Tiny old pancake lens in modern DSLR camera - What a contrast!

wrote:

Anyone ever see a picture of a 50mm fixed Iens (Industar from Russia)
fit into a DSLR camera. It looks very strange, but apparently it
works.

Works in a fashion. Manual focus, and manual exposure. If you really
want to go retro, just buy an M42 mount film camera, and you have a
choice of bargain priced cameras and bits.

Looking at the photos of a modern DSLR camera with these tiny lens,
how come they cannot come up with smaller size DSLR (containing at
least APS-C size sensor). Is it physically impossible, or the camera
industry just does not want to go in this direction?

The newish Olympus does this doesnt it?
Complete with a pancake lens, see he
http://www.pixmania.co.uk/uk/uk/8943...zuiko-digital-
25mm.html
Seems preety good to me, if I wasnt tied into Canon, I would get one.
Alan.
--
To reply by e-mail, change the ' + ' to 'plus'.

(A.Lee) wrote in news:1ivjuwo.rrh66q15a6vjkN%
:

wrote:

Anyone ever see a picture of a 50mm fixed Iens (Industar from Russia)
fit into a DSLR camera. It looks very strange, but apparently it
works.

Works in a fashion. Manual focus, and manual exposure. If you really
want to go retro, just buy an M42 mount film camera, and you have a
choice of bargain priced cameras and bits.

Looking at the photos of a modern DSLR camera with these tiny lens,
how come they cannot come up with smaller size DSLR (containing at
least APS-C size sensor). Is it physically impossible, or the camera
industry just does not want to go in this direction?

The newish Olympus does this doesnt it?
Complete with a pancake lens, see he
http://www.pixmania.co.uk/uk/uk/8943...zuiko-digital-
25mm.html
Seems preety good to me, if I wasnt tied into Canon, I would get one.
Alan.

The Olympus 25mm f2.8 is not a great lens. Not hyper sharp at f2.8 and has
colour error at all focal ratios. I bought it, took it back. Pentax's
40mm super flat pancake is a better lens.

Rich wrote:
(A.Lee) wrote in news:1ivjuwo.rrh66q15a6vjkN%
:

wrote:

Anyone ever see a picture of a 50mm fixed Iens (Industar from Russia)
fit into a DSLR camera. It looks very strange, but apparently it
works.
Works in a fashion. Manual focus, and manual exposure. If you really
want to go retro, just buy an M42 mount film camera, and you have a
choice of bargain priced cameras and bits.
Looking at the photos of a modern DSLR camera with these tiny lens,
how come they cannot come up with smaller size DSLR (containing at
least APS-C size sensor). Is it physically impossible, or the camera
industry just does not want to go in this direction?
The newish Olympus does this doesnt it?
Complete with a pancake lens, see he
http://www.pixmania.co.uk/uk/uk/8943...zuiko-digital-
25mm.html
Seems preety good to me, if I wasnt tied into Canon, I would get one.
Alan.

The Olympus 25mm f2.8 is not a great lens. Not hyper sharp at f2.8 and has
colour error at all focal ratios. I bought it, took it back. Pentax's
40mm super flat pancake is a better lens.

Yes that one sounds nice. I have a Nikon 45/2.8 AI-P pancake which looks
rather silly on a D200 or D700 but it's a nice lens. Manual focus but
will meter on any body. I can jam the camera in a coat pocket with that
lens on: http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehill/3304415292/
Next in that set is another pancake macro lens (cheating).

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

Paul Furman wrote in
:

Rich wrote:
(A.Lee) wrote in news:1ivjuwo.rrh66q15a6vjkN%
:

wrote:

Anyone ever see a picture of a 50mm fixed Iens (Industar from
Russia) fit into a DSLR camera. It looks very strange, but
apparently it works.
Works in a fashion. Manual focus, and manual exposure. If you really
want to go retro, just buy an M42 mount film camera, and you have a
choice of bargain priced cameras and bits.
Looking at the photos of a modern DSLR camera with these tiny lens,
how come they cannot come up with smaller size DSLR (containing at
least APS-C size sensor). Is it physically impossible, or the
camera industry just does not want to go in this direction?
The newish Olympus does this doesnt it?
Complete with a pancake lens, see he
http://www.pixmania.co.uk/uk/uk/8943...20-zuiko-digit
al- 25mm.html
Seems preety good to me, if I wasnt tied into Canon, I would get
one. Alan.

The Olympus 25mm f2.8 is not a great lens. Not hyper sharp at f2.8
and has colour error at all focal ratios. I bought it, took it back.
Pentax's 40mm super flat pancake is a better lens.

Yes that one sounds nice. I have a Nikon 45/2.8 AI-P pancake which
looks rather silly on a D200 or D700 but it's a nice lens. Manual
focus but will meter on any body. I can jam the camera in a coat
pocket with that lens on:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehill/3304415292/ Next in that set is
another pancake macro lens (cheating).


That is the benefit. An Olympus E-420 coupled to the 25mm is very
pocketable. Other pancakes (this applies only to Olympus/Canon as they
are the only two DSLRs that can readily adapt almost any lens) include
the Konica Hexanon 40mm f1.8 and the Minolta 45mm f2.0. It would have
been nice if Nikon's D40/60 were compatible with the 45mm you show.

Rich wrote:

An Olympus E-420 coupled to the 25mm is very pocketable.


But not very desirable. :-(


Other pancakes (this applies only to Olympus/Canon as they
are the only two DSLRs that can readily adapt almost any lens) include
the Konica Hexanon 40mm f1.8 and the Minolta 45mm f2.0. It would have
been nice if Nikon's D40/60 were compatible with the 45mm you show.


You can fit neither the Konica Hexanon 40mm f1.8 nor the Minolta 45mm
f/2.0 to a Canon (D)SLR because the lens flange to film/sensor plane
dimensions for the Konica and Minolta systems are too great.

You may be able to find adapters, but they will either include an
additional lens element that destroys any pretence to high image
quality, or disallow focusing at anything other than close distances.

On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 18:15:16 -0800 (PST)
wrote:

I saw a photo showing the Industar lens mounted on a Nikon D1http://
images.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://farm4.static.flickr.com/
3347/3228925665_42df354853.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.flickr.com/groups/
russianlens/discuss/72157612955099072/&usg=__MBYoDyWR-
VIs8N6RynManeFzQQQ=&h=326&w=500&sz=97&hl=en&start= 42&um=1&tbnid=Qh1dopk8Er6VPM:&tbnh=85&tbnw=130&pre v=/
images%3Fq%3Dindustar%2Bon%2Ba%2Bnikon%2BDSLR%26st art%3D36%26ndsp
%3D18%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN

If the above does not connect to the right link,

use http://tinyurl.com/ to produce http://tinyurl.com/cd7txv or just
lift the URL of the JPEG straight from the page:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3347/...354853.jpg?v=0

just google on image
for "industar lens mounted on Nikon DSLR". One of the image from Flikr
will have the image.

I got bored before I found it that way. :-)

I still don't know how the lens still manage to "project" the image
correctly on the digital sensor.

Why not? Light goes in the front and out the back, and as long as the
optics are the right distance from the sensor you'll get an image.

It is just too tiny and strange to see.

The Industar 50mm is an f3.5, compared to an f1.8 lens that's otherwise
the same it's about 0.7 times the size.

However, apparently someone uses it and I guess it works. I
assume everything have to be done manually.

Absolutely.

On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 17:28:35 +0000
(A.Lee) wrote:

wrote:

Anyone ever see a picture of a 50mm fixed Iens (Industar from
Russia) fit into a DSLR camera. It looks very strange, but
apparently it works.

Works in a fashion. Manual focus, and manual exposure. If you really
want to go retro, just buy an M42 mount film camera, and you have a
choice of bargain priced cameras and bits.

Not so much these days - lots of people want the lenses and any number
of cheap bodies is no good without glass.

Marty Fremen wrote:

If that's the same Industar 50mm that was used as the standard lens on
Zenith B SLRs in the 1970s then "works" is a questionable term: that lens
used to suffer terribly from flare making it unusable for into-the-light
shots, which came out like it was a foggy day.

Are you sure about that? Did you test it on your Fujica to see how
much you were seeing was camera body flare? A single coated Tessar
type lens shouldn't have a flare problem.

Peter.
--

Peter Irwin wrote:
Marty Fremen wrote:
If that's the same Industar 50mm that was used as the standard lens on
Zenith B SLRs in the 1970s then "works" is a questionable term: that lens
used to suffer terribly from flare making it unusable for into-the-light
shots, which came out like it was a foggy day.

Are you sure about that? Did you test it on your Fujica to see how
much you were seeing was camera body flare? A single coated Tessar
type lens shouldn't have a flare problem.



Ever owned a 1930s Elmar f3.5? The Industar was in a conical mount
shape, resembling a large micro lens in design, with the front element
right at the front. In its 39mm Zenith thread (the original, pre-42mm)
the mount was entirely bright aluminium and the blacking round the front
element, and inside, was minimal. The lens needed a deep lenshood but
the tiny filter thread meant the shape of the hood had to be inefficient
from the start.

General veiling glare (flare present when no light sources shine on the
lens) was not terrible, but the moment you aimed the Industar into the
light for a backlit shot - or even just got the sun striking it from
well out of view - pix could be lost. The bright shiny 'blue metal' iris
blades did not help.

The Fujica ST/etc series from the mid 1970s onwards used lenses of
exceptional contrast. Electron Beam Coating (EBC) with 9 layers was
actually far superior to Canon's early SC/SSC and matched Pentax SMC,
but Fuji went further and used new glass types to reduce the number of
elements needed in a standard lens. Where others had six or seven, they
got down to five - something which Wray had achieved on the 24 x 32mm
format with the f/2 Unilite for the Wrayflex 30 years earlier.
Unfortunately, the Unilite was not a star performer. At that time,
improved coatings not simplified optical design would have been a better
answer :-)

David

David Kilpatrick wrote:
Peter Irwin wrote:
Marty Fremen wrote:
If that's the same Industar 50mm that was used as the standard lens
on Zenith B SLRs in the 1970s then "works" is a questionable term:
that lens used to suffer terribly from flare making it unusable for
into-the-light shots, which came out like it was a foggy day.

Are you sure about that? Did you test it on your Fujica to see how
much you were seeing was camera body flare? A single coated Tessar
type lens shouldn't have a flare problem.


Ever owned a 1930s Elmar f3.5? The Industar was in a conical mount
shape, resembling a large micro lens in design, with the front element
right at the front. In its 39mm Zenith thread (the original, pre-42mm)
the mount was entirely bright aluminium and the blacking round the front
element, and inside, was minimal.

http://m42.artlimited.net/lens_detail.php?lid=85


The lens needed a deep lenshood but
the tiny filter thread meant the shape of the hood had to be inefficient
from the start.

General veiling glare (flare present when no light sources shine on the
lens) was not terrible, but the moment you aimed the Industar into the
light for a backlit shot - or even just got the sun striking it from
well out of view - pix could be lost. The bright shiny 'blue metal' iris
blades did not help.

The Fujica ST/etc series from the mid 1970s onwards used lenses of
exceptional contrast. Electron Beam Coating (EBC) with 9 layers was
actually far superior to Canon's early SC/SSC and matched Pentax SMC,
but Fuji went further and used new glass types to reduce the number of
elements needed in a standard lens. Where others had six or seven, they
got down to five - something which Wray had achieved on the 24 x 32mm
format with the f/2 Unilite for the Wrayflex 30 years earlier.

The Industar link above shows a 4 element section.


Unfortunately, the Unilite was not a star performer. At that time,
improved coatings not simplified optical design would have been a better
answer :-)

David


--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam