Originally posted by CarbonR My Industar, alongside with the Zenit E it came with (this was my first film SLR and I did some rolls with it), has his serial starting by 80 so I assume it was manufactured in 1980.
As I thought
There have been numerous versions of the Industar-50 series over the years, going right back to the 1950s, and those from the mid-1960s to early '70s are my favourites (when looking through them, you'll note a distinct purple / magenta hue from the lens coatings). Shot skilfully, there is no problem with contrast.
Originally posted by CarbonR I did not use a lens hood on this test because I almost never use lens hoods apart with my Samyangs (because they are stored with them) and with teles with integrated hood.
Understood... but be aware that your Industar-50-2 is a very basic, cosmetically refreshed lens with an optical design dating back many, many years, and the coatings on this later variant aren't great. Shooting with a hood, or - as I usually do - just a hand to block strong light sources - works wonders
Originally posted by CarbonR But the Takumar did not require lens hood, so my Industar is far behing the Takumar (+ manuel vs. preset aperture, + poor focusing ring)
I've no doubt the Takumar
would be much better, however I think it's worth differentiating between "poor contrast" and "poor contrast
caused by veiling flare". The later Industar-50-2 isn't great for contrast, it's true, yet it can perform considerably better than your test shots would suggest, but for veiling flare (which can be avoided). I'm not criticising your tests and results, but merely adding context that might be helpful to you and other potential users... whilst
respectfully refuting your blanket statement that "
russians do not have "contrast" in their dictionnary"
Thanks again for publishing your tests. They make for interesting viewing