[reh321]

Industar lenses are generally not known to be super sharp, but they have their own temperament. You can try to copy the composition and light of the photos that lured you in, maybe you can build on that. I've seen great photos taken with lomo lenses, like pinhole or Holga lenses. But they take a lot of work. I didn't know your photo history, so my first reply was meant for somebody who is really new, sorry if you already knew most of what I wrote.
I'd say keep that lens, have fun with it, learn how to use it. Maybe it won't be your go-to lens, but you can still have some fun with it and snap some good photos You can also try searching websites like 500px, Flickr for photos taken with Industar lenses to see what others have squeezed out of them. Thing is, though, that with Soviet lenses there is huge sample variation. Even if its same lens model, one can be really sharp, and another really bad.

I hope you post some photos that you are proud of, once you get the hang of this lens

But he will always have a "crop" problem using this lens on a "Q", which is like using a 210mm lens on a 35mm camera. The pictures people would take with a 210mm or 300mm lens are completely different in nature from what they would take with a 35mm or 50mm lens, so this change in environment may get in the way of ever being satisfied with this arrangement.

I didn't know your photo history, so my first reply was meant for somebody who is really new, sorry if you already knew most of what I wrote.
I'd say keep that lens, have fun with it, learn how to use it. Maybe it won't be your go-to lens, but you can still have some fun with it and snap some good photos You can also try searching websites like 500px, Flickr for photos taken with Industar lenses to see what others have squeezed out of them. Thing is, though, that with Soviet lenses there is huge sample variation. Even if its same lens model, one can be really sharp, and another really bad.

I hope you post some photos that you are proud of, once you get the hang of this lens

No worries, I certainly needed someone to tell me to get my act together. Once I've had it tested with a tripod and all that, I will know what to expect from the lens and work from there.

---------- Post added 10-15-16 at 10:03 PM ----------

But he will always have a "crop" problem using this lens on a "Q", which is like using a 210mm lens on a 35mm camera. The pictures people would take with a 210mm or 300mm lens are completely different in nature from what they would take with a 35mm or 50mm lens, so this change in environment may get in the way of ever being satisfied with this arrangement.

What do you mean by problem? I look at it like a feature but I might be missing your point here. Are you talking about the less desirable things that also get multiplied with the crop factor? By all means please list them because the theoretic part of this is very new to me. For instance I had never heard about diffraction until yesterday.

---------- Post added 10-15-16 at 10:47 PM ----------

Cool - and while you are cruising fleabay grab yourself something like a Takumar 55mm 1.8 . They are real bang for buck and represent about as good as you are going to get in M42 vintage. Alternatively get a Kmount adapter and a M50mm 1.7 - also cheap as chips and about as sharp as you are going to get..

I had a look and you're right those lenses weren't all that expensive. Although my Industar is a M39 so I have to invest in at least one adapter more to be able to use them.

But remember this area is about creativity not bleeding edge performance.

You're absolutely right. I just had a look at some of the portraits I've taken with the Industar on my kids and to be honest I don't know why I'm complaining in the first place. I have one taken at ISO 1600, SS 1/60s and F most likely at 2.8, since that's what I've been doing. While it's not for pixel peeping as Heinrich would say, it's still a resonably sharp photo that could be downsized and very much used. I'm just not to fond of blasting photos of my kids on the internet :/

[pacerr]

Did you notice this 'sticky' ?

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/136-pentax-q/209474-adapted-lenses-tested...ce-thread.html

[Sliver-Surfer]

You won't get sharp results with the industar they are a touch soft and a bit glowy. If you want a cheap alternative try getting your hands on a pentax-m 1.7/50mm or even a dirt cheap pentax-m 2/50mm.

Did you notice this 'sticky' ?

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/136-pentax-q/209474-adapted-lenses-tested...ce-thread.html

One of the reasons I started this thread is to make sure I squeeze the absolute best performance out of this lens before submitting it to that thread.

[Altglas]

I know this lens from use on a FED 2. My version (clean glass, no damages) was quite a bit softer than nearly all other 50mm lenses I have used. In addition there was a lot of haze in the pictures wich I can also find in your pictures. It roughly compared to my uncoated 1938 Kodak Retina I lens.

The Q ist the ultimative test instrument for lenses because it's pixel denisty is so high. The industar lens is, in my experience with just one sample, a lens that performs only to very low standards. You are inviting disappointment when you test the technical qualities of a so-so lens on this level.

Should you just junk this lens? No! But it isn't a lens for pictures where technical quality is needed in the first place. It is a lens that offers a dreamy 1950s look with misty haze, strong reaction on light sources and the look typical for lenses of the pre-computer era.

To find a companion for it that covers standard shots you should look for 50mm lenses of first class reputation.

In my experience the Q7/Q-S1 takes a bit sharper pictures than the original Q. I was not quite happy with the sharpness of my Q pictures and the Q7 is just what I need for most of my pictures.

[surfar]

Theres a report of the Industar 55mm f2.8 in the adapted lens section.Reported to work Quite well at F8.Plenty of images to view.

[Pioneer]

Don't give up on your lens yet. I am positive that it can still give you some great photographs.

For starters, "soft and glowy" is not necessarily bad and sharp and contrasty is not necessarily good. Especially for portraits.

We all want to make photographs that make others speechless (well...I do that already but not necessarily in a good way.) But it is just as much about learning.

First, you already have the 01. I don't believe that you need to race out and buy the 06. A nice lens for sure but you may learn more using just your simple Industar. You bought it for a reason. Just because it doesn't immediately seem to work for you is not a reason to get rid of it. Use it, learn it, understand what it can do that is good and where its limitations are. Figure out how to focus it manually so it works. There are tons of people on this forum or others who are more than happy to tell you that buying another lens is what you need.

I completely disagree. If you are truly serious than learning to use what you have is far more important and will provide you more useful skills than just the one involved in reaching for your wallet.

The Q is a very light camera and the Industar lens is not very heavy either. An inexpensive tripod will work fine. You certainly need one of those.

Since you are most interested in portraits, get a manikin or wig head, set it up, and start taking photographs...with the Industar lens. Draw in some eyeballs and focus on them. Once you get good enough at that where you can consistently get the eyes in focus then see what you have to do to get the remainder of the head, or at least nose to ears, in focus.

Spend the money that you planned to spend on that 06 lens on some lights. Go to the Strobist website and they will provide you ideas for a starter kit. Learn to use your lights along with your new found focus skills.

Manual focus with a Q is not easy. It takes practice and it takes proper technique. And that takes time to learn. The expectation of sharpness is not your problem. But your expectation of getting sharp photographs in a day or two is a problem. If you spend the time mastering your technique with that lens then you may be surprised just how good you are with another one. You will know when you are good enough to move on.

Or...just go buy another lens and help keep our consumer economy moving.

---------- Post added 10-18-2016 at 01:56 PM ----------

Actually, the Industar 26m should be a good portrait lens. It is reasonably sharp in the center (exactly what you want for portraits) and softer on the edges (again, perfect for portraits.) Stopping the lens down doesn't help a whole lot, the edge softness will stay all the way to at least f5.6, maybe even f11. You want to take portraits, you like the out of focus blur from this lens, I suspect you have the perfect lens right now.

I know this lens from use on a FED 2. My version (clean glass, no damages) was quite a bit softer than nearly all other 50mm lenses I have used. In addition there was a lot of haze in the pictures wich I can also find in your pictures. It roughly compared to my uncoated 1938 Kodak Retina I lens.

Should you just junk this lens? No! But it isn't a lens for pictures where technical quality is needed in the first place. It is a lens that offers a dreamy 1950s look with misty haze, strong reaction on light sources and the look typical for lenses of the pre-computer era.

Thanks for the info, it's nice to have some sort of reference of what to expect. And I'm not gonna quit on the lens I'm going to use it more.

---------- Post added 10-19-16 at 12:07 AM ----------

Theres a report of the Industar 55mm f2.8 in the adapted lens section.Reported to work Quite well at F8.Plenty of images to view.

It's not the same model it's the Industar 61, however all the photos from that post are missing links for me.

---------- Post added 10-19-16 at 12:16 AM ----------

Don't give up on your lens yet. I am positive that it can still give you some great photographs.

For starters, "soft and glowy" is not necessarily bad and sharp and contrasty is not necessarily good. Especially for portraits.

We all want to make photographs that make others speechless (well...I do that already but not necessarily in a good way.) But it is just as much about learning.

First, you already have the 01. I don't believe that you need to race out and buy the 06. A nice lens for sure but you may learn more using just your simple Industar. You bought it for a reason. Just because it doesn't immediately seem to work for you is not a reason to get rid of it. Use it, learn it, understand what it can do that is good and where its limitations are. Figure out how to focus it manually so it works. There are tons of people on this forum or others who are more than happy to tell you that buying another lens is what you need.

I completely disagree. If you are truly serious than learning to use what you have is far more important and will provide you more useful skills than just the one involved in reaching for your wallet.

The Q is a very light camera and the Industar lens is not very heavy either. An inexpensive tripod will work fine. You certainly need one of those.

Since you are most interested in portraits, get a manikin or wig head, set it up, and start taking photographs...with the Industar lens. Draw in some eyeballs and focus on them. Once you get good enough at that where you can consistently get the eyes in focus then see what you have to do to get the remainder of the head, or at least nose to ears, in focus.

Spend the money that you planned to spend on that 06 lens on some lights. Go to the Strobist website and they will provide you ideas for a starter kit. Learn to use your lights along with your new found focus skills.

Manual focus with a Q is not easy. It takes practice and it takes proper technique. And that takes time to learn. The expectation of sharpness is not your problem. But your expectation of getting sharp photographs in a day or two is a problem. If you spend the time mastering your technique with that lens then you may be surprised just how good you are with another one. You will know when you are good enough to move on.

Or...just go buy another lens and help keep our consumer economy moving.

---------- Post added 10-18-2016 at 01:56 PM ----------

Actually, the Industar 26m should be a good portrait lens. It is reasonably sharp in the center (exactly what you want for portraits) and softer on the edges (again, perfect for portraits.) Stopping the lens down doesn't help a whole lot, the edge softness will stay all the way to at least f5.6, maybe even f11. You want to take portraits, you like the out of focus blur from this lens, I suspect you have the perfect lens right now.

Thanks for reassuring words. I understand your point, time is what I need to invest in this lens. But I don't think see myself buying any lighting equipment right now. I'd rather use the lens as I first intended, hand held in natural light.

[surfar]

Yes,no links...in thought it just may have been my puts.....the 55mm can't be too different to your lens.

Yes,no links...in thought it just may have been my puts.....the 55mm can't be too different to your lens.

Probably not.. or probably I've heard quality varies quite a lot from lens to lens when it comes to old Soviet lenses, but then again that's all hear say.

[surfar]

Well, you can only use the one you have....see how it fares............ as recommended by others,the M50 f1.7 is a great lens to adapt.

Well, you can only use the one you have....see how it fares............ as recommended by others,the M50 f1.7 is a great lens to adapt.

I'm keeping my eye out for it. I almost had it yesterday but got outbid by someone else.

[surfar]

OK, well also keep an eye out for the Ricoh XR 50mm f1.7...its very good too and usually cheaper.

[Tony Belding]

OK, well also keep an eye out for the Ricoh XR 50mm f1.7...its very good too and usually cheaper.

Or else look for the Sears branded (AUTO SEARS MC) version, which usually sells for peanuts. I'm particularly fond of these, since one was the "kit lens" with the Ricoh-made Sears KS-2 that I learned on and used for many years -- and the lens still works well on my Sony A7 today.

However. . . When considering the crop factor of the Q system. . . Yeesh. That becomes a pretty long telephoto lens, a completely different beast. And I've found my Q7 is very unforgiving of optical quality when using adapted lenses.