[pathdoc]

It seems like there are quite a few people who have a liking for this lens, so whatever happens I'm certainly not risking buying a dud (sample variation aside) and the price is right.

I hadn't thought of one of these, but while I was surfing E-bay looking for other things, I came across a plethora of them going dirt cheap and I began to consider it. Among other things, the physical profile appears ridiculously small - perhaps not as thin on paper as a Pentax-M or DA 40mm f/2.8, but let's be fair - this is an M42 lens, and the true comparison is against a 50mm or 55mm Takumar on a Spotmatic (or adapted K-mount) body. And yes, it's the slowest 50mm I've seen outside the macro world, but it seems the price may be worth paying for the compactness, especially if allied with a K-mount body that has aperture priority capability. I doubt I'd be using this in anything other than broad daylight anyway, and f/3.5 is more than fast enough for that.

And yes, I do have the DA40/2.8 Limited, but that's only operable on my current film bodies in full-program mode (on older bodies not at all), and it's sort of cheating to do that, isn't it?

What say you, Pentaxians?

[boriscleto]

I would say that it is so small as to be almost difficult to operate...

The aperture ring and focusing ring are quite small, and turning the aperture ring can turn the focusing ring...

But it is very cheap...

[pathdoc]

So I've read, which is why I'm gathering opinions before taking the plunge.

[boriscleto]

The 50/3.5 that I would love to find is the Takumar 50/3.5. Asahi even made one with a pre-set diaphragm. But M37 Taks are like hens teeth...

[THoog]

You aren't indulging your LBA properly if you don't have an Industar 50-2. The Industar 50 is a fun, basic, almost primitive little lens based on the Zeiss Tessar. Rumor has it that the KMZ plant made tanks on the next assembly line and sometimes swapped parts between them.

The IQ is generally sharp and contrasty. Finding a hood, or filters that fit can be a challenge, and there are lots of DIY hood solutions out there. The aperture and focus rings may be stiff or loose, depending on how much / how old the grease is. Because the lens is so small, the controls can be a little fiddly. Also, some have said light can leak past the notches in a flush-mount infinity-focus M42-K adapter because the lens is so narrow. I haven't noticed a problem with it.

If you get one, be sure to get the M42 version - there are also rangefinder versions out there for shorter register bodies. You'll see Industars with both Cyrillic and Western lettering - the only difference is whether they were meant for domestic use or export. IIRC, the first two digits of the serial number are the year of manufacture.

[pathdoc]

You'll see Industars with both Cyrillic and Western lettering - the only difference is whether they were meant for domestic use or export.

I was wondering about that! Seems the Soviets were not above a little bit of capitalism on the side.

[Na Horuk]

THoog already wrote some good stuff.
I like my Industar, but I want it to be clear that this is a special lens. I think it would be difficult to compare it to M 50mm f1.7 or Takumar 55mm 1.8. Industar has slower aperture, it has an odd aperture mechanism (fully manual, no stops, you just twist it), no lens hood and small filter size.. But it does have nice bokeh, can be really sharp in the image centre, and it has a certain characters. While the contrasts are a bit low (especially compared to modern SMC and HD lenses), it has nice colours. Another strength is that it has next to no CA (at least my copy), not lateral, axial, or fringing. Oh, but the image corners don't really get very sharp.

The lens really is very small. It is so small, it doesn't cover the DSLR mount. This means the contacts are exposed.. I think some people like to use a flanged adapter for it, but I find those risky. And not just because they might prevent infinity focusing, but because of their machining. And yes, be careful which Industar you get, as some were made in other mounts. There are also rangefinder 28mm lenses called Industar, but instead of 50-2 they are 69 and 61 and other numbers. Some of those are for rangefinders, others for Kiev MF, and possibly others. Just letting you know

I recommend one if you are the kind of photographer that enjoys a special lens, a lens with character, a lens that is different, and doesn't really fit perfectly with modern standards. A lens with its quirks, character. The good part is, you don't risk a lot of money by buying one.

Like you said, a big problem with them (and most other Soviet lenses) is sample variation. You can get a really bad one, or one that was taken care after. I would suggest you find an ebay salesperson from Ukraine or Russia, one who sells many lenses, and also performs CLA (or at least claims to). Or some other trusted person. You can find a really good Industar 50-2 for $30. Sometimes you can find ones that are nearly in mint condition.

The 50/3.5 that I would love to find is the Takumar 50/3.5.

The Takumar 50 f3.5, Zeiss Tessar 50mm f3.5 and Industar 50mm f3.5 are lenses that I would really like to see in a good side to side comparison. One can be found here: http://oldlenses.blogspot.si/2012/04/tessar-battle-industar-50mm-f35-vs-carl.html
Anyway, they all appear to have 4 elements in 3 groups and fairly similar build (at least the early silver Industar versions). I wonder what differences can be observed between them

Some reviews and photos of the lens mounted on Pentax DSLR here: https://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/industar-50-50mm-f3-5.html

---

Last edited by Na Horuk; 09-16-2015 at 12:34 PM.

[pathdoc]

I have a genuine M42-K adapter. I would only be using the lens in fair weather or indoors on a DSLR long enough to try it out, then it would be going on a film body, possibly even a Spotmatic. Thanks for the rest of the advice also, which I will take to heart.

This is my first time using this forum as a member. I do want to support other photographers having fun. BUT I do have a comment about Industar lenses. They rarely cover the body mounted sensors. While this may no be a technical problem since they are not use with M42 lenses, It does not sound like a fit. (Some others do not cover the M42 mount adapter and can cause light leaks without masking.)

All that said. have fun - it should no be a big inverstment. Support the economy, let us know how it works for you.

[emergo]

I own three Industars - two 50-2 models (1979, 1980), and a silver 50 from 1964 with an M39 mount (for early Zenit SLRs - the M39 rangefinder versions have an integrated extension tube, so avoid those for use on SLRs). I love these little guys. Yes, there is some variation in image quality ( "Red P" models are supposed to be superior), and the resolution at the edges is about half that of the center, but that is what makes this lens so characteristic. I shoot it wide open to amplify these qualities. The bokeh is swirly, almost like a Petzval lens, although not as dramatic. My copy from 1979 has more contrast than the '64 (which glows like mad) - looks like they improved the coatings over the years. I recommend you buy one. they are a great, fun lens for the price. It is likely not to be an everyday use lens, but for when you're looking for that particular look.

regarding operation of the lens, yes, the aperture ring is small and on the face of the lens around the front element, but you're likely to use this in Aperture Priority anyway, right? And I've had no issues with operating the focus ring.

[emergo]

here's a photo from my '64