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

Discussion in 'UK Photography' started by aniramca, Feb 22, 2009.

  1. aniramca

    aniramca Guest

    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
    See the following websites for the photos, or just google it in the
    I am surprised to see that there seem to be no additional
    modifications (except for the adapter ring to mount on the DSLR), and
    one of the website above shows reasonable picture quality.

    I heard that the pancake fixed lens generally follow a simple design
    from the Zeiss Tessar lens. I believe that the new Olympus 25mm 1:2.8
    pancake lens also utilize the same design. How much larger is the
    Olympus lens in comparison to the Industar-50mm lens? I could not get
    dimensions for any of these lens, although the photos on the websites
    show how tiny they are. It would be interesting if an adapter can be
    made available for the old Industar (or Zeiss Tessar) lenses to fit a
    Panasonic Lumix G1.

    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?

    aniramca, Feb 22, 2009
    1. Advertisements

  2. aniramca

    A.Lee Guest

    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.
    The newish Olympus does this doesnt it?
    Complete with a pancake lens, see here:
    Seems preety good to me, if I wasnt tied into Canon, I would get one.
    A.Lee, Feb 22, 2009
    1. Advertisements

  3. aniramca

    Matt Ion Guest

    If I really want to go retro, I just pull out my Argus C-3.

    In this case, the point of the exercise is simply, "because we can."
    Matt Ion, Feb 23, 2009
  4. aniramca

    Paul Furman Guest

    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

    all google groups messages filtered due to spam
    Paul Furman, Feb 23, 2009
  5. aniramca

    Bruce Guest

    But not very desirable. :-(

    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.
    Bruce, Feb 24, 2009
  6. We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
    drugs began to take hold. I remember saying something
    It works very well. Industar prices are rising, but still very low
    Grimly Curmudgeon, Feb 25, 2009
  7. aniramca

    aniramca Guest

    I saw a photo showing the Industar lens mounted on a Nikon D1http://

    If the above does not connect to the right link, just google on image
    for "industar lens mounted on Nikon DSLR". One of the image from Flikr
    will have the image.

    I still don't know how the lens still manage to "project" the image
    correctly on the digital sensor. It is just too tiny and strange to
    see. However, apparently someone uses it and I guess it works. I
    assume everything have to be done manually.
    aniramca, Feb 25, 2009
  8. aniramca

    aniramca Guest

    I try one more timehttp://farm4.static.flickr.com/3347/3228925665_42df354853.jpg
    aniramca, Feb 25, 2009
  9. aniramca

    Rob Morley Guest

    On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 18:15:16 -0800 (PST)
    use http://tinyurl.com/ to produce http://tinyurl.com/cd7txv or just
    lift the URL of the JPEG straight from the page:
    I got bored before I found it that way. :)
    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.
    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.
    Rob Morley, Feb 25, 2009
  10. aniramca

    Rob Morley Guest

    The popularity of M42 prime lenses for DSLR use has really inflated
    the prices over the last year or two - I used to pick them up for
    a couple of quid to use on my film cameras. There's also a glut of M42
    bodies on eBay. :)
    Rob Morley, Feb 25, 2009
  11. aniramca

    Rob Morley Guest

    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.[/QUOTE]

    Not so much these days - lots of people want the lenses and any number
    of cheap bodies is no good without glass.
    Rob Morley, Feb 25, 2009
  12. We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
    Indeed; I have several free Praks that came with the lenses I wanted, an
    interesting old Cosina and the gem of the lot of free cams - what I
    thought was an M42 version of the Ricoh Singlex, was actually the
    earliest model Singlex with the Nikon F mount and a Rikenon (Tomioka)
    1.4/55mm on the front (which was the bit I wanted). Rare as hen's teeth
    Grimly Curmudgeon, Feb 25, 2009
  13. aniramca

    Marty Fremen Guest

    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. I was glad to dump both lens
    and camera for a Fujica SLR (also M42) which not only had a far better std
    lens but was much smaller and lighter.

    The Russian Helios lenses were better than the Industar, though rather
    clunky. I think the one used on the Zenith E was a 55 or 58mm/f2, rather
    long focus for a standard lens but not bad for portraits.
    Marty Fremen, Feb 26, 2009
  14. aniramca

    Peter Irwin Guest

    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 Irwin, Feb 26, 2009
  15. aniramca

    Mark Thomas Guest

    Fond memories - you went down a similar path to me. Yes, the Zenit-E
    had a Helios 58mm f2 lens on it, and mine was a corker. Sharp, nice, if
    slightly weird bokeh, lovely glass on a dirt cheap camera.


    Strangely, the lens was called a Helios-44 - don't ask me what the 44 meant.

    And I too went down the Fujica route after that for a while - an ST-605
    then an AZ. Fine cameras - wish I had kept at least one..
    Mark Thomas, Feb 26, 2009
  16. aniramca

    Paul Furman Guest

    The Industar link above shows a 4 element section.

    Paul Furman

    all google groups messages filtered due to spam
    Paul Furman, Feb 26, 2009
  17. aniramca

    Paul Furman Guest

    Sounds nice.

    Doesn't Pentax make one also? AF if I recall...

    I'm pretty sure the 45 Ai-P works on a D40/60, it worked on my D70, it
    has a cpu chip and the camera controls aperture, you set the ring to
    f/22. It is a manual focus lens.

    He says he uses an 'infinity adapter' meaning a teleconverter of some
    sort to make this rangefinder lens work on an SLR's longer flange
    distance. That's generally a bad idea for image quality and may even
    lose some aperture though it sounds fun if you had a bunch of those
    lenses to play with.

    Paul Furman

    all google groups messages filtered due to spam
    Paul Furman, Feb 26, 2009
  18. aniramca

    Rob Morley Guest

    You and many others, which is why there's a glut of bodies going
    Rob Morley, Feb 26, 2009
  19. aniramca

    Marty Fremen Guest

    The camera body might well have contributed a bit, but I don't recall
    having similar problems with my 135mm and 28mm lenses (I forget what
    makes those were, they were quite cheap ones though! ISTR the 135 was
    another Russian lens though).

    I agree with what David Kilpatrick says regarding the Industar, and it
    was indeed an odd shape, it looked rather like my enlarger lens (which
    reminds me, the Gnome Alpha lens was another crap jobbie, made of
    plastic - replacing it with a £20 Minolta Rokkor lens made a huge
    difference to my prints).
    Marty Fremen, Feb 27, 2009
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.