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

Industar-22
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2012 4:15 pm    Post subject: Industar-22 Reply with quote
This is collapsible Leica Elmar look alike 50mm/f3.5. Haven't been using it for a while, but decided to revisit. Pretty good lens, despite slow max aperture. Having many good lenses has its drawbacks: some of them don't get much use.

First the lens itself on my E-PL1:



A couple of old EPL-1 shots




Now shots with NEX-5





PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2012 5:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Seems nice, I really like its rendering.

Is there any problem with the housing when collapsed?


PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2012 7:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Collapsing is for storage/transport only. In order to focus you pull the lens out


PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2012 8:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
fermy wrote:
Collapsing is for storage/transport only. In order to focus you pull the lens out


Yes, I know that.

What I m asking is: when collapsed, does it hit on the inside of the camera?


PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2012 8:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
dsmlogger wrote:


What I m asking is: when collapsed, does it hit on the inside of the camera?


Yes it does. However it does not hit the sensor, only the black baffle around it. A simple solution is to put a rubber band near the top of the barrel. The band prevents the lens collapsing completely, then the operation is completely safe and you can still collapse the lens.


PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2012 9:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
fermy wrote:
dsmlogger wrote:


What I m asking is: when collapsed, does it hit on the inside of the camera?


Yes it does. However it does not hit the sensor, only the black baffle around it. A simple solution is to put a rubber band near the top of the barrel. The band prevents the lens collapsing completely, then the operation is completely safe and you can still collapse the lens.


Great news, thanks. The tip for the rubber band is very useful.

I'm off to eBay now to find me an Industar-22!


PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2012 11:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
My favourite LTM lens, you really prove it why Laughing nice samples from a great lens. I have multiply copies from this lens all are better than those Leica LTM lens what I did try. Elmarit, Summar


PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2012 11:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks, Attila. Really good lens. I have an Industar-61 L/D that is not any worse, but this one is so much cooler. The funny part is that this I-22 was so unloved that no one bid on it. I've got it for 1 Euro plus shipping. The shipping was 10x as I won it in Austria. Ridiculous for such a lens.


PostPosted: Fri Apr 13, 2012 12:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yes, old Russian RF lenses are hidden games, shame how people not respect it , they are pay good amount of money if labeled to Leica and willing to pay nothing if they are Russians , really shame...


PostPosted: Fri Apr 13, 2012 12:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yeah, I saw an obvious fake: "Golden Leica Elmar", which was just the same I-22 (one could easily tell that by looking at the aperture ring) go for 60+. People do pay for a badge, even a fake one Very Happy

The only problem with Soviet optics is that Quality control sucked, so one really gambles here. If you are lucky you end up with a great lens, but the risk to get a lemon is much higher than with Japanese or Germans.


PostPosted: Fri Apr 13, 2012 12:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
fermy wrote:
The only problem with Soviet optics is that Quality control sucked, so one really gambles here. If you are lucky you end up with a great lens, but the risk to get a lemon is much higher than with Japanese or Germans.


This is not really true, I bought and try 100+ Russian lenses, I found only one or two which was not good and they were still way better than cheap Japanese craps what you can buy for low amount. 'unknown' Japanese lenses usually all worst than Russian 'lemon' copies.
Russian RF lenses usually especially good ones I like those better what made before 1960 , but this is not means a late Russian lens not good I just prefer older ones.


PostPosted: Fri Apr 13, 2012 1:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I agree with Attila, not one of my Russians lenses has been less than excellent.

I have a 1955 I-22, a 1959 I-50 and a 1966 I-50, all three are really sharp, among my sharpest lenses.


PostPosted: Fri Apr 13, 2012 6:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have the lens, but I find it annoying when mounted on my FED/Zorki cameras so haven't used it.


PostPosted: Fri Apr 13, 2012 6:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
+1 for the collapsible I-22 and I-50s Very Happy
Sovietcams has a nice overview of all (?) I-22s that have been produced.

I can confirm that, when collapsed, the lens tube does not hit the sensor Embarassed


PostPosted: Fri Apr 13, 2012 10:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Attila wrote:
fermy wrote:
The only problem with Soviet optics is that Quality control sucked, so one really gambles here. If you are lucky you end up with a great lens, but the risk to get a lemon is much higher than with Japanese or Germans.


This is not really true, I bought and try 100+ Russian lenses, I found only one or two which was not good and they were still way better than cheap Japanese craps what you can buy for low amount. 'unknown' Japanese lenses usually all worst than Russian 'lemon' copies.
Russian RF lenses usually especially good ones I like those better what made before 1960 , but this is not means a late Russian lens not good I just prefer older ones.


Well, even the "unknown" Japanese lenses have better quality control, it just ensures that the lenses are uniformly crap Smile. Seriously though, having lived in former Soviet Union half of my life, I know first hand how the quality of pretty much anything is usually all over the place. Vintage Japanese brands are usually much more consistent.

I've been lucky with my Russian RF lenses so far, and your experience is remarkable. Still I see plenty of people in the forums claiming that their Industar or Jupiter are utter crap. This can only be due to wild quality variations. The worst one sees written about Canon FD or Konica is that the lens is nothing special.


PostPosted: Fri Apr 13, 2012 10:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Great reference, Fotomachi! If we go by Sovietcams, my I-22 is PT5870, the latest generation lens produced in 1956.


PostPosted: Fri Apr 13, 2012 12:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
fermy wrote:
Attila wrote:
fermy wrote:
The only problem with Soviet optics is that Quality control sucked, so one really gambles here. If you are lucky you end up with a great lens, but the risk to get a lemon is much higher than with Japanese or Germans.


This is not really true, I bought and try 100+ Russian lenses, I found only one or two which was not good and they were still way better than cheap Japanese craps what you can buy for low amount. 'unknown' Japanese lenses usually all worst than Russian 'lemon' copies.
Russian RF lenses usually especially good ones I like those better what made before 1960 , but this is not means a late Russian lens not good I just prefer older ones.


Well, even the "unknown" Japanese lenses have better quality control, it just ensures that the lenses are uniformly crap Smile. Seriously though, having lived in former Soviet Union half of my life, I know first hand how the quality of pretty much anything is usually all over the place. Vintage Japanese brands are usually much more consistent.

I've been lucky with my Russian RF lenses so far, and your experience is remarkable. Still I see plenty of people in the forums claiming that their Industar or Jupiter are utter crap. This can only be due to wild quality variations. The worst one sees written about Canon FD or Konica is that the lens is nothing special.


You're making a typical mistake - basing your opinion on what you think and things you heard rather than direct experience.

Please find these examples of utter crap lenses, that would be valid then, otherwise it's just your opinion.


PostPosted: Fri Apr 13, 2012 3:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:


You're making a typical mistake - basing your opinion on what you think and things you heard rather than direct experience.

Please find these examples of utter crap lenses, that would be valid then, otherwise it's just your opinion.


As I've said, I have very extensive and direct experience with Soviet products, much more than you'd ever want to have Smile.

Unless I am stating hard facts (e.g. I-22 is 50mm lens) , everything I write is just my opinion, just as everything you write is just yours. When someone writes "my I-61 was crap", to me this is an evidence that crap copies do exist, and a number of such posts is a good evidence that bad copies are common. I don't need to experience them first hand, and I hope I never will. It's really much more fun to report how great the lens is.

Here are a couple of negative experiences along with positive ones. IMHO a strong evidence of large variations between the copies:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1042&message=37954556
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1042&message=39006730
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1041&message=37365597
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1