NormanV
Member
What is the difference between an Industar 50 and an Industar 22? They are both 50mm f3.5 lenses.
Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
I've seen some sites that have data to suggest the resolution of the I-50 is better than the I-22. Also, some claim the coatings were improved between the I-22 and the I-50.
However, it seems most people can't really tell the difference between the two, and so quality and results will depend more on the condition of the lens than the number on the front.
However, it seems most people can't really tell the difference between the two, and so quality and results will depend more on the condition of the lens than the number on the front.
john341
camera user
I-50 or I-22
I-50 or I-22
I have both and have used them with colour slides and I can say that I cannot see much difference. I imagine that the colour from the I-50 is some saturated than the I-22. The I-50 seems to have a darker coating. Really there is not much between them, I think. Nice lenses though..
I-50 or I-22
I have both and have used them with colour slides and I can say that I cannot see much difference. I imagine that the colour from the I-50 is some saturated than the I-22. The I-50 seems to have a darker coating. Really there is not much between them, I think. Nice lenses though..
wolves3012
Veteran
I also have both and find the difference in the real world is nothing. Both are sharp lenses. As Coldkennels says, The I-50 supposedly has higher resolution but I think you'd need to photograph a proper chart to find the difference. The I-50 was mostly made in rigid mounts, which are possibly not as convenient as the collapsibles.
Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
On a side note: why would anyone use the non-collapsible I-50? I don't mind the f3.5 limitation of my I-22 because it's collapsible, but if you're using a fixed lens, even the I-26 at f2.8 would be preferable, surely?
It doesn't even look good (IMHO).
Anyway, yes. Collapsible Industars: All good. Just watch out for the I-10 (which just says FED on the front instead of Industar), because a lot of them are based on non-standard flange-to-film distances. I found that out the hard way. :bang:
And while I don't have any I-50 shots for comparison, I find it hard to imagine they could beat this I-22:
Attachments
Valkir1987
Well-known
The coated ones are standardized to 28.8mm. They came with the Fed1g. I prefer them over the I-22 and 50.
fanshaw
Well-known
Valkir1987
Well-known
Lenses and camera's where standardized in the post war production range. Shimming is neccesary when someone has lost a few shimms when the camera or lens was disassambled for lubrication. That's often.
So far I repaired and CLA'd dozens of FSU camera's. I read many compliants about quality controll problems. I seldom open a camera which hasn't been serviced or opened before in an attempt to self repair.
I got a Zorki 2C yesterday over the mail. Its working distance measured out 28.5mm instead of 28.8mm. You can see the screws have been used before, and inside a screw is missing.
rbiemer
Unabashed Amateur
I have had both the rigid and the collapsible I-50 and like how the photos I take with them look. No preference for one over the other but the rigid I-50 makes me more comfortable when it's on my Bessa. No worries about collapsing it and possibly damaging the shutter or other stuff inside the film chamber.
And no worries about this happening:
As well, I actually think mine looks pretty good:
In a 1950s industrial sort of way...
Frankly, I have never liked using any of the Industar-61 lenses I've had; the optics were fine but the lenses were, for me, just ugly and poorly made. How many different colors of indifferently silk screened ink can be put on one lens anyway?
The I-26 is much better, I think, and when I find a good, early, tabbed version I will get another one.
Rob
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Isn't this something of a vicious circle? The cameras are worth next to nothing, so people have no compunction about going inside them to fix real or imagined problems. Half the time they get it right; the other half the time they make things worse, at which point the options are scrapping the camera (including cannibalizing it for parts) or sending it to someone such as yourself who knows they're doing.
Remember, too, the old saying: If it doesn't fit, do not force it. Get a bigger hammer.
Cheers,
R.
gb hill
Veteran
Rob beat me to it, but collapsable lenses & Bessa's don't make a good partnership. I have a I 50 rigid I don't use nearly enough that I love with B&W film. The bokeh is very nice, at least I like it.
je2a3
je
As an aside, there was a 'rigid' I-22 also...
...IMO, nicer mount than the later rigid I-50. But IME they all have similar performance.
...IMO, nicer mount than the later rigid I-50. But IME they all have similar performance.
dave lackey
Veteran
Rob beat me to it, but collapsable lenses & Bessa's don't make a good partnership. I have a I 50 rigid I don't use nearly enough that I love with B&W film. The bokeh is very nice, at least I like it.
Very nice, Greg! That image alone is why an Industar lens is a good lens to have and use! Thanks for posting...
rbiemer
Unabashed Amateur
This is why when I'm looking at used cameras--and not only FSU gear!--one of the first things I look to see is if there are any damaged screw heads. If there are then it's a pretty safe bet that some one who did not know what they were doing has been at the camera. Unfortunately, the reverse is not true.
Rob
Rob
rbiemer
Unabashed Amateur
Greg, that is a very good example of what the lens is capable of in good hands.
je2a3, the rigid I-22 is on my "want list" and it looks pretty good to me as well. I particularly like the tab on it.
What size for filters/hoods?
Rob
je2a3, the rigid I-22 is on my "want list" and it looks pretty good to me as well. I particularly like the tab on it.
What size for filters/hoods?
Rob
je2a3
je
Thanks! Elmar 50/3.5 Fison hood fits perfectly, no filter thread so A36 clamp on. It came with that Zorki 3, ebay USA seller, a few years back...good luck hunting!
rbiemer
Unabashed Amateur
Thanks for the info!
I use a SOOGZ adapter on my Elmar 9cm/f4 and on the I-50 (the rigid one has threads but they are a very tough to find 33mm. The few filters I've found are, apparently for the Iskra and not threaded on the front, just the rear.:bang so I can use it on an I-22 when I find a good one.
And, Norman: sorry to have hijacked your thread!
Rob
I use a SOOGZ adapter on my Elmar 9cm/f4 and on the I-50 (the rigid one has threads but they are a very tough to find 33mm. The few filters I've found are, apparently for the Iskra and not threaded on the front, just the rear.:bang
so I can use it on an I-22 when I find a good one.And, Norman: sorry to have hijacked your thread!
Rob
dee
Well-known
The rigid I 22 of 1954 / 5 is a neat lens , but all 3 of mine have very loose aperture rings .
I am informed by the Russian guy who cleaned and lubed two of them [ 'cos one he sent was faulty , so he fixed the original and a replacement ] that they had problems with the mount construction , hence the change to the later ugly bug .
[ which looks much neater with a black leather ' collar ' around it !
My Fed I 10 matches the M8 perfectly and is somehow ' sparkling ' in colour .
Not accurate , perhaps , but lovely .
I am informed by the Russian guy who cleaned and lubed two of them [ 'cos one he sent was faulty , so he fixed the original and a replacement ] that they had problems with the mount construction , hence the change to the later ugly bug .
[ which looks much neater with a black leather ' collar ' around it !
My Fed I 10 matches the M8 perfectly and is somehow ' sparkling ' in colour .
Not accurate , perhaps , but lovely .
Attachments
NormanV
Member
Don't worry about hijacking, it is all education to me.
fanshaw
Well-known
It is often said that they were standardised, but nonetheless owners who wanted to fit a new lens were instructed to bring the camera and lens to a repair centre so that the combination could be adjusted to work properly. The Soviets were unable to make components to the the standards of precision that we take for granted today. Cameras and lenses were matched pairs set up manually with the use of shims. Later models are much more consistent, suggesting that production methods were modernised.