Tiny old pancake lens in modern DSLR camera - What a contrast!

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by aniramca@gmail.com, Feb 22, 2009.

  1. Guest

    Anyone ever see a picture of a 50mm fixed Iens (Industar from Russia)
    fit into a DSLR camera. It looks very strange, but apparently it
    works.
    See the following websites for the photos, or just google it in the
    internet:
    http://www.galactinus.net/vilva/retro/eos350d_industar50.html
    http://www.retrocamera.net/2009/01/magic-with-the-industar-50-2/
    I am surprised to see that there seem to be no additional
    modifications (except for the adapter ring to mount on the DSLR), and
    one of the website above shows reasonable picture quality.

    I heard that the pancake fixed lens generally follow a simple design
    from the Zeiss Tessar lens. I believe that the new Olympus 25mm 1:2.8
    pancake lens also utilize the same design. How much larger is the
    Olympus lens in comparison to the Industar-50mm lens? I could not get
    dimensions for any of these lens, although the photos on the websites
    show how tiny they are. It would be interesting if an adapter can be
    made available for the old Industar (or Zeiss Tessar) lenses to fit a
    Panasonic Lumix G1.

    Looking at the photos of a modern DSLR camera with these tiny lens,
    how come they cannot come up with smaller size DSLR (containing at
    least APS-C size sensor). Is it physically impossible, or the camera
    industry just does not want to go in this direction?

    Comments?
     
    , Feb 22, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. A.Lee Guest

    <> wrote:

    > Anyone ever see a picture of a 50mm fixed Iens (Industar from Russia)
    > fit into a DSLR camera. It looks very strange, but apparently it
    > works.


    Works in a fashion. Manual focus, and manual exposure. If you really
    want to go retro, just buy an M42 mount film camera, and you have a
    choice of bargain priced cameras and bits.
    >
    > Looking at the photos of a modern DSLR camera with these tiny lens,
    > how come they cannot come up with smaller size DSLR (containing at
    > least APS-C size sensor). Is it physically impossible, or the camera
    > industry just does not want to go in this direction?


    The newish Olympus does this doesnt it?
    Complete with a pancake lens, see here:
    <http://www.pixmania.co.uk/uk/uk/894339/art/olympus/e-420-zuiko-digital-
    25mm.html>
    Seems preety good to me, if I wasnt tied into Canon, I would get one.
    Alan.
    --
    To reply by e-mail, change the ' + ' to 'plus'.
     
    A.Lee, Feb 22, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Matt Ion Guest

    A.Lee wrote:
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> Anyone ever see a picture of a 50mm fixed Iens (Industar from Russia)
    >> fit into a DSLR camera. It looks very strange, but apparently it
    >> works.

    >
    > Works in a fashion. Manual focus, and manual exposure. If you really
    > want to go retro, just buy an M42 mount film camera, and you have a
    > choice of bargain priced cameras and bits.


    If I really want to go retro, I just pull out my Argus C-3.

    In this case, the point of the exercise is simply, "because we can."
     
    Matt Ion, Feb 23, 2009
    #3
  4. Paul Furman Guest

    Rich wrote:
    > alan@darkroom.+.com (A.Lee) wrote in news:1ivjuwo.rrh66q15a6vjkN%
    > alan@darkroom.+.com:
    >
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Anyone ever see a picture of a 50mm fixed Iens (Industar from Russia)
    >>> fit into a DSLR camera. It looks very strange, but apparently it
    >>> works.

    >> Works in a fashion. Manual focus, and manual exposure. If you really
    >> want to go retro, just buy an M42 mount film camera, and you have a
    >> choice of bargain priced cameras and bits.
    >>> Looking at the photos of a modern DSLR camera with these tiny lens,
    >>> how come they cannot come up with smaller size DSLR (containing at
    >>> least APS-C size sensor). Is it physically impossible, or the camera
    >>> industry just does not want to go in this direction?

    >> The newish Olympus does this doesnt it?
    >> Complete with a pancake lens, see here:
    >> <http://www.pixmania.co.uk/uk/uk/894339/art/olympus/e-420-zuiko-digital-
    >> 25mm.html>
    >> Seems preety good to me, if I wasnt tied into Canon, I would get one.
    >> Alan.

    >
    > The Olympus 25mm f2.8 is not a great lens. Not hyper sharp at f2.8 and has
    > colour error at all focal ratios. I bought it, took it back. Pentax's
    > 40mm super flat pancake is a better lens.


    Yes that one sounds nice. I have a Nikon 45/2.8 AI-P pancake which looks
    rather silly on a D200 or D700 but it's a nice lens. Manual focus but
    will meter on any body. I can jam the camera in a coat pocket with that
    lens on: http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehill/3304415292/
    Next in that set is another pancake macro lens (cheating).

    --
    Paul Furman
    www.edgehill.net
    www.baynatives.com

    all google groups messages filtered due to spam
     
    Paul Furman, Feb 23, 2009
    #4
  5. Bruce Guest

    Rich <> wrote:
    >
    >An Olympus E-420 coupled to the 25mm is very pocketable.



    But not very desirable. :-(


    >Other pancakes (this applies only to Olympus/Canon as they
    >are the only two DSLRs that can readily adapt almost any lens) include
    >the Konica Hexanon 40mm f1.8 and the Minolta 45mm f2.0. It would have
    >been nice if Nikon's D40/60 were compatible with the 45mm you show.



    You can fit neither the Konica Hexanon 40mm f1.8 nor the Minolta 45mm
    f/2.0 to a Canon (D)SLR because the lens flange to film/sensor plane
    dimensions for the Konica and Minolta systems are too great.

    You may be able to find adapters, but they will either include an
    additional lens element that destroys any pretence to high image
    quality, or disallow focusing at anything other than close distances.
     
    Bruce, Feb 24, 2009
    #5
  6. We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
    drugs began to take hold. I remember saying something
    like:

    >Anyone ever see a picture of a 50mm fixed Iens (Industar from Russia)
    >fit into a DSLR camera. It looks very strange, but apparently it
    >works.


    It works very well. Industar prices are rising, but still very low
    relatively.
     
    Grimly Curmudgeon, Feb 25, 2009
    #6
  7. Guest

    On Feb 24, 8:47 am, Rich <> wrote:
    > Paul Furman <> wrote innews:qSBol.16909$:
    >
    >
    >
    > > Rich wrote:
    > >> a...@darkroom.+.com (A.Lee) wrote in news:1ivjuwo.rrh66q15a6vjkN%
    > >> a...@darkroom.+.com:

    >
    > >>> <> wrote:

    >
    > >>>> Anyone ever see a picture of a 50mm fixed Iens (Industar from
    > >>>> Russia) fit into a DSLR camera. It looks very strange, but
    > >>>> apparently it works.
    > >>> Works in a fashion. Manual focus, and manual exposure. If you really
    > >>> want to go retro, just buy an M42 mount film camera, and you have a
    > >>> choice of bargain priced cameras and bits.
    > >>>> Looking at the photos of a modern DSLR camera with these tiny lens,
    > >>>> how come they cannot come up with smaller size DSLR (containing at
    > >>>> least APS-C size sensor). Is it physically impossible, or the
    > >>>> camera industry just does not want to go in this direction?
    > >>> The newish Olympus does this doesnt it?
    > >>> Complete with a pancake lens, see here:
    > >>> <http://www.pixmania.co.uk/uk/uk/894339/art/olympus/e-420-zuiko-digit
    > >>> al- 25mm.html>
    > >>> Seems preety good to me, if I wasnt tied into Canon, I would get
    > >>> one. Alan.

    >
    > >> The Olympus 25mm f2.8 is not a great lens.  Not hyper sharp at f2.8
    > >> and has colour error at all focal ratios.  I bought it, took it back..
    > >>  Pentax's 40mm super flat pancake is a better lens.

    >
    > > Yes that one sounds nice. I have a Nikon 45/2.8 AI-P pancake which
    > > looks rather silly on a D200 or D700 but it's a nice lens. Manual
    > > focus but will meter on any body. I can jam the camera in a coat
    > > pocket with that lens on:
    > >http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehill/3304415292/Next in that set is
    > > another pancake macro lens (cheating).

    >
    > That is the benefit.  An Olympus E-420 coupled to the 25mm is very
    > pocketable.  Other pancakes (this applies only to Olympus/Canon as they
    > are the only two DSLRs that can readily adapt almost any lens) include
    > the Konica Hexanon 40mm f1.8 and the Minolta 45mm f2.0.  It would have
    > been nice if Nikon's D40/60 were compatible with the 45mm you show.


    I saw a photo showing the Industar lens mounted on a Nikon D1http://
    images.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://farm4.static.flickr.com/
    3347/3228925665_42df354853.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.flickr.com/groups/
    russianlens/discuss/72157612955099072/&usg=__MBYoDyWR-
    VIs8N6RynManeFzQQQ=&h=326&w=500&sz=97&hl=en&start=42&um=1&tbnid=Qh1dopk8Er6VPM:&tbnh=85&tbnw=130&prev=/
    images%3Fq%3Dindustar%2Bon%2Ba%2Bnikon%2BDSLR%26start%3D36%26ndsp
    %3D18%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN

    If the above does not connect to the right link, just google on image
    for "industar lens mounted on Nikon DSLR". One of the image from Flikr
    will have the image.

    I still don't know how the lens still manage to "project" the image
    correctly on the digital sensor. It is just too tiny and strange to
    see. However, apparently someone uses it and I guess it works. I
    assume everything have to be done manually.
     
    , Feb 25, 2009
    #7
  8. Guest

    On Feb 24, 8:15 pm, wrote:
    > On Feb 24, 8:47 am, Rich <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > > Paul Furman <> wrote innews:qSBol.16909$:

    >
    > > > Rich wrote:
    > > >> a...@darkroom.+.com (A.Lee) wrote in news:1ivjuwo.rrh66q15a6vjkN%
    > > >> a...@darkroom.+.com:

    >
    > > >>> <> wrote:

    >
    > > >>>> Anyone ever see a picture of a 50mm fixed Iens (Industar from
    > > >>>> Russia) fit into a DSLR camera. It looks very strange, but
    > > >>>> apparently it works.
    > > >>> Works in a fashion. Manual focus, and manual exposure. If you really
    > > >>> want to go retro, just buy an M42 mount film camera, and you have a
    > > >>> choice of bargain priced cameras and bits.
    > > >>>> Looking at the photos of a modern DSLR camera with these tiny lens,
    > > >>>> how come they cannot come up with smaller size DSLR (containing at
    > > >>>> least APS-C size sensor). Is it physically impossible, or the
    > > >>>> camera industry just does not want to go in this direction?
    > > >>> The newish Olympus does this doesnt it?
    > > >>> Complete with a pancake lens, see here:
    > > >>> <http://www.pixmania.co.uk/uk/uk/894339/art/olympus/e-420-zuiko-digit
    > > >>> al- 25mm.html>
    > > >>> Seems preety good to me, if I wasnt tied into Canon, I would get
    > > >>> one. Alan.

    >
    > > >> The Olympus 25mm f2.8 is not a great lens.  Not hyper sharp at f2.8
    > > >> and has colour error at all focal ratios.  I bought it, took it back.
    > > >>  Pentax's 40mm super flat pancake is a better lens.

    >
    > > > Yes that one sounds nice. I have a Nikon 45/2.8 AI-P pancake which
    > > > looks rather silly on a D200 or D700 but it's a nice lens. Manual
    > > > focus but will meter on any body. I can jam the camera in a coat
    > > > pocket with that lens on:
    > > >http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehill/3304415292/Nextin that set is
    > > > another pancake macro lens (cheating).

    >
    > > That is the benefit.  An Olympus E-420 coupled to the 25mm is very
    > > pocketable.  Other pancakes (this applies only to Olympus/Canon as they
    > > are the only two DSLRs that can readily adapt almost any lens) include
    > > the Konica Hexanon 40mm f1.8 and the Minolta 45mm f2.0.  It would have
    > > been nice if Nikon's D40/60 were compatible with the 45mm you show.

    >
    > I saw a photo showing the Industar lens mounted on a Nikon D1http://
    > images.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://farm4.static.flickr.com/
    > 3347/3228925665_42df354853.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.flickr.com/groups/
    > russianlens/discuss/72157612955099072/&usg=__MBYoDyWR-
    > VIs8N6RynManeFzQQQ=&h=326&w=500&sz=97&hl=en&start=42&um=1&tbnid=Qh1dopk8Er6 VPM:&tbnh=85&tbnw=130&prev=/
    > images%3Fq%3Dindustar%2Bon%2Ba%2Bnikon%2BDSLR%26start%3D36%26ndsp
    > %3D18%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN
    >
    > If the above does not connect to the right link, just google on image
    > for "industar lens mounted on Nikon DSLR". One of the image from Flikr
    > will have the image.
    >
    > I still don't know how the lens still manage to "project" the image
    > correctly on the digital sensor. It is just too tiny and strange to
    > see. However, apparently someone uses it and I guess it works. I
    > assume everything have to be done manually.


    I try one more timehttp://farm4.static.flickr.com/3347/3228925665_42df354853.jpg
     
    , Feb 25, 2009
    #8
  9. Rob Morley Guest

    On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 18:15:16 -0800 (PST)
    wrote:

    > I saw a photo showing the Industar lens mounted on a Nikon D1http://
    > images.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://farm4.static.flickr.com/
    > 3347/3228925665_42df354853.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.flickr.com/groups/
    > russianlens/discuss/72157612955099072/&usg=__MBYoDyWR-
    > VIs8N6RynManeFzQQQ=&h=326&w=500&sz=97&hl=en&start=42&um=1&tbnid=Qh1dopk8Er6VPM:&tbnh=85&tbnw=130&prev=/
    > images%3Fq%3Dindustar%2Bon%2Ba%2Bnikon%2BDSLR%26start%3D36%26ndsp
    > %3D18%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN
    >
    > If the above does not connect to the right link,


    use http://tinyurl.com/ to produce http://tinyurl.com/cd7txv or just
    lift the URL of the JPEG straight from the page:
    http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3347/3228925665_42df354853.jpg?v=0

    > just google on image
    > for "industar lens mounted on Nikon DSLR". One of the image from Flikr
    > will have the image.


    I got bored before I found it that way. :)
    >
    > I still don't know how the lens still manage to "project" the image
    > correctly on the digital sensor.


    Why not? Light goes in the front and out the back, and as long as the
    optics are the right distance from the sensor you'll get an image.

    > It is just too tiny and strange to see.


    The Industar 50mm is an f3.5, compared to an f1.8 lens that's otherwise
    the same it's about 0.7 times the size.

    > However, apparently someone uses it and I guess it works. I
    > assume everything have to be done manually.
    >

    Absolutely.
     
    Rob Morley, Feb 25, 2009
    #9
  10. Rob Morley Guest

    On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 00:26:01 +0000
    Grimly Curmudgeon <> wrote:

    > Industar prices are rising, but still very low
    > relatively.


    The popularity of M42 prime lenses for DSLR use has really inflated
    the prices over the last year or two - I used to pick them up for
    a couple of quid to use on my film cameras. There's also a glut of M42
    bodies on eBay. :)
     
    Rob Morley, Feb 25, 2009
    #10
  11. Rob Morley Guest

    On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 17:28:35 +0000
    alan@darkroom.+.com (A.Lee) wrote:

    > <> wrote:
    >
    > > Anyone ever see a picture of a 50mm fixed Iens (Industar from
    > > Russia) fit into a DSLR camera. It looks very strange, but
    > > apparently it works.

    >
    > Works in a fashion. Manual focus, and manual exposure. If you really
    > want to go retro, just buy an M42 mount film camera, and you have a
    > choice of bargain priced cameras and bits.


    Not so much these days - lots of people want the lenses and any number
    of cheap bodies is no good without glass.
     
    Rob Morley, Feb 25, 2009
    #11
  12. We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
    drugs began to take hold. I remember Rob Morley <>
    saying something like:

    >The popularity of M42 prime lenses for DSLR use has really inflated
    >the prices over the last year or two - I used to pick them up for
    >a couple of quid to use on my film cameras. There's also a glut of M42
    >bodies on eBay. :)


    Indeed; I have several free Praks that came with the lenses I wanted, an
    interesting old Cosina and the gem of the lot of free cams - what I
    thought was an M42 version of the Ricoh Singlex, was actually the
    earliest model Singlex with the Nikon F mount and a Rikenon (Tomioka)
    1.4/55mm on the front (which was the bit I wanted). Rare as hen's teeth
    nowadays.
     
    Grimly Curmudgeon, Feb 25, 2009
    #12
  13. Marty Fremen Guest


    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> Anyone ever see a picture of a 50mm fixed Iens (Industar from Russia)
    >> fit into a DSLR camera. It looks very strange, but apparently it
    >> works.

    >


    If that's the same Industar 50mm that was used as the standard lens on
    Zenith B SLRs in the 1970s then "works" is a questionable term: that lens
    used to suffer terribly from flare making it unusable for into-the-light
    shots, which came out like it was a foggy day. I was glad to dump both lens
    and camera for a Fujica SLR (also M42) which not only had a far better std
    lens but was much smaller and lighter.

    The Russian Helios lenses were better than the Industar, though rather
    clunky. I think the one used on the Zenith E was a 55 or 58mm/f2, rather
    long focus for a standard lens but not bad for portraits.
     
    Marty Fremen, Feb 26, 2009
    #13
  14. Peter Irwin Guest

    Marty Fremen <> wrote:
    >
    > If that's the same Industar 50mm that was used as the standard lens on
    > Zenith B SLRs in the 1970s then "works" is a questionable term: that lens
    > used to suffer terribly from flare making it unusable for into-the-light
    > shots, which came out like it was a foggy day.


    Are you sure about that? Did you test it on your Fujica to see how
    much you were seeing was camera body flare? A single coated Tessar
    type lens shouldn't have a flare problem.

    Peter.
    --
     
    Peter Irwin, Feb 26, 2009
    #14
  15. Mark Thomas Guest

    Marty Fremen wrote:
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Anyone ever see a picture of a 50mm fixed Iens (Industar from Russia)
    >>> fit into a DSLR camera. It looks very strange, but apparently it
    >>> works.

    >
    > If that's the same Industar 50mm that was used as the standard lens on
    > Zenith B SLRs in the 1970s then "works" is a questionable term: that lens
    > used to suffer terribly from flare making it unusable for into-the-light
    > shots, which came out like it was a foggy day. I was glad to dump both lens
    > and camera for a Fujica SLR (also M42) which not only had a far better std
    > lens but was much smaller and lighter.
    >
    > The Russian Helios lenses were better than the Industar, though rather
    > clunky. I think the one used on the Zenith E was a 55 or 58mm/f2, rather
    > long focus for a standard lens but not bad for portraits.
    >


    Fond memories - you went down a similar path to me. Yes, the Zenit-E
    had a Helios 58mm f2 lens on it, and mine was a corker. Sharp, nice, if
    slightly weird bokeh, lovely glass on a dirt cheap camera.

    http://www.flickr.com/groups/bokeh_/discuss/72157594194993103/

    Strangely, the lens was called a Helios-44 - don't ask me what the 44 meant.

    And I too went down the Fujica route after that for a while - an ST-605
    then an AZ. Fine cameras - wish I had kept at least one..
     
    Mark Thomas, Feb 26, 2009
    #15
  16. Paul Furman Guest

    David Kilpatrick wrote:
    > Peter Irwin wrote:
    >> Marty Fremen <> wrote:
    >>> If that's the same Industar 50mm that was used as the standard lens
    >>> on Zenith B SLRs in the 1970s then "works" is a questionable term:
    >>> that lens used to suffer terribly from flare making it unusable for
    >>> into-the-light shots, which came out like it was a foggy day.

    >>
    >> Are you sure about that? Did you test it on your Fujica to see how
    >> much you were seeing was camera body flare? A single coated Tessar
    >> type lens shouldn't have a flare problem.

    >
    >
    > Ever owned a 1930s Elmar f3.5? The Industar was in a conical mount
    > shape, resembling a large micro lens in design, with the front element
    > right at the front. In its 39mm Zenith thread (the original, pre-42mm)
    > the mount was entirely bright aluminium and the blacking round the front
    > element, and inside, was minimal.


    http://m42.artlimited.net/lens_detail.php?lid=85


    > The lens needed a deep lenshood but
    > the tiny filter thread meant the shape of the hood had to be inefficient
    > from the start.
    >
    > General veiling glare (flare present when no light sources shine on the
    > lens) was not terrible, but the moment you aimed the Industar into the
    > light for a backlit shot - or even just got the sun striking it from
    > well out of view - pix could be lost. The bright shiny 'blue metal' iris
    > blades did not help.
    >
    > The Fujica ST/etc series from the mid 1970s onwards used lenses of
    > exceptional contrast. Electron Beam Coating (EBC) with 9 layers was
    > actually far superior to Canon's early SC/SSC and matched Pentax SMC,
    > but Fuji went further and used new glass types to reduce the number of
    > elements needed in a standard lens. Where others had six or seven, they
    > got down to five - something which Wray had achieved on the 24 x 32mm
    > format with the f/2 Unilite for the Wrayflex 30 years earlier.


    The Industar link above shows a 4 element section.


    > Unfortunately, the Unilite was not a star performer. At that time,
    > improved coatings not simplified optical design would have been a better
    > answer :)
    >
    > David



    --
    Paul Furman
    www.edgehill.net
    www.baynatives.com

    all google groups messages filtered due to spam
     
    Paul Furman, Feb 26, 2009
    #16
  17. Paul Furman Guest

    wrote:
    > Rich wrote:
    >> Paul Furman wrote
    >>> Rich wrote:
    >>>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Anyone ever see a picture of a 50mm fixed Iens (Industar from
    >>>>>> Russia) fit into a DSLR camera. It looks very strange, but
    >>>>>> apparently it works.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Works in a fashion. Manual focus, and manual exposure. If you really
    >>>>> want to go retro, just buy an M42 mount film camera, and you have a
    >>>>> choice of bargain priced cameras and bits.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Looking at the photos of a modern DSLR camera with these tiny lens,
    >>>>>> how come they cannot come up with smaller size DSLR (containing at
    >>>>>> least APS-C size sensor). Is it physically impossible, or the
    >>>>>> camera industry just does not want to go in this direction?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> The newish Olympus does this doesnt it?
    >>>>> Complete with a pancake lens, see here:
    >>>>> <http://www.pixmania.co.uk/uk/uk/894339/art/olympus/e-420-zuiko-digital- 25mm.html>
    >>>>> Seems preety good to me, if I wasnt tied into Canon, I would get
    >>>>> one. Alan.
    >>>>
    >>>> The Olympus 25mm f2.8 is not a great lens. Not hyper sharp at f2.8
    >>>> and has colour error at all focal ratios. I bought it, took it back.
    >>>> Pentax's 40mm super flat pancake is a better lens.
    >>>
    >>> Yes that one sounds nice. I have a Nikon 45/2.8 AI-P pancake which
    >>> looks rather silly on a D200 or D700 but it's a nice lens. Manual
    >>> focus but will meter on any body. I can jam the camera in a coat
    >>> pocket with that lens on:
    >>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehill/3304415292/ Next in that set is
    >>> another pancake macro lens (cheating).

    >>
    >> That is the benefit. An Olympus E-420 coupled to the 25mm is very
    >> pocketable.


    Sounds nice.


    >> Other pancakes (this applies only to Olympus/Canon as they
    >> are the only two DSLRs that can readily adapt almost any lens) include
    >> the Konica Hexanon 40mm f1.8 and the Minolta 45mm f2.0.


    Doesn't Pentax make one also? AF if I recall...
    http://www.imaging-resource.com/EVENTS/PMAS05/1109546726.html


    >> It would have
    >> been nice if Nikon's D40/60 were compatible with the 45mm you show.


    I'm pretty sure the 45 Ai-P works on a D40/60, it worked on my D70, it
    has a cpu chip and the camera controls aperture, you set the ring to
    f/22. It is a manual focus lens.


    > I saw a photo showing the Industar lens mounted on a Nikon D1

    http://www.flickr.com/groups/russianlens/discuss/72157612955099072/
    >
    > I still don't know how the lens still manage to "project" the image
    > correctly on the digital sensor. It is just too tiny and strange to
    > see. However, apparently someone uses it and I guess it works. I
    > assume everything have to be done manually.


    He says he uses an 'infinity adapter' meaning a teleconverter of some
    sort to make this rangefinder lens work on an SLR's longer flange
    distance. That's generally a bad idea for image quality and may even
    lose some aperture though it sounds fun if you had a bunch of those
    lenses to play with.

    --
    Paul Furman
    www.edgehill.net
    www.baynatives.com

    all google groups messages filtered due to spam
     
    Paul Furman, Feb 26, 2009
    #17
  18. Rob Morley Guest

    On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 03:49:24 -0600
    Rich <> wrote:

    > Rob Morley <> wrote in
    > news:20090225030755.61e6df5f@bluemoon:
    >
    > > On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 00:26:01 +0000
    > > Grimly Curmudgeon <> wrote:
    > >
    > >> Industar prices are rising, but still very low
    > >> relatively.

    > >
    > > The popularity of M42 prime lenses for DSLR use has really inflated
    > > the prices over the last year or two - I used to pick them up for
    > > a couple of quid to use on my film cameras. There's also a glut of
    > > M42 bodies on eBay. :)
    > >

    >
    > Film bodies are near worthless. I've purchased at least two bodies
    > just to get the lenses they had on them.


    You and many others, which is why there's a glut of bodies going
    begging.
     
    Rob Morley, Feb 26, 2009
    #18
  19. Marty Fremen Guest

    Peter Irwin <> wrote:

    > Marty Fremen <> wrote:
    >>
    >> If that's the same Industar 50mm that was used as the standard lens
    >> on Zenith B SLRs in the 1970s then "works" is a questionable term:
    >> that lens used to suffer terribly from flare making it unusable for
    >> into-the-light shots, which came out like it was a foggy day.

    >
    > Are you sure about that? Did you test it on your Fujica to see how
    > much you were seeing was camera body flare? A single coated Tessar
    > type lens shouldn't have a flare problem.


    The camera body might well have contributed a bit, but I don't recall
    having similar problems with my 135mm and 28mm lenses (I forget what
    makes those were, they were quite cheap ones though! ISTR the 135 was
    another Russian lens though).

    I agree with what David Kilpatrick says regarding the Industar, and it
    was indeed an odd shape, it looked rather like my enlarger lens (which
    reminds me, the Gnome Alpha lens was another crap jobbie, made of
    plastic - replacing it with a £20 Minolta Rokkor lens made a huge
    difference to my prints).
     
    Marty Fremen, Feb 27, 2009
    #19
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Kevin Mikos

    Review - Pentax 40mm/2.8 Digital Pancake Lens

    Kevin Mikos, Feb 28, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    708
    John Rossbach
    Mar 9, 2005
  2. ship
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    744
    Frank ess
    May 22, 2005
  3. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    324
  4. Satoshi

    Use of an old film lens for DSLR camera

    Satoshi, Oct 31, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    817
    tomm42
    Oct 31, 2006
  5. RichA

    Sony 16mm pancake, worst optical test ever!

    RichA, Oct 29, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    1,319
    peter
    Oct 31, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page