thegman
Veteran
I think you can only say 'qualities' for expensive lenses, where 'qualities' and 'character' are appropriate. For lenses like this 'flaw' is a better word.
Not sure where the cut off is though, I expect it changes with inflation too, to further complicate matters.
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
Maybe the problem isn't the price or the quality, but the devaluation of the US dollar, bringing with it less buying power?
~Joe
Lomo charges too much for everything...
kbg32
neo-romanticist
rfaspen
[insert pithy phrase here]
Forgive me for asking, but what makes the plus in Russar+ ? Did Lomo improve existing old Russar lenses somehow? Did they have a new batch made? Or, is the "plus" simply in the head of the buyer? Sounds like they must have a decent stockpile of these things.
I'm just curious. I love my CV 21/4 (sorry Dez).
I'm just curious. I love my CV 21/4 (sorry Dez).
Ron (Netherlands)
Well-known
I always thought getting the old one, with that nice view finder, made the +
Since the new one seems without it should be a - (minus)
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
If you can buy a demo ZM 21/4.5 for the high 700s these days, why would you bother with the Lomo, which has a snowball's chance of being anywhere near as good? The Zeiss resolves over 3,000 lines (not pixels) per frame height, which is beyond what any sensor on the market can resolve. And at something like 0.1% distortion.
Dante
Dante
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
It's unfair to say the unique Russian wide angle, or any Russian lens for that matter, is flawed. This formulation is the basis for the pure symmetrical wide angles such as the Biogon and Super Angulon. The Russar is a symmetrical 6 element lens and when the potential issues of decentering and collimation are taken care of, this lens is just as good at f/8 as anything by Leica, Schneider, Zeiss and especially Cosina. The formulation of the 21mm CV lens is a whole different animal. Not a symmetrical lens by any means and while this can make for a faster optic, with less vignetting, asymmetrical formulations have more field curvature as well as distortion.
This Lomography lens is certainly overpriced but the Russar 20 is a very good lens itself and decrying it as junk is just some exclusivity that is simply paid for but without the guarantee of any more image quality when the paper is exposed, fixed then shown to an audience.
I love getting 99% of the image quality of a new Leica 50mm Summicron V5 with just a $12 Helios-103. I'm not too proud at all and in this comparison the images are so close that it's hard to know which lens took which image sometimes.
Phil Forrest
This Lomography lens is certainly overpriced but the Russar 20 is a very good lens itself and decrying it as junk is just some exclusivity that is simply paid for but without the guarantee of any more image quality when the paper is exposed, fixed then shown to an audience.
I love getting 99% of the image quality of a new Leica 50mm Summicron V5 with just a $12 Helios-103. I'm not too proud at all and in this comparison the images are so close that it's hard to know which lens took which image sometimes.
Phil Forrest
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
So, Phil, like communism, the reason why Soviet lenses aren't that good is that they have never really been done according to the true plan? 
They're not junk, but they're also manufactured to very low QC standards - 30-40lp/mm is what most test certificates seemed to be saying on lenses sold in the 1990s (that's about 1/4 the linear resolution of a modern Leica piece). I've noticed that a lot of these lenses for sale are now missing their test passports. They were prestige products for a command economy, at a time where enlargement past A4 would have been rare.
And stopped down performance is cold consolation - a $10 SLR lens can do that. The only reason you buy some lenses like the J-3 or J-9 is their wide-aperture look.
So unless the main purpose of the new Mir is color and other vignetting, there are a lot of alternatives.
Dante
They're not junk, but they're also manufactured to very low QC standards - 30-40lp/mm is what most test certificates seemed to be saying on lenses sold in the 1990s (that's about 1/4 the linear resolution of a modern Leica piece). I've noticed that a lot of these lenses for sale are now missing their test passports. They were prestige products for a command economy, at a time where enlargement past A4 would have been rare.
And stopped down performance is cold consolation - a $10 SLR lens can do that. The only reason you buy some lenses like the J-3 or J-9 is their wide-aperture look.
So unless the main purpose of the new Mir is color and other vignetting, there are a lot of alternatives.
Dante
kbg32
neo-romanticist
Lomo is selling a "look". Apparently the Russar fits that Lomo "look". The lens was barely worth what it was going for a few years ago. It was an alternative for those that could not afford a Leitz lens, before the introduction of the Voigtlander line. If I had a spare couple of hundred laying around, it would be an interesting lens to "play" with. For $700, I think not.