Home
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Industar-61L/D Fail
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sat Oct 07, 2017 5:15 pm    Post subject: Industar-61L/D Fail Reply with quote

So I have a 1990 Industar-61L/D, the glass is not visibly yellow, yet I get a very low contrast and very murky yellow haze in the images wide open, which improves a bit at F4. Overall, the contrast is quite weak, and not as sharp as others seem to have it. The day was extremely overcast, and the lighting was totally flat so it's definitely a worse-case scenario as far as lens performance goes. I was astounded by the amount of flare caused by the blank sky alone! It's supposed to be multicoated but I get the impression that it might actually be better if it weren't coated at all...

For example, adapted to my Panasonic GM1 2x crop, shot in RAW, WB at 5500K:

At F2.8:


At F4:


Minolta at F2.8:


Industar At F2.8:


Industar At F4:


It was also disappointing to see that the Minolta Super Rokkor was as detailed at F1.8, and more detailed and clear at F2, than the Industar was at F4... maybe not surprising to some but I had faith in the Tessar. At least it did appear to have a much flatter field than the Minolta, unless I did something wrong with my focus and framing - resolution fell off steeply with the Rokkor. I'm sure I have a poor copy of the Industar but are they all this bad? I mean, the resolution is not terrible given its diminutive size considered, but this lens has a reputation for strong contrast and good sharpness.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 07, 2017 7:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have the same lens, both normal and l/d, not the sharpest or most contrasty but usually better than your first two examples.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 08, 2017 6:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have the same lens, it's definitely not as flat as that...


PostPosted: Sun Oct 08, 2017 2:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I tested it again indoors with a ceiling light not within the scene, but above the camera so I can confirm that It's flare into the lens reducing the constrast and not a problem with my adapter... so I guess the lens needs a deep hood. It's the first lens where I've ever had a problem like this - for a 1971/1990 coating, it's... rubbish. I actually can't believe it is so bad. Did you guys test without a hood too?


PostPosted: Mon Oct 09, 2017 8:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Teemō wrote:
I tested it again indoors with a ceiling light not within the scene, but above the camera so I can confirm that It's flare into the lens reducing the constrast and not a problem with my adapter... so I guess the lens needs a deep hood. It's the first lens where I've ever had a problem like this - for a 1971/1990 coating, it's... rubbish. I actually can't believe it is so bad. Did you guys test without a hood too?


I used mine 3 weeks ago on my a7, no hood. 1985, non l/d, black and silver version, orange coating.

f4 or 5.6


2.8


2.8


PostPosted: Wed Oct 11, 2017 11:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yours seem to have better contrast than mine, and without the golden flare. Unless there is something not at spec about my lens/lens coating, I'd guess the flare may be extra reflections of the sensor stack of my camera. I checked my adapter and there is no light leak. I must take a few shots with it on film to see if it's the same.
Thanks for your replies.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 11, 2017 7:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Looking at the images only, I would guess it has a thin film of haze on one of the interior elements.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 11, 2017 8:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Something is wrong with your lens. Check that the interior surfaces are clean and that the rear light baffle is in place.

I CLA'd this one, these are test shots on the M9.

Fall 2015 by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

Fall 2015 by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

Fall 2015 by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

This is a very good Tessar formula lens.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 12, 2017 1:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Buy another one. They are ridiculously inexpensive for the quality of optics you get.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/INDUSTAR-61-L-D-M39-55mm-f-2-8-Leica-Soviet-Russian-Lens-for-Zorki-FED-/182819087279?hash=item2a90dde3af:g:DB0AAOSw4QVZ18Zc


PostPosted: Sat Oct 14, 2017 6:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Taken without a lens hood on a Canon 5D3...



PostPosted: Wed Oct 18, 2017 1:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Always buy the 61LZ,close focusing,deeply recessed no need for hood and it performs rather well.....





PostPosted: Wed Nov 22, 2017 8:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've been meaning to come back to this thread and can say that I've since tested it on clear days and again on overcast days after cleaning the front and rear elements, the contrast is a bit better, and it's definitely not as bad during daylight as opposed to overcast/flat light. Detail seems to be a bit better now too.
Having said that, I tried it indoors shooting towards a large window, with a dining table in the scene. The image was very bright in the shadows under the table. I compared that to the Super Rokkor, which had properly dark shadows and contrast, and more neutral->blue colour balance (white balance set). I went back to the Industar and covered the window with my hand and took the same image, same settings as before, and now the shadows were as dark as the Minolta, the contrast almost as rich.

Inspired by that result, I took out my other Minolta standard lenses and compared their overall contrast at F2.8 outside, in the overcast and surprisingly it goes from best to worst:
MC-X 50/1.4 -slight difference-> LTM Super Rokkor 50/1.8 (incl. B+W 'UV-Haze MRC Nano' filter) -moderate difference-> MC-I 58/1.4 -large difference-> MC-II 55/1.7 -> Industar 61 L/D.

All lenses are clean.

That tells me that the total contrast and veiling flare in this situation has little to do with the age of the lens or the indicative era and quality of the coatings, or the size of the front element, and everything to do with the internal layout of the lens - internal reflections and the sensor filter stack. Some lenses and their coatings are clearly better or worse than others in good conditions, and so it depends much on the interaction of the coatings, and the internal layout of the lens, with the unique characteristics of the light in the scene - direct/indirect, high/low contrast. These were tested on a m43 GM1.

The Tessar was never going to be very detailed on a small sensor but everything about the contrast of lenses is really surprising. It's a concern on overcast days - which are not good for photography anyway. If you expose for the sky - the highlights (technically there aren't any highlights, just midtones) then naturally contrast looks better, as everything is darker, but doing this in some scenes will not leave any detail in the shadows. On sunny days colours just look a bit washed out, but you must stop down anyway.


PostPosted: Fri Nov 24, 2017 3:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just a long-shot, make sure that the rear light Baffle is in place on your lens. It makes a difference with reflections coming off the barrel. I had some spare light baffles from parts lenses, installed them in three early I-26m lenses- made a difference. The rear light baffle simply pushes into place, must be removed to get the rear element out.


PostPosted: Fri Nov 24, 2017 5:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

fiftyonepointsix wrote:
Just a long-shot, make sure that the rear light Baffle is in place on your lens. It makes a difference with reflections coming off the barrel. I had some spare light baffles from parts lenses, installed them in three early I-26m lenses- made a difference. The rear light baffle simply pushes into place, must be removed to get the rear element out.


It's in there. I was thinking that it may be a problem with reflections from the sensor stack, but then not all lenses are affected nearly the same, and all in a way I would not expect.