Tiny old pancake lens in modern DSLR camera - What a contrast!
anir...@gmail.com
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?
A.Lee
> 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'.
Rich
alan@darkroom.+.com:
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.
Matt Ion
> <anir...@gmail.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.
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."
Paul Furman
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
Rich
news:qSBol.16909$YU2....@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com:
> Rich wrote:
>> alan@darkroom.+.com (A.Lee) wrote in news:1ivjuwo.rrh66q15a6vjkN%
>> alan@darkroom.+.com:
>>
>>> <anir...@gmail.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.
Bruce
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.
Grimly Curmudgeon
drugs began to take hold. I remember anir...@gmail.com 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.
anir...@gmail.com
> Paul Furman <pa...@-edgehill.net> wrote innews:qSBol.16909$YU2....@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com:
>
>
>
> > Rich wrote:
> >> a...@darkroom.+.com (A.Lee) wrote in news:1ivjuwo.rrh66q15a6vjkN%
> >> a...@darkroom.+.com:
>
> >>> <anira...@gmail.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:
> > 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.
anir...@gmail.com
> > > 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-
> 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
Rob Morley
anir...@gmail.com 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
Grimly Curmudgeon <grimly...@REMOVEgmail.com> 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
alan@darkroom.+.com (A.Lee) wrote:
> <anir...@gmail.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.
Not so much these days - lots of people want the lenses and any number
of cheap bodies is no good without glass.
Grimly Curmudgeon
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.
Peter Irwin
>
> 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.
--
pir...@ktb.net
David Kilpatrick
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. 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.
Unfortunately, the Unilite was not a star performer. At that time,
improved coatings not simplified optical design would have been a better
answer :-)
David
Mark Thomas
>> <anir...@gmail.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.
>
> 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
> 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..
Paul Furman
> Peter Irwin wrote:
>> Marty Fremen <Ma...@fremen.invalid> 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
> Rich wrote:
>> Paul Furman wrote
>>>>> <anira...@gmail.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:
>>>>> 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:
>>> 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.
Rich
news:20090225030755.61e6df5f@bluemoon:
Film bodies are near worthless. I've purchased at least two bodies just to
get the lenses they had on them.
Rob Morley
You and many others, which is why there's a glut of bodies going
begging.