'Elmar'-style Industar 50

[pippy]

Quick question;

I am awaiting delivery of a late-period Fed-1 which was listed as having the ubiquitous Fed 50mm f3.5 fitted but instead, evident from the 'show' snaps, it has a collapsible Industar-50 50mm f3.5 - i.e. visually near identical to the Industar-22 50mm f3.5 with which I am very familiar.

In what respect does I-50 mentioned above differ from the I-22?

Pip.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Indystar-10 /fed 50 3.5/, then industar-22, then 50.
Rigid version of it is very sharp, collapsible is more sharp than 22 in the center and less off the center.
50 is more suitable for color than 22.
Most elmar like is I-10. Same size, same front.
With 50 collapsible build quality is most declined.
Rigid 50 is one of the ugliest lens ever made.

 

[pippy]

Thanks very much for the reply, Ko.Fe.

So I take it that the optical formula is different? Interesting.
I look forward to its arrival. I have an LTM-M adapter so it might be an entertaining experiment to try out my various 'collapsibles' at varying apertures on the M9-P and see what happens. Certainly a quicker - and more user-controllable - option than trying the same experiment using film!

Pip.

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

The Industar-22 first appeared after the war in 1948 and seems to be based on the CZ Tessar not the Elmar. KMZ made them for the Zorki and they were available until 1958-ish. Probably improved slightly by KMZ...

The Industar-50 was an improved version of it and ran for ever, it seems.

The 22 and 50 both had a focal length of about 53mm like the CZ one and the Elmar was 50mm like the FED lenses. In this photo I've pushed a FED and Zorki together to show how the Zorki's Industar lens is longer.

There's a lot of information about them on the WWW but most of it is in Russian. You might like to start here:-

http://www.lallement.com/pictures/files.htm

The 1970 catalogue shows the Industar-50 on page 84.. The text doesn't tell you much you don't already know if you've done a few searches.

Regards, David

 

[mcfingon]

The I-50 I have is a better performer than the I-22 or Fed 50 lenses I own. Not vastly, but noticeably.
John Mc

 

[Rob-F]

I bought a collapsible Industar 50/3.5 to play with. As soon as the temperature and light are conducive to going outdoors to shoot, I'm going to try it out. I won't mind if it isn't that great. I just liked the Russian Cyrillic writing on it! I also got a 28mm Industar in LTM mount. It's horrible! Blurry. Paid $1.25 for it! Overpriced.

 

[pippy]

Thanks to all who have added their experiences here.

There's a lot of information about them on the WWW but most of it is in Russian. You might like to start here:-

The 1970 catalogue shows the Industar-50 on page 84.. The text doesn't tell you much you don't already know if you've done a few searches.

Thanks for that link, David.
The only place I had so far looked for info about the I-50 (I only ordered the camera/lens on Saturday) was the Sovietcams site but, unfortunately, the page for this design is not 'live' so the link you provided will entertain me no end! I'll have to compare lens designs to see if there is much change. Sadly my command of the Russian language is non-existent but the designs are well-illustrated.

I already have experience with the Fed-50 and I-22 but the I-50 will be totally new to me. For what it's worth - and apologies if I'm teaching my granny to suck eggs - here is a snap (not my images but my lenses) comparing one of my I-22's at the top and the I-50 below. Note different machining of front rim-edge.

The package should get here by Tuesday afternoon.
If there is anything which might be of interest I'll add it on here.

Thanks again, everyone!

Philip.

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

Nice to see a Zorki-2 for a change; I'd like one but it would be daft to add another camera to the heap; they do cost a lot and I'd never use the self timer anyway.

Anyway, here's a link for you; you have to dive in as it's entirely in Russian but there's masses of stuff in it:-

http://www.sovietcamera.su/

The trick is to keep clicking away on the words and the pictures...

Regards, David

 

[gb hill]

Rigid version of it is very sharp
Rigid 50 is one of the ugliest lens ever made.

I like the rigid version & like the looks too. Except on my Nicca. Looks better on the Bessa r.

 

[geoffox23]

Try this one...
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.photohistory.ru/1207248188712843.html&sl=ru&tl=en&hl=en&ie=UTF-8


Cheers
Geoff


also note mfg. by KMZ, KOMZ and LZOS.

 

[David Hughes]

Thanks for the link; there's some amazing words in the link to Zenit.

Regards, David

 

[David Hughes]

As there are some baffling words in the translation, I'll contribute this link to save you struggling so you can sort things out by contect and this version of English:-


http://translate.googleusercontent....sg=ALkJrhjHftt6-lpgJOQqzNg7t_Xpj9V0oQ#coating


It's a glossary of words used and you need to use the "find" bit of your browser (? CTRL + F) as the list is in alphabetical order based on the original Cyrillic alphabet. So not as easy a ABC...

OTOH, you can discover that "enlightened" usually means "coated" and so on.

Linguists will find some wonderful things in it; f'instance as their letter "C" (our letter"S") is also the word "with" or "in" or "off" and so the S section of the glossary is the "With" section. And you can work out for yourselves why the first letter of their alphabet appears to be the word "BUT"...

Regards, David

 

[pippy]

Thanks again to everyone who has added to the thread and especially to David and Geoff for posting the links. Some very interesting stuff to be found from the members here - as always!
Lots of stuff to keep me busy through these dark and gloomy evenings! From a quick read of the figures quoted in the text posted by Geoff it would seem to be the case that the I-50 has the greater power of resolution and also better colour balance in comparison to the I-22.

As it happens I collected the camera today.
I've another three days 'proper' shooting to finish before I can start to play around for my own amusement but I'll certainly compare the I-50 with various similar lenses on my trusty old M9-P just to see what happens. Shooting double page spreads from a newspaper isn't the most exciting prospect but I might learn a thing or two about how various lenses perform.

A few months ago I picked up a 1975 J-12 in LTM and, in a back-to-back comparison with a 35mm Leitz Summaron-M, was astonished by how good was its performance in a 'real-world' situation. Not nearly as good at the very edges as the Summaron, as one might expect, but over perhaps 95% of the picture area it was really very good indeed. Also surprisingly rectilinear.

Nice to see a Zorki-2 for a change; I'd like one but it would be daft to add another camera to the heap; they do cost a lot and I'd never use the self timer anyway...

Hmmm...The Zorki 2...

Oddly enough, David, one of the attractions which the Z-2 held for me was the provision of strap-lugs. Leather ERC's are all very well for protection during travel and I do like them, really, but are a bit of a faff when out snapping.
I was also fascinated by the Z-2's place in the history of FSU cameras and the fact that you don't come across them every day.
As far as price goes? Well, OK, they cost a little bit more than a 'regular' Zorki 1 but in the grand scheme of things - and certainly in comparison to anything stamped 'Wetzlar' - they are not so terribly expensive.

Thanks again, everyone!

Philip.

 

[Steve M.]

The lack of strap lugs is what finally forced me to sell my Zorki many years ago. To some people it's not a big deal, but I just wanted to shoot the camera w/o it being in a case. You'll be pleased with the lens on your camera. All of my SFU 50 lenses were sharp as a tack, certainly sharper than my Elmars. They do image like a Tessar though, which is what they are, so you don't get that Leica sort of IQ, but w/ the almost 3D sharpness to your pictures you probably won't miss it either. Nor will you miss the fiddly aperture setting on the Elmars.

For anyone who's interested, here's an I-50 on Etsy for $19, and the shipping amount is reasonable.

https://www.etsy.com/listing/617828...MIhoX-hvmz4AIVnLrACh3pcwA8EAYYAiABEgImTPD_BwE

 

[David Hughes]

Hmmm, the mst reasonable Zorki-2's I've seen were between 150 and 250 pounds. (Here "reasonable" means undamaged and supposed to be working.)

My FEDs and Zorkis average about 24 pounds and include a 1930's one with the f/2 lens on it.

If I add in two exotic early FEDs then the average come up to 39 pounds. My cheapest lenses were two for a pound and I gave one away to someone in Greece who was envious...

I'm not sure where I stand about lugs, only the IIIc, the FED-2 and the Zorki-6 have them and I don't think I've a strap to fit and so have not bothered.

Regards, David

 

[pippy]

...You'll be pleased with the lens on your camera. All of my SFU 50 lenses were sharp as a tack, certainly sharper than my Elmars. They do image like a Tessar though, which is what they are, so you don't get that Leica sort of IQ, but w/ the almost 3D sharpness to your pictures you probably won't miss it either. Nor will you miss the fiddly aperture setting on the Elmars....

That's an interesting amount of info, Steve. Thanks.

I will be including a 1935 Elmar with the FSU bits and probably a well-scrubbed Summar just for fits and giggles as well. I'm not sure popping the Summicron into the mix would be quite fair but we'll see.

Funnily enough I've never owned a Tessar. I've used Leitz optics for 40 years or so but the first actual Zeiss lens I've owned I just bought a fortnight before Xmas last year - a pre-war Sonnar attached to a Contax II - which, sad to relate, I've not yet used.
I have got a few various Sonnar-design lenses which I use on the M9-P and love the way they render but from your description I'm guessing the I-50 will be a very different proposition.

Thanks again.

Philip

 

[pippy]

Hmmm, the mst reasonable Zorki-2's I've seen were between 150 and 250 pounds. (Here "reasonable" means undamaged and supposed to be working.)

My FEDs and Zorkis average about 24 pounds and include a 1930's one with the f/2 lens on it.

If I add in two exotic early FEDs then the average come up to 39 pounds. My cheapest lenses were two for a pound and I gave one away to someone in Greece who was envious...

Goodness!

I applaud your shopping ability, David! Where do you find them?!?! Even my cheapest Fed was £40 and the earliest was a fair bit more. On the plus side I did manage to pick up a Kiev 4 in mint condition for a whopping £3.43 post&packaging included...

I suppose it's all relative. For my pro work I need to shoot with high-end DSLRs and for all my personal work I use digital Leica M kit so in comparison to what I normally use almost any FSU kit - TSVVS apart(!) - seems very reasonable price-wise!

As far as straps go;
I bought a wrist-strap which screws into the tripod screw bush to use with the Feds and Zorki 1's but it's not an ideal solution. Usually I just carry them 'naked' and try not to drop them too often...

Philip.

EDIT : In case you have missed it, David, and are still curious about the screw in your early Fed I've posted a couple of snaps showing mine for comparison purposes in the appropriate thread.

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

I buy them all over the place but the average doesn't give a true picture. Years and years ago I paid nearly £40 for the first but there's the www and so on to add to the mix, meaning that - as I got to know them and ebay - the prices got lower and lower until I was paying a pound or two and getting some nice cameras and then I didn't by any for a while; sorted the heap out and started selling off to get exactly what I wanted but by then I was competing with a lot of people. Just recently I've noticed prices dropping and the competition fading...

Having said all that, the cheapest that I have kept because it was a decent example cost 99p and the dearest £164 Take the two extremes from the list of those kept and the average drops to £38 which should be more meaningful. The other factor is that if I have two the same, I sell the ones that cost least so I have more to spend on the next one. It makes it easier to explain to my wife...

The real snag is that being fussy means getting 1930's spools, cases and lens caps etc and that can be dearer than the cameras. OTOH I'm very pleased with the things at the moment but it looks as if the time when they start needing servicing is coming.

Regards, David

PS And I doubt if I'll ever get a 1934 instruction manual for the elderly ones but I shall go on looking.