[stevebrot]

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.

---

I checked out those Industar-50's. While I do like how small they are. "The optical formula is the same, but the coatings make one heck of a difference." Thing is I read that they are Zeiss copies. The photos will look closer to Zeiss.

Trust me, the optical formula of a 1960s - 70s Industar-50 is the same as an earlier Industar-22. Except that the later lens is better, IMHO.

But, by all means by different lenses and find out for yourself. That's part of the fun

Yep...the collapsible FED and Industar 50s share optical design (all are essentially Tessar-type four-element) and those made from about 1950-on are coated. If you decide to test the waters for M39 (LTM) lenses, be aware that body compatibility for collapsible lenses varies, even for native LTM bodies. As for the "look" of photos, they will render and image typical for an Industar or FED collapsible with most of the general characteristics of a Tessar-type lens with flavor added due to Soviet-sourced glass.


Steve

[Prince Harbinger]

Trust me, the optical formula of a 1960s - 70s Industar-50 is the same as an earlier Industar-22. Except that the later lens is better, IMHO.

But, by all means by different lenses and find out for yourself. That's part of the fun

Have you seen this review? It's a very soft lens. It's a shame because I love the small design. Might try one anyway since they are only $15.00

Youtu.be

Youtu.be

[BigMackCam]

Yep...the collapsible FED and Industar 50s share optical design (all are essentially Tessar-type four-element) and those made from about 1950-on are coated

... and one of the nice things about the later lenses - I'm referring here to Soviet M39 SLR mount and earlier M42 mount examples - is the coatings, which are a big improvement on the earlier rangefinder models...

[Prince Harbinger]

Fake

Real adjusts aperture with a tab, not a knurled ring Edit: not always. Also note the reflections in the front element. The genuine Elmar is uncoated. The photo shows a bluish reflection typical of Soviet-made copies.


Steve

Have a look at the listing. 1948 Leica Elmar 50mm f/3.5 Collapsible Screw Mount Lens (CLA'd by Youxin Ye) | eBay

[stevebrot]

Fake

Real adjusts aperture with a tab, not a knurled ring Edit: not always. Also note the reflections in the front element. The genuine Elmar is uncoated. The photo shows a bluish reflection typical of Soviet-made copies.


Steve

The split knurled ring is also suspicious.


Steve

[BigMackCam]

The split knurled ring is also suspicious.

As is the outstanding condition of the front ring and engravings...

[Prince Harbinger]

This is like trying to find a needle in a haystack. What about this?
Exc+ NR! Leica Leitz Summitar 50mm f/2.0 50/2 Lens, LTM M39| Summicron Summaron

I'm guessing to win I would need to bid a large amount at the last few seconds. Never done bidding before.8

Sketchy feedback.

---

Last edited by Prince Harbinger; 03-12-2019 at 02:24 PM.

[stevebrot]

As is the outstanding condition of the front ring and engravings...

This one is puzzling and I am quite willing to step back from my crying "fake". The position of the iris diaphragm (directly behind the front element on the Elmar) would be diagnostic.

Addendum: Probably not a Soviet fake, but still looks fishy. Frankenlens?


Steve

[BigMackCam]

Have you seen this review? It's a very soft lens. It's a shame because I love the small design. Might try one anyway since they are only $15.00
Weird lens reviews: Industar 50-2 50mm f/3.5 (APS-C and full-frame) - YouTube

I haven't seen that review, no...

But... I do actively collect and shoot Soviet lenses. I'm not sure how many I own, but it's well over a hundred. Amongst my collection, I own numerous Industar-50s, including earlier collapsible and later non-collapsible rangefinder variants, 1960s-70s M39 SLR variants, and M42 variants from 1970s onwards. I service the non-collapsible variants as a stress-reliever when I have an hour spare here and there And I can tell you with some reasonable qualification and confidence, they're not soft lenses. Stopped down a little, they're perfectly decent, and wide open they offer some interesting rendering (including a little of the swirl you're fond of, in the right circumstances).

Don't believe everything you read online. Research many sources to form a combined view. Try out lenses for yourself. That's what I've done, and it has revealed many gems, and a few duds... but the Industar-50 ain't a dud, IMHO.

For what it's worth, I recommend Soviet lenses from the mid-60s to mid-70s. In my experience - which is limited, yet somewhat greater than average - they have the best combination of optical and build quality. That's a generalisation, because there are plenty of exceptions - but it's a good starting point. Don't take my word for it (nor anyone else's) though... Try them for yourself and draw your own conclusions

[BigMackCam]

This is like trying to find a needle in a haystack. What about this?
Exc+ NR! Leica Leitz Summitar 50mm f/2.0 50/2 Lens, LTM M39| Summicron Summaron

I'm guessing to win I would need to bid a large amount at the last few seconds. Never done bidding before.8

Sketchy feedback.

Honestly, my advice would be, s l o w d o w n

Unless you're spending chump change (in which case, buy what you like with abandon! ), learn about the lenses you're buying - how to identify them, what's good and bad about them, reasonable market value, whether-or-not they'll suit your requirements - by reading information and opinions from multiple sources. Then, learn about buying on eBay - the pitfalls, what to look out for, how to spot good and bad sellers etc. Then, and only then, be prepared to bid what you want to pay... and do so by waiting until the last minute and placing your bid manually, or - better still - use a proxy bidding service like AuctionStealer to place your maximum bid in the last few seconds.

Good luck!

[Prince Harbinger]

I haven't seen that review, no...

But... I do actively collect and shoot Soviet lenses. I'm not sure how many I own, but it's well over a hundred. Amongst my collection, I own numerous Industar-50s, including earlier collapsible and later non-collapsible rangefinder variants, 1960s-70s M39 SLR variants, and M42 variants from 1970s onwards. I service the non-collapsible variants as a stress-reliever when I have an hour spare, here and there. And I can tell you with some reasonable qualification and confidence, they're not soft lenses. Stopped down a little, they're perfectly decent, and wide open they offer some interesting rendering (including a little of the swirl you're fond of, in the right circumstances).

Don't believe all (or even much) of what you read without trying out lenses for yourself. That's what I've done, and it has revealed many gems, and duds... but the Industar-50 ain't a dud, IMHO.

For what it's worth, I recommend Soviet lenses from the mid-60s to mid-70s. In my experience - which is limited, yet greater than average - they have the best combination of optical and build quality. But don't take my word for it (nor anyone else's)... Try them for yourself and draw your own conclusions

I'll grab one and see. I saw a really nice one with a black and chrome finish. Do you have any faster recommendations? I was thinking of the Jupiter 9, but I can't find version two. Which is considered the best. It was made in the 1970's.

[BigMackCam]

I'll grab one and see. I saw a really nice one with a black and chrome finish.

I don't recall a genuine black and chrome Industar-50. It's probably tarted up to tempt unsuspecting buyers and, hence, one to avoid. Depending on the mount you want - M39 (LTM) rangefinder, M39 SLR or M42, stick with earlier models up to and including mid 70s...

Do you have any faster recommendations?

I mentioned a few to you previously... Helios-44 / -44-2 2/58, Helios-44M-6 or 7 (be careful of fakes!), Zenitar-M2 / M2s 2/50, Zenitar-M 1.7/50 & 1.9/50, Helios-77M, etc. All good lenses, and there are others too. Without knowing exactly what you're looking for in terms of optical rendering, though, it's difficult to recommend anything.

I was thinking of the Jupiter 9, but I can't find version two. Which is considered the best. It was made in the 1970's.

I don't know what "version two" is. But, as with my previous comments, I would suggest you go with 1960s to 70s variants depending on the mount you're looking for. You won't go far wrong if you stick with that advice for now

Going back to my earlier comment...

What are you hoping to use the lens for, what do you want to achieve in terms of rendering and optical performance, and what sensor format will you be using (m43, APS-C, full frame)? Answering those questions will immediately narrow down the choice of lenses, which can only be a good thing compared to bouncing around looking at anything and everything based on some unverified online comments

[Prince Harbinger]

I don't recall a genuine black and chrome Industar-50. It's probably tarted up to tempt unsuspecting buyers and, hence, one to avoid. Depending on the mount you want - M39 (LTM) rangefinder, M39 SLR or M42, stick with earlier models up to and including mid 70s...



I mentioned a few to you previously... Helios-44 / -44-2 2/58, Helios-44M-6 or 7 (be careful of fakes!), Zenitar-M2 / M2s 2/50, Zenitar-M 1.7/50 & 1.9/50, Helios-77M, etc. All good lenses, and there are others too. Without knowing exactly what you're looking for in terms of optical rendering, though, it's difficult to recommend anything.



I don't know what "version two" is. But, as with my previous comments, I would suggest you go with 1960s to 70s variants depending on the mount you're looking for. You won't go far wrong if you stick with that advice for now

Going back to my earlier comment...

What are you hoping to use the lens for, what do you want to achieve in terms of rendering and optical performance, and what sensor format will you be using (m43, APS-C, full frame)? Answering those questions will immediately narrow down the choice of lenses, which can only be a good thing compared to bouncing around looking at anything and everything based on some unverified online comments

Thanks for the recommendations. How exactly do you spot a fake Helios 44-2? I don't want to annoy you or anyone else by sending links asking for it to be checked.

I do a little bit of everything to keep things interesting for myself. I'd like a good recommendation for portraits on a APS-C camera. I'm looking for something with beautiful color rendition, buttery smooth bokeh, good contrast, and minimal CA. Something fast with a bit of old school class that'll make my photos jazz. I just want some unique lenses that not everyday photographers use. The recommendation doesn't have to be 100% spot on. I can always edit in post.😋

[BigMackCam]

Thanks for the recommendations. How exactly do you spot a fake Helios 44-2? I don't want to annoy you or anyone else by sending links asking for it to be checked.

You'll have to try quite hard to annoy me If I've given the impression otherwise, I apologise

I will say, though, there's no quick and dirty route to being able to spot good vs bad examples of lenses. It really does take time... looking at many items for sale, feedback on sellers, posts on various forums, website articles, buying / examining / using lenses and, alas, sometimes finding out (and accepting) you've bought a lemon. That has been my own experience, and I suspect most honest collectors would tell you a similar story

I'm not sure I could summarise for you all the things I look for when deciding if a lens is genuine. It includes the seller's location and reputation, the price, whether the lens looks remarkably different from everything else on offer, the serial number of the lens, whether it looks broadly correct for its age, physical features and markings based on my acquired knowledge, condition, etc. etc.

One thing to bear in mind... Soviet lenses generally look like you'd expect of a Soviet product, which is to say, utilitarian, without much in the way of decoration. Silver lenses (with the exception of the barrel section on collapsible rangefinder models) should have a matte or semi-matte appearance rather than polished. Most of the black or dark lenses will be the same colour all over. Some 1970s models - sometimes described as "zebra" - might have satin silver highlights on the focus ring, combined with a dull-black overall finish. A small range of late 1960s - early 70s lenses were produced in gloss black. Those are generally quite collectable.

Like I said, it takes time and effort to learn how to spot these things, and it comes with at least some disappointments along the way.

I can't look at every listing you're interested in, but if you want to run the occasional one by me, feel free to send me a PM or two and I'll happily let you know what I think

I do a little bit of everything to keep things interesting for myself. I'd like a good recommendation for portraits on a APS-C camera. I'm looking for something with beautiful color rendition, buttery smooth bokeh, good contrast, and minimal CA. Something fast with a bit of old school class that'll make my photos jazz. I just want some unique lenses that not everyday photographers use. The recommendation doesn't have to be 100% spot on. I can always edit in post.��

OK. This is more helpful than you could imagine

Portraits on APS-C... Assuming you mean head-and-shoulders portraits or tighter still, you're really looking at 50mm plus. The longer the focal length, the more room you'll need to work with your subject. Helios-44-series are great for portraits, but so are any of the other 50mm plus lenses I mentioned.

My favourite choices, based on what you've told me, would include a late 60s - early 70s Helios-44 / -44-2, Jupiter-9 (from the same era), or - if you want something even more tele (i.e. you have even more room to work with), maybe a Jupiter-11 or Jupiter-11A, or Jupiter-37A.

There are many other choices that would fit the bill, but I'm trying to give you some reliable options to kick off with

[Prince Harbinger]

You'll have to try quite hard to annoy me If I've given the impression otherwise, I apologise

I will say, though, there's no quick and dirty route to being able to spot good vs bad examples of lenses. It really does take time... looking at many items for sale, feedback on sellers, posts on various forums, website articles, buying / examining / using lenses and, alas, sometimes finding out (and accepting) you've bought a lemon. That has been my own experience, and I suspect most honest collectors would tell you a similar story

I'm not sure I could summarise for you all the things I look for when deciding if a lens is genuine. It includes the seller's location and reputation, the price, whether the lens looks remarkably different from everything else on offer, the serial number of the lens, whether it looks broadly correct for its age, physical features and markings based on my acquired knowledge, condition, etc. etc.

One thing to bear in mind... Soviet lenses generally look like you'd expect of a Soviet product, which is to say, utilitarian, without much in the way of decoration. Silver lenses (with the exception of the barrel section on collapsible rangefinder models) should have a matte appearance rather than polished; most of the black or dark lenses will be the same colour all over. Some 1970s models - sometimes described as "zebra" - might have satin silver highlights on the focus ring, combined with a dull-black overall finish. A small range of late 1960s - early 70s lenses were produced in gloss black. Those are generally quite collectable.

Like I said, it takes time and effort to learn how to spot these things, and it comes with at least some disappointments along the way.

I can't look at every listing you're interested in, but if you want to run the occasional one by me, feel free to send me a PM or two and I'll happily let you know what I think



OK. This is more helpful than you could imagine

Portraits on APS-C... Assuming you mean head-and-shoulders portraits or tighter still, you're really looking at 50mm plus. The longer the focal length, the more room you'll need to work with your subject. Helios-44-series are great for portraits, but so are any of the other 50mm plus lenses I mentioned.

My favourite choices, based on what you've told me, would include a late 60s - early 70s Helios-44 / -44-2, Jupiter-9 (from the same era), or - if you want something even more tele (i.e. you have even more room to work with), maybe a Jupiter-11 or Jupiter-11A, or Jupiter-37A.

There are many other choices that would fit the bill, but I'm trying to give you some reliable options to kick off with

Thanks for taking the time to share your knowledge and expertise. You are very helpful. I understand it will take some trial and error shopping for imported lenses. I'm perfectly fine with that.

Tight head and shoulders shots. I'd also like something for full body and street. I actually have a Jupiter 11 I got in the mail last week. I'm just waiting for that M39 to M42 ring to adapt it. Fits fine on a L39 adapter, but it won't focus. It's a very beautifully constructed lens. I love the aluminum body and that purple coating. I see why they call it a rocket ship.

Have you ever reversed the front element on a Helios 42? I would like to try the exploding bokeh effect. I have also seen a few with modded aperture blades that I am interested in. Check this one out. HELIOS 44-2 2/58 M42 Square Bokeh Zenit 18 Zenitar ME1 Effect Lens #89330