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

Industar 50-2 f/3.5
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sat Jan 03, 2015 7:28 pm    Post subject: Industar 50-2 f/3.5 Reply with quote

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...


PostPosted: Sat Jan 03, 2015 9:36 pm    Post subject: Re: Industar 50-2 f/3.5 Reply with quote

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 Smile .


PostPosted: Sat Jan 03, 2015 9:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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...


PostPosted: Sat Jan 03, 2015 10:19 pm    Post subject: Re: Industar 50-2 f/3.5 Reply with quote

Drack wrote:
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 Smile .


+1


PostPosted: Sun Jan 04, 2015 6:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Snodge wrote:
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...


Why don`t they have coating? Did somebody remove it ?


PostPosted: Mon Jan 05, 2015 11:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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


PostPosted: Mon Jan 05, 2015 6:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Drack wrote:

Why don`t they have coating? Did somebody remove it ?


The lenses when they were made were just made without coatings. It keeps them cheap, and I guess it's after this that they started making more expensive lenses with coatings on that provided better contrast and helped to cut down on this like lens flare etc.

I think the Industar 50 and 50-2 lenses are around some of the cheapest you can get...


PostPosted: Mon Jan 05, 2015 8:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Snodge wrote:
Drack wrote:

Why don`t they have coating? Did somebody remove it ?


The lenses when they were made were just made without coatings. It keeps them cheap, and I guess it's after this that they started making more expensive lenses with coatings on that provided better contrast and helped to cut down on this like lens flare etc.

I think the Industar 50 and 50-2 lenses are around some of the cheapest you can get...


You are wrong. Both the I-50-2 and the Helios-44-2 have coating. I do not think they are multi-coated, but the coating is there.


PostPosted: Mon Jan 05, 2015 9:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Drack wrote:
Snodge wrote:
Drack wrote:

Why don`t they have coating? Did somebody remove it ?


The lenses when they were made were just made without coatings. It keeps them cheap, and I guess it's after this that they started making more expensive lenses with coatings on that provided better contrast and helped to cut down on this like lens flare etc.

I think the Industar 50 and 50-2 lenses are around some of the cheapest you can get...


You are wrong. Both the I-50-2 and the Helios-44-2 have coating. I do not think they are multi-coated, but the coating is there.


Consider me mistaken! Smile


PostPosted: Tue Jan 06, 2015 10:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.


PostPosted: Tue Jan 06, 2015 11:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

philslizzy wrote:
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.


I`ve used multiple I-50 over my time collecting Russian gear, and I have to say, that there ar a LOT of difference in quality amongst them. The collapsible RF versions are very nice and capable lenses, whereas the majority of newer copies differ a lot. SLR versions of this lens differ the same, despite their age. However, it is still a wonderful lens.


PostPosted: Wed Jan 07, 2015 1:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

tromboads wrote:
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

On a first consideration,... Why to clone a Tessar - I mean a "real/original"Tessar design, not the google number variation of the original design.
And the second question: why not to clone a Tessar? A proven design, affordable to make, is like English as the 1st foreign language,

Best,

Renato


PostPosted: Sun May 27, 2018 10:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.


PostPosted: Mon May 28, 2018 9:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.