exposimetric reading with 20mm Russar

[cyberjunkie]

I searched the forum and i found only a post where it was (almost) clearly stated that the 5.6/20mm Russar can't be fitted on some bodies, and don't allow exposimetric reading on most.
It's not what i remember, but i am getting old and lots of time has passed.
I think that when i tried an old chrome Russar (at the time i had a CL and an M5), i was told that it was a problem with the CL, because of the arm with the reading cell, but not with the M5.
I don't remember being told that the reading was not correct.
It is true that the back element protrudes a lot inside of the camera, but to this day i have been almost sure that with the M5 there were no problems at all with the Russar.
Now i find a post that says the exact opposite.

I don't use 35mm cameras at the moment, and i am planning to sell my Leica bodies, plus a few lenses, keeping only the lenses that could be used (with an adapter) with a compact four-thirds camera. I still have to decide which one, it depends mostly on which second-hand bargains i will find.
In the meantime i'd like to buy a Russar, it's a beautifully crafted example of a non-retrofocus extreme wide-angle of the old times.
Until i sell my 35mm bodies i'd like to test it on film, and then use it with a digital.
But i must know first which Leica bodies accept the Russar with no problems at all, and which digital bodies would be compatible

thanks in advance

have fun

CJ

 

[Nickfed]

I don't think the 4/3 will take M39 lenses. The micro 4/3 will take just about anything, even C-mount has been used. It doesn't mean it's a good idea, and a non-retrofocus extreme wide angle is probably about the worst idea. The best you are likely to get is to simply look silly wasting the best assets of the lens you invested in. This probably goes some way to explain why the adapters are so expensive. At worst, the results could be quite disappointing.

Digital sensors have different demands from film and essentially need the light to fall on them perpendicularly. So, "designed for digital" is not just dumb hype and, if you must use legacy wide angle lenses, retrofocussing ones are a better bet. Therefore I guess you are better off with a Mir-20 than a Russar, but it's still not such a good idea. I have used a Mir on a Pentax K10d. It was fine and least it was the widest lens to hand at the time.

 

[cyberjunkie]

Forgive my dumbness, i intended micro four-thirds of course. The two Olympus Pen and the GF1 are soo nice! 🙂
With reference to "C" mount video lenses, i am regretting so much that i purchased just one small prime (Som Berthiot 25mm) when the price was almost nothing. I still have it, and i used to mount it reversed on bellows for extreme macro. I'd like to give a try again to such configuration with a DRSL body.
Coming back to the Russar, the more i think about it, the more i feel that you're absolutely right, non-retrofocus extreme wide-angles are not made for sensors, while the film is much more forgiving when the light comes to the focal plane, on the borders of the image, with a lot of inclination.
Having said all these very reasonable things, i still feel that the Russar would be a very nice "object" to have, with some kind of strange appeal. Call it the way you like (cold war fetish? or maybe just the fascination of history?), but the Russar reminds me of the great russian genius who designed it, whose concepts were the basis for the lens that is considered the long-reigning champion between wide-angles: Hasseblad's Zeiss Biogon (i know i know, many would not agree, don't flame me 🙂).
To put it plainly, i love that lens. And i would be more than happy to keep one film body to be usede with a small selection of M39 and M lenses. I already had the idea to keep at least one 35mm body, so it would be just an addition to the 35mm stuff i am going to keep.
What i haven't still understood is which Leica body would allow to use on-camera metering with the Russar. About 30 years ago i owned a Fed, the meter cell was external and in such a camera the use of a lens with that kind of design would have been easy, no problem at all!
In fact, i remember that even the russian 35mm wide angle that was part of the set of lenses that i purchased for the Fed, had a protruding back element just like the Russar. I remember that you had to take care to avoid to scratch the lens.
But these days the love for the Russar is not so strong to make me buy a Fed again (or a Zorky... well, i can't say i wouldn't buy a Leningrad, but the prices are crazy!).
I want to be able to use a Leica M body, and have an exposimetric reading that is precise enough to shoot also slides, and not only B/W.
If the answer is no, there are no 35mm Leicas that allow for it, i'll pass:-(

I know that many have the answer, on this forum, so i am waiting for your advice

have fun

CJ

 

[Nickfed]

What i haven't still understood is which Leica body would allow to use on-camera metering with the Russar. About 30 years ago i owned a Fed, the meter cell was external and in such a camera the use of a lens with that kind of design would have been easy, no problem at all!
In fact, i remember that even the russian 35mm wide angle that was part of the set of lenses that i purchased for the Fed, had a protruding back element just like the Russar. I remember that you had to take care to avoid to scratch the lens.

I want to be able to use a Leica M body, and have an exposimetric reading that is precise enough to shoot also slides, and not only B/W.
If the answer is no, there are no 35mm Leicas that allow for it, i'll pass:-(

The 35mm lens you allude to is the Jupiter-12, which is a Biogon-type.
It is known to foul the TTL sensor in the Cosina-Voigtlander. There isn't much information about Russars. They may be deemed as the Pegasos of the photographic world. I understand it sits deep in the body, similar to the Jupiter-12, and thus is likely to have the same problem. Other than the M5, I don't know which Leicas have TTL metering, if any, but I know an awful lot that don't. Further, those Leicas were used to shoot millions of colour slides before TTL exposue was invented. Therefore, if you can come to terms with living without a TTL meter, you don't have a problem, and a Leica Ig body is all you need.

 

[brachal]

fedka has a Russar right now ... most expensive FSU photo object I've ever seen! Judging from the pictures, it would have the same rear-element problems the J-12 does.