GR User Forum

The spot for all Ricoh GR camera users

Register for free, meet other Ricoh GR users, share your images, help others, have fun!

Tell your friends about us!

Industar-69 28/2.8

Hi folks,

Here are couple of comments and photos taken with the old Soviet-era pancake lens Industar-69 28/2.8 (42mm on APSC), originally made for the half-frame camera Chaika.

It's a M39 lens so you will have to get the M39 to M adapter ring to make use of this lens on the GXR M mount. I bought one from this ebay seller:
http://stores.ebay.com/carexi?_trksid=p4340.l2563

Be aware that not all M39 adapters from China are of the same build quality and tolerance! The previous (cheap) one I bought on ebay was slightly bigger and so useless with the GXR M.

What to say about this lens? It's a dirty cheap lens that will never win any sharpness contest ;) Sharpness improves if stepped down. But you will have to go as low as f8-f11 for corner to corner sharpness.

On the other hand, it's ideal size lens for the M mount. And if you can find mechanically good and clean example, you will probably love it! The sample I bought on ebay is unfortunately not mechanically very good. The focus ring is loose so it's pretty hard to focus even with activated focus aid and enlarged part of the screen. Additionally, the lens coating is almost gone on my sample, but I guess it was very mediocre even in the case of new lens? ;)

What's interesting on this lens (and what probably helped with its minimalistic design) is the aperture control available on the front-inner ring.
It's somewhat clumsy to control, small/tipped finger (or longer finger-nail) is required. Another surprising discovery is that the aperture ring does not click. So adjusting the aperture is not in the EV steps, which means you can set any aperture value between each EV step. This could be somewhat annoying, especially if you are a person who prefers precise aperture control ;)

The aperture consists of 5 blades, so this lens is definitely not a bokeh monster. Despite of this drawback, bokeh is surprisingly good where it's supposed to be.


Because of no or very mediocre lens coating, the lens is not very contrast, which means it's not very useful for color photography. Definitely nothing for good for bright light conditions. But it works well for B&W photography (if you boost the contrast a bit)!

The lowest (reasonably) usable aperture value is in my opinion f4. So this is definitely not a low-light lens. Most of the below shots were taken at f4, except the outdoor daylight shots. These were taken at f5.6.

I bought this lens for 39USD (incl. s&p). And I just ordered another one for 38USD. Just to check if they are all the same rubbish? ;)

There is probably no other similarly small and cheap pancake lens for the M mount. It's good lens for those who like to play with the 40mm focal length and who are not obsessed about the per-pixel and corner to corner sharpness. But it's definitely not good for anyone who expects the GR/LM lens quality. Those people will have to look for Ricoh GR 28/2.8 lens. But this lens costs about +1000USD. Another alternative could be Canon 28/2.8 L39, but also this lens cots between 600-800USD. I'm not aware of any other pancake-like 28/2.8 lens suitable for the M mount. Any ideas?

The full resolution versions of below photos can be examined here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/odklizec/s ... 395385046/
 

Attachments

  • R1103206_sm.jpg
    EXIF
    R1103206_sm.jpg
    302.5 KB · Views: 5,140
  • R1103210_sm.jpg
    EXIF
    R1103210_sm.jpg
    235.3 KB · Views: 5,087
  • R1103215_sm.jpg
    EXIF
    R1103215_sm.jpg
    286.6 KB · Views: 5,122
  • R1103227_sm.jpg
    EXIF
    R1103227_sm.jpg
    463.3 KB · Views: 5,098
  • R1103243_sm.jpg
    EXIF
    R1103243_sm.jpg
    418 KB · Views: 5,085
  • R1103265_sm.jpg
    EXIF
    R1103265_sm.jpg
    316.1 KB · Views: 5,058
  • R1103273_sm.jpg
    EXIF
    R1103273_sm.jpg
    283 KB · Views: 5,101
  • R1103288_sm.jpg
    EXIF
    R1103288_sm.jpg
    541.5 KB · Views: 5,093
  • R1103292_sm.jpg
    EXIF
    R1103292_sm.jpg
    387.7 KB · Views: 5,059
  • R1103297_sm.jpg
    EXIF
    R1103297_sm.jpg
    433.3 KB · Views: 5,076
  • R1103300_sm.jpg
    EXIF
    R1103300_sm.jpg
    490 KB · Views: 5,052
  • R1103330_sm.jpg
    EXIF
    R1103330_sm.jpg
    337.1 KB · Views: 5,055
  • R1103342_sm.jpg
    EXIF
    R1103342_sm.jpg
    725.4 KB · Views: 5,066
  • industar_69_angle.jpg
    EXIF
    industar_69_angle.jpg
    226.9 KB · Views: 5,199
  • industar_69_front.jpg
    EXIF
    industar_69_front.jpg
    190.3 KB · Views: 5,196
  • industar_69_top.jpg
    EXIF
    industar_69_top.jpg
    146.3 KB · Views: 5,248
  • R1103310_f28_sm.jpg
    EXIF
    R1103310_f28_sm.jpg
    274.4 KB · Views: 5,147
  • R1103311_f4_sm.jpg
    EXIF
    R1103311_f4_sm.jpg
    283.6 KB · Views: 5,133
  • industar-69.png
    EXIF
    industar-69.png
    409.3 KB · Views: 5,162
  • m39.jpg
    EXIF
    m39.jpg
    62.1 KB · Views: 4,908
I'm certainly no expert on lenses Pavel, nor do I bother at all with pixel count and corner sharpness. This being said I'd say you'd have to be pretty happy with the lens you've got there. Cheap, definitely usable, and from the look of those images, even the colour ones, you did very well.
Some lovely pics of your children there, and the playdough looks really tasty!! :lol:
 
Thanks for sharing Pavel. I may have to do some more thinking on that 35 - 45mm range on the GXR. Leicas in that range are way out of my budget.
 
Dunno Pavel. I think it's time to rethink your images. There's a quality in these that you will not get from Leica lenses. Maybe that's a good important thing but for that early Kertesz softness and glow.... these images have it.
I have a slew of Russian lenses and many from Kiev. I love them all for their image quality..... Magic!
 
I knew your children would grow up on this Ricoh forum. Great shots again Pavel.
I'm liking these B&W tones from the GXR in full sun. Krisp.
I'm a little confused as I have a 39 LTM Industar-69 28/2.8 for my ruskie stuff & never used it because its a 1/2 frame lens.
Like the register is out or not quit 28mm.
Do Ricoh have a 28mm GXR lens?
I'm not having a go at the Industar. 69. I just thought it wouldn't fit without modification.
But I loved all your shots.
Kids,....they grow up so fast.
 
This lens and its qualities certainly has its place in the scheme of things.
It seems to trick me into what i think is expanded DR. Perhaps it approximates film imagery or what we expect from that.
I think its very even across the field which helps its IQ. Seems quite similar on the corners to center to me.
Maybe that is its strength?!
 
Thanks for your comments guys! I completely forgot about the fact that this lens was designed for the half-frame camera! So considering this fact, this Industar works better than expected on the GXR M (APSC) ;)

In addition, there is no need to modify this lens to work at Infinity. I read some reports that this lens needs to be modified to work at Infinity. But it seems not be the case of GXR M + M39 adapter? It works just fine without modifying anything.

Phil, all you need to make your Industar to work with the GXR M, is a M39 to M adapter. Check the ebay store link I added to the review. The Industar works well with the M39 ring I got there.

As for the 28mm lens from Ricoh, it's not made for the GXR M. In fact, it's not produced anymore ;) It's quite rare and expensive lens. Well, maybe not as expensive as Leica lenses. But definitely more expensive than many Voigtlanders. Check for example this ebay auction...
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Limited-Ricoh ... 4840d34425
 
That's a beautiful and characterful lens. Great photos. I especially like R1103206_sm.jpg and R1103227_sm.jpg
 
odklizec":2w0t8s20 said:
Thanks for your comments guys! I completely forgot about the fact that this lens was designed for the half-frame camera! So considering this fact, this Industar works better than expected on the GXR M (APSC) ;)

In addition, there is no need to modify this lens to work at Infinity. I read some reports that this lens needs to be modified to work at Infinity. But it seems not be the case of GXR M + M39 adapter? It works just fine without modifying anything.

Phil, all you need to make your Industar to work with the GXR M, is a M39 to M adapter. Check the ebay store link I added to the review. The Industar works well with the M39 ring I got there.

As for the 28mm lens from Ricoh, it's not made for the GXR M. In fact, it's not produced anymore ;) It's quite rare and expensive lens. Well, maybe not as expensive as Leica lenses. But definitely more expensive than many Voigtlanders. Check for example this ebay auction...
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Limited-Ricoh ... 4840d34425

Luck or true Pavel? (about the modification) I have one and it needs the 1-2mm modification I am afraid. Stories on the web about attacking them with a file - yikes, at least the lenses are cheap. One vendor swears that by removing the limit pin they work well. But mine is so very close to infinity but not quite with the limit pin removed - however you have to be careful that you don't jam it screwed in tight and the focus scale no longer works properly. I intend to machine lathe the necessary distance off. Must hardly need to touch it with the tool but it sounds less messy than a file. When I get around to it I will take pictures and give directions.

You did Well with the images caught but I am still head scratching on how well it works - does your lens "do infinity"? Might be ok at closer range. Thought I might buy a few more and try fixing them "properly" on a lathe but you might need to be prepared to buy a few to get some good ones and I noticed that the proce has jumped - must be supply and demand kicking in.

Yes and I do gave the Ricoh GR 28mm f2.8, expensive? Yes, nice? Very.

They are both 42mm equivalent on the GXR-M.

If you can find a nice Jupiter-12 35mm f2.8 then those images you took will be even better. The J-12 is a very nice lens indeed and of course made for LTM. The aperture setting in front of the lens is common to the Orion-15, the Russar-MR2 and the Jupiter-12 as well and probably others. Many Russian lenses also have stepless apertures as well including the J-3, J-8 and J11 which are more conventionally external ring based. Best grab a J-12 quick before the word gets around.

Tom
 
As for the question of half-frame lens vs. APS-C size sensor: Note that the APS-C crop factor applies on *both* sides of the sensor, i.e. an APS-C sensor is not "1.5 times smaller" than full frame, but (1.5x1.5) times smaller. In other words, APS-C *is* almost exactly half-frame:

24x18mm = half frame vs.
25x17mm = APS-C (approximately)

In other words: half frame lenses *should* be good on APS-C sensors! If I recall correctly, somebody on this forum mounted Olympus Pen (the film half-frame SLR) lenses on the M mount, too, with good results...?
 
Yes they work fine, mine does, the mount is M39 ltm and it screws in properly. The only problem is that the flange back distance is not standard ltm and the adjustment stops short of infinity.

A fix promoted on the web says file the internal shoulders down to correct and it works 100℅. A vendor says remove the internal focus stop pin. The jury is still considering the verdict.

Tom
 
Tom Caldwell":1tyt6z1q said:
.
If you can find a nice Jupiter-12 35mm f2.8 then those images you took will be even better. The J-12 is a very nice lens indeed and of course made for LTM. The aperture setting in front of the lens is common to the Orion-15, the Russar-MR2 and the Jupiter-12 as well and probably others. Many Russian lenses also have stepless apertures as well including the J-3, J-8 and J11 which are more conventionally external ring based. Best grab a J-12 quick before the word gets around.
Tom
Tom, Have you tried the Russar-MR2 & Orion-15 yet ?
 
Yes I have.

I even bought the Orion-15 bfore the M mount was released. Is that crazy? Would mount but not focus to infinity on the NX10. No problems with fit on the GXR-M on which it is very neat. It is very much like a "super" industar-69 and of course it is built for ltm and needs no modification. In practice it is another Russian silver aluminium "special" not that there is anything wrong with this but they need proper resoect and care. Sometimes they can be knocked about. Mine is cosmetically fine but the focus ring is tight, despite pulling it apart and relubricating it the tightness is still there. Might try it again with less lubricant. Optically it is fine but it is a very slow lens (f6.3). It is wide enough and so-oh slow that focusing is not much of a problem anyway. By examples the Orion-15 has litle distortion which shows its ancestry as an aerial photography lens.

They are a bit more expensive probably because they are relatively rare but grace the M mount very nicely.

The Russar MP2 (in Roman characters) is really MR2 in Cyrillic, but this matters not except to cause some confusion. There is only one lens. It was made in very small numbers - mine is #00363 and possibly a "prototype" batch as it is not date coded. Mine has had a fairly "useful" life - I can't say that it was abused but merely used a lot. It was almost affordable, good ones fetch Leica-like prices. I think this represents more a rarity/collectible value rather than reflecting its worth as a lens. Mine works fine and I will get some worth-showing images with it shortly. It is f5.6 and 20mm and so is wider and faster than the Orion-15 as well as being much more expensive. Again in many ways it resembles the I-69 design stable with aperture worked around the lens. It is better built, even if hardly "exquisite" being well up to a usable commercial standard. It has that soviet era, and pre WWII generally, basic look about it. Lenses were instruments like knives and forks and none of this "nonsense" pretty refined look about them for dilettante photographers, they were workman's tools just like pliers and screwdrivers.

The Russar (sometimes shown as "Roussarie" which may be from the French) has a huge rear protrusion, even more than the Jupiter-12 and has its own special rear container tube which carries a separate cap. However it does fit the A12 m mount module.

Although obviously well used the lens carries a certain aura and graces my camera well. I have not had opportunity to put it to serious use since I bought it but hope to rectify this shortly. Everything on my example seems to work well.

Some time ago and before the A12 mount was released I photographed my Russian LTM lens collection on a Zorki 4K body to give an impression of how they looked on-camera. This series is in my gallery on dpreview. Should be easy enough to find.

As soon as I get the chance I will repeat this with the A12 mount.

Tom
 
33dollars":1oe6iuc1 said:
Tom Caldwell":1oe6iuc1 said:
.
If you can find a nice Jupiter-12 35mm f2.8 then those images you took will be even better. The J-12 is a very nice lens indeed and of course made for LTM. The aperture setting in front of the lens is common to the Orion-15, the Russar-MR2 and the Jupiter-12 as well and probably others. Many Russian lenses also have stepless apertures as well including the J-3, J-8 and J11 which are more conventionally external ring based. Best grab a J-12 quick before the word gets around.
Tom
Tom, Have you tried the Russar-MR2 & Orion-15 yet ?

To answer the question directly. Yes I have tried them and am satisfied, but not seriously with subjects that would grace the image caught.

I suggest that we all chip some money into Pavel's Paypal tin so that he can buy one and test it for us :)
 
33dollars":d9tmungq said:
I think an Orion-15 would work just that little bit bettera than a Industar-69

Yes the Orion-15 is a useful lens, have not got it with me atm but I was using the Russar yesterday and it works well. My Rissar has a little bit of variable feel to the focus motion and it might repay disassembly cleaning and relubrication. Only have an iPad to hand and have to figure out how to upload images from it when I get the chance to do so.

I have two Industar-69's - one a cery cheap but battered one that I have been experimenting with off and on, and the other in better condition that I will use as my good one once and if I destroy the rough one in my experiments. So far I have only removed the limit pin which then allows the lens to focus closer to infinity until it ultimately jams just short of the mark. But of course the indicator scale then is useless. But from playing around with it it seem to produce acceptable images. The only real recourse is to remove some some surface area on one side or the other of the inner mating areas. Apparently only about 1.5mm is necessary according to the flange back specifciations.

Comparing the I-69, O-15 and R-MR2 in hand the construction material quality is similar but i would agree that the latter two seem better built. The lenses are almost certainly better in the latter two. However they are all that small that really close inspection is hard, nor am I that interested - it is a bit like checking labels on bottles of wine, if it tastes ok then I regard it as a good drop. I don't really need to read the label to feel good about anything that has just brought a rosy glow of contentment. I guess it is basically on how big a premium you might be willing to pay to remove all risk.

I also suppose that I am of the character type where both experimentation and addressing then overcoming a challenge is more fun than assurances from others that by buying the right brand you know it has to be good (so don't y'all worry).

Meanwhile with my first extended session using a Jupiter-9 85mm f2.0 in ltm has proved it to be a very good lens indeed. This one is in great condition but the focus ring was a litle loose. A short session with a 1mm flat blade screwdriver and the two offending screws are tight enough - beware over-tightening such screws if ever doing this yourself - the screws are timy and the aluminium is often soft.

Tom
 
WOW!! A fantastic lot of pictures indeed!! I didn't read all the stuff about the lenses, so can't comment on that aspect of this post, but I had to comment on your pics...amazing job ;) .
 
Pavel. About forgetting about the fact that this Industar is for half frame camera ( Chajka to be exact).I have one and originally it didn`t focus at infinity which id easy fixed. Quality like it`s wide open holgalike, some people would like the effect.Really sharp ruski one is Orion 28/6 and no distortion at edges (architecture!). Half- frame is in fact slightly bigger then APS-C. It´s half of 24x36 thus 24x18. So should anybody dream of super small high quality lenses for m-mount, then just have a look at many film Olympus Pen or Ricoh half frame, get one ,take the lens cell out, put in some sliding tube and prasto! .
 
Pavel. About forgetting about the fact that this Industar is for half frame camera ( Chajka to be exact).I have one and originally it didn`t focus at infinity which id easy fixed. Quality like it`s wide open holgalike, some people would like the effect.Really sharp ruski one is Orion 28/6 and no distortion at edges (architecture!). Half- frame is in fact slightly bigger then APS-C. It´s half of 24x36 thus 24x18. So should anybody dream of super small high quality lenses for m-mount, then just have a look at many film Olympus Pen or Ricoh Auto Half Frame EF ( four element HQ 25/2.8), get one ,take the lens cell out, put in precision helicoid and prasto! .
 
Back
Top