Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

A Garden stroll with the Industar 22, 50mm f3.5 LTM
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sun Apr 12, 2020 2:46 am    Post subject: A Garden stroll with the Industar 22, 50mm f3.5 LTM Reply with quote
What a coincidence to be using a similar lens to Paul on the same day.
No hiking for me , but a little stroll in the grden.
As Paul has said, get outside if you can.
Happy Easter to all
Tom

#1


#2


#3


#4


....and back to the kitchen
#5


....and the lens
#1


PostPosted: Sun Apr 12, 2020 6:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I can't get infinity focus with this lens on my adapter, which works quite well with other LTM lenses.
Puzzled.
Tom

#1


#2


PostPosted: Sun Apr 12, 2020 6:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
sehr gut

Like 1 Like 1 Like 1


PostPosted: Sun Apr 12, 2020 7:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Oldhand wrote:
I can't get infinity focus with this lens on my adapter, which works quite well with other LTM lenses.
Puzzled.
Tom


If that's the extendable Industar-22 you're referring to, it's quite possible the "infinity lock" plunger is fouling on the adaptor and preventing the lens focussing to infinity ... I removed the ones on my lenses, it simply unscrews, but you need a good grip on it to prevent damage if you anticipate reverting it to original at some point in the future. Alternatively maybe your adaptor could be modified/machined slightly to allow clearance Wink


PostPosted: Sun Apr 12, 2020 8:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
kypfer wrote:
Oldhand wrote:
I can't get infinity focus with this lens on my adapter, which works quite well with other LTM lenses.
Puzzled.
Tom


If that's the extendable Industar-22 you're referring to, it's quite possible the "infinity lock" plunger is fouling on the adaptor and preventing the lens focussing to infinity ... I removed the ones on my lenses, it simply unscrews, but you need a good grip on it to prevent damage if you anticipate reverting it to original at some point in the future. Alternatively maybe your adaptor could be modified/machined slightly to allow clearance Wink


Yes, that might work.
I'll give it a go.
Cheers
Tom


PostPosted: Sun Apr 12, 2020 8:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
With the industar I unsrew the lens a little click it to infinity and retign the lens. No need to take anything off, just move out of the problem.


PostPosted: Sun Apr 12, 2020 9:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
You can usually mod the adapter for clearance of the infinity lock, I just removed the plunger bit.


PostPosted: Sun Apr 12, 2020 10:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
An alternative is the 1950s version of the FED 50 3.5 (Industar 10), which did away with the 'push down' spring type mechanism on the locking tab, if that is what is causing the problem. It also retained the shorter barrel and so retracts fully into the Fuji X-E's.


PostPosted: Mon Apr 13, 2020 3:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks everyone for the suggestions.
I think that the easiest will be to grind off the locking tab at infinity, but leave the second part, the infinity stop in place.
Cheers
Tom

#1


PostPosted: Mon Apr 13, 2020 10:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Like 1 Like 1


PostPosted: Mon Apr 13, 2020 8:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Great shots Tom!

That Industar is certainly a gem - your images are all impressive, but I really like the rendering on the potato peeling pic!

The The LTM adapters are usually the easiest to adjust for slight changes to infinity focus. When I have encountered this problem, I have loosened the set screws around the outside of the adapter and remove the LTM threaded inner portion and sand off some of the material on the face of this inner ring. I accomplish this by taping a piece of fine emery cloth down to a flat surface and rubbing the ring on the abrasive. You only need to remove a relatively small amount of material.

Here is the abrasive I use:

https://www.amazon.com/3M-Assorted-Sandpaper-3-67-Inch-9-Inch/dp/B001AW4EAO?ref_=fsclp_pl_dp_11

In re-reading your post, it just occurred to me, I think I have misunderstood your infinity focus issue. It's not with the back focus but an interference with the infinity lock on the lens. I encountered this issue with a Leitz collapsible 35mm Summaron. In this case, I left the inner LTM threaded part of the adapter alone and faced down the front surface of the outer black portion of the adapter. to allow clearance for the back of the infinity lock. This requires removing a considerable amount of material, so I did it on a lathe. You can see by the front chrome surface on the adapter in this picture where I turned down the adapter.




All the best,

Paul


PostPosted: Mon Apr 13, 2020 10:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
pdccameras wrote:
Great shots Tom!

That Industar is certainly a gem - your images are all impressive, but I really like the rendering on the potato peeling pic!

The The LTM adapters are usually the easiest to adjust for slight changes to infinity focus. When I have encountered this problem, I have loosened the set screws around the outside of the adapter and remove the LTM threaded inner portion and sand off some of the material on the face of this inner ring. I accomplish this by taping a piece of fine emery cloth down to a flat surface and rubbing the ring on the abrasive. You only need to remove a relatively small amount of material.

Here is the abrasive I use:

https://www.amazon.com/3M-Assorted-Sandpaper-3-67-Inch-9-Inch/dp/B001AW4EAO?ref_=fsclp_pl_dp_11

In re-reading your post, it just occurred to me, I think I have misunderstood your infinity focus issue. It's not with the back focus but an interference with the infinity lock on the lens. I encountered this issue with a Leitz collapsible 35mm Summaron. In this case, I left the inner LTM threaded part of the adapter alone and faced down the front surface of the outer black portion of the adapter. to allow clearance for the back of the infinity lock. This requires removing a considerable amount of material, so I did it on a lathe. You can see by the front chrome surface on the adapter in this picture where I turned down the adapter.




All the best,

Paul


Thank you Paul,
I will give that a go if my lock tab idea does not work.
Happy snaps
Tom


PostPosted: Tue Apr 14, 2020 4:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
These flowers are tiny.
I used a small extension ring to get close with the Industar 22.
.
Tom

Oxalis flowers
#1


Yellow (?) poppy
#1


Wandering Jew
#2


PostPosted: Tue Apr 14, 2020 7:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nice photos!
I should give mine a try.


PostPosted: Wed Apr 15, 2020 8:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Like 1 Like 1 Like 1


PostPosted: Wed Apr 29, 2020 8:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Not garden shots this time but some from in town.
Tom


#1


#2


#3


#4


PostPosted: Wed Apr 29, 2020 9:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
The Industar-22 is indeed a remarkable lens. There is the rumor that it is a Leitz Elmar copy, I don't know if it's true.

Anyway, I have 2 different versions, an earlier collapsible one from 1951 and a rigid one from 1952:



So far I couldn't dedect any differences in optical quality; i.e. the pictures of both lenses appear to be identical.

Here is an example from the collapsible version with a 10 mm extension ring on the Sony A7R II uncropped and clickable for best quality:



At least for my taste a very nice bokeh.


PostPosted: Wed Apr 29, 2020 2:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Like 1 Like 1


PostPosted: Wed Apr 29, 2020 3:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
tb_a wrote:
The Industar-22 is indeed a remarkable lens. There is the rumor that it is a Leitz Elmar copy, I don't know if it's true.
At least for my taste a very nice bokeh.


Nice pictures Smile

Although the mechanical design causes these Industars to "look like" the Leitz lens, as far as I am aware the optical design is more closely related to the Tessar.

From what I remember, the optical layout is similar, both being four elements in three groups, two single lenses and a rear pair, the differences are primarily down to the placement of the aperture, the Elmar having the aperture between the front and second elements, whereas the Tessar has the aperture in front of the rear lens group. From this one might deduce that the performance "wide open" may be similar but differences in rendition may be seen at smaller apertures.

If I ever manage to beg, steal or borrow an Elmar I'll do some side-by-side tests Smile


PostPosted: Wed Apr 29, 2020 4:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kypfer wrote:
Nice pictures Smile

Although the mechanical design causes these Industars to "look like" the Leitz lens, as far as I am aware the optical design is more closely related to the Tessar.

From what I remember, the optical layout is similar, both being four elements in three groups, two single lenses and a rear pair, the differences are primarily down to the placement of the aperture, the Elmar having the aperture between the front and second elements, whereas the Tessar has the aperture in front of the rear lens group. From this one might deduce that the performance "wide open" may be similar but differences in rendition may be seen at smaller apertures.

If I ever manage to beg, steal or borrow an Elmar I'll do some side-by-side tests Smile


Thank you. The original Elmar is said to be a Cooke Triplet variant. For my taste it's looking like a Tessar as well.

I've found the respective drawings.

Elmar:



Industar:



Obviously the lens construction is identical. Just the position of the aperture is different.

However, I'll never do a comparison myself as I don't see the point to acquire the Elmar. I have already a Summicron. Wink


PostPosted: Wed Apr 29, 2020 5:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
tb_a wrote:
kypfer wrote:
Nice pictures Smile

Although the mechanical design causes these Industars to "look like" the Leitz lens, as far as I am aware the optical design is more closely related to the Tessar.

From what I remember, the optical layout is similar, both being four elements in three groups, two single lenses and a rear pair, the differences are primarily down to the placement of the aperture, the Elmar having the aperture between the front and second elements, whereas the Tessar has the aperture in front of the rear lens group. From this one might deduce that the performance "wide open" may be similar but differences in rendition may be seen at smaller apertures.

If I ever manage to beg, steal or borrow an Elmar I'll do some side-by-side tests Smile


Thank you. The original Elmar is said to be a Cooke Triplet variant. For my taste it's looking like a Tessar as well.

Obviously the lens construction is identical. Just the position of the aperture is different.

However, I'll never do a comparison myself as I don't see the point to acquire the Elmar. I have already a Summicron. Wink


It's the position of the apertures which provides a hint at the different routes of these two 3.5 50 lenses to the same solution. They are not straight copies of each other, at least optically and as the Industar developed, it moved further away from the Elmar mechanically too. The Industar 10 is dimensionally and mechanically similar to the Elmar, the 22 has a longer barrel as one difference, in an attempt to increase contrast. The Industar was based on Paul Rudolph's 1902 Tessar design, the Elmar from Max Berak's 1925 Elmax, which in turn, I've read, was a development from the 1893 Cooke Triplet.

I'm more than happy to be corrected. We're all here to learn and enjoy.


PostPosted: Wed Apr 29, 2020 9:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Sciolist wrote:
The Industar was based on Paul Rudolph's 1902 Tessar design, the Elmar from Max Berak's 1925 Elmax, which in turn, I've read, was a development from the 1893 Cooke Triplet.

I'm more than happy to be corrected. We're all here to learn and enjoy.


Well, there are many stories and versions around. IMHO the Elmar is a Tessar type design as well, the main difference is the location of the aperture. Other than that the drawing looks almost identical. I'm not able to see anything in common with the Cooke Triplet drawing. But I don't really know where this story is coming from. The copyright of the Tessar expired 1922 anyway and the Elmax was "invented" 1925.
The different sources about Russian lenses sometimes state that the Industar (originally pre-war FED 50/3.5) is an Elmar copy and other sources refer to the Tessar. I think both are somehow right. Wink


PostPosted: Thu Apr 30, 2020 7:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
It might be helpful to link my old thread about the Industar 22 and 50 here as well. It includes also some interesting informations.

http://forum.mflenses.com/kmz-industar-22-50mm-f3-5-rigit-white-m39-ltm-t72542.html


PostPosted: Thu Apr 30, 2020 9:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
tb_a wrote:
Sciolist wrote:
The Industar was based on Paul Rudolph's 1902 Tessar design, the Elmar from Max Berak's 1925 Elmax, which in turn, I've read, was a development from the 1893 Cooke Triplet.

I'm more than happy to be corrected. We're all here to learn and enjoy.


Well, there are many stories and versions around. IMHO the Elmar is a Tessar type design as well, the main difference is the location of the aperture. Other than that the drawing looks almost identical. I'm not able to see anything in common with the Cooke Triplet drawing. But I don't really know where this story is coming from. The copyright of the Tessar expired 1922 anyway and the Elmax was "invented" 1925.
The different sources about Russian lenses sometimes state that the Industar (originally pre-war FED 50/3.5) is an Elmar copy and other sources refer to the Tessar. I think both are somehow right. Wink


The discussion isn't whether the Elmar is a Tessar design tb_a, but whether the Industar an Elmar copy. That is what I've discussed.

If the drawings are taken from patent, they were often 'adjusted' or made vague in order to avoid making it too easy to copy them. But in this case the drawings a perfect for the purpose they are being used for here.

I didn't say the Elmar had a commonality with the Cooke Triplet, I stated the Elmax was a development from the Cooke Triplet.

The Elmax wasn't "invented" in 1925. It was put into production and fitted to the Leica Model A in 1925. The prototype was ready in 1923. As you can imagine, there would be a development time. Leica fan, Thorsten Von Overgaard believes Berek started after the war ended.

If the FED 50/3.5 was an Elmar copy, it would not have worked on the FED camera it was designed for. Better candidates for straight Elmar copies are the many produced in Japan, I'd say.


PostPosted: Thu Apr 30, 2020 10:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Sciolist wrote:
The prototype was ready in 1923. As you can imagine, there would be a development time. Leica fan, Thorsten Von Overgaard believes Berek started after the war ended.


Well, that would be an explaination of the storyline to design a "new" lens with the Cooke Triplet myth as the Tessar was protected until 1922.

Reminds me on the Zeiss trick to modify the front lens to avoid copyright issues with Tronnier when they introduced the Rollei 50/1.8 lens.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2