Industar 61 or Micro-Nikkor 55/2.8 for 14,6 mpix?

[kansalliskalaCafe]

Sound like a strange question but the first one you can buy with 20 euros and the latter one is around and above 100 euros. And I'm not planning to buy FF Nikon body, at least for a while.

[WolverineX]

you must mean Industar 61 L/Z, because rangefinder version L/D isn't close focusing

[kansalliskala]

No, I actually do mean the rangefinder version.

Don't know if there is sense in this comparison, I'd just like to have a sharpish short tele to a crop camera.

Cheap

[WolverineX]

well, both are good lenses, only be careful with industar because of sample variance

[simbon4o]

Those lenses are not comparable... This nikkor is one of the sharpest lenses ever and the industar is one of the cheapest Russian crap for rangefinder. I can easily say that the nikkor will be sharper at 2.8 and the industar will never get that sharp at any aperture. Even the later macro model 61 L/Z is not micro nikkor sharp...

If you are looking for something small to stick on your mirrorless camera... than maybe you must take a look for other lenses. The micro nikkor is not small and compact but in terms of sharpness... it is difficult task to find something that sharp for that kind of money.

[calvin83]

Some late cheap 50s from late 70s to 80s are sharp enough on your 14MP camera if they stopped down to F2.8 even in the corners. For example, the Minolta MD 50/2(49mm filter).

[newst]

If you would like a smallish (for SLR) 50mm, inexpensive and super cheap, look into the Zenitar M 1.7/50.

For smaller, high quality but still not very expensive rangefinder lens I would look to the Jupiter-8 2.0/50.

[blotafton]

I got two I61's, one l/d. Both kind of lack the crispness you'd expect when stopping down.

[Lightshow]

Can also look at the Nikkor 55/3.5 macro, I bought one a few weeks ago for $20
Just about any macro will be good, and likely better than the I61

[kansalliskala]

[Rick1779]