Seen on ebay: a lens raises questions about design intentions.

pathdoc · 12-22-2015, 06:00 PM

Staff note: This post may contain affiliate links, which means Pentax Forums may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. If you would like to support the forum directly, you may also make a donation here.

"Lens, Cosina 55mm f2.8 M42 Mount"

In an era where lenses of this focal length were commonly up to two stops faster, when film speeds were low and every stop was precious... WHY? What exactly did they get in exchange for this compromise?

Of course the same thing applies even more to the Industar 50/3.5. The gain there is its remarkable compactness, but it comes at the expense of both speed and handling (it's a very fiddly lens to use, as those who have it know only too well).

The Takumar 50/4.0 macro is similar, but that was optimised as a flat field copy lens to be used from a stand, where the camera is rigidly held, remotely triggered, lighting can be optimised, and considerations of camera shake and shutter speed are irrelevant.

stevebrot · 12-22-2015, 06:23 PM

Originally posted by pathdoc

What exactly did they get in exchange for this compromise?

I dunno...cheap price? When I bought my Ricoh Singlex TLS back in 1970 there were three kit options, 55/2.8, 50/1.7, and 55/1.4. The 55/2.8 was no additional cost while there was extra expense for either of the other two. I suspect that Cosina followed a similar market strategy.

BTW...while fast 50s (f/2.0 and wider) have been pretty much the norm for the last 50 years, the other three focal lengths common in a "three lens kit" (28mm, 35mm, 135mm) were typically f/2.8 or f/3.5 and nobody thought much about it. I have no qualms shooting ISO 100 film with my S-M-C Takumar 28/3.5 or Vivitar 135/2.8 or Vivitar 200/3.5.

Steve

pathdoc · 12-22-2015, 06:42 PM

Originally posted by stevebrot

BTW...while fast 50s (f/2.0 and wider) have been pretty much the norm for the last 50 years, the other three focal lengths common in a "three lens kit" (28mm, 35mm, 135mm) were typically f/2.8 or f/3.5 and nobody thought much about it.

True, and that's why I restricted terms of reference to the 50-55-58mm type lenses. Your cost example is a good one, but even so, two extra stops seems a lot to lose when even the slowest Pentax kit fifty is f2.0.

stevebrot · 12-22-2015, 07:25 PM

Originally posted by pathdoc

True, and that's why I restricted terms of reference to the 50-55-58mm type lenses. Your cost example is a good one, but even so, two extra stops seems a lot to lose when even the slowest Pentax kit fifty is f2.0.

Most people bought f/1.8 or f/2.0 kits. That is a 1.3 and 1 stop difference from f/2.8 respectively. The price to upgrade was minimal (typically less than $20) and the faster lenses options were generally superior in all regards. As a result, the Cosinon 55/2.8 you reference is sort of rare. I have been involved with photography since the late 1960s and can't remember ever seeing a Japanese SLR in the flesh with a f/2.8 kit lens. They were definitely available (duh, most makers offered them), but I have never seen one.

Steve

Not a Number · 12-22-2015, 07:30 PM

The design intention is to keep the cost down. The slower the lens the less glass you have to put on it - smaller lens, less elements. To someone stepping up from a fixed lens budget rangefinder camera with a typical 50mm f/3.5 lens they would feel right at home with one of theses lenses. For someone stepping up from a point-and-shoot with fixed focus, aperture and shutter speed one of these lenses would be an unbelievable upgrade. If you're shooting on sunny days where the "Sunny 16" rule applies you seldom need anything wider the f/3.5. People buying these lenses were probably taking "snapshots" under these conditions a good percentage of the time.

**southlander** · 12-22-2015, 09:17 PM

By way of another example, Ricoh had a f2.2 in their line up at one stage.

**.a.t.** · 12-23-2015, 01:31 AM

Originally posted by southlander

By way of another example, Ricoh had a f2.2 in their line up at one stage.

And Vivitar also sold a 55mm f2.8 kit lens.

Originally posted by Not a Number

The design intention is to keep the cost down. The slower the lens the less glass you have to put on it - smaller lens, less elements. . .

Originally posted by stevebrot

I dunno...cheap price? When I bought my Ricoh Singlex TLS back in 1970 there were three kit options, 55/2.8, 50/1.7, and 55/1.4. The 55/2.8 was no additional cost while there was extra expense for either of the other two. I suspect that Cosina followed a similar market strategy. . .

Years ago, Sears sold rebadged Ricoh cameras and lenses. Here are some figures from their 1970 Fall / Winter catalog:

TLS camera with 55mm f/1.4 lens (7 element) $179.50
TLS camera with 55mm f/1.8 lens (6 element) $149.50
TLS camera with 55mm f/2.8 lens (4 element) $119.50

**RKKS08** · 12-23-2015, 03:25 AM

A couple of weeks ago, there was an eBay offer of a "Pentax 2.8/50mm", in K-mount.

I wondered where this came from, but the pictures showed the offer was real
The lens looked as K or M series, with a slightly smaller front lens than the 2/50, and the colour of the coatings did not look as SMC.
The front ring did not say "110" or "Macro". It went for not much money.

It is neither in our lens data base nor mentioned by Bojidar, and also Google does not show anything. Perhaps a prototype?

pathdoc · 12-23-2015, 04:42 AM

That would almost have been worth snapping up just to have it and examine it. Unless of course the price was astronomical.

Doundounba · 12-23-2015, 07:11 AM

Originally posted by RKKS08

A couple of weeks ago, there was an eBay offer of a "Pentax 2.8/50mm", in K-mount.

You can search recent closed listings on Ebay. It could be this auction. Advertised as a 50/2.8, but actually a 50/2. Didn't sell, AFAICT.

**lmd91343** · 12-23-2015, 08:50 AM

I believe the Industar was first designed as a tessar type four element COLLAPSIBLE lens intended for the Russian made Leica like cameras. It was supposed to look like a Leica Elmar. This was an LTM lens. Therefore it had to be very narrow. The glass, mount, slide mechanism, and lens body all had to fit into a 39mm wide opening. The lens was later adapted to a rigid form for Zenit SLRs retaining its heritage.

Industar-22 - Camera-wiki.org - The free camera encyclopedia

pathdoc · 12-23-2015, 09:19 AM

Originally posted by lmd91343

The lens was later adapted to a rigid form for Zenit SLRs retaining its heritage.

As this link from the original article you quoted tends to support. Thanks for that.

BTW, what's an LTM lens?

**lmd91343** · 12-23-2015, 10:08 AM

Originally posted by pathdoc

As this link from the original article you quoted tends to support. Thanks for that.

BTW, what's an LTM lens?

Leica Thread Mount

It is thirty nine millimeters in diameter.

I have I-10, I-22, and I-50 lenses.

pathdoc · 12-23-2015, 11:02 AM

Originally posted by lmd91343

Leica Thread Mount

OK, thanks. I've seen M39 a lot but hardly ever LTM. (I was thinking "Leica-type mirrorless", to be honest, but I wanted to be sure.)

**boriscleto** · 12-23-2015, 11:25 AM

Originally posted by pathdoc

OK, thanks. I've seen M39 a lot but hardly ever LTM. (I was thinking "Leica-type mirrorless", to be honest, but I wanted to be sure.)

LTM differentiates it from FED (39mm x 1mm), Zenit M39 (45.2mm focal flange for SLRs) and Canon J-mount (24 TPI threads).

LTM is 39mm x .977mm with 26 TPI threads and focal flange of 28.8mm.

12-22-2015, 06:00 PM	#1
pathdoc Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2015 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,381	Seen on ebay: a lens raises questions about design intentions. Staff note: This post may contain affiliate links, which means Pentax Forums may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. If you would like to support the forum directly, you may also make a donation here. "Lens, Cosina 55mm f2.8 M42 Mount" In an era where lenses of this focal length were commonly up to two stops faster, when film speeds were low and every stop was precious... WHY? What exactly did they get in exchange for this compromise? Of course the same thing applies even more to the Industar 50/3.5. The gain there is its remarkable compactness, but it comes at the expense of both speed and handling (it's a very fiddly lens to use, as those who have it know only too well). The Takumar 50/4.0 macro is similar, but that was optimised as a flat field copy lens to be used from a stand, where the camera is rigidly held, remotely triggered, lighting can be optimised, and considerations of camera shake and shutter speed are irrelevant.

12-23-2015, 01:31 AM	#7
.a.t. Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: yesterday Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,261	etc. Originally posted by southlander By way of another example, Ricoh had a f2.2 in their line up at one stage. And Vivitar also sold a 55mm f2.8 kit lens. Originally posted by Not a Number The design intention is to keep the cost down. The slower the lens the less glass you have to put on it - smaller lens, less elements. . . Originally posted by stevebrot I dunno...cheap price? When I bought my Ricoh Singlex TLS back in 1970 there were three kit options, 55/2.8, 50/1.7, and 55/1.4. The 55/2.8 was no additional cost while there was extra expense for either of the other two. I suspect that Cosina followed a similar market strategy. . . Years ago, Sears sold rebadged Ricoh cameras and lenses. Here are some figures from their 1970 Fall / Winter catalog: TLS camera with 55mm f/1.4 lens (7 element) $179.50 TLS camera with 55mm f/1.8 lens (6 element) $149.50 TLS camera with 55mm f/2.8 lens (4 element) $119.50

12-23-2015, 08:50 AM	#11
lmd91343 Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Los Angeles, CA USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,027	Industar I believe the Industar was first designed as a tessar type four element COLLAPSIBLE lens intended for the Russian made Leica like cameras. It was supposed to look like a Leica Elmar. This was an LTM lens. Therefore it had to be very narrow. The glass, mount, slide mechanism, and lens body all had to fit into a 39mm wide opening. The lens was later adapted to a rigid form for Zenit SLRs retaining its heritage. Industar-22 - Camera-wiki.org - The free camera encyclopedia

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Questions about a SMC Pentax FA 250-600mm f5.6 ED[IF] lens	Weevil	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	37	3 Days Ago 10:03 PM
Questions about video recording on the K-3	madbrain	Pentax K-3 & K-3 II	28	02-16-2015 12:58 PM
ricoh files patent on 2 Q lens designs and on 4/3 design!	shaolen	Pentax News and Rumors	20	08-21-2014 12:03 AM
A few questions about....	JuanEstrada	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	7	02-07-2014 09:15 AM
Ever buy a lens on Ebay...	J-Rod	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	12	11-20-2009 11:40 AM

12-22-2015, 06:23 PM	#2
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by pathdoc What exactly did they get in exchange for this compromise? I dunno...cheap price? When I bought my Ricoh Singlex TLS back in 1970 there were three kit options, 55/2.8, 50/1.7, and 55/1.4. The 55/2.8 was no additional cost while there was extra expense for either of the other two. I suspect that Cosina followed a similar market strategy. BTW...while fast 50s (f/2.0 and wider) have been pretty much the norm for the last 50 years, the other three focal lengths common in a "three lens kit" (28mm, 35mm, 135mm) were typically f/2.8 or f/3.5 and nobody thought much about it. I have no qualms shooting ISO 100 film with my S-M-C Takumar 28/3.5 or Vivitar 135/2.8 or Vivitar 200/3.5. Steve

12-22-2015, 06:42 PM	#3
pathdoc Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2015 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,381 Original Poster	Originally posted by stevebrot BTW...while fast 50s (f/2.0 and wider) have been pretty much the norm for the last 50 years, the other three focal lengths common in a "three lens kit" (28mm, 35mm, 135mm) were typically f/2.8 or f/3.5 and nobody thought much about it. True, and that's why I restricted terms of reference to the 50-55-58mm type lenses. Your cost example is a good one, but even so, two extra stops seems a lot to lose when even the slowest Pentax kit fifty is f2.0.

12-22-2015, 07:25 PM	#4
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by pathdoc True, and that's why I restricted terms of reference to the 50-55-58mm type lenses. Your cost example is a good one, but even so, two extra stops seems a lot to lose when even the slowest Pentax kit fifty is f2.0. Most people bought f/1.8 or f/2.0 kits. That is a 1.3 and 1 stop difference from f/2.8 respectively. The price to upgrade was minimal (typically less than $20) and the faster lenses options were generally superior in all regards. As a result, the Cosinon 55/2.8 you reference is sort of rare. I have been involved with photography since the late 1960s and can't remember ever seeing a Japanese SLR in the flesh with a f/2.8 kit lens. They were definitely available (duh, most makers offered them), but I have never seen one. Steve

12-22-2015, 07:30 PM	#5
Not a Number Moderator Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: Venice, CA Posts: 10,526	The design intention is to keep the cost down. The slower the lens the less glass you have to put on it - smaller lens, less elements. To someone stepping up from a fixed lens budget rangefinder camera with a typical 50mm f/3.5 lens they would feel right at home with one of theses lenses. For someone stepping up from a point-and-shoot with fixed focus, aperture and shutter speed one of these lenses would be an unbelievable upgrade. If you're shooting on sunny days where the "Sunny 16" rule applies you seldom need anything wider the f/3.5. People buying these lenses were probably taking "snapshots" under these conditions a good percentage of the time.

12-22-2015, 09:17 PM	#6
southlander Site Supporter Join Date: May 2012 Location: Adelaide Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,364	By way of another example, Ricoh had a f2.2 in their line up at one stage.

12-23-2015, 03:25 AM	#8
RKKS08 Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Frankfurt am Main Posts: 1,241	A couple of weeks ago, there was an eBay offer of a "Pentax 2.8/50mm", in K-mount. I wondered where this came from, but the pictures showed the offer was real The lens looked as K or M series, with a slightly smaller front lens than the 2/50, and the colour of the coatings did not look as SMC. The front ring did not say "110" or "Macro". It went for not much money. It is neither in our lens data base nor mentioned by Bojidar, and also Google does not show anything. Perhaps a prototype?

12-23-2015, 04:42 AM	#9
pathdoc Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2015 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,381 Original Poster	That would almost have been worth snapping up just to have it and examine it. Unless of course the price was astronomical.

12-23-2015, 07:11 AM	#10
Doundounba Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: Montréal QC Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,351	Originally posted by RKKS08 A couple of weeks ago, there was an eBay offer of a "Pentax 2.8/50mm", in K-mount. You can search recent closed listings on Ebay. It could be this auction. Advertised as a 50/2.8, but actually a 50/2. Didn't sell, AFAICT.

12-23-2015, 09:19 AM	#12
pathdoc Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2015 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,381 Original Poster	Originally posted by lmd91343 The lens was later adapted to a rigid form for Zenit SLRs retaining its heritage. As this link from the original article you quoted tends to support. Thanks for that. BTW, what's an LTM lens?

12-23-2015, 10:08 AM	#13
lmd91343 Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Los Angeles, CA USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,027	Originally posted by pathdoc As this link from the original article you quoted tends to support. Thanks for that. BTW, what's an LTM lens? Leica Thread Mount It is thirty nine millimeters in diameter. I have I-10, I-22, and I-50 lenses.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-23-2015, 11:02 AM	#14
pathdoc Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2015 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,381 Original Poster	Originally posted by lmd91343 Leica Thread Mount OK, thanks. I've seen M39 a lot but hardly ever LTM. (I was thinking "Leica-type mirrorless", to be honest, but I wanted to be sure.)

12-23-2015, 11:25 AM	#15
boriscleto Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: North Syracuse, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,475	Originally posted by pathdoc OK, thanks. I've seen M39 a lot but hardly ever LTM. (I was thinking "Leica-type mirrorless", to be honest, but I wanted to be sure.) LTM differentiates it from FED (39mm x 1mm), Zenit M39 (45.2mm focal flange for SLRs) and Canon J-mount (24 TPI threads). LTM is 39mm x .977mm with 26 TPI threads and focal flange of 28.8mm.