A brief gallery note with examples of photographs on a manual Soviet lens INDUSTRAR-50-2 3,5 / 50, photographer Vladimir Tuzlay.
Work on INDUSTRAR-50-2 3,5 / 50
Gallery on INDUSTRAR-50-2 3,5 / 50 and Nikon D700
You can find more photos from Vladimir at the following links:
- VK: https://vk.com/tuzlay
- Personal site: http://www.tuzlay.com
- 35photo: http://35photo.ru/tland
- 500px: https://500px.com/tuzlay
Comments on this post do not require registration. Anyone can leave a comment. Many different photographic equipment can be found on AliExpress.
Material prepared Arkady Shapoval. Training/Consultations | Youtube | Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | Telegram
Macro on the Hindu is better than on the Helios-40-2. IMHO.
Well, in the open, it is equivalent to the G-40 at F / 6. Wanguyu that the G-40 will win at equal absolute apertures - because 6 lenses will still provide the best correction.
The I-50-2 will be worse than the I-50-2.8 LZ, but if we compare the incomparable Helios 40, then both of them are not suitable for him.
That's just the I-50-2 is 100 times cheaper (a hundred times!). 2 dollars for i-50-2 versus 200+ dollars for G-40 :)
Helios-44 in macro will also be better both industrial, and the price is not very different at all
Why is it better in macro? The resolution of Industar is higher.
Yeah, open F / 3.5 vs F / 2)))))
The difference in price is still significantly.
Nonsense - 500 and 1000 - no difference.
On the macro, you still have to cover. Yes, and on the open soap both ...
It makes sense that a lens that has an open f / 2 no worse than another open f / 3.5 would be better at f / 5.6, for example. Its high quality at higher aperture is a kind of head start.
So, for example, on the basis of Pancolar 50 / 1.8, a corrected Macro-Prakticar 55 / 2.8 was made for the final distances - and not on the basis of Tessar, please note.
Tessar has problems with luminosity ...
And so it is possible to bring a counterexample, although this is probably wrong for old lenses. Sigma 30 1.4 on covered is much worse than Nikkor 35 1.8, although on the open it is about the same.
I was waiting for this example - in your case we are talking about super-luminous width, which suffers from higher-order aberrations. Their diaphragm rules are worse. Probably, the conditional Mir-10A will even be sharper than sigma on a closed one))
We will not stand for the price.
What else is this “I-50-2.8 LZ”?
Industar-61 50 / 2.8 LZ
I thought that Vlad again came up with something for himself. This time the lens.
He says everything correctly.
The guy is not able to WRITE the lens model correctly. I can imagine how he SPEAKS.
For still lifes on nikon d5200 what is better to take: industrial 50-2 or helios 44?
To shoot a DSLR with a manual, this is dancing with a tambourine, especially Nikon, but if the choice is the only one then of course the G-44 in any version will be preferable for all indicators of this dark and unsharp Industar. There will be no infinity (if the adapter is without a lens ), but you can peel still lifes.
The network has a bunch of Industries converted to Nikon infinity. Why mislead a person?
This is not a lost friend, but reality!
And other Soviet lenses. The same Wave 9 ...
Cano = more capricious camera, well, IMHO, of course ...
There was nothing about the Wave. Sawed under Nikon Industars for more expensive sales than Helios. Even I have, but I’m not selling it yet.
Sorry, did not take into account)
Strange, by the way, but you probably know the market better.
Maybe helios are simply advertised and on rare occasions they pick up the price.
It is much easier to redo Industar. And do not bother with the diaphragm. And the price of Heliosov- well, yes, twisted bokeh + advertising on several forums did the trick. There is even a site in Russia where they sell only Helios. The prices there, however, are inadequate, but someone buys them if the site is still live.
Of course, this lens cannot boast of sharpness, but the image itself is such that you can squeeze out interesting frames from it, and in cases where sharpness is not required, but you need the picture to have some blur, as well as with very interesting and unusual bokeh, it is it. The price from him is from the category “you don’t need to buy, you still take it as a gift”. And if you think about it, in 2020 you can take a Canon 5D for $ 200 in a beautifully restored form, buy 2-3 old manual lenses and get a very working full-frame system. By the way, there is also a very high-quality Keno old 24-85 USM (!) With good sharpness and autofocus speed as a standard zoom. This is the cheapest way to get a working full-frame system, and the rest is up to the photographer. As an example, let us recall that the famous and even more than recognized Japanese photographer Moriama has been shooting almost his entire life with a compact camera ...
Hello, Arkady, I would like to ask you for advice. I am faced with the choice whether to buy a Sony a7 (first generation) bu, or buy the same money for 1-2 cropped lenses for my Sony a6300. I would like to use the old lenses at full frame while maintaining the focal length with the further purchase of something like the CZJ Sonnar, Canon FD, Pentacon, Minolta, etc. In the presence of the old Industar 61L / Z and Helios 44m (got a gift) and the new cropped 7artisans 35 f1.2 (manual), Sony sel50 f1.8, sigma 19mm f2.8. So far, of all the focal lengths on the crop, the picture with 35mm is most like. Is it worth investing in FF, will there be a difference, or is it better to focus on what you shoot and buy an autofocus 30-35mm?
Sony a6300 suits almost everyone, except that the old lenses turn into something longer telephoto, and the old 35mm lenses with f1.4-f1.8 can not be found at all, but the sale is full of fifty dollars, 85ok, 100ok, 135ok. I do not consider buying a Canon 5d, since in terms of working with manual optics it will be inferior to any bzk.
Take the A7 under old lenses only if you are really fond of photography and can “see” (rather feel) the difference that a full frame gives. I would definitely change.
On crop 1.5 it is convenient to put cinema and CCTV inexpensive APS-C optics if you want to tinker with alterations.
The crop is still very cool Olympus PEN F, but with us they are quite rare.
I just like to bother with alterations. The result is mediocre, but hands in business, and experience. Now I'm trying to attach a lens from a microscope to a crop - in the process I learned a lot about micro lenses. It turned out that they are shifters, that is, they work on the principle of a reversible macro nozzle, or what is it correctly called? If I bring it to my senses and Arkady allows, I will post my research here.
Cool work! Everything is as it should! It’s just that the bokeh in circles on my Helios doesn’t work like that, no matter how I spray it
photo on Industar
Good work, the quality of the lens also seems not bad, because there is nothing to compare.
Does anyone have experience in using the Triplet T-43 4/40 lens from the Smena-8M camera for macro photography? So I sit and think - should I smoke a camera or is it better to continue using Industar-96U with rings?
The permission of this T-43, as I recall, God forbid. Even the I-50-2 is better, and the lens from the magnifier should have a good resolution. 96U, however, did not use it, so "in theory"
It has very good sharpness in the center of the field, but rather mediocre reproduction of high frequencies - it can hide some details (texture). The edges really leave a lot to be desired.
By the way, this lens can be redesigned for full use with crop DSLRs - there is an article about it among the reviews.
Yes, I saw on TyTruba such an alteration for a cropped Canon - there is infinity, but MDF is about a meter. And also a variant with a housing from Industar. In both cases, the game is not worth the candle. I would still understand if the Triplet had some unique characteristics.