nifiga is not guided
this is a rangefinder, you can't remove anything, at 600d only macro
If this is not a folding lens, then you can unscrew the screw and remove the M39-M39 ring at the base of the lens, then replace the adjustment ring between the lens unit and the helicoid with a thinner one (by 0.3 mm) and screw the EOS ring + M39 by 42d through M42-M600. )
Or you can buy the I-50-2 and do without the M39-M42.
Can I attach this lens to the Canon 600D through an adapter? Will it damage the mirror?
Yes, you can, but there will only be macro shots. The mirror will not hurt.
Hello!
Please tell me what I'm dealing with:
I got into the hands of an industrial-50 with a strange bayonet mount, or something like that, it looks like an additional nut screwed onto the thread.
I did not find anything on the Internet about this.
Thank you in advance for your attention.
This "nut" is most likely the bayonet removed from the camera.
A question for connoisseurs - where can you find information about the mirror modification of the I-50 (m39)?