M42 Industar-50

[Gordon Coale]

Maybe there should be an M42 section for lenses? There are probably more M42 lenses than from those other lens forums. Just an editorial comment.

I've been using my collapsible Industar-50 (made in the former Soviet Union) on my Leica IIIc. It's wonderfully compact and does quite well. A classic 4 element 3 group Tessar. The lens is derived from the 1930s Leitz Elmar 50 f3.5. (More here. (http://m42.povlab.org/lens_detail.php?lid=85)) I have this perverse attraction to old lenses. The Leica mount rangefinders have many wonderful old designs to choose from. Not so much with SLRs. But those Commies (or former Commies, as the case may be) come through again. There is an M42 version of the Industar-50. There are quite a few on eBay running from $10 to $15. I bought mine from the FSU camera repair wizard Oleg (http://www.okvintagecamera.com/lens.php). $15 and no shipping since he put it in the box with a Zorki 4 he was fixing for me. I have it on my Pentax H1a. It doesn't have any automatic or pre-setting diaphragm mechanism so it's a little cumbersome. Unless, of course, your preset it like a rangefinder. I also plan to use it on my Pentax *ist DL (75mm equivalent.) Forward! Into the past!

[cbass]

Neat link, thanks. Interesting how the three versions of this lens evolved into their current states. The M42 version seems to be the most compact of the group. Despite its slow-ish f/3.5 maximum aperture I've never heard anyone say bad things about the performance of the collapsible or rigid LTM versions.

I own a rigid I-50/3.5 in LTM but I haven't used it yet. FSU lenses are great bargains and it's easy to have a "collection" before too long.

[jdos2]

I like the idea of M42 lenses having a forum, too.

My best 28mm lens is an old Honeywell Pentax (Asahi) 28mm f/3.5, which has proven itself far better than anything modern 28mm that CANON makes.

(grumbles about poor quality Canon wides)

[Kin Lau]

My best 28mm lens is an old Honeywell Pentax (Asahi) 28mm f/3.5, which has proven itself far better than anything modern 28mm that CANON makes.

(grumbles about poor quality Canon wides)

I've got the EF 28/2.8 & the Pentax 28/3.5 as well. The EF28/2.8 is okay, but I've haven't really done a test. I used the EF28/2.8 as a "normal" lens on my dslrs before I got the EF35/2. I should do a little informal test.

What do you not like about the EF28/2.8?

[jdos2]

I should have clarified. Canon modern wide lenses: their EOS lenses are all pretty rough in comparison to rangefinder glass in similar focal lengths.

[kully]

I've always thought the m42 I-50 to have the most horrid external design ever designed - but it actually looks nice on that Pentax.

[triplefinger]

First Gordon, lovely site & blog. full of insights.

now, onto my question...
have you shot the I-50 on your pentax digital?? I'd love to see some images. that lens in LTM is one of my favorites.

Cheers, Mike

Maybe there should be an M42 section for lenses? There are probably more M42 lenses than from those other lens forums. Just an editorial comment.

I've been using my collapsible Industar-50 (made in the former Soviet Union) on my Leica IIIc. It's wonderfully compact and does quite well. A classic 4 element 3 group Tessar. The lens is derived from the 1930s Leitz Elmar 50 f3.5. (More here. (http://m42.povlab.org/lens_detail.php?lid=85)) I have this perverse attraction to old lenses. The Leica mount rangefinders have many wonderful old designs to choose from. Not so much with SLRs. But those Commies (or former Commies, as the case may be) come through again. There is an M42 version of the Industar-50. There are quite a few on eBay running from $10 to $15. I bought mine from the FSU camera repair wizard Oleg (http://www.okvintagecamera.com/lens.php). $15 and no shipping since he put it in the box with a Zorki 4 he was fixing for me. I have it on my Pentax H1a. It doesn't have any automatic or pre-setting diaphragm mechanism so it's a little cumbersome. Unless, of course, your preset it like a rangefinder. I also plan to use it on my Pentax *ist DL (75mm equivalent.) Forward! Into the past!

[Gordon Coale]

Kully -- I think the rigid LTM I-50 wins the title for ugliest lens ever. By comparison, the M42 version is positively beautiful. Of couse, 2x0 still equalls 0. I am getting used to the black one on my Pentax. Lets say it's an acquired taste. :) It actually doesn't look so bad. More like it was designed for an alternate universe, which it was. It becomes more beautiful every time I can slide it in and out of my coat pocket.

triplefinger -- I did do some quick comparisons on my Pentax *istDL. I looked at the images at 100% and the I-50 isn't quite as sharp as the zoom lens the digital Pentax came with. But that's not why I'm using this lens. I've come to the conclusion, and this is pretty recent, that comparing zoomed in shots on a monitor isn't going to tell me what I want to know. The final result will be the prints.

I'm sure you are familiar with the expression "Can't see the forest for the trees." You can sort of divide people up as forest people or tree people depending on the scale of their outlook. I did run across one person who only could be described as a bark person. His outlook was that narrow. I think that to look very closely at the subtle differences between lenses, at high magnifications, is to be a bark person.

Here is what I know. The I-50 is a descendent of the original Elmar 50/3.5. A cousin, maybe. The I-50 is probably a "better" lens with improved sharpness and contrast. But remember, some of the iconic images of modern photography were taken with that old Elmar by the likes of Henri Cartier-Bresson and Ben Shahn.

I have compared my LTM I-50 with a mint Jupiter 8 50/2 and could not really tell the difference. That's encouraging. Part of using the I-50, for me, is a kind of letting go of the concept of needing to have the very latest and sharpest in order to take good pictures. The reality is that an optical design dating to 1902, the Tessar, is not what is holding my pictures back. When I can get the I-50 to make as good a picture as Cartier-Bresson's Elmar, I will worry about a "better" lens. But one lens isn't really better than another. They are just different. I would love to get hold of a Petzval design from the late 1800s for my SLR Graflexes.

Of course, if you are shooting inside in low light with the I-50, you can't see a damn thing! Anybody have a Super Takumar 50/1.4 they want to donate to me? :)