answers: 18

  1. Lynx
    11.09.2018

    Weak. Both for printing and for macro.

    Reply

  2. SVRD
    11.09.2018

    Thanks for the interesting review.

    Reply

  3. Alexey de Paris
    11.09.2018

    The lens is very good optically for its price.

    Reply

  4. Michael
    11.09.2018

    D80 in color and the lens pattern is unique.

    Reply

  5. anonym
    12.09.2018

    I have such wishes for the I-61 case with infinity. The contrast is not very, attached a hood to death. Sharpness at infinity, even on covered apertures, is not very. And for a good play.

    Reply

    • anonym
      12.09.2018

      Wishes - attached. Auto parts on the phone.

      Reply

    • Rodion
      12.09.2018

      I tried to attach Industar-58U to the camera - an excellent lens, I really liked it at one time. There are no problems with the sharpness, the picture is very pleasant, especially at short distances.

      Reply

  6. Sergey Moscow
    12.09.2018

    The Tessar scheme is somewhat limited for universal use, therefore these lenses for magnifiers are calculated for a 1: 5 scale.
    And then, they give the optimum quality at aperture 8.
    If you want a higher quality for the same money, I advise you to pay attention to the Vega scheme (5 lenses). Vega-5U, Vega-11U and, especially, Vega-30U.
    The latter was developed later taking into account the increased requirements. But it is mandatory to use a hood and side beam limiters in the back of the lens when shooting on crop.

    Reply

    • Rodion
      12.09.2018

      It was Vega-11, for the sake of interest I compared it with Vega-3, similar in characteristics to the main ones. As a result, it turned out that the ancient treshka is much sharper than the 80s of the Vegas-11U.
      I tried Vegu-5, really good. There is little information about Vega-30, one lance club - and even then the card is almost empty, one and a half photos in the reviews.

      Reply

  7. Victor
    12.09.2018

    In the era of classical photography, I had this lens. Used for its intended purpose - printed photographs from negatives 60 x 60 mm. I don’t presume to talk about its characteristics, tk. there was nothing to compare with at that time (foreign optics were rare). As for the diaphragm during operation, I also cannot argue, tk. I have always printed with TIS, where diaphragm is not necessary in principle.

    Reply

  8. zengarden
    12.09.2018

    Thanks for the review! Yes, a budget FU lens or, as they say now, a “gag”.

    PS. Before the table, the heading "Basic technical characteristics of I96U-3.5 / 50" instead of I-90U 4/75

    Reply

  9. Yuri Molchanov
    13.09.2018

    Great photos and a very interesting review! I will adopt this approach. Previously, I would not have paid attention to such a lens and threw it away.
    Thank you so much to Arkady!

    Reply

  10. Alexey
    15.09.2018

    You, Arkady well done. Manage to make decent photos and for every r, albeit with a sign of quality.

    Reply

    • Arkady Shapoval
      15.09.2018

      Thank you

      Reply

  11. dima krutov
    15.11.2018

    that is, it cannot be used as a photographic lens - there is no focusing (focusing ring), but how to use the helicoid that is inside the lens for focusing - х З

    Reply

  12. Sergei
    26.02.2019

    Every time when something old from photographic equipment falls into my hands, I probably know that I will find all the necessary information from you. Thank you for your tremendous work. )

    Reply

  13. York
    24.07.2019

    The review is excellent, and in general a very good resource is obtained on any alternative glass.
    Arkady - many thanks!

    ... And the lens really is UG ... No drawing, no resolution, no reshast ...

    Reply

  14. SK
    25.07.2020

    An excellent photo lens for the price. And by the way, he quite calmly covers the 6 × 7 frame. And it turns out very conveniently, you do not need to lift the magnifier too much for high magnifications.

    Reply

Reply

 

 

Top
mobility. computer