rxmd
May contain traces of nut
If "under $50" is the criterion, hunting for a Yashica might take a while. The most serious contender to the Lubitel is definitely the Flexaret. The old Flexarets have a Triotar-type lens (Mirar 80/4.5) that has a beautiful, if not super-sharp rendering; on eBay Germany they regularly sell between 25 and 50 EUR. I have a friend who used to use an oldish Flexaret almost exclusively for 6x6 (well, later he also used a Kiev 88 with a 65/3.5 lens) and who produces some outstanding images with it. The camera is quirky, but it's definitely worth it.
Ron (Netherlands)
Well-known
Cheap and still good quality, take a Rolleicord IV or V or one of the best Flexarets. In the past I have taken pictures with both and they give sharp images. Once the Ikoflexes (Zeiss Ikon) were are cheap, but nowadays pricy because they are more and more collected
POSTI-Tuomo
Level 1 Camera Repairman
rxmd said:
I have a Flexaret III (1948-?), but it doesn't have the Mirar lens but the Belar 80/3.5. And obviously the shutter mechanism has been changed also to accommodate for the maximum aperture of f3.5. It'd be nice to do comparisons between the two. Anyone up to it?
niblue
Member
I've got a Lubitel 166U and also used to have a Seagull TLR.
A few samples using the Lubitel: http://www.pbase.com/niblue/lubitel_166u
A few with the Seagull: http://www.pbase.com/niblue/seagull_tlr
The Lubitel is useable but prone to light leaks and has a nasty viewfinder. The Seagull is much better and the lens is pretty sharp though uncoated.
A few samples using the Lubitel: http://www.pbase.com/niblue/lubitel_166u
A few with the Seagull: http://www.pbase.com/niblue/seagull_tlr
The Lubitel is useable but prone to light leaks and has a nasty viewfinder. The Seagull is much better and the lens is pretty sharp though uncoated.