A Zorki 4 Industar qn

[jasbay]

Image quality wise, does this image above indicate that the industar is really old and I should replace it with some recent lens that could give me sharper and cleaner picture like this dslr one below?

 

[blazejs]

Don't compare old and new lens as well as film to digital at the same time. There are lots of unknown dependences you haven't mentioned that will make difference. At first film look is different to digital. It depends also on lenses you've used, ISO speed, film, scanner, DSLR etc. I think comparable are 2 different film cameras or 2 different digital cameras (in this case DSLR to e.g. digital rangefinder).

 

[jasbay]

My bad. Let me do this again.

I meant to ask if my industar has really aged and degraded over time resulting in the low quality of the top picture? Or is the picture a correct quality I should expect from the industar?

 

[blazejs]

What model of Industar was it? What film? How did you scan it (flatbed scanner, dedicated or minilab, or maybe that's scan of the print?)?

 

[blazejs]

By the way here are some examples from Industars (all scanned with flatbed Canon 8600F):

Industar 50, wide open (f3.5), Fuji Reala 100

Industar 61 L/D, Fuji NPS 160

Industar 61 L/D, I think this was at f2.8, Fuji NPS 160

Industar 61 L/D, f2.8, Fomapan 400

Industar 61 L/D, Equicolor Supria 100

Industar 61 L/D, Fomapan 200

I tend to shot rather below f5.6, all pictures taken with Zorki 4 or FED 5B.

 

[januaryman]

They look okay to me... what are you judging as "bad" and in what way? Only the top photo taken with the I 50, you say, make me think there is haze or scratches on the lens. Or marks? The digital doesn't look that much better!

The I 61 shots look perfectly fine.

 

[jasbay]

my I50 came wif the cam made in 1968. was wondering if it shd give pictures as clean and sharp as the I61 samples here... i use portra NC 400 and canon 8800.

 

[40oz]

I'd say the I50 pic is already better than the DSLR shot, but the DSLR shot has a different look (probably based on the colors more than anything else.)

Your I50 looks like it might be a bit lower on contrast, but it sure seems sharp enough, even at web resolutions. The specific colors and how well the matched the original scene are more due to the film used than the lens. I would assume it is fine despite the age unless you see obvious defects. People use them because they are cheap, have a look that you can't really get another way, and take nice pictures. I don't have one, but wouldn't say they are bad lenses by any means.

And the age alone is not enough to "damage" a lens. Unless it has visible fungus, heavy scratches, or some other visible issue, it is fine.

 

[jasbay]

Thks for letting me know my I50 is generally okay. Although I wld like it to produce pic like the red berry shot sample here.

 

[blazejs]

Hey guys🙂 Pictures in #5 are mine, just to show how Industars could perform. Mine Industar 50 is cosmetically not in the best condition but optics seems to be OK. I have noticed it's not performing the same with each of my bodies. There's also another reason why first picture is not sharp enough. If it was collapsible I50 it might not be blocked (I did the same error at the beginning, I've just pulled it out and took pictures that resulted in not sharp or even blurry pictures, while it must be blocked - when you pull it out turn front element right). Another reason might be badly developed Portra. I used to get really bad results from expired and badly developed Portra. But as you see Industars can perform really good, and this could be even better with better scanner - these Canons are not as sharp as e.g. Nikon dedicated scanners.