From what I saw here, it seems that Industar has a very nice and warm looking contrast when shot wide open. From my point of view that contrast was more interesting, had a bit more punch in terms of warmer color tones than the other lenses. Very interesting. Thank you for doing this test! 🙏👍
A rather interesting review - a couple of things that always intrigue me when “tests” are proffered of East of the Wall lenses: the first being that none of the lenses were design after 1950 - so whilst a few my trace there heritage back to AW Tronnier none benefited from the advances that were made i. The 50s when biotar and even true planar designs were replaced by ultron and extended ultron designs. There is a reason why the reference lens for many photographic magazines in the 1980s was the Zeiss Oberkochen 50mm 1.4 and 1.8. True optical sharpness is measured in resolving power and the Tronnier Zeiss Planars (extended ultrons) resolve at f8 in both centre and edges at around 100lpm where as the Helios is more in the region of 50/35lpm. The Pentax Takumar M42/ Pentax K (not M or A) was also a Tronnier extended ultron Nikon taking a slightly side route but very different lenses in terms of opitical sharpness from the Russian and even Jena/Dresden Zeiss. The colour shift is easily explained given that non of the lenses is of a planar ultron types which themselves will show a colour shift on almost any sensor even with their flatter focus fields when compared to an Apochromatic lens - when leica introduced the M8 lens coding was required to stop even Wetzlar lenses having problems with focusing three colours on a sensor - film had enough latitude within emulsion density and depth but every pixel in a sensor is in exactly the same plane. That raises the question of what we mean by sharp? Leica give a resolution of 50% contrast at 60lpm for non apochromatic lenses in its 60MP sensor - theoretically the CKJ should be optically sharper than any 23 x 36 sensor of less resolution than 60MP - so generally when we use sharpness in a vulgar way rather than technical way it is mainly the intuition of a concept of sharp we are discussing rather than true optical sharpness - in many cases attributable to problems of wave lengths focusing at different points either side of the plane of focus and contrast as a result of coatings as well as internal refraction and reflection between surfaces as the diagram changes which is different in every lens design. Like a said an interesting video as it actually leaves me with more questions than conclusions and thats what old Francis Bacon would have liked :)
To me the saying never meant that all lenses produce exactly the same images at F/8 (how could they, with different optical designs and coatings and all that?) but rather that the difference between a very high quality and a middle of the range lens has shrunk away, and that they're pretty much all usable equally around F/8-F/11.
I think it was a pity that you chose Russian Lenses for the test that were actually always considered rather good for their price point as they were sold at a loss to gain hard currency. What would have been more interesting if you had tried the same with some cheap 1970's lenses, say from Sigma, Paragon and Prinz. I think the difference would probably have been more significant. Another issue was your choice of 50mm lenses. Most manufacturers in the 1970's did manage to pull off an acceptable 50mm lens. Wide angle lenses were another matter and I think the test would have been more revealing with a focal length of 24mm. I assumed that you used your digital camera for all these shots. I would like to know whether the gap between lenses film performance and digital performance may vary from one lens to another. I am suggesting this in the hope someone who knows much more about lens design than me will make a useful comment as I would like to know it that could be an issue in the digital world. Digital sensors have a very narrow angle of acceptance, whereas film is very much more open in that regard.
Pretty good argument you're making. I was thinking about the same while watching the video. I remember testing a Nikon Nikkor 24mm f/2.8 against a RMC Tokina 24mm f/2.8 on a Nikon D850, and the differences are noceable, especially where color rendition is concerned, with the Tokina shots looking considerably cooler than reality, although with slighly more contrast. Significantly less differences between Nikon Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 AI, 50mm f/2 AI and 50mm f/1.8 AI-S, although nicer rendition from the f/2 overall. Things start changing after the AF-S versions were introduced, with the G being clinically sharp, except at f/1.4, where it has a lot of diffractiom, which gives it a bit of character. On film, the small advantages of each lens are amplified, making the shots look even more appealing, but that also goes for the disadvantages. What's sharp stands out, while the softer areas are getting muddier. Film choice does matter and influences results quite a bit, especially with black and white. I didn't mean to go anywhere with this comment, thought I'd share from my experience
@@adriancozma6102 Yep, I think you make valid comments. I don't really have any Nikkor lenses apart from a short zoom G lens on a Nikon F90X. Wide angle lenses push the designers much more than standard lenses and telephotos. Especially back in the 1970's and before. You can tell that from the number of elements used in the lens designs, the wider the more elements. Anyway, thank you for your kind words.
Personally, the biggest differences between lenses used at smaller apertures tends to be more obvious when shooting close to infinity. Some lenses never seem to sharpen up at the edges with long range subjects or 'landscape' type images but seem to be more optimised for short to medium range shooting.
Thank you. I enjoyed that. All through that test, I kept coming back to the Industar - I just liked it that little bit more. I just did not care for the Jupiter. I already own a Pancolar and a Helios (I use and like both - and I can see the same thing in yours that I do in mine - with the Pancolor being just a bit punchier wide open), and for the price of an Industar 61, I will likely add one. To be honest I usually find that my better photographs are interesting enough in themselves that the character of the lens becomes very much secondary. I really have no excuse for buying more lenses - especially in the 50mm range ... oh heck, I will anyway.
I agree with davidjenkins it would be interesting to compare these lenses with Japanese equivalents and modern designs. nonetheless an interesting video.
An interesting exercise and the results didn’t really surprise me, owning three of the four on test (I don’t have an Industar), but you didn’t mention one factor which is always an issue with these soviet era lenses and that is sample variation. You can get two samples of the same lens with vastly different performance, so the test done again by someone else with the same set may yield a completely different result.
It's a funny thing, but I haven't found the FSU lenses to exhibit much, if any sample variation. I know that others have, and I might just have been lucky, however I've handled many, many Jupiter 8s and Industar 61s, and have only found one dud - which had clearly been assembled incorrectly. I used FSU lenses for this test since they're cheap and widely available, and are essentially 1930s designs. However I do take your point, and will repeat this test, or a similar one, with western lenses.
Back in the day, I knew Photographers who spent (or made their Boss spend!) many thousands of dollars (back when the dollar bought 20 times as much as it does today!) on collections of one, two or even three DOZEN lenses! And then there guys (and Gals) like me who might have worked 30 years with never more then 3-5 lenses! Both took great pictures. And both likely earned nearly the same income too. If YOU the Photographer actually know what your doing, you can work within the limits of the equipment you have! And get award winning pictures from a "Kodak Box Brownie" camera 📷 👌 (Oh YES! Color and contrast do "shift". On most (but not all lenses) lenses I have experience with. GREAT DEMONSTRATION of this fact!)
I great review, and I don't mind these lenses all being Russian made. We are forever being told that we shouldn't go past a certain f stop, I never go past f5.6. Yet I've never noticed the colour shifting. Many thanks Nigel. Regards Rob.
The Industar is Ukranian of course, and the Pancolar is East German! As for never going past f5.6, well, I guess rules are made to be broken, are they not?
Nice video though probably predictable.... I have all those lenses but not that particular CZJ lense.....also you forgot to mention that the Industar lens has 10 blades in diaphragm ( I use that lens on my FED 2 and it works pretty good) Thank for vid Nigel...
It depends what people are expecting from vintage lenses on digital cameras, if it's sharpness and flare resistance - go with the modern kit zooms and forget about vintage rabbithole. For me, the imperfections of vintage lenses is their greatest strength - this Helios 44 (not the other versons), just great, others - Jupiter 8, Industar 61, Pancolar, .. in terms of characters are not even close. Same goes to Trioplan 100mm f2.8, Fujinon 55mm f2.2, Telefogar 90mm f3.5, ...
Great video, the information made me think. I would like to see you compare a zoom lens with a prime lens wide open then f/8. Does landscape photography benefit from a prime lens over a zoom lens? Thanks again for your hard work.
Modern lenses should easily out perform those old lumps of glass. The techniques used in manufacturing the lens elements have improved as have the ability to formulate the lens with computers.
what about my Mamiya Sekor 55mm 1.8? thats bad matey (nice) blow my Canon l away. you have good day Nigel.. Peace and happiness. Keep doing what you doin. really enjoy your channel. thankyou bro
Why just comparing lenses from Russia (CCCP) and not also from Germany (west) and Japan ? The main lenses from the 70-80s *50-55mm* -Leica Summicron 50mm/2 -(Super)takumar 50mm/2 or 55mm/2 -Canon FD 50mm/1.8 -Zuiko OM 50mm/1.8 -Rikenon, Sigma, Tamron, ... Vivitar ? -Jupiter, Pentacon, ... *24-28mm* *105-135mm* *200mm* from multiple manufacturers and from "kit lenses"
I will super glue my lenses at f2. That rich warm deep color is what I’m after. The green plastic garbage bags at the first tests. f/2 is that rich deep green I love. Jupiter 8 f2 Trash bag and the green leaves. 💁🏻♀️ 5:25
Having looked at many Amateur Photographer ship photographs in the 1970's and 1980's, it seem to me that Leica lenses were not actually top draw. I think overall Nikon probably were in general the best overall range but of course they made some lenses that were out preformed by others. However, even Leica lenses were satisfactory. In truth if you bought a lens from a camera manufacturer, it was likely to be at least adequate for all normal purposes.
It would have been interesting to put my Summitar up against these, but I was away and had to use what was with me. I'll bring the Leica lens out in a similar test soon - although I only have one, it would certainly make things interesting!
I suppose you could get a freiend to go out and take the same pic with a variety of lenses then show you the results to see what you think is best without knowing which lens was used?
Interesting video Nigel and your conclusions make sense I think. What would be really interesting is to compare some to a cheaper modern prime.
I've gotten so much insight here, thank you so much.
From what I saw here, it seems that Industar has a very nice and warm looking contrast when shot wide open. From my point of view that contrast was more interesting, had a bit more punch in terms of warmer color tones than the other lenses. Very interesting. Thank you for doing this test! 🙏👍
A rather interesting review - a couple of things that always intrigue me when “tests” are proffered of East of the Wall lenses: the first being that none of the lenses were design after 1950 - so whilst a few my trace there heritage back to AW Tronnier none benefited from the advances that were made i. The 50s when biotar and even true planar designs were replaced by ultron and extended ultron designs. There is a reason why the reference lens for many photographic magazines in the 1980s was the Zeiss Oberkochen 50mm 1.4 and 1.8. True optical sharpness is measured in resolving power and the Tronnier Zeiss Planars (extended ultrons) resolve at f8 in both centre and edges at around 100lpm where as the Helios is more in the region of 50/35lpm. The Pentax Takumar M42/ Pentax K (not M or A) was also a Tronnier extended ultron Nikon taking a slightly side route but very different lenses in terms of opitical sharpness from the Russian and even Jena/Dresden Zeiss. The colour shift is easily explained given that non of the lenses is of a planar ultron types which themselves will show a colour shift on almost any sensor even with their flatter focus fields when compared to an Apochromatic lens - when leica introduced the M8 lens coding was required to stop even Wetzlar lenses having problems with focusing three colours on a sensor - film had enough latitude within emulsion density and depth but every pixel in a sensor is in exactly the same plane. That raises the question of what we mean by sharp? Leica give a resolution of 50% contrast at 60lpm for non apochromatic lenses in its 60MP sensor - theoretically the CKJ should be optically sharper than any 23 x 36 sensor of less resolution than 60MP - so generally when we use sharpness in a vulgar way rather than technical way it is mainly the intuition of a concept of sharp we are discussing rather than true optical sharpness - in many cases attributable to problems of wave lengths focusing at different points either side of the plane of focus and contrast as a result of coatings as well as internal refraction and reflection between surfaces as the diagram changes which is different in every lens design.
Like a said an interesting video as it actually leaves me with more questions than conclusions and thats what old Francis Bacon would have liked :)
To me the saying never meant that all lenses produce exactly the same images at F/8 (how could they, with different optical designs and coatings and all that?) but rather that the difference between a very high quality and a middle of the range lens has shrunk away, and that they're pretty much all usable equally around F/8-F/11.
Which is more or less what I found, at least with these four lenses. Thanks for looking in.
I think it was a pity that you chose Russian Lenses for the test that were actually always considered rather good for their price point as they were sold at a loss to gain hard currency. What would have been more interesting if you had tried the same with some cheap 1970's lenses, say from Sigma, Paragon and Prinz. I think the difference would probably have been more significant. Another issue was your choice of 50mm lenses. Most manufacturers in the 1970's did manage to pull off an acceptable 50mm lens. Wide angle lenses were another matter and I think the test would have been more revealing with a focal length of 24mm. I assumed that you used your digital camera for all these shots. I would like to know whether the gap between lenses film performance and digital performance may vary from one lens to another. I am suggesting this in the hope someone who knows much more about lens design than me will make a useful comment as I would like to know it that could be an issue in the digital world. Digital sensors have a very narrow angle of acceptance, whereas film is very much more open in that regard.
Pretty good argument you're making. I was thinking about the same while watching the video. I remember testing a Nikon Nikkor 24mm f/2.8 against a RMC Tokina 24mm f/2.8 on a Nikon D850, and the differences are noceable, especially where color rendition is concerned, with the Tokina shots looking considerably cooler than reality, although with slighly more contrast.
Significantly less differences between Nikon Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 AI, 50mm f/2 AI and 50mm f/1.8 AI-S, although nicer rendition from the f/2 overall. Things start changing after the AF-S versions were introduced, with the G being clinically sharp, except at f/1.4, where it has a lot of diffractiom, which gives it a bit of character.
On film, the small advantages of each lens are amplified, making the shots look even more appealing, but that also goes for the disadvantages. What's sharp stands out, while the softer areas are getting muddier. Film choice does matter and influences results quite a bit, especially with black and white.
I didn't mean to go anywhere with this comment, thought I'd share from my experience
@@adriancozma6102 Yep, I think you make valid comments. I don't really have any Nikkor lenses apart from a short zoom G lens on a Nikon F90X. Wide angle lenses push the designers much more than standard lenses and telephotos. Especially back in the 1970's and before. You can tell that from the number of elements used in the lens designs, the wider the more elements. Anyway, thank you for your kind words.
Personally, the biggest differences between lenses used at smaller apertures tends to be more obvious when shooting close to infinity. Some lenses never seem to sharpen up at the edges with long range subjects or 'landscape' type images but seem to be more optimised for short to medium range shooting.
Thank you. I enjoyed that. All through that test, I kept coming back to the Industar - I just liked it that little bit more. I just did not care for the Jupiter. I already own a Pancolar and a Helios (I use and like both - and I can see the same thing in yours that I do in mine - with the Pancolor being just a bit punchier wide open), and for the price of an Industar 61, I will likely add one.
To be honest I usually find that my better photographs are interesting enough in themselves that the character of the lens becomes very much secondary. I really have no excuse for buying more lenses - especially in the 50mm range ... oh heck, I will anyway.
Agreed, a good image can be made with any lens and any camera, the equipment you use is merely a set of tools - but a very fascinating one!
I agree with davidjenkins it would be interesting to compare these lenses with Japanese equivalents and modern designs. nonetheless an interesting video.
An interesting exercise and the results didn’t really surprise me, owning three of the four on test (I don’t have an Industar), but you didn’t mention one factor which is always an issue with these soviet era lenses and that is sample variation. You can get two samples of the same lens with vastly different performance, so the test done again by someone else with the same set may yield a completely different result.
It's a funny thing, but I haven't found the FSU lenses to exhibit much, if any sample variation. I know that others have, and I might just have been lucky, however I've handled many, many Jupiter 8s and Industar 61s, and have only found one dud - which had clearly been assembled incorrectly. I used FSU lenses for this test since they're cheap and widely available, and are essentially 1930s designs. However I do take your point, and will repeat this test, or a similar one, with western lenses.
Back in the day, I knew Photographers who spent (or made their Boss spend!) many thousands of dollars (back when the dollar bought 20 times as much as it does today!) on collections of one, two or even three DOZEN lenses!
And then there guys (and Gals) like me who might have worked 30 years with never more then 3-5 lenses!
Both took great pictures. And both likely earned nearly the same income too.
If YOU the Photographer actually know what your doing, you can work within the limits of the equipment you have! And get award winning pictures from a "Kodak Box Brownie" camera 📷 👌
(Oh YES! Color and contrast do "shift". On most (but not all lenses) lenses I have experience with. GREAT DEMONSTRATION of this fact!)
I great review, and I don't mind these lenses all being Russian made. We are forever being told that we shouldn't go past a certain f stop, I never go past f5.6. Yet I've never noticed the colour shifting.
Many thanks Nigel.
Regards Rob.
The Industar is Ukranian of course, and the Pancolar is East German! As for never going past f5.6, well, I guess rules are made to be broken, are they not?
Nice video though probably predictable.... I have all those lenses but not that particular CZJ lense.....also you forgot to mention that the Industar lens has 10 blades in diaphragm ( I use that lens on my FED 2 and it works pretty good)
Thank for vid Nigel...
*best zoom vintage lens u ever tried?* , thanks
It depends what people are expecting from vintage lenses on digital cameras, if it's sharpness and flare resistance - go with the modern kit zooms and forget about vintage rabbithole. For me, the imperfections of vintage lenses is their greatest strength - this Helios 44 (not the other versons), just great, others - Jupiter 8, Industar 61, Pancolar, .. in terms of characters are not even close. Same goes to Trioplan 100mm f2.8, Fujinon 55mm f2.2, Telefogar 90mm f3.5, ...
Great video, the information made me think.
I would like to see you compare a zoom lens with a prime lens wide open then f/8.
Does landscape photography benefit from a prime lens over a zoom lens?
Thanks again for your hard work.
"F8 is great" was what one chap said about that aperture for macro photography, and basically they all looked about the same to me.
The color shift is interesting and surprising, although makes sense given the reduction in light.
Since price was discussed as a consideration, may have been interesteting to include results from a modern Lens ?
Modern lenses should easily out perform those old lumps of glass. The techniques used in manufacturing the lens elements have improved as have the ability to formulate the lens with computers.
I liked the Helios best (especially on fence shots). Can't quite put my finger on it - just looks nicer.
Thank you ❤
You're welcome 😊
Have you been banished to the spare room? 😂
Excuse me Nigel... What about RE Auto Topcor 58/1.8 OR my Pentax 135/2.5?
It would be nice to try either of those lenses, but neither have come my way just yet! I'm sure they will someday.
what about my Mamiya Sekor 55mm 1.8? thats bad matey (nice) blow my Canon l away. you have good day Nigel.. Peace and happiness. Keep doing what you doin. really enjoy your channel. thankyou bro
Thank you
You're welcome
Still got my Paragon 24mm /2.8.
Nice comparative study.
Thank you!
Why just comparing lenses from Russia (CCCP) and not also from Germany (west) and Japan ?
The main lenses from the 70-80s
*50-55mm*
-Leica Summicron 50mm/2
-(Super)takumar 50mm/2 or 55mm/2
-Canon FD 50mm/1.8
-Zuiko OM 50mm/1.8
-Rikenon, Sigma, Tamron, ... Vivitar ?
-Jupiter, Pentacon, ...
*24-28mm*
*105-135mm*
*200mm*
from multiple manufacturers and from "kit lenses"
How would one compare lenses in a blind test? Just asking 😇
Close your eyes and try to
😀
very interesting video indeed
Glad you enjoyed it
Should we all shoot at f8 then? Probably if you want an almost perfect photo, but then the artistic point of photography will die.
Wasn't the Jupiter 8 the spaceship in Lost in Space😂
All lenses are the same when you don't print anymore 😂
😀
That's it... I'm going to super glue all my apertures at f8!
I will super glue my lenses at f2. That rich warm deep color is what I’m after.
The green plastic garbage bags at the first tests. f/2 is that rich deep green I love.
Jupiter 8 f2 Trash bag and the green leaves. 💁🏻♀️ 5:25
😀
What about the Leica lenses?
Having looked at many Amateur Photographer ship photographs in the 1970's and 1980's, it seem to me that Leica lenses were not actually top draw. I think overall Nikon probably were in general the best overall range but of course they made some lenses that were out preformed by others. However, even Leica lenses were satisfactory. In truth if you bought a lens from a camera manufacturer, it was likely to be at least adequate for all normal purposes.
It would have been interesting to put my Summitar up against these, but I was away and had to use what was with me. I'll bring the Leica lens out in a similar test soon - although I only have one, it would certainly make things interesting!
😍
All good lenses!
Nice pictures that helped illustrate the point. Scary to think about the implications for my past spending!
Before we watch, I predict.. It can't be true...
Rules Ha... So times I go as far as f8!
😊
Yes and no 😊
I suppose you could get a freiend to go out and take the same pic with a variety of lenses then show you the results to see what you think is best without knowing which lens was used?
Flum plim dan plip cok, dan plan pimdum?
Ah yes, phoop slap sloop slapple? Pingle poing.
Too tedious to endure.