Industar 22/50 photos

[Darinwc]

Hello I just did a test roll of old FP4 using a Leica IIc and Industar 50 (50mm f3.5 collapsible.
I adjusted the focus on the Industar lens to match closer the Leica. I'm pretty happy with the lens.
I think its better than my early uncoated Elmar. It could certainly be a go-anywhere lens.

Unfortunately the Leica IIc has many pinholes in the shutter.

 

[Darinwc]

Industar 50 samples

 

[yossi]

I too have an Industar-22 collapsible lens. Quite clean optics and works great with my Leica IIIf.



Below are two sample images shot with this Industar-22. It is at least as good as my coated Elmar 5cm.

Leica IIIf/Industar-22. Kodak double-x in HC-110.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Hello I just did a test roll of old FP4 using a Leica IIc and Industar 50 (50mm f3.5 collapsible.
I adjusted the focus on the Industar lens to match closer the Leica. I'm pretty happy with the lens.
I think its better than my early uncoated Elmar. It could certainly be a go-anywhere lens.

Unfortunately the Leica IIc has many pinholes in the shutter.

View attachment 4855450

We have FSU subforum. And we have Industar-22 pictures thread.

Industar 22 pictures

Here some pictures taken with my Zorki I and its Industar 22. Tri-X at 400: Zork I_I22_Tri-X_400_01_012 von thomas.78 auf Flickr Zork I_I22_Tri-X_400_01_033 von thomas.78 auf Flickr Tri-X at 200: Zorki I_I22_Tri-X_200_02_003 von thomas.78 auf Flickr

rangefinderforum.com

I-10, I-22 and I-50 are different lenses, for us who has spend time and film with all three of them.

 

[ddutchison2]

"at least as good as my coated Elmar"
"better than my early uncoated Elmar"

I'm not seeing the same sharpness the Elmar characteristically has in these shots so far, especially in the fine details. I'm sure that some I-22/I-50's match or surpass the Elmar, but FSU sample variation is notoriously wide.

 

[Coldkennels]

I'm not seeing the same sharpness the Elmar characteristically has in these shots so far, especially in the fine details. I'm sure that some I-22/I-50's match or surpass the Elmar, but FSU sample variation is notoriously wide.

The issue isn't that the Industar isn't sharp, it's just that the FSU backfocus is present when used on a Leica (even with such a slow lens!), and that causes a slight softness which isn't present when it's used on a Zorki.

On a mirrorless camera where the difference in rangefinder specifications don't come into play, an unbutchered Industar 22 is, indeed, quite similar to a good collapsible Elmar.

And because I have nothing better to do, here's a prime example of that, shot just now in my living room, with terrible light, a tripod, and a quick test using my bookcase.

First, here's the two lenses - a coated 1951 Elmar 50/3.5 and a coated 1955 Industar 22 - shot at f/3.5 on a Leica M240 at 1m from the books:






I focused with the rangefinder on the 75 Years of Leica Photography in the centre. The Elmar is obviously first; from the skateboard next to the bookcase, you can see very clearly that the Industar has back-focused pretty severely, as is standard for a Soviet lens on a Leica. It's worth noting the Elmar had hit the close-focus stop when the M's rangefinder said it was in focus; the Industar still had some way to go.

But here's the exact same lenses on a Fuji X-Pro 2 with all the same setup (tripod hasn't moved, still at f/3.5), only focused with the digital split-image on the Fuji's LCD:



This is a lot closer. They're in the same order - the Elmar first - but you'd be hard-pressed to tell them apart. The Elmar is a bit lighter (despite both lenses set to the same aperture), and the Industar is softer towards the edges (which could just be a centering/alignment issue; the collapsible mechanism feels a bit worn on my Industar 22) [edit: looking again, it could actually be very slight back-focusing of the Elmar on my part; I really don't think much of the manual focus aids on mirrorless cameras]. I think in real-world shooting, you wouldn't really spot much difference - as long as you're not using a rangefinder.

(It's also worth noting that on the Fuji, both lenses hit the close-focus stop, showing it is a rangefinder calibration issue, not an optical one!)

 

[ddutchison2]

The issue isn't that the Industar isn't sharp, it's just that the FSU backfocus is present when used on a Leica (even with such a slow lens!), and that causes a slight softness which isn't present when it's used on a Zorki.

On a mirrorless camera where the difference in rangefinder specifications don't come into play, an unbutchered Industar 22 is, indeed, quite similar to a good collapsible Elmar.

And because I have nothing better to do, here's a prime example of that, shot just now in my living room, with terrible light, a tripod, and a quick test using my bookcase.

First, here's the two lenses - a coated 1951 Elmar 50/3.5 and a coated 1950 Industar 22 - shot at f/3.5 on a Leica M240 at 1m from the books:

View attachment 4855518


View attachment 4855519

I focused with the rangefinder on the 75 Years of Leica Photography in the centre. The Elmar is obviously first; from the skateboard next to the bookcase, you can see very clearly that the Industar has back-focused pretty severely, as is standard for a Soviet lens on a Leica. It's worth noting the Elmar had hit the close-focus stop when the M's rangefinder said it was in focus; the Industar still had some way to go.

But here's the exact same lenses on a Fuji X-Pro 2 with all the same setup (tripod hasn't moved, still at f/3.5), only focused with the digital split-image on the Fuji's LCD:

View attachment 4855520View attachment 4855521

This is a lot closer. They're in the same order - the Elmar first - but you'd be hard-pressed to tell them apart. The Elmar is a bit lighter (despite both lenses set to the same aperture), and the Industar is softer towards the edges (which could just be a centering/alignment issue; the collapsible mechanism feels a bit worn on my Industar 22). I think in real-world shooting, you wouldn't really spot much difference - as long as you're not using a rangefinder.

(It's also worth noting that on the Fuji, both lenses hit the close-focus stop, showing it is a rangefinder calibration issue, not an optical one!)

Interesting, thanks.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Industar-50 Lube and Adjust

This Industar-50 is a Tessar formula 50/3.5 in a brass mount with "very shiny Chrome". Performance compares well with the post-war 50/3.5 coated Elmar. The I-50 is the third formulation of the 50/3.5 Tessar in the Industar series, it improves on the optics of the Industar-22 and Industar-10. The...

rangefinderforum.com

I've done CLAs on several I-22 and I-50 collapsible lenses, and even an I-22 Rigid.

Typically FSU lenses do better increasing the shim by 0.1mm, but can vary greatly.

 

[miket-nyc]

What do you mean by "increasing the shim by 0.1mm?" Shim the lenshead itself closer by 0.1 mm? And does "INCREASING the shim" mean that there was already a shim there to begin with?

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Increasing thickness of the shim will move the lens head out farther from the image plane, correcting for back-focus. These lenses use shims.

@miket-nyc

 

[rfaspen]

We have a lot of the same books 😎

 

[Sergey Kozlov]

Old soviet lens are not so bad & excellent by quality/price.
The collapsable 50mm is not the best, but highly corresponds old Leicas & Zorki/FED
Here is some test photo with it: