Is the Industar 61L/D good enough?

[Carriage]

So I own both the Industar 61L/d and the CV 50mm 1.5 Nokton and while sometimes I'd like to bring a 50mm with me and would prefer the pocketability of the Industar I find it difficult to do so in case I regret the quality I get out of the lens if I manage a good shot when I had a better lens at home, which is not THAT big. How good is the Industar? I have never printed larger than 10x8 but that doesn't mean I wouldn't like to go larger in the future. I suppose this is something I'd be best answering for myself with some testing given I already own both and it would end up being specific to my copies.

Has anyone else had a similar dilemma? Thoughts?

 

[Carriage]

I've just remembered that I have some precisa (provia) slides that I shot with this lens, which I can look at but the question still stands in a general sense too.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

It depends on particular lens copy. A LOT.
It is popular for its sharpness.
Which camera film or digi? Good copy of this lens must be sharp enough for slightly bigger of 8x10.

 

[Carriage]

Bessa R. Usually HP5+ if that matters.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I would test it with focus check target to see if it is accurate on R. Correct alignment makes huge difference in sharpness.

 

[Moto-Uno]

If it's comparable to my Industar 61 l/z then it's a fine lens . Peter

 

[mcfingon]

The 61 L/D I have is very sharp. The only thing that brings it down is flare if the sun hits the front element, so shading with your hand or a hood is a good idea for against the light shots.

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

The answer to problems like this very simple; test it.

A few frames out of 36 or 37 is a small price to decide matters and the results will be correct for your lens and not a guess based on someone else's lens which may well be a bit different to your one.

Regards, David

 

[newfilm]

Image quality from Industar 61LD is Good Enough, but.... I dont find it "pockatable".

 

[mpaniagua]

Like Ko.Fe. said, it depends on your copy. Len's glasses are pretty sharp and good, but some examples need to be adjusted to your camera for proper focus (shimmed). Ive 3 of them and all of them are pretty good, say as good as a Canon 1.8 LTM.

Only way to know, as was said before, is to test yours and see.


Regards

Marcelo

 

[Fotohuis]

The I-61 Zebra or L/D can be very good depending how good the assembly has been done.

I have done a test for 50mm lenses incl. a Leica Summicron F/2,0-50mm (Version IV), Jupiters and an I-61 as an I-50 as well.
At full aperture the I-61 was after the Leica lens in sharpness and overall quality the best.
But the lens had a full CLA which was more expensive then the lens itself. So here is the breaking point: Getting an I-61 for Eur. 20 is not a problem. To get it well serviced for Eur. 20 is already a bigger problem.

Well with the new CLA I hope that this lens will perform well the next coming 40 years.

 

[David Hughes]

Hmmm, and I would add that if it's nearly as good as a posh lens then it's worth paying for the work. I doubt if the price of an old lens from the USSR's factories plus checking and adjusting would exceed the cost of a posh lens from a dealer and both would have some sort of guarantee; perhaps even the same sort of guarantee.

Regards, David.

 

[p.giannakis]

I had a I/61 L/D and it was a very nice lens. Sold it when I sold my Fed-3. The next one I got together with a fed-5 put me off for good. Flare and very soft even at f/5.6.

 

[rybolt]

I gave up chasing the Sharpness Dragon with the Industar and found one that gave me a 'look' that I liked. Now I use it a lot with both the Fuji and the M9.

 

[tbhv55]

Like Ko.Fe. said, it depends on your copy. Len's glasses are pretty sharp and good, but some examples need to be adjusted to your camera for proper focus (shimmed). Ive 3 of them and all of them are pretty good, say as good as a Canon 1.8 LTM.

I agree - as it happens, I have the following:-

Industar I-61 (x1)
Industar I-61 L/D (x1)
Jupiter 8 (x3)
Canon f/1.8 LTM (x1)
​

I see little to choose between them at 'normal' apertures, unless you're a serious pixel-peeper.

I do detect a small advantage with the Canon at apertures wider than f/2.8 - but that lens cost a lot more than the Industars and Jupiters.

 

[tbhv55]

I gave up chasing the Sharpness Dragon with the Industar and found one that gave me a 'look' that I liked.

Likewise... I gave up the sharpness thing a few years ago. A mug's game, IMO. The 'look' of the rendering is of much greater interest to me, now.

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

It's interesting that they are all like the little girl, who had a little curl...

Cultural note; that's from a nursery rhyme. it continues 'and when she was good, she was very good and when she was bad she was horrid'.

Regards, David

 

[gb hill]

May I suggest a J8. Cheap in price & more pocketable than the I-61, I have both. & the J8can be easily shimmed to your Bessa R. That's what I shoot with. The J8 I bought was already shimmed for the Bessa R so I didn't have to shim it but you can cut the shims using plastic. The shims in mine are thin to get the rear glass closer to the film plane. My J3 was front focusing because it had too thick a shim so I cut a thinner shim & screwed out the rear glass toward the film plain. It's easy & my copies of both are very good too.

 

[Fotohuis]

I am using my FSU lenses on film FSU gear only, so without any shimms: Zorki-6, FED-3 or a Kiev-4AM. The Jupiter-8 is the most flexible lens F/2,0-50mm comparing to an Industar a tick softer but at F/4 both are equal. The best FSU lenses are the more older type so I can imagine that an I-61 on a FED-5 from 1990 is crap comparing with a type from approx. 1970 or earlier. You can see it on the Kiev RF cameras to: After approx. 1980 they all have become crappy. But on the older FSU cameras you need some maintenance. The Sovjet grease was already not of that good quality so after 50-60 years on Alu on Alu material it is worse. If you want trouble free working on a Zorki-6 from 1961 which has the same age as I am you have to do something about it. The same for the lenses. But OK I do not collect cams and lenses, I just using them. So for me it is important that they are working trouble free, which is possible. My preference are the types without the slow shutter speeds, Zorki-6 I like very much. And the Kiev RF with Contax bayonet. The design from Contax with Zeiss lenses were in that time era extremely good, so from the drawning in 1936 till the latest models in 1988 made with some minor modifications is a very very long period.

 

[tbhv55]

But on the older FSU cameras you need some maintenance. The Sovjet grease was already not of that good quality so after 50-60 years on Alu on Alu material it is worse. If you want trouble free working on a Zorki-6 from 1961 which has the same age as I am you have to do something about it. The same for the lenses.

True - the grease can be a real problem. I stripped down one of my Jupiter 8s and the I-61 L/D, cleaned them with isopropyl alcohol, and re-lubed with lithium grease.

The improvement was spectacular... the focus action was buttery-smooth after the overhaul! 🙂