Lubitel Twin Lens Reflex Camera
Photo thanks to R. Frost
[email protected]
Related Links:
Lubitel Links/Resources
Source for Lubitel online
This Lubitel model 2 twin lens reflex camera is one of the few twin lens
reflexes in current/recent production (see Kalimex links on Current Medium Format Cameras Page). There are
one of the least expensive medium format cameras being made today.
From: Fin [email protected]
Subject: Re: Desiring medium format--help!!
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1998
Fin gorked blankly at the screen for a very long time. Toni Rosati
written at the top along with the following words:
>What's the least expensive medium format camera?
The Russian Lubitel 166U! It does 6x4.5 and 6x6, TLR, 4 or 5 shutter
speeds and a f:4.5 lens, if I remember correctly. Mine cost me #15(UKP)
about 3 years ago. I haven't seen any recently, but I'm sure you can
still get them.
On the quality side, it's unbelievably cheap and cheerful and built to
the usual Russian solid standards. The camera has no wind lock
mechanism; just a small red window on the back. It also has no light
meter, although Zenith do one for about 12 quid! If the lens is wide
open, the picture quality tends to drop off at the edges. If you close
the lens down to about f:8 or f:11, it looks a lot better.
Another medium TLR that I saw was a Seagul 66. (I think) This looked
very much like one of the old Yashica models. They were about #100(UKP)
I think!
>Where's the best place in L.A. to get good priced used?
Dunno, cos I live in England! :)
--
Cheers,
FIN
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: "Chris Eve" [email protected]
[1] Re: How about Russia Lubitel 166 MF camera
Date: Wed May 06 1998
This is a very real, if slightly limited, camera, quite capable of excellent
results. It was value for money when available new, if you got it cheap you
really can't lose. Load up a roll, get your light meter out and give it a
go, you'll be suprised :-}
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: [email protected] (VAllebach)
[1] Re: How about Russia Lubitel 166 MF camera
Date: Sat May 09 1998
David: Some people would say it is a toy, but I've found it to be a
fairly good toy. I bought one out of curiosity and have taken some
excellent pictures with it that I've enlarged to 8x10. Stop the lens down
to around f8 or f11. I found that Ilford HP5 has a tendency to bind up
towards the end of the roll because it has a thicker film base than Kodak
Tri-x. It certainly is no Rollieflex. I call it my Tupperware camera
since the plastic reminds me of those products. If you just want to try
MF and don't want to spend a lot of money, it's not a bad buy.
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: [email protected] (Willis B. Boyce)
[1] Re: Comments on the Lubitel
Date: Wed Sep 02 1998
I bought my Lubitel 166 Universal for $39.95 from Freestyle Sales
Company in California. Their Toy Camera Page
(http://www.freestylesalesco.com/holga.html) proclaims, "Amazing
optics for the price!" but that's not saying much when you consider
that brand new, the camera is half the price of some beat-up,
20-year-old models from other manufacturers.
My first thought upon taking it out of its box was that it seemed to
be reasonably well made. Make no mistake, this camera is not going to
be the cause of any lost sleep at Hasselblad or Mamiya, but the glass
was clean and clear, and the back fit snugly, and there wasn't a lot
of play in the controls. The body is solid plastic, but doesn't bend
or flex, even when the back is open.
The camera is basically a 6x6 camera, but you can shoot 6x4.5 on it by
inserting a black plastic mask just in front of the film plane. There
is a little red window on the back of the camera which can be adjusted
to expose the frame numbers for either 6x6 or 6x4.5, which are printed
in separate columns on the paper backing.
To load the camera, you open the back and insert the 120 film spool in
its space at the bottom of the camera. A metal spring holds it in
place. Then you pull out the paper backing, attach it to the take-up
spool, and turn the film advance knob a couple of times, enough so
that the paper doesn't slip off the spool. Then close the back, and
while peering through the red frame counter window, advance the film
until frame number 1 appears in the window. Piece of pie.
From here on, the sequence of operation is focus, compose, set shutter
and aperture, cock shutter, expose, and advance the film until the
next frame number appears in the window. It's good to get in the
habit of advancing the film after each exposure. If you're really
miserly (and there's a good chance of that, given your choice of
camera), you could probably bum a 13th exposure out of a 120 roll
through careful use of the manual film advance.
The viewfinder surprised me. Ground glass must be a precious
commodity in Russia, because they only give you a little spot of it in
the center of the viewfinder. The rest of the viewfinder is a clear
lens, like the viewfinder of a point-and-shoot. The boundaries of the
6x4.5 frame are etched in the viewfinder glass. A flip-up magnifier
magnifies the ground glass spot and makes focusing almost possible.
Using the viewfinder is tricky. First of all, you must look at the
viewfinder straight-on, which is impossible to do with both eyes
simultaneously, so you have to keep one closed at all times. You can
attempt to focus with the ground glass magnifier or just set an
approximate distance on the distance scale. It's okay if you don't
focus very precisely, because as you will soon discover, you don't
want to shoot this camera at anything wider than f/16 if you can
possibly avoid it. Once you've focused, you have to move at least a
foot away from the viewfinder to compose the shot, because the
viewfinder image loses its corners when viewed from a closer distance.
The camera also offers a nifty "sports" finder. The camera even comes
with a plastic insert that masks the sports finder for the 6x4.5
format. The sports finder is a lot faster to use than the viewfinder,
but focusing is even more haphazard, since you can't even see the
distance scale, and you can forget about composition; just plant your
subject in the center of the viewfinder and pray. I do not recommend
this camera for sports photography.
Needless to say, the Lubitel does not offer a TTL meter. You can use
a hand-held meter, the sunny f/16 rule, or just guess. Shutter speeds
from 1/15 to 1/250 plus bulb are available. If you have the camera on
a tripod, you can just set 1/15 and trip the shutter a few times to
get 1/8 and 1/4; 1/2 and up are probably manageable on bulb, and the
camera comes with a cable release. Apertures range from f/4.5 to
f/22. Both the shutter speed and aperture selectors are analog, so
1/2-stop, 1/3-stop, and 1/n-stop adjustments are possible. You can
stop the lens down quite a bit past f/22, so f/32 and maybe even f/45
are within reach, assuming that the f/22 marking is accurate in the
first place. It is also possible to set a shutter speed perhaps 1/2
stop slower than 1/15.
With a camera of this nature, it is necessary to point it at your
favorite test chart or brick wall and map out its behavior. My
favorite brick wall is, coincidentally, the one located closest to my
apartment, and it has now been immortalized on a roll of Velvia. At
all apertures, the center of the frame is very sharp; I am able to
clearly see the texture of the brick and mortar. At f/4.5, the image
becomes noticably fuzzy even halfway to the edge, and is horrendous at
the corners. Things aren't any better at f/5.6. There is improvement
through f/22, at which the image is quite sharp all the way to the
edge, even when viewed with a 4X loupe. I didn't try any apertures
past f/22. The light falloff at the corners is noticable, but the
camera isn't anywhere as near as bad as the Holga, which produces
circular pictures. The 1/250 shutter speed on my Lubitel seems to be
about a half or even a whole stop fast; both the 1/250 frames I shot
are noticably dark. The other speeds were in the ballpark. The film
shows no evidence whatsoever of light leaks in the camera.
My conclusion is that it is easily possible to take good pictures with
the Lubitel. I once used a Hasselblad 500C which produced fuzzier
negatives and leaked far more light than this camera (at least at
f/22). If you have $50 to spend on a camera for school or just to
play with, and you have the choice between a brand-new Lubitel and a
junky, secondhand 35mm of some kind, my advice is to go with the
Lubitel and buy some film with the money you have left over. Even if
you already have a medium format camera (as I do, a Bronica SQ-Ai),
the Lubitel is fun to have around.
Willis
rec.photo.equipment.misc
From: "Chris Eve" [email protected]
[1] Re: Holga or Lubitel? Which one should I get?
Date: Sat Sep 05 1998
I don't know the Holga, but the Lubitel is a fine, if basic, camera with a
good lens and functionality. My only (slight) reservation is that the
shutter release is too near the shutter cocking lever, too easy to release
the shutter accidently. I cut off my shutter release and used a cable.
From rollei mailing list:
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Re: Front element focusing
Douglas Braun wrote:
>The somewhat-legendary Lubitel TLR camera has front-element focusing >lenses which are coupled by gear teeth around the rim of each lens. >One lens has a left-hand threaded mount, and the other a right-hand >mount, so they both move in or out as you turn them. The interesting >thing is that the thread pitches are not the same, and the viewing >lens moves a greater distance than the taking lens. I guess >the Lubitel designers had more time on their hands....
Well, not the boys at LOMO, the factory which produces the Lubitel, but the
boys at the Voigtlander works in Braunschweig. The Lubitel is a direct
copy of the Prewar "Focusing Brilliant".
Marc
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: [email protected] (Thomas Hardy)
Subject: Re: Lubitel 166
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1998
wrote: >As I'm a poor student, i don't have enough money to buy a Rollei or a >Hasselblad. >That's why I would like to ask if anybody could tell me about the images >coming out of a Lubitel. > >Thank you > >[email protected]
I have found the images from my Lubitel are pretty good if you:
1. stop down the lens to f/8 - 16.
2. don't shoot towards the sun (lens flare is severe)
3. Load the camera in subdued light (a given in roll film)
4. Don't turn the red window frame indicator towards the sun (the frame
numbers will burn into the image.)
My advice is to take 3-4 months and save some money and buy a used MF
camera. The Lubi cost $40. For $120 - $160 you should be able to get a
decent camera. You'll also need a meter. You will get sick of the sunny
16 rule pretty quickly. Good luck.
Thomas
From Medium Format Digest:
From: Steve Nichols, Norwich, UK [email protected]
Subject: Response to Filters for Lubitel/Seagull
Date: 1999-01-15
The Lubitel takes 40.5mm filters and I think Hoya makes them - check out Amateur Photographer. Not sure about the Seagull - might take Rollei bayonet. Let me know how you get on with the Lubitel. I found it suffered from flare, low contrast, bad edge definition and light leaks (later 166U model is better). Apart from that its OK! Make sure yyou shoot at f8-f11 thought.
Steve
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: [email protected] (Vailhasaka)
[1] Re: cheap medium format camera question
Date: Mon Mar 01 1999
>Subject: cheap medium format camera question >From: "Mark Blackwell" [email protected] >Date: 2/28/99 > >It probably is very apparent, but I am very new to medium format. Just >cruising through ebay there appears to be some very inexpensive cameras out >there. I have a Ziess Ikon the Nettar 515/2. I would like to pick up one >of the real bargins that can use a flash. I see no way to hook a flash to >my Nettar and several others out there. Any suggestions? Mark
For the bargain of bargains, go with a Lubitel 166U...$39.99 for a 6x4.5 &
6x6 capable TLR camera, which can use a flash...with the aid of a Hama
Dual Hot Shoe Adaptor. It has a non-removeable-slightly wide angle-75mm ;
F/4.5 lens. It has: a timer, a waist level finder with sports mask,
shutter speeds of 1/15 to 1/250 sec, plus B, aperatures of 4.5 to 22, and
an odd sized cable release socket, and an appropriately sized cable
release. The camera is metal, and glass, where it counts, and produces
very good images. For low cost amateur type equipment, it can't be beat.
If you want more professional gear, and are willing to pay more for things
like: interchangeable lens capability,a metered porrofinder accessory,
etc, go with a Mamiya C-series TLR. My C-330 cost me $267.00...including
S&H charges. Lenses for the C-330 run from $125.00 to $375.00 used, in
good condition. The metered porrofinder costs extra. The camera usually
comes with a waist level finder attached. It, too, can use a flash,
which-like the Lubitel- syncs at all speeds...thanks to the in the lens
leaf shutter, and PC connector. Go for which ever of these two bargains
most satisfies your needs, and fits your budget.
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: [email protected] (AGOPFAN)
[1] Re: cheap medium format camera question
Date: Mon Mar 01 1999
Hi, jacob;
I am not sure whether they still carry the Lubitel, now, but
Freestyle Sales Co did carry it a few months ago. It was item 258-166 on
page 52 of theirspring '98 catalog, which I used to order thecamera in
summer of '98. It was $39.95 then, but I do not recall the S&H charges.
call 1-800-292-6137, or go to their web page at www.freestylesalesco.com,
or fax 1-800-616-3686, or write to them at 5124 Sunset Blvd. Los Angeles,
CA 90027. I put mine into a Stroboframe, to which I attached a Hama Dual
Hot Shoe Adaptor. Then I ran a PC cord from my Vivitar 285HV flash
unit-in the stroboframe-to the PC connector on the camera. It works
great. Go for it. If Freestyle does not carry the Lubitel anymore, check
the ads in various photo mags. B&H, or such, may carry it. It can't hurt
to ask.
[Ed. note: regarding freestyle out of lubitels...]
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999
From: Simbuono Guidice [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Lubitel 166 TLR (for Medium Format Camera page)
I recently tried to order a Lubitel from FreeStyle and they said it was out
of production and they no longer had it available for sale. So it looks like
folks who want one are going to have to try the used market...
-Sam
Hi there,
I'm probably the only one selling Lubitel 166 cameras on the Internet
[
http://www.andrius.net/photo/lubitel.htm
] and I was wondering
if you could put a link on your Lubitel page.
Thanks,
Andrius Zabulionis
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: "Pat Grinaker" [email protected]
Re: $152 for a lubitel?
Date: Wed Dec 22 1999
They still sell those things new at www.andrius.net/photo for $69.00 . I
thought that was overpriced but $152.00 is crazy! How can they call them toy
cameras at those prices?
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Lubitel 166 with auto counter is real!
From: [email protected]
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000
Recently a poster from Hong Kong had a question about the AUTO counter on
a dual format Russian Lubitel.
He was kind enough to send me photos of the camera. Sure enough, he has a
Lubie that looks like the rest, but had an internal counter!
This one seems ot have the old Moscow Olympics logo on it, which may or
may not date the camera, as they kept using that a lot.
He believes it is worth $US 100. I gues to a collector, maybe.
But I've never seen another one like it. I thought the Lubie was a dead
end camera with no improvements!
John
Date: 23 Mar 2000
From: [email protected] (Kar Yan Mak)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Lubitel 166
>These cameras used to sell for US $19.95. The biggest problem is the >focusing spot/viewfinder. I found that it was hard to focus and compose, so >therefore I wasted a lot of expensive film. > >I prefer my $75 Chinese model.
I used to have a Lubitel 166U as well, while it was the "decent" price at
$39.95 from Freestyle Sales Co. I sold it around a year ago for $90 but
now they are even jacked up higher, if you look at eBay you can probably
find one for $120+. Take into account that it's probably only worth $20
bucks as you mentioned.
I wrote a short article of the 166U
at: http://www.kyphoto.com/lubitel.html
If you manage to find a Lubitel for around $20-$30, it's a good find and
it's worth playing around with.
Sincerely yours,
Kar Yan Mak
http://www.kyphoto.com
Date: 25 Jun 1999
From: [email protected] (Vailhasaka)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: looking for lubitel
>Does anybody know why there's no LUBITEL 166 availability on the french >market anymore? >Does it still sell anywhere else in Europe?
The Lubitel 166U is a great little MF camera...for an amateur model TLR,
with a non-removeable lens. I bought one about 4 months before they were
discontinued. They are no longer made, so you will have to shop stores,
pawn shops, garage sales, flea markets, etc, and hope to just stumble upon
one somewhere. If you find one, grab it. The little beauty has a great
lens, and the ability to shoot 645, and 6X6, on 120, or 220 film. It is
well worth the $39.95 that I paid for mine, in America, and more than
that. Do keep looking for one, but expect to look a long time. People
who did buy one are not anxious to get rid of it. Your best hope is to
find a large shop, or mail order place, which has one buried away in its'
warehouse. Go for it.
[Ed. note: check to see if your camera variant will take 220 film, not all
do?]
Date: 14 Jun 2000
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: lubitel 166 demo
> Hello, I recently bought a "lubitel 166 demo" on ebay. The picture was a > generic picture of a 166B, so that's what I assumed it was. When I received > it, it is defenitely a lubitel 166, but is definitely not a 166B. I have > not been able to find anything like it on the web. The word lubitel is > written in cyrillic followed by 166 (i found a pic of a lubitel 2 toWell - I'd like to help - but apart from hearing about a similar camera recently (somewhere on the web ;-( ) I have to agree its a bit of an oddity. I collect Lubitels - and haven't actually seen seen this version for real. I presume its rare - maybe only for the USSR domestic market. Your description matches the photo of the Lubitel 166 in the book "The Authentic Guide to Russian and Soviet Cameras" by Jean Loup Princelle - however no mention is made of the differences between this camera and the more usual 166B/U models.
If you haven't been there already then:
http://lubitel-resource.tripod.com/
Is a good Lubitel page. My own site covers more normal Lubitels among other things and can be found at:
http://www.cix.co.uk/~rgivan/
There is also a Lubitel club on Yahoo which can be reached via the first link mentioned. You might find your answer there.
:-)
Roland.
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000
From: Pookywinkel [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: lubitel 166 demoI have one of those Lubitels too! It's a 1979 model (per the serial number) and it includes the red 1980 Moscow Olympics plate on the front.
The film advance is strange for a Lubitel since it has no ruby window. Instead, it has an attempt at automatic film stop, similar to the basic design of those found in many a 1950's and 1960's TLRs. Next to the film advance knob is the film counter.
I ran a dummy roll of film through it to verify film advance, and after 12 exposures, I opened the back, and the #12 was perfectly centered. What was odd is that the film advance had to be turned twice: once to cock the shutter and a second time to advance the film.
Let me know if you have any more questions.
Regards,
Cuspid
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: scarce lubitelsHi,
I just spent 2 hours looking for a new lubitel 166 on the web. The only source in the US or Canada was kiev/usa.com tel 203-531-0900. prices were $110 and $125 and they said they have 500 cameras in stock. Lomo stopped production of the lubitel 166 in 1998. brian 8-22-00
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Lubitel"Marie Caspelich" [email protected] wrote:
> Hello, I'm new to to medium format, and saw that these are very affordable. > Does anyone have any thoughts on the Lubitel? Thank you very much, and > Happy New Year!Many years ago I bought a brand new Lubitel 2 when in the U.K.
I guess that I have run a couple of dozen rolls through it - b&w, color print and color slide film.
One major flaw with the camera - at least the one I have is that the film feed is poorly designed which causes the film to be trashed on its way to the take-up spool OR that it get rolled too loosely on the take- up spool. I could say that one of four rolls of film were "lost" because of this with the Lubitel. So for serious picture taking I would suggest something else. I got myself an old Rolleicord for around $50. It is in perfect condition and NEVER trashes the film.
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001
From: Barry Feldman [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Lubitel 166Gee, to me it looks a lot like my argoflex EF. Same bails for carrying strap and everything. I have one of the later ones with coated lenses and it's not too bad. Get them for 20 dollars or so on ebay and you'll probably get one that's hardly ever been used. Uses 120 or 620 film and also has a great use as a respooler.
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001
From: Reggie Watts [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Lubitel 166UI got a Lubitel 166U as a first Medium Format to practice with before I invested a fortune in new equipment. The camera is heavy plastic but has good optics. IT DOES NOT TAKE 220 FILM. Armed with a light meter you can get some great shots. Just remember to keep the focus on infinity and forget about the close-up shots. The camera works great with both B&W and Color film.
From: [email protected] Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Origins of Lubitel - was Re: Seagull Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 [email protected] (Lassi wrote: > Er... Lubitel is Russian, made by LOMO in St. Petersburg, and based on > an old VoigtlSnder design from 1930's. Probably the oldest camera design > still in production ;-) If anybody is interested I've put together a set of pages which try to document just how the Lubitel connects to the Voigtlander Brilliant cameras of the 1930s. It also covers the whole Lubitel range and a variety of other cameras. www.rolandandcaroline.co.uk > Probably the oldest camera design still in production ;-) Whilst its a great idea - as I've discovered there is precious little of the original Voigtlander in the latest Lubitel. I'm also not sure if Lubitels are actually still in production - or just old stock being sold off in dribs and drabs? :-) Roland.
From: Lassi [email protected]> Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: Origins of Lubitel - was Re: Seagull Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 [email protected] wrote: > > [email protected] (Lassi wrote: > > > Er... Lubitel is Russian, made by LOMO in St. Petersburg, and based on > > an old VoigtlSnder design from 1930's. Probably the oldest camera design > > still in production ;-) > > If anybody is interested I've put together a set of pages which try to > document just how the Lubitel connects to the Voigtlander Brilliant > cameras of the 1930s. It also covers the whole Lubitel range and a variety > of other cameras. > > www.rolandandcaroline.co.uk > > > Probably the oldest camera design still in production ;-) > > Whilst its a great idea - as I've discovered there is precious little of > the original Voigtlander in the latest Lubitel. I'm also not sure if > Lubitels are actually still in production - or just old stock being sold > off in dribs and drabs? > > :-) > > Roland. You seem to be right, http://lubitel-resource.tripod.com/faq.html informs that "No. Production ended in august 1998." What is the oldest design now? Excluding pinhole cameras, and ignoring minor improvements, maybe Kiev 60? Unless Rolleiflex GX qualifies... -- Lassi
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 From: Jordan Wosnick [email protected]> To: [email protected] Subject: Thanks for your web-efforts in MF photography Just wanted to thank you for the effort you must put into your MF Library pages on the web. I've found them to be a great resource. I wanted to play around with MF and after much searching and reading (mostly on your site) I ended up buying a Lubitel 2 for about $30 which I was able to pick up directly from the seller. Most of what the other descriptions on your site say is true -- the main problems are light leaks now and then and difficulties in focussing due to the dark ground glass. But if you get around those and stop the lens down a little the optics are remarkably good. I was re-examining some transparencies I took with it (on stale-dated Fuji MS100/1000 film, $0.50 per 120 roll from Freestyle) and they are very sharp, even at the edges. Lots of camera for $30. Feel free to post the above on your Lubitel page if you wish... ... My next camera will probably be a Yashica TLR.... Thanks again. Jordan (grateful surfer) -- Jordan Wosnick [email protected]
From: John Halliwell [email protected] Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: Cheap Intro Medium Format Camera? Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 Mxsmanic [email protected] writes >Exceedingly cheap cameras should never be "first cameras." The limitations >of the camera are reached far too quickly, and when reached, the >unsophisticated newcomer may mistake them for errors in his own technique, >or may be so discouraged by substandard results that he gives up. The most important 120 camera I ever bought was a Lubitel 166U. Yes, it's hard to focus (but not impossible), yes the finish is 'mediocre' at best, but I expected stuff like that. It has only scratched film when using the 6x4.5 mask that I've now stopped using, but all in all it introduced me to 120 shooting. The very first prints had a look that surpassed all my previous 35mm stuff, mainly the tonal graduation. It cost my about $30 new, I doubt I'd have had the inclination to splash out on the next 'cheapest' TLR without that experience and might not be shooting 120 now. As long as the camera is cheap enough to be seen as a very cheap experiment, and the user has a bit of warning what to expect, I can't see any reason why cheap intro cameras are a bad thing. -- John Preston, Lancs, UK. Photos at http://www.photopia.demon.co.uk
From koni omega mailing list: From: "Beaver, John" [email protected] To: "'[email protected]'" [email protected] Subject: RE: [KOML] Re: Omegaflex-M Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 I've been eyeing those Sputniks for a while now, but I really need another camera like a hole in the head. I have a Lubitel 166, which I think is the best of the lot. My wife has a much newer 166 Universal, and it is of much lower quality in almost every way (it does allow you to switch to 4.5x6 though). The 166 (not 166B or 166U) actually frames automatically with a gear train, and automatically cocks the shutter when you wind. I think all the other versions use a, rather leaky, red window and must be cocked manually. I think it's also the only one with a hot shoe. The lens is surprisingly non-terrible, and now and then I get a beautiful shot with it. It vignettes a little, but not as badly as rumor has it, in my experience. Biggest problem is film flatness, and the pins that hold the spools in place have too much play in them so occasionally the film will get a little off track on the takeup spool. Also the ground glass spot is a bit small and coarse, and the focusing magnifier is of fairly low quality -- so focusing accurately takes some effort. And it annoyingly lacks any depth-of-field marks or, strangely, a socket for a cable release (the shutter release lever is very smooth, however, and while on a tripod it is possible to trip it succesfully without shaking anything). But it's not hard to find one on ebay, in great condition, for $40 or so shipping included. At that price it's easy to put up with its idiosyncracies, and I've had a lot of fun with mine (and now and then get a nice picture too). ...
From: [email protected] (Winfried Buechsenschuetz) Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: Pls help with Lubitel lens Date: 26 Sep 2002 [email protected] (Rubric) wrote > I bought a Lubitel recently and took it apart for cleaning as it was > filthy. Now I'm stuck with how to put back the rear lens behind the > shutter blades & taking lens. I poked a screwdriver in and the lens > plus a piece of wire flew out. Now I can only PVA the lens back! :) Yes, I have seen similar methods of mounting lens elements on some lenses - the 'piece of wire' might have been a springy securing ring. You can try to bend a similar one out of spring wire, or crawl on your carpet until you find it. Concerning the interior paint, if it is loose, there is no other way than to grind it off as far as possible. If you coat the loose paint, of course, the coating will go off together with the original paint. All this supports my first impression that the Lubitel is even more crudely made than some other russian cameras. Winfried
From: David Littlewood [email protected] Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: Lubitel 2 worth using? Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 Shayn [email protected] writes >Has anyone ever taken a decent photo on a Lubitel? Is the lens total crap? I bought one about 12 years ago to try out MF. It's a bit awkward to use if you are not used to the TLR format, and the lens is not the sharpest one I have ever used. It's a bit soft at the edges and wide open, but at f/8 it will give results much better than most 35mm cameras. I lent mine to my daughter and it got stolen a couple of months ago. I would be quite happy to buy another one just for the fun of it, especially if it was the same price I paid in 1988 (�20). Does that help? -- David Littlewood
From: "fbearl" [email protected] Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: Lubitel 2 worth using? Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 "Shayn" [email protected] wrote... > Has anyone ever taken a decent photo on a Lubitel? Is the lens total crap? Yes, I have taken one decent photo on a Lubitel. It was a picture of a shipyard on a sunny but misty day. The Lub was plastic, the lens was glass. I think it was at least single-coated. I also believe it is a copy of the Cooke triplet, which, for a time, was one of the best, fast lenses available. On a medium format camera, the lens is capable of taking very decent photos. On my Lub, the taking and viewing lenses appeared to be focusing at the same place. IMHO, the Lubitel can take pictures as decent as the Seagull and for much less money.
From russian camera mailing list: Date: Wed, 1 Jan 2003 From: [email protected] Subject: Re: Digest Number 1029 You can probably win a Lubie for less on eBay, but caveat emptor: you obviously can't inspect it, you must read the fine print about shipping costs because some sellers inflate them, and if it self-destructs during the first roll of film it's your tough luck. With that in mind, $50 for one in a shop with a reasonable guarantee doesn't sound too bad. Keep in mind that Lubies are fairly crude cameras. The lens is triplet that tends to go soft in the corners and the viewfinder isn't full frame or even groundglass except for a central spot. There are some Czech TLRs (Meoptar?) on eBay that may be significantly better, for example they have a 4 element tesssar-type lens and I believe they have metal construction rather than plastic. I've never actually seen a Meoptar however... Cheers, Dave Mason
From russian camera mailing list: Date: Wed, 01 Jan 2003 From: "njp66 [email protected] Subject: Re Lubitel 166 Perhaps somebody can say more but this series of cameras may have had the same basic triplet lens forever. I used to have a 166B, which is the same thing but for the plate to give 16 exposures instead of 12. The masking plate does mean that you dont use the extreme edge of the lenses coverage. I found the lens of mine to be very soft indeed at the edges, even in a 8" X 8" print it was showing a rapid loss of definition away from the centre of the frame. It didnt matter if you stopped right down to F16, the image was still very soft at the edges. I could have got a bad example. I also found focussing to be a bit of a pain, because the centre spot was the only bit of the screen which was ground. The Lubitel was marketed by TOE in the UK as a kiddies camera, which seems about right. The design is alleged to be lifted from a 'thirties Voightlander Brilliant. Not so brilliant nowadays. I went on to acquire a Chinese Seagull 4B-1. I know nothing of the optics on these. There may be three or four versions around. Find out which has the four element lens if you are interested in them.
End of Page
Broken Links: