Industar 50-2 f/3.5

[Snodge]

I took my recently acquired Industar 50-2 f/3.5 lens for a quick test run yesterday. Here's a quick picture of this tiny weeny lens (taken with a 35mm Porst f/2.8 at ISO 1600 just for kicks!):



I tried a few different scenarios - first the bokeh:



Seems quite good to me, sometimes it seemed to get a bit busy, other times where you'd think it would look like a complete dogs dinner, it was fine.

The next one is shot directly into the sun:



There is some flare there, which is hardly surprising given the design of the lens. In fact, when taking this shot, when moving the focus ring you could see a pattern from the serrated edge. Definitely could benefit from a lens hood!

This next image is something just to show how well it handles a reasonably lit scene in the afternoon sun, pointing away from the sun this time:



I set this at the hyperfocal distance for f/8, so it's just slightly out of focus in the background.

Generally speaking, it seems quite a sharp lens at smaller apertures, the bokeh seems quite pleasant, and due to it's size, it is very light. All the above images were taken on a Canon 5D3 and exported from Lightroom with default settings.

Oh, and one more thing - this particular lens takes a 36mm push-on lens cap - the actual lens caps must have been terrible as the lenses on ebay never seem to come with them, so if anyone does want a cheap bargain lens and needs a lens cap, bear that in mind (also, I believe that the newer versions may use a different size for the cap!).

Thanks...

[Drack]

The first image is very nice, but in general, your copy lack contrast quite a bit. Most of my I-50-2 perform better. I once cleaned a copy that had a lot of fungus, and even though the fungus was completely gone, the results with it where similar to yours. Anyway, it is a very nice lens, I do recommend it to everyone .

[Snodge]

I think it's due to not having any coatings, so it's quite a low contrast lens. My Helios 44-2 also doesn't have any lens coatings, but there's something about these lenses that can make them work quite well in certain situations.

If I was posting up on Google+ I usually do some editing first (for example, this birch tree was also taken with the Industar 50-2 and it's been tweaked about with...

[Attila]

[Drack]

[tromboads]

Scandal!

The 50-2 is such a wonderful little nugget of a thing. If I honestly only had to have one.. yeah ok it probably wouldn't be it, but heck... I suppose it's not difficult to clone a Tessar

[Snodge]

[Drack]

[Snodge]

[philslizzy]

I had an I-50 on my first Zenit. It was a truly awful lens, no contrast and terrible at the edges. Now with crop sensors we are losing all that terrible edge definition. I have a 1954 rangefinder version that came with a Zorki 2C which I intend to use to see if it is any better than the 1973 version.

[Drack]

[RSalles]

[aidaho]

I saw this lens being sold for next to nothing, while on the trip.
Since I had my Helios with me, and as a consequence, M42-to-NEX adapter, thought might as well pick it up.



Moskvitch 2137 by Curry Hexagon, on Flickr


Industar 50-2 close up bokeh by Curry Hexagon, on Flickr

The lens in question was manufactured in 1980 and can sure benefit from a little maintenance. Seems like original grease is all gunked up.

The sharpness is not outstanding, but impressive even wide open.
Bokeh is nervous, wide open it has a touch of a swirly background.
Flares easily. Aperture is declicked.

This full frame lens weights less than its Sony E adapter (yeah, I've checked), yet still is able to deliver on modern camera.

[miran]

Very nice. I have to take mine out for a walk some day. It's amazing how such a tiny little lens can actually produce more than decent photos.