Industar-26m 1: 2,8 F = 5 cm P (FED), adapted for SLR cameras - "medium format wide-angle". Article by Rodion Eshmakov.

Material according to Industar-26m 1: 2,8 F = 5 cm P specially for Radozhiva prepared Rodion Eshmakov (subscribe to Instagram!).

Adapted for DSLRs Industar-26m unexpectedly turned out to be especially useful on a mirrorless camera.

Adapted for DSLRs Industar-26m unexpectedly turned out to be especially useful on a mirrorless camera. increase.

В old-old poll The Radozhivs "the best Soviet fifty-kopeck piece" Industar-26m was not even among the answers: one of the most popular Soviet standard lenses remained in the shadows for a long time due to its inability to work with SLR cameras - it was intended for rangefinder cameras "FED-2"And scale"Zarya". An obstacle to the popularization of the lens in modern times was the existence of the ultra-accessible Industar-50 50 / 3.5 and the widespread use of Industar-61 50 / 2.8, which is considered to be of higher quality due to the use of lanthanum glass. However, the latter is controversial: the usual rangefinder version Industar-61 loses to Industar-26m, really, the superiority of lanthanum is demonstrated only by a small-scale version Industar-61L... This fact clearly hints that no optical glass will make a lens better if it is disgustingly assembled.

Technical specifications (source):

Optical design - Tessar, 4 lenses in 3 groups;
Focal length - 52 mm;
Aperture ratio - 1: 2.8;
Light transmission coefficient - 0.8;
Vignetting - 50%;
Rear focal segment - ~ 41 mm;
Aperture - 10 blades, no presetting mechanism;
Aperture limits - F / 2.8-F / 22;
The minimum focusing distance is 1 m (factory), 0.35 m (achieved with adaptation);
Filters thread - 40.5 mm;
Mount - M39 (factory), M42 (after adaptation).

Reviews of other lenses "Industar": here.

Industar-26 was designed by GOI in 1946 using lead and barium glasses, i.e. on optical glass of the 30s palette. Interestingly, the medium format was also calculated at the same time. Industar-29, and the schematic diagrams of the lenses coincide with an accuracy of the types of glass used in the lenses. This confirmed my long-standing assumption that Industar-29 is proportionally enlarged with minor changes Industar-26. This is in good agreement with the similarity of the image character (in particular, bokeh) and the generally poor optical quality of Industar-29 (with a proportional magnification of n times, aberrations increase by n ^ 2 times) in comparison with Industar-26 when used on a small format.

Lens cards Industar-26, Industar-29


Lens cards Industar-26, Industar-29 and Industar-61 in the GOI catalog.

Industar-61 was developed in 1958 using the STK-6 lanthanum crown with a higher refractive index and lower dispersion in comparison with the lead and barium ones used earlier. In theory, such a replacement is needed to increase the radius of curvature of the lenses and better correct spherical aberration.

Although known to exist version Industar-26m for mirrors cameras "Zenith", until 2013apparently, no material has been published on adapting the lens for use with SLR cameras. On Radozhiv, the I-26m lens adapted for SLR cameras is dedicated to one of my early reviews, and the method of shortening the minimum focusing distance when using a lens on mirrorless cameras is presented here. You can read about what Industar-26m can do without alteration on SLR cameras in articles and video reviews by Arkady Shapoval herehere и here.

Industar-26m adapted for SLR cameras (left) with Fotodiox Shift EOS-NEX adapter and Industar-26m with reduced MDF with M39-NEX macrogelcoid (right).

Industar-26m adapted for SLR cameras (left) with Fotodiox Shift EOS-NEX adapter and Industar-26m with reduced MDF with M39-NEX macrogelcoid (right).

I rarely return to lenses again after using them, but Industar-26m is an exception: this is one of the few lenses that I like both for its optical properties, design, and aesthetics. I will not even dwell on the details: they have already been indicated in previous reviews.

Of my favorite features of the Industar-26m - a beautiful and round diaphragm and an elegant compact body.

Of my favorite features of the Industar-26m - a beautiful and round diaphragm and an elegant compact body.

10 aperture blades provide a circular pupil at any aperture.

10 aperture blades provide a circular pupil at any aperture.

The sample of the lens presented in this article was taken from the Zarya camera and was qualitatively adapted (only threaded and screw connections) for the M42 threaded mount for APS-C format SLR cameras (the protruding rear part of the helicoid will not allow putting on full-frame SLR cameras - it will hook a mirror ).

Refusing to work with full-frame DSLR cameras can greatly reduce the MDF of the lens.

Refusing to work with full-frame DSLR cameras can greatly reduce the MDF of the lens.

Part of the helicoid protrudes beyond the EF mount of the M42-EOS adapter, so the lens is incompatible with full-frame SLR cameras. The rear of the lens was further frosted.

Part of the helicoid protrudes beyond the EF mount of the M42-EOS adapter, so the lens is incompatible with full-frame SLR cameras. The rear of the lens was further frosted.

While testing the lens on my Sony A7s with the Fotodiox EOS-NEX shift adapter, I noticed the presence of excessive coverage of the 36x24 mm frame: it turned out that the lens does not give vignetting both in the horizontal (24x56 mm frame 1: 2,33) and in the vertical ( frame 45x36 mm 5: 4) scanning the field.

Industar-26m, adapted for SLR cameras (left), with the Fotodiox Shift EOS-NEX adapter in the position of the maximum optical axis shift.

Industar-26m, adapted for SLR cameras (left), with the Fotodiox Shift EOS-NEX adapter in the position of the maximum optical axis shift.

In other words, users of ~ $ 6000 Fujifilm G medium format cameras have a unique opportunity to use the $ 7 lens as the equivalent of 38 / 2.2 :). On a small format camera, using a lens with a shift adapter has several advantages at once:

  1. When using the adapter for shooting shift panoramas, the lens gives a more expressive (in terms of artistic qualities) and wide-field (comparable to a 37 mm lens) image, the effect is comparable to the transition from a crop to a full frame;
  2. The adapter makes it possible to “go away” from the boring aspect ratio of 3: 2 in favor of “wider” (up to “cinematic” 2,33: 1) or more “square” not only without loss of frame size, but also with its increase. Shift adapter in photography is a good alternative to anamorphic.
  3. It is possible to use the adapter "as intended": i.e. for perspective correction when shooting from bottom to top, for example;
  4. When using a lens with an adapter for stitching shift panoramas, the image resolution can be increased by 1,5-2 times compared to the resolution of a single frame. Perhaps relevant for my 12 megapixel camera.

The larger actual field of view angle of the Industar lenses compared to the calculated one is not surprising, since a number of wide-angle lenses (with EGF <40 mm), for example: Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar 28 / 8, Industar-95 38 / 2.8, Industar-81 38 / 2.8, Industar-73 2.8 / 40, Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar 40 / 4.5... However, these lenses were used mostly in budget cameras due to the low resolution at the edges of the frame in comparison with more complex optics.

Industar-26m in its native format is not distinguished by good field sharpness, on a "medium format" frame, the field resolution is also very weak due to pronounced astigmatism - for landscape photography, the aperture will definitely have to be closed to F / 11 to get a more or less sane result on edges. On the other hand, coma is much less pronounced than in helios-like lenses, and coma reduces visual sharpness much more. The lens retains a pleasant bokeh character at "medium format", photos even at F / 2.8 look great when using a center (or so) composition. Using the I-26m as a moderate wide-angle seemed to me very interesting for a half-length and full-length portrait, the lens surprised me once again and pleased me pleasantly. Below are examples of shift panoramas made with Sony A7s and Industar-26m.

Industar-26m shows itself perfectly even without games with stitching panoramas on full-frame cameras, giving a fairly sharp image in the center with an interesting, but not intrusive background blur.

Before the acquisition Sony A7s I actively used Industar-26m adapted in a similar way on Canon 600D... And the lens presented in this article was actually intended to be used with an APS-C camera. Sony SLT-A55v with a 16 megapixel sensor. Examples of how the lens works on this camera Andrey Minchenko (Instagram: and_chie).

Conclusions

I did not expect any surprises from such a well-known lens to me as the Industar-26m, but it turned out that this wonderful lens works well both on a medium format (even without quotes) frame, and on a standard 36x24, and on APS-C, while maintaining pleasant character of the image. Industar-26m has a wide range of applications: portrait photography, landscapes and architecture, macro photography (I have a positive experience of shooting at a scale of 1: 2-1: 1 on Canon 600D). No lens on the title contender list "The best Soviet fifty dollars" did not leave me as many positive impressions and photos as Industar-26m gave them.

You will find more reviews from readers of Radozhiva here... All Rodion reviews in one place here.

Add a comment: Arkady Shapoval

 

 

Comments: 20, on the topic: Industar-26m 1:2,8 F=5 cm P (FED), adapted for SLR cameras - "medium format wide-angle". Article by Rodion Eshmakov.

  • Paul

    And what is better Industar 50 2,8 LD or LZ? The main reviews were in the days before mirrorless cameras existed. Maybe now there is a serious comparison with the use of the UPC, if anyone can, share the link, I think many will be interested to know.

    • Sergei

      Industar-50 50 mm / 3,5 was not produced in L / D or L / Z versions.
      Probably, we are talking about Industar-61

      • Rodion

        It would be more interesting and correct (c) to note that Pavel wrote with Industar 50 / 2.8 in mind, and not Industar-50 2.8.

        • Paul

          Thank you Rodion, you are right! I meant any industrial rangefinder (usually 61) with a focal length of about 50 and an aperture of 2,8. Does anyone have a comparison with the industrial 61 LZ ?? modern comparison, on a mirrorless camera.

    • Rodion

      Essentially. Without adaptation to the ZK or reducing the MDF, the rangefinder options are flawed, whatever one may say.
      The LZ MS version should definitely be better (and it is most likely better) than any I-61 rangefinder, except, possibly, the I-61L. I used it at the beginning of the journey, there were no complaints.
      The only real superiority of the I-61 rangefinder is the presence of a not very rare version with a 10-blade diaphragm.
      If both lenses were exposed to me, it would be possible to compare, but there is no desire to specifically acquire neither the rangefinder, let alone the SLR version.

      • Paul

        Rodion, I think many, VERY many, will be interested in comparing the STANDARD (and not rare versions) I-61 LD with LZ, precisely because of the very large difference in price. And, with all due respect to you, the phrase “definitely should be better” raises more questions than answers)))

        • Rodion

          Maybe. Send lenses - I will make a comparison.

        • Andrei

          Is it very difficult to find the I-61 LZ in the reviews? And compare with the rangefinder I-61.
          Yes, not everyone is given this, of course.

          • Andrii

            Moreover, these reviews are already a thousand years soon, but still there are those who are not able to find them and ask someone to do one for them.
            Buy 2 penny lenses yourself and compare their bummer, of course, it's easier to strain someone.

            • Rodion Eshmakov

              Nowadays they ask for LZ MS about the same as for takumar 55 1.8 or even, sometimes, Minolta 58 1.4 MD ...

            • Paul

              Thousands of years of reviews of the times of DSLRs have long been read and are not interesting to anyone. I am only interested in one question - who is one of the authoritative and knowledgeable people who compared ONLY MIRROR ONLY TWO lenses 61 LD and LZ ?? If anyone knows the answer to this question, let me know, I will be grateful. And practicing wit and even more suspecting people of stupidity is not a very noble occupation ...

          • Rodion

            Well, the photos were taken in different conditions, and we are talking about pixel hunting. Those. direct comparison of two glasses on the same scene to assess the lousy assembly of LZ and LD.

          • Rodion Eshmakov

            And where is the comparison, actually? There are 30 pages of chatter.

            • Rodion

              Thank you, now you can see. However, this test does not say anything except that the I-61 FED has a huge range of quality. Outwardly my ideal LD ​​was worse than the I-26m, for example. Well, or not better, at least. But the I-61L made the I-26m. According to the tests that you threw, I-61LZ ~ I-61 LD. If I-61L> I-26m, and I-26m ~ I-61LD, I-61LD ~ I-61LZ, then: I61L> I26m ~ I61LD ~ I61 LZ. However, there is also the LZ MS version, which, in terms of the totality of qualities, due to the MS, will be better than the I61LD.

          • Paul

            I am interested in comparing 61 LD and LZ only because the difference in price is huge. And it should be a test done by one person under equal conditions. If you know about such a review - let us know. but to answer a specific question with moralizing is stupid, not everyone can understand correctly, of course ...

            • Paul

              If we take as a basis the link to the test 61 LD and LZ, it turns out that the cost of LZ among photographers is greatly overestimated? or is the LD cost underestimated? since on Avito the difference in price is 3-4 times. despite the fact that they are about the same. In this case, the LD is more compact, with a normal diaphragm and looks better on the UPC. The fact that LDs are not suitable for DSLRs is a weak minus, when most people switch to UPCs, which are much more convenient for manual technology.

              • Rodion

                Here is the last link and there was a test of all these mindustars on the Olympus of the pen, it seems. I compiled my output based on the test too.
                The cost of the LH is possibly too high, but one must understand that mechanically the LH and LZ are completely different. The LD initially has a very large MDF and inconvenient focusing. LZ in terms of ergonomics is super, but too large for mirrorless cameras.

  • Joe

    From the text of the article: "In other words, users of ~ $ 6000 Fujifilm G medium format cameras have a unique opportunity to use the $ 7 lens as the equivalent of 38 / 2.2"
    Actual cost of the new FUJIFILM GFX 50S II at B&H = $ 3,999.

    • Arkady Shapoval

      It changes everything :)

      • Sergei

        For medium format FUJIFILM GFX, try the Mir-67 35 mm / 2,8 Shift lens

Add a comment

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

English-version of this article https://radojuva.com/en/2021/09/industar-26m-28-f5-sm-p-fed/?replytocom=497527

Versión en español de este artículo https://radojuva.com/es/2021/09/industar-26m-28-f5-sm-p-fed/?replytocom=497527