Lubitel camera

[Macpod]

anyone used these? seem like a ceap fun way to get into medium format. the other is Holga, but im not really into lomography anymore.

but by looking at the lubitels i have a feeling its built like an oversized lomo

 

[Macpod]

ah. they are made by lomo! hmmmm

 

[Mark Wood]

I've used a Lubitel 166B once. There's a lot of irritating hype about the condenser lens for the focussing screen but even with the magnifying lens, I found it very difficult to see when objects were in actually in focus - I'm lucky enough not to have any eyesight problems. (It's worth trying a few times with an object at about 15 feet and seeing how often you focus to the same distance on the focussing scale.) You also have to have your head in exactly the right position to see anything at all on the screen (there's very little margin for error) and even when you do, you're seeing far less than 100% of what the taking lens sees. The pictures (on transparency film) were perfectly exposed and pretty sharp across the frame although corner vignetting was very clear at all apertures. Then of course, we come to the light leaks! Not on every frame but they seemed to happen randomly. You could probably tape up the back to make sure it's completely sealed but would you really want to do it with every film? (I've never seen one where the back fits convincingly.)
So, will I use it again? Well, I shall replace the blue string light trapping with foam one day and give it another go. What is it about FSU cameras that drives you to this, always against your better judgement...?!?

 

[Jocko]

I have to say that the lubitel is probably the nastiest camera I have ever used. Focussing is a nightmare, as Mark so rightly says, and build quality is miserable. I bought one new around 1987, when they enjoyed a sudden fashionability in the British photographic press - as if the Holga of the day. Rust was already appearing on the metal parts, the finish was atrocious - it was less a camera than a bitter satire on the Soviet economy...

I realize such cameras have a devoted following, but for a cheap introduction to MF I think you'd be much better off with a folder or a Seagull TLR . You would certainly get better results.

Cheers, Ian

 

[Mark Wood]

I should also have added that I broke the self-timer when I triggered it with the shutter set to "B" and tried to change the shutter speed whilst it "counted" down (my fault of course). Oh yes, and there's the loose spool holder on the feed spool side that comes loose when you least expect it! (Blue Tak sorts that out.) I guess they were bulit to a (low!) price but the amount of money that you could waste on fogged film (and its developing) would perhaps be best put towards a Yashicamat, Autocord or even Rollei automat/Rolleicord.

 

[Spyderman]

Don't forget Meopta Flexarets. They are great TLRs as entry into the MF world but much cheaper. Here in Slovakia they go for around $ 25 - 35. And there are plenty of them here as well as in Czech Rep. where they were produced.

 

[DougK]

I have a 166U and it's been a blast. It's no Hasselblad but it does reasonably well and definitely a great camera to take into places you wouldn't want to risk damage to more expensive equipment. The lens has a character all its own. Just make sure you don't pay a lot for one; I got mine new in a sealed box for under $40 including shipping. I posted a shot from my Lubitel in this thread.

 

[lushd]

Hi - if you want a truly Lubitel experience look out for a Lubitel 2, rather than the 166B or 166U. The 2 is a faithful copy of the Voigtlander Brilliant (a mediocre TLR from the 1930s) but is put together properly.

I have to endorse what everyone else said about the "controls" and the amusingly petite ground glass spot. I enjoy using my Lubitel 2 though - the results, if the lens is stopped down to f8, start to leave toy camera territory behind. It's also light and much much quieter than a Leica and comes with oodles of vintage charm. For some reason, the patent leather cases seem totally undamageable. The one on mine is 50 years old and looks brand new.

I suggest giving it a go - they don't cost much and you can probably sell it for what you paid when you get bored.

 

[iñaki]

If you want to try a cheap TRL, take a look at the Flexarets. IMHO those are well constructed and much better than Lubitels.
"CUPOG" seller, from slovaquia (no customs to EU) sells them CLA´d in evilbay. Mine works well as advertised. Cool camera and great sharp negs, but I prefer RF cameras.

 

[Macpod]

great suggestions. will take a look at my options. there are some old seagull here in shanghai i can take a look at.

 

[lubitel]

since i carry the name of this camera on this forum I feel I have to put my 2 cents in

166B is definitely worth the 20 bucks that I paid for it. It is somewhat hard to focus, but the image quality seems good. Plus I can use a filter or a lens hood from my Jupiter-8 on it - its the same thread.

check some photos in this thread:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13316

 

[Macpod]

just out of interest. out of the seagull and flexrat. which one is considered more reliable? and is there any particular model i should avoid or look out for for?

cheers.


PS i doubt there is a TLR forum somewhere?

 

[ZorkiKat]

anyone used these? seem like a ceap fun way to get into medium format. the other is Holga, but im not really into lomography anymore.

but by looking at the lubitels i have a feeling its built like an oversized lomo

The Lubitel is more serious than the Holga. It really focuses (but with some difficulty), has a real anastigmat lens (a triplet, and not highly corrected, but better than the Holga's meniscus), and has aperture and shutter speed adjustments.

The Lubitel may have two lenses, but its no true TLR. Others have mentioned Seagull or Meopta or Flexaret: these are true TLRs by virtue of having two matched lenses, at least in terms of focal length. The TLR's raison d'etre is to have a secondary lens to mimic the action of the actual taking lens. This secondary lens should be focal twin to be able to show what the "real" lens is doing. The Lubitel's second lens has a shorter focal length than the camera's shooting lens. This is one reason why some users have commented about focusing difficulties.

The Lubitel is really a glorified box camera with a large brilliant finder on top. Box cameras often used tiny brilliant finders. One improvement was to make this finder bigger and make them look like reflex finders. A brilliant finder consists of an objective lens, a mirror and a field lens on top. There is a large
field lens seen in the Lubitel, and this makes everything look in focus. A tiny groundspot is in the centre, as a token focusing aid. It does work sometimes.

True TLRs use a full screen groundglass. Lubitel, as mentioned previously by another poster evolved from the Voigtlaender "Brillant" cameras. The first Lubitel ("Komsomolyets") had a large "reflex-type" brilliant finder on top. The finder lens and the taking lens were not coupled. The finder lens was fixed and the shooting lens was focused by scale.

Scale focusing is not really hard to do. Even with focusing Lubitels, scale focusing may be a saner method of focusing than using its tiny groundglass spot. Save the use of this spot for critical closeups. In real shooting situations, the lens is likely stopped down and there'd be sufficient depth of field even at the lens's maximum f/4,5 aperture.

Lubitel can be fun to use, and yet are capable of doing serious work. At $20 or $25, you get a medium format camera that can give excellent photos. The way to really enjoy a Lubitel is to appreciate it for what it is and not expect it to work like a Hassy, a Mamiya, or even a Seagull. It's a very primitive camera with very basic controls. The Lubitel-1 is an excellent, well made camera (the model 2 has flash sync). Be careful about dropping the camera though- its brittle bakelite will shatter easily. The Lubitel 166B used a less breakable body, looks more "modern" but still is a Lubitel in every sense of the word. The 166B doesn't seem to be as well made as the model 1 or 2.

Jay

 

[Azinko]

I was given a lubitel 2 as a non-working item. The problem turned out to be the shutter blades hitting eachother! I stripped the shutter and trimmed the damaged shutter blades with nail scissors,..after which the camera worked well. There is about 150 parts in the compur type shutter.

The 'Flexaret' is a fine camera and should not be compared with the Lubitel in my opinion......then again, it's worth remembering that 'the worst MF camera beats the best 35mm'

I have a friend who came back from China with a 'Seagull' which is a copy of Rolleiflex Automat. The camera has Chinese characters on the name plate and has a practical rather than high quality finish. It cost the equivalent to £10 in China and the UK Customs officer apparently laughed when the camera was 'declared'. In use the camera is just like a pre-war Rollei Automat and the image quality is every bit as good!

 

[varjag]

The 'Flexaret' is a fine camera and should not be compared with the Lubitel in my opinion......then again, it's worth remembering that 'the worst MF camera beats the best 35mm'

That of course depends on your definition of "worst" Holga can't beat much of any working 35mm in terms of quality; a Summicron, ZM Planar, Takumar or even Helios-103 will wipe the floor with Lubitel.

 

[Ash]

I had a search through my mum's wardrobe in a last attempt to find the Large Format camera's lens/shutter (theres a hundred year old wooden cam, but no-one knows where the lens went!).

Anyways I found an Olympus Trip with my dad's initials, a Canon EPOCA! and a Lubitel.

Man, I wouldn't hazard putting a film through the Lubi, it felt like a complete toy camera, and I had no qualms about putting it back in its case at the back of the cupboard

 

[lubitel]

That of course depends on your definition of "worst" Holga can't beat much of any working 35mm in terms of quality; a Summicron, ZM Planar, Takumar or even Helios-103 will wipe the floor with Lubitel.

you cannot wipe the floor with russians. Summicron may be a lot sharper, but Lubitel (with the help of Zorki) will wipe the floor with these delicate "westies" anytime

 

[Abbazz]

Hi - if you want a truly Lubitel experience look out for a Lubitel 2, rather than the 166B or 166U. The 2 is a faithful copy of the Voigtlander Brilliant (a mediocre TLR from the 1930s) but is put together properly.

The Voiglander Brillant was not so mediocre, at least in its focusing incarnation. The focusing Brillant equipped with a 5 element Heliar lens is a great shooter, and certainly yields much better results than any Lubitel.

Here are some pictures from Motohiro Takasaki's website:

Abbazz

 

[Xmas]

Macpod

They may look like toys but are really good, except:

- if you have the black plastic version either the interior of the camera needs a internal baffle or you need to use an effective lens hood. the interior plastic is really smooth & shiny on some models...

Open the back of the camera and point at a contra jour subject. If you can borrow or look inside a Yashica Mat you will see what to do. A Mamiya uses a high quality flocked surface, ditto Hassel.

A baffle and a lens hood is even better, the baffle need only be thin card glued in place and painted with black board paint. Good idea to paint the rest of the plastic interior with the black board paint.

If you really want high contrast shots alse paint any of the rear lens ground glass rim not coverd by the circlip.

Noel

I only have one 166

 

[Macpod]

just picked up a swagull for around 25USD. didnt notice the shutter speed click stops didnt match up, is this worth fixing or should i just return it? ill probably do the latter. also. the shutter are very quite so its hard to judge whether they are operating properly. i have a roll of reala in there atm, will see how things turn out. developing is only 1USD here in china.

i like the camera very much though. had a fiddle with the flexrat and it felt alot better made. shooting TLRs feels really nice and the 12 shots are more versatile in my opinion. im still waiting to use u the 36 in my 35mm pentax.