Overview of the Industar-61L / D 2,8 / 55 lens, adapted for SLR cameras (prepared by Rodion Eshmakov)

View of the INDUSTAR-61L / D 2,8 / 55 lens and sample photos from it specially for Radozhiva prepared Rodion Eshmakov.

INDUSTR-61L / D 2,8 / 55

INDUSTR-61L / D 2,8 / 55

Lens specifications

Optical design: Tessar (4 lenses in 3 groups)

Optical design Nidustar-61

Exact FR: 52,42 mm
Resolution according to the technical specifications (center / edge): 44/30 lin / mm
Aperture: 6 rounded blackened petals
Filter thread: 40,5 * 0,5 mm
Production: from 70s to 90s at the FED plant

Lens design and adaptation process

Industar-61 L / D is a standard lens of the FED rangefinder cameras and is initially not able to fully work on SLR cameras - when it is installed, the ability to focus on distant objects is lost. Because the lens is very affordable in the secondary market, in addition, it was released in huge quantities.

Not many people know that the lens is quite possible to adapt for SLR cameras, because the optical design allows this (recall the version of Industar-61 LZ).

Because the working segment of the rangefinder cameras with M39 LSM thread is 28,8 mm, then to adapt to the M42 thread with a segment of 45,5 mm you need to deepen the lens block by 16,7 mm. But is it that simple?

In fact, without a radical alteration of the frame, it is absolutely impossible to change the working length of the lens, as, for example, in the rangefinder Jupiter-11. Therefore, the method described in the following article was used: http://alii.pub/6alpff" target="_blank" title="/articles/item/c_31.html .

Only in our case, not I-26m adapts, but Industar-61 L / D, which has exactly the same frame structure. In addition, during the adaptation, some additions were made:

  1. The diaphragm ratchet ball was removed, due to which it began to be adjusted steplessly and it became possible to close it to F / 22 (as on I-26M);
  2. Instead of the I-23U diaphragm ring, which would look wild in this case, the native focuser ring was used;
  3. As a shank, a fragment of a macro ring with M42 thread was reliably fixed by cold welding, so that the lens can be placed on the vast majority of cameras (even on Nikon, if the adapter is about 0,6 mm thick);
  4. An empty filter frame is inserted into the thread under the filters for clarity when focusing.

As a result of a simple alteration, a small and light lens was obtained, reminiscent of something remotely a pancake-staffer Industar-50-2.

INDUSTR-61L / D 2,8 / 55

INDUSTR-61L / D 2,8 / 55

INDUSTR-61L / D 2,8 / 55

INDUSTR-61L / D 2,8 / 55

INDUSTR-61L / D 2,8 / 55

INDUSTR-61L / D 2,8 / 55

With Industar-50, many design features are related to it:

  1. When focusing, the entire lens block rotates;
  2. The aperture ring is somewhat inaccessible - when focusing on infinity, it is almost impossible to control the aperture, because the ring is almost completely hidden under the decorative shirt, which was once the focus ring.
  3. The helicoid portion of the lens is not insulated at the back.

However, the first drawback is reflected only when using light filters like polarizers and gradient; the third drawback is leveled by the use of a non-volatile lubricant (I used some kind of military lubricant, kindly provided by A. Varlamov). And the second is just a matter of habit.

Another feature of the resulting design is the absence of an MDF stopper. Those. if you wish, you can simply unscrew the lens block from the helicoid and just as easily screw it back.

In fact, the lens block drops out only after ~ 2,5 revolutions, but not more than 2 revolutions are actually used (to achieve an MDF of ~ 30 cm, as in the LZ version). It is worth noting that it is precisely due to the absence of stoppers that the overall lens block movement during focusing turned out to be 4 times larger than that of the original lens. At the same time, the lens, when approaching the MDF, makes 2 full turns, and not 1, like the LZ version. Therefore, the focusing process for such an adapted version is very smooth, even and comfortable. But with the Industar-61 LZ, it seemed to me to focus very hard.

In general, the lens seemed quite comfortable after the alteration. The only fat minus is the inaccessibility of diaphragm control

Optical properties

Industar-61 is the first civilian lens to use lanthanum glass. Compared with its predecessor, Industar-26M, this lens gives pretty good sharpness at an open aperture.

Nevertheless, it is clearly seen that the lens on F / 2.8 is frankly soft - spherical aberration is not corrected enough. But, thanks to this, the lens draws interesting circles in the bokeh.

F 2.8

F 2.8

When aperture up to F / 4-F / 5,6, the software goes away and there is a very high smooth sharpness over the entire field, for which the lens was called the "eagle eye". At one time, FEDs were loved precisely for this staffer, which gave very decent image quality.

F 5.6

F 5.6

The real “surprise” was a rather high level of chromatic aberrations, which almost disappear with F / 5,6. However, not completely - in macro photography with rings they will make themselves felt even on smaller apertures. Therefore, the subject gurus do not recommend using the lens for photographing very small objects.

F 8

F 8

What is characteristic - the sharpness at the edges of the lens is quite suitable, in this respect it is much better than Helios-44.

The lens uses a single layer of amber color, due to which it has a good color rendering. Although a little yellow (apparently bright). Enlightenment almost does not give glare from the bright sun (sometimes you can still catch a rainbow strip), but the contrast loses the contrast - everything is veiled. Under normal lighting, the contrast is very high - in this regard, the lens was pleased.

In general, we can say that the optical quality of the lens is very good, and the lens design is quite pleasing to the eye. It is also worth noting that thanks to 6 rounded petals of the usual shape, the lens will not have 'vanilla' in the bokeh on the covered ones, like in the Industar-61 LZ, whose stars quickly get bored. In terms of sharpness it is not inferior to Industar-61 LZ, although in contrast, of course, it is worse (but it does not have a built-in hood either).

Conclusions

Industar-61 L / D is a very affordable and common lens. For use with SLR cameras, it requires the application of strength and mind. Thanks to the price / quality ratio, it can be interesting to the amateur photographer.

A list of all reviews from readers of Radozhiva will find here.

Save

Add a comment: Rodion

 

 

Comments: 94, on the topic: Overview of the Industar-61L / D 2,8 / 55 lens, adapted for SLR cameras (prepared by Rodion Eshmakov)

  • Rodion

    The lens was made for the sake of interest - if anyone needs it, please. rudzil@uandex.ru

    • Fedor

      I also made an I-96U for a DSLR (very primitive, using a macro ring and an "ekibank" from Whatman paper). At the same time, the lens gives a very interesting drawing, because it was originally intended to increase ...
      Also prepare a review, or what?)

      • BB

        Already have:
        https://radojuva.com.ua/2012/08/obzor-i96u-1-f3-5-50mm/
        I96-U without global alteration to the ZK is suitable only for macro photography.

      • Rodion

        Firstly, there was no such review of the I-61 l / d - only with examples of macro-streams on an unadapted sample; secondly, with the help of this review, the reader becomes aware that the lens can be adapted to the ZK and what it threatens; thirdly, if you tie the I-96 to the ZK, you will not only repeat yourself, because there is a review, but you will not remove anything fundamentally new.

        • Fedor

          Hmm, I wonder, but where is there a review of the I-96U with the preservation of INFINITY on the CPC? Throw a reference then, or something ... Of course, I'm not going to repeat what has already been said (shown) before me.

          • Peter

            There is nothing to save there, this lens does not support any focus, it is focused on 30-40 cm and that’s it.

            • mAlex

              What are you talking about ... I didn't know!
              The I-96u works great at any distance, however, like any other lens, it shows good sharpness and a pretty bokeh.
              Carefully read the instructions for "Falcon", and you will have everything.

    • Oleg

      Rodion, tried to contact you through rudzil@uandex.ru , but all the time comes the return of a message about an idle address :(

  • Lynx

    and it was an almost beautiful lens.

    • Rodion

      Discussed already. It was an almost beautiful and useless lens. Yes, and you can argue about beauty.

      • Lynx

        and about the performance in the new version - too.

        • Rodion

          You did not hold it in your hands, you did not take it off - what can you know? Empty talk, as always.

          • Lynx

            oh, you might think I didn’t have time to cut the industries.

            • Rodion

              Who knows what you are doing, other than hand-made trinkets and fuji reviews.

              • Lynx

                Then, as you said - do not judge what you have no idea about.

            • Artyom

              Dear Lynx!
              Not all users can afford to buy an expensive lens, and Rodion perfectly demonstrated that you can get a good result from old cheap glass!
              For example, I also like to remodel old lenses ...
              Thanks to Rodion! For example, I did not know about such a rework!
              I’ll go dig my 61LD, it’s still idle :)

              • Rodion

                Thank you!
                Of course, optics should not gather dust! For decades, these industries have been lying on shelves, lying around in tons on flea markets that nobody needs. Why not adapt them to give them a second life !?
                In the end, the lens becomes sharply in usability in this form - and MDF, and compatibility, and aperture smoothness, and F / 22 instead of 16 ...

              • Lynx

                I completely agree about the possibilities and impossibilities. But about the validity of the result, alas, no.
                You can get a much more suitable result for about the same money and with less effort without destroying the rangefinder

        • Andrei

          and what is wrong with performance?

          • Lynx

            the lens, which during the exposure of the diaphragm must be held with the other hand, or made so that it “does not fall out” - it’s as if it’s more likely to be pampered and “that's how you can!” than for anything serious.

            • Rodion

              I don’t know, there have never been problems when I’m shooting with similar lenses. The diaphragm, of course, really sometimes hides to close with two hands. But so on Jupiter-11 Contact-Kiev and Yu-9 contact-Kiev, which I also use.

              • Lynx

                I say - play clean

            • Rodion

              You know, I just prepared material that was not here, initially in general with the aim of simply finishing off the photo in the existing I-61 L / D review. But since Arkady decided to take it out separately, I could not leave these photographs in the air without any text and comments. Therefore, the review is. Whether it is needed here, or not, I don’t know, but once it’s published, it may come in handy. I will not be offended if my publication is refused.
              You can also discuss usability for a long time, you can find fault even longer. However, the result is perfectly visible and clear - the lens has unpleasant nuances, but the result as a whole gives more than adequate.

              • Lynx

                You are doing this as if someone is arguing with you on these issues. Or even mention them

  • Ivan Wolverine

    and what they can think of, it would be better not to buy expensive and modern brand lenses ... :-)))))))

    • Rodion

      And what's the point if a 40 / 2.8 STM costs about 10k, and this little thing in its original form is about 500 r + FED-5 in addition? And the result will be essentially the same :)

      • Ivan

        As the owner of 40 stm I protest:
        1. A couple of months ago I bought this pancake for 6000, and not for 10000. Not a new one, but ideally. After that, an ad for 5000 skipped.
        2. The result is completely different: different sharpness (much more than that of the Indian), other HA (much less than that of the Indian), resistance to backlighting (guess yourself), another bokeh, and ... I'll give it: autofocus. The one in the staff (which is often forty) is very relevant, especially in a situation when you need to quickly remove something, often “from the hip”.

        • Rodion

          Toad strangles me to give so much money for some 40/28, when you can buy 50 / 1,4 for it.

          • Lynx

            despite the fact that not everything in the lens is determined by the luminosity, and fifty dollars is not particularly meaningful at all on a crop - a very strange position.

            • Rodion

              But at 40 / 2,8 at night, it will definitely not work, and at 50 / 1,4 - more than. Besides, 50 mm on the crop is quite a good FR.

              • Lynx

                Poltina on Crop is far from the most successful focal point.
                And at 40 / 2,8 at night you can shoot very well. Even press the diaphragm a couple of stops for the best result.
                You apparently didn’t shoot at 1,4 and you don’t know that in the first place in the night it interferes more than it helps, and in the second place it was done completely not for this.

              • Rodion

                What a terrible bullshit, IMHO O_o
                Nokton, Noctilux - says nothing?) And what do you think 1.4 is needed for bokeshka? Nifiga. It was made to be able to shoot in low light. Now all of them are taken for "arts".
                At 1,4, I did not shoot in the same way as you did not redo the Hindus.
                I use Zenitar-S 50 / 1,2 mainly at night for astronomical observations - without a flash (the most important thing in this case) at the maximum ISO6400 and 1/30, you can get a completely adequate result. 1,2 resolves at night when the flash simply cannot be used.

              • Lynx

                Well, I have already understood the level of your understanding of "night photography".
                Could not be repeated twice. )))

              • Rodion

                Level is not level, but on observations of puff you will be given in the eye. For a different understanding of night photo optics is different.

              • Rodion

                If you are talking about night landscapes, then there is also little sense in the forty. For here it is better to take an honest shirik and close the hole for it to the required value ...
                Otherwise, you yourself do not control what you write ...

              • Ivan

                Rodion, thank you very much for the review! This is really interesting and useful information for someone. I read it with pleasure.

                But I can not agree with what is happening in your posts in the comments. In contrast with the text from the review, it looks just wild.

                Lynx, thanks for the adequacy.

              • Felix

                You can shoot at night both at half speed and at 40, here is an example of 2.0 on zuiko lens 1.4 50. In the angle, fifty dollars on crop is not the best (40 is better, and Nikon's sharp 35 1.8 is even better).

              • Felix

                2.0 more

              • Felix

                And another 2.0;)

              • Caelwyn

                For a crop, 35mm will be much nicer, after all, this is almost a standard lens. And for the dark, a tripod is better than 1.4, especially for a night landscape, where it is not particularly desirable to open the aperture.

      • Sergey Aleksandrovich

        Rodion, thank you for the work, for the review, and for the photos!

  • Denis

    Nice photos

  • Jury

    I use such a lens on Sony Alpha 6000, I like it, the sharpness is not high, that on the open and on the covered (in comparison with the same Helios), but it is quite uniform on all apertures, the ends of the lenses are not blacked out, that's why there is a wild veil, but sometimes it can be used

    • Jury

      by uniformity, I meant from the center to the edge

    • Rodion

      They have a range of performance there. I-61 before that, there was such a zebra - he was terribly caught soapy. This one is very good in sharpness, I like it. Although software, like LZ, is. Sharpness, yes, uniform, good.
      The ends of the lenses are blackened on some and not on some. This one is blackened.

      • anonym

        I have an Industar 61 L / D 2,8 / 52 Zebra. The condition is close to ideal, like a factory. Sharp and without turbidity. Transparent as a tear. Enlightenment on it is of the old type, from this there is a slightly yellowish tint, very light. Those who don't like the shade can easily photoshoot. I like. Sharp, high contrast and very nice lens. Recommend. Of the six I-61 L / D lenses available for comparison, I can say that all of them showed good results, two of them stand out for their sharpness, these are zebra and glass from the 80s. Zebra, as I said, slightly shades yellow (not critical, but pleasant), later, more correctly conveys the color (more boring). The rest of the lenses are not bad, just when you compare them with each other for several hours in front of the monitor, you notice the differences, albeit with difficulty. One of the lenses surprised by its strangeness, it produces less HIPP when open and slightly less sharp when open, BUT when the aperture is set to more than “8” it gives VERY sharper sharpness, better than all other subjects. All lenses have a very pleasant photography experience. I don't like only some kind of "basyat" design in them, except for the zebra - the zebra is very elegant and beautiful, it is pleasant to hold it in your hands, and its diaphragm has a large number of blades, which is very good. (Another very big plus of lenses, this is their price!) I have not bought a single lens for more than 300 rubles, or even 150 rubles. Conclusion: the Industar 61 L / D lens is excellent glass! When choosing, you need to look more not at the years and modifications, but at the excellent preservation. Then, in the vast majority of cases, everything will be fine.

        • Rodion

          Everything is marked correctly, I support.
          The only thing, it seemed to me that the little I-61 L / D in black varnish does not look so bad after the alteration - a nice bayonet cover with the ability to create good photos)

  • Jury

    bokeh pretty

    • Sergey Aleksandrovich

      Yuri, you are lucky! Very beautiful picture.

    • serega

      yes, it’s bokeh :).

    • Rodion

      He still has a large depth of field - his face fits well and is difficult to miss. And the background is not in the trash blurs. also good.

    • Sergei

      Very good photos of Yuri. And the model is incomparable! What is the name of this miracle?))

  • serega

    in fact, of course, rangefinder lenses are still best used on mirrorless cameras. somehow a hand does not rise to such "castration".

    • Rodion

      In an unreconstructed form, this lens does not make any sense - the mdf is huge, a whole meter!

      • Lynx

        and than you did not please mdf in 1 meter? a lot of lenses have mdf from a meter and more

        • Rodion

          Pffff, because the FR is not 90 mm, as it should be for the normal macro scale, but 50 mm.
          What kind of a half-speed is it that needs at least a meter of distance?

          • Lynx

            Normal old rangefinder poltos

            • Rodion

              The normal old rangefinder poltos is Jupiter-8.

              • Lynx

                No, he's just better. And Jupiter3 is even better. And there are still Zeiss and watering cans .. But this does not cancel the 61st normal

            • Rodion

              And now it has become a good SLR halfway, no matter what you write, whose advantages outweigh the disadvantages.

              • Lynx

                no, it has become a creepy, dumb, uncomfortable stub that can give acceptable image quality no better than any native mirror half-wave. And even sadder.
                And at the same time it falls out of the frame if you overlook it.

              • Rodion

                Pfff, that's ridiculous. There is nothing dumb and dull here at all. And to fall out is already a dubious shortage. We must try hard. to accidentally unscrew it. It never worked during the shooting)

            • Alexander Hedgehog

              "It has become a creepy, dumb, uncomfortable stub", and whoever makes it use it, does not like it - we pass by.

              • Lynx

                This is a crime against aesthetics of photography.

    • Lynx

      Yes.

  • Igor_K

    An interesting review. It is evident that Rodion is a real enthusiast and master of "revitalizing" rare lenses. The I-61 proved to be very interesting and unexpectedly "artistically". For myself, I found confirmation of my long-standing assumption that something is wrong with the 61st Industar. About 27-28 years ago, I tried to use the mirror version for technical macro photography. The results obtained did not satisfy me at all, and I had to return to the Yen “Tessar” (zebra), it turned out to be better in sharpness and contrast. In those distant years I thought that I just came across a not very successful copy of “I 61 LZ MS”, but no, apparently they are all like that, albeit lanthanum, but “nedotessar”, despite the scheme. The “Germans” were clearly better at painting. And now its hazy-smoky drawing, due to CA, looks vintage in its own way. Thanks to the author for the review!

    • Rodion

      Thank you for your feedback!
      Yes, I, too, in the past (which was a year and a half ago) tried to use LZ MS for macro. But it is not at all intended for this. Only now I realized that this is not a makrik, it’s just an extremely easy-to-use staffer, portrait with a large DOF, software and a beautiful characteristic bokeh.

  • alexey_laa

    In direct sunlight, this lens produces a beautiful macro (mirrorless + adapter + macro ring), the shadows convey the relief, all the small details are visible. With diffused light (cloudy), all the petals on the flowers merge into one mass.

    • Rodion

      Oh, definitely try Industrial-69! Since you have a mirrorless camera, you will definitely like it! In macro (very macro) he is gorgeous!

      • alexey_laa

        I did not come across Industar-69. I thought of him as a fix with a normal focal length. I also tried Macro on Jupiter-12, but for some reason I liked the Industar-61 L / D better. In my opinion, the sharpness and depth of field is better, and you can not bring that close to the subject. I use it with a lens hood - the contrast improves.

        • Rodion

          Jupiter-12 in macro is unlikely to be good - I tried it, somehow it was not right.

        • Dmitriy

          This I-69 is full of slag. Sawed under the OM-D for a friend. I tried it. There is no sharpness in the open. The edges are soap. Coma at the edges of the frame. The contrast is low, the colors are eerie. I do not recommend it at all. unless you get it for free.

          • Rodion

            It is good precisely in macro where the center uses. As a regular, he is not very.

          • Felix

            Hello everyone .. eight pieces of I69 sawed slightly different versions under the RO FED, used on the Olympus and on the mirror d50 d200. The answer is shit. This frank shit still needs to be looked for. At the expense of I61l / d, I can answer that I used to shoot them on fades, and I loved them for excellent contrast and good angles already at 4-5.6, unlike Helios 44, in which soap is visible with an increase in angles of 5.6. There is a difference in optics between l / d and l / z, he made comparisons on a mirrorless mirror, l / d is more soft, the transition to the blur zone is softer, the circles in the bokeh have a much softer (not pronounced) border. L / s is noticeably stiffer, more torn bokeh with rigid rings, 2.8 is very sharp (but still slightly behind the geos in the center). The contrast of l / d is not high enough; it is not always associated with the ends without blackening, their enlightenment is weak, although when the ends are blackened, the backlight starts to hold well, but the overall contrast in the backlight is noticeably worse than for the l / s. And yes, Rodion, it’s really possible to keep such a stub, but you don’t seriously use it, take flowers in the summer and put them on a shelf (like I50).

  • Ilyas

    I was pleased about the shooting at night
    It's like with SUVs in the city. And someday I will go out into my element!
    Do not engage in nonsense, I already wrote that as she was conceived, so she should shoot

  • Rodion

    I am surprised at the reaction to the review. So even new glasses with such bitterness do not discuss, like this Industar, who was lucky enough to do business instead of collecting dust.
    They prove that it is not for them to shoot - although experience says that “no way” is not suitable here. They prove that it has become worse when, in principle, it is impossible to shoot normally with the original lens.
    And at the same time they are compared with optics ten times more expensive than this industrial, yeah.

    • Rodion

      It's the same with “shooting at night”. What should I prove, how and what to shoot, when no goals, objectives, or shooting conditions are known?

  • Alexey

    So I decided to use this industrial together with Felix Edmundovich (decommunization in action).

    • Alexey

      here's another.

      • anonym

        That's right, late FEDs only in the trash.

        • Peter

          Third - last? Lol, and 5 is good, the exposure meter has, of course, already died, but the abundance of exposures and incredible strength forgive him.

      • anonym

        Some barbarism

    • Alexander Hedgehog

      fine!

  • Ruslan

    I use with nikon 1j1 is pleased.

  • Rodion

    Now here are more photos at different apertures.

  • Sergei

    Wow. People from Chernivtsi. Very nice to see photos and people?

  • Ayrat

    > Quite a high level of chromatic aberration was a real "surprise"

    I don't see chromatic in your pictures at close range, I also don't see it on my industries. Can you tell me where this high level of aberrations is?

    • Rodion Eshmakov

      Well, you can't look at 100% crop on Radozhiv. The temple is clearly visible in industrial macro photography. It can be clearly seen from the near focal and pre-focal points, painted in green and red.

      In the examples with apple and cherry blossoms, by the way, chromatism is noticeable.

      • Ayrat

        Yes, indeed, I found chromaticity in my photographs, it goes with a green or yellow border on bright contrasting objects, but there is not much of it. Compared to the Canon EF 50mm 1.8, both chromaticity and freezing and the level of chromaticism are very high.

        • Rodion

          Are you comparing on equal apertures? I clearly remember that, for example, Helios-44 chromatite is less than Industar-61.

  • Sergei

    Here is also a funny adaptation option, but, apparently, for the purpose of selling))

  • Andrei

    I spent a month doing the same operation! Just reading this look at once!

    • Rodion

      Now it remains for you to try Industar-26m, as I usually advise!)

  • Andrei

    Three Industars

Add a comment

Copyright © Radojuva.com. Blog author - Photographer in Kiev Arkady Shapoval. 2009-2023

English-version of this article https://radojuva.com/en/2016/03/industar-61-ld-2-8-55-fed/?replytocom=113964

Versión en español de este artículo https://radojuva.com/es/2016/03/industar-61-ld-2-8-55-fed/?replytocom=113964