|
|
Post by twlldyn on Mar 26, 2014 17:41:30 GMT -5
hello all, ive been viewing these fourms for years, but had to join to ask peoples opinion of the lubitel 2...
this is the one I've been looking at:
I have a massive collection of vintage cameras, and wondered if this really counts as a vintage camera of respect and heritage?
your thougts guys and gals? |
|
|
|
Post by philbirch on Mar 26, 2014 19:16:34 GMT -5
The Lubitel 2 is a far superior camera to the 166. It is a 'copy' of the Old Voigtlander Brilliant. Great if you're going to use it. Not my cup of tea but if it was made not later then 1957 it'd go in my collection.
|
|
Stephen
Lifetime Member
Still collecting.......
Posts: 2,718
|
Post by Stephen on Mar 27, 2014 8:24:35 GMT -5
Used to sell these regularly and the results were good when the camera was used correctly. Unfortunately the low price attracted first time buyers, and the mistakes were down to them rather than than the cameras limitations.
I tested a couple on lens performance and they rated better than most 120 folders, but light did hot spot a bit in the centre, but then most cheaper 120 cameras do this anyway. At medium aperture the lens is as sharp as a pre-war Rolleicord, but is softer at max aperture. They outperform the older Brilliant, the glass is superior.
For most of it's life it had no rival on the market, outliving all the folders. They are not that common these days, but probably lots around in back drawers, unused due to the unpopular,(these days), 120 film.
Stephen.
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Mar 27, 2014 16:02:16 GMT -5
Twildyn, welcome.
Should you buy it? I don't know. Would I buy one? Well I did so the answer must be yes. It was one from nearer the end of the production run. The case is (horrible) black plastic. (I note in the film he says the case "looks like leather". I don't know they they ever were real leather: I think they were a leather look-alike material.
The results were okay, but it didn't get used much. There was always something easier about 35mm SLRs.
"For most of it's life it had no rival on the market..." Are you forgetting the Seagull? I know it came out a little later, but they must have overlapped for 25 years or so. My memory tells me that the Lubitel was cheaper but that the Seagull was more robust.
|
|
hansz
Lifetime Member
Hans
Posts: 697
|
Post by hansz on Mar 28, 2014 3:50:29 GMT -5
Welcome Twildyn,
I should say yes, but I'm biased... My 2 Lubitels are working side-by-side for 3D imaging. Easy to setup with variable base (from 6,5 cm to the max length of my arms:-). Anyway, not action photography...
Hans
Here in NL, still lots of 120 film can be found, also 2nd hand - it is a must...
|
|
|
|
Post by philbirch on Mar 28, 2014 5:42:34 GMT -5
Twildyn, welcome. Should you buy it? I don't know. Would I buy one? Well I did so the answer must be yes. It was one from nearer the end of the production run. The case is (horrible) black plastic. (I note in the film he says the case "looks like leather". I don't know they they ever were real leather: I think they were a leather look-alike material. The results were okay, but it didn't get used much. There was always something easier about 35mm SLRs. "For most of it's life it had no rival on the market..." Are you forgetting the Seagull? I know it came out a little later, but they must have overlapped for 25 years or so. My memory tells me that the Lubitel was cheaper but that the Seagull was more robust. I had a Lubitel 2 and a Seagull folder in the mid 70's both were really good performers. The seagull was my favourite though. Just easier to use and folded up small. I think the Seagull TLR's were more sturdy and had a quality feel about them  The case on the lubitel 2 is some sort of stiff material, not leatherette but possibly thin fibreboard or reconstituted leather |
|
matty
Lifetime Member
Posts: 126
|
Post by matty on Mar 28, 2014 6:36:17 GMT -5
Go ahead, buy it. I know I'm sad but I love old Soviet cameras. Not for the value or the technical brilliance of the product but for the history, the style and the fact that the Russians made things that were uniquely Russian, robust, practical cameras that function for all their manufacturing limitations. It certainly fits the bill as being vintage and from a historical point of view Russian cameras from the Soviet period are a perfect reflection of the period, a particular mix of paranoia and independence that came to a head under Stalin. The Soviet system had a distrust of the outside world and wanted to be independent of the need to rely on imports so tried to manufacture things domestically. They did a huge amount of reverse engineering from B29s (Tupolev Tu4) down to cameras, Lubitel - Voigtlander Brilliant, FED - Leica, Kiev 4 - Contax, and going on to make their own particular slant on an idea, such as the Zenit SLRs.
I've got the later 166 Lubitel, it is a practical TLR that does the job, not a regular user but a part of the collection that I wouldn't part with, it sits with the rest of my Soviet Union cameras.
Matty
|
|
