Vince Lupo
Whatever
Yes, that finder is a beauty. And, I did look at the few lenses currently on offer on eBay. The chrome ones seem to have a shallower filter thread than the black ones, but it also appears (to me, anyway) that the chrome ones were earlier, if strictly based on the serial number. Is it possible that they just changed the barrel with the newer (as in 1980's) ones?
What I think I'll do is take this XP2 roll out, put a 12 exposure roll of colour in, and take some shots around the yard. The suspense is now killing me -- see what you guys have done?!
I have bought, sold and traded a LOT of Russars and I have never seen one with the elongated filter ring.
If a learned member of a Russian forum says it's a bootleg, I would tend to believe him.
Maybe I'll ask Jason Schneider.
If a learned member of a Russian forum says it's a bootleg, I would tend to believe him.
Maybe I'll ask Jason Schneider.
kbg32
neo-romanticist
Spend your money wisely and get the screw mount CV 21.
Vince Lupo
Whatever
winoto
Established
just got myself an old chrome one with a well worn but awesome finder. also came with M adaptor ring. let see which group i will be in: yay or nay?
cyberjunkie
Newbie
I feel a little sorry to revive an old thread, but i think it's much better than starting a new one...
I have a 20mm Russar, in chrome and with the dedicated finder, and i've come to this forum to look for infos about it.
I have sold my Fed-5 long ago, and i still have a couple of Leica M bodies (M5 and CL), but i've never used it with the LTM>M adapter; i don't even know if the shape of the lens allows to use it with a CL (with the swinging arm of the lightmeter) or with an M5 (enough room for correct reading on the curtain surface?).
At first i had in mind to buy an Epson RD, to use my LTM lenses with a digital body, then i realized that my photographic habits have changed a lot, and that i should start to sell something, after all the money i have recently spent on vintage LF lenses...
I love all the photographica stuff i have ammassed during the course of the years, without exception, and i'd love to keep them all, but if i have to sell something, better to start with something i am not using, and that has some appeal for the collectors.
In the process of deciding if i have to sell the Russar or not, i came to this post, and to many others with similar content.
It's very strange to find such conflictual opinions!
I remember that the few pictures i have shot with the Russar (long ago and none digitized) were quite good, and i have seen on the Web other very nice examples; why others have reported differently?
My favourite repairman says that there were some barrels left, at the original factory, and that there was still a request for the lens. Probably the first ones were badly assembled, or had a bad or missing element, with abysmal image quality. Then some were done with totally unrealated lenses, cut to size to be fitted to the barrel, but it meant that those lenses weren't even capable to project an image to the focus plane!
Add all that to the centering problems, either from the original assembly/quality check, or (more likely) for some accident during the long life of the lens,... and you'll get the picture. A certain amount of Russars can show sub-average performance.
With reference to chrome vs black versions, common knowledge says that the performance of a good example of both versions is the same, and that all the "fakes" (or "non original") should be black. That's what i have found reading and asking knowledgeable people.
My personal experience is good: at the time i was shooting with the best Pentax-K MF lenses ever made, so my standards were not so low... nevertheless the few rolls i did with the Russar were more than OK. I didn't even notice the small light falloff towards the corners, too much sky doesn't get along too well with a 20mm!
Having said all that, i would be happy to read other opinions.
I am trying to understand if i would end up with some remorse, after having sold the lens, but the only compatible (and affordable!) digital body would be the Epson, that's already a little too "aged" to invest on it. Do you agree? Am i missing something?
have fun
CJ
I have a 20mm Russar, in chrome and with the dedicated finder, and i've come to this forum to look for infos about it.
I have sold my Fed-5 long ago, and i still have a couple of Leica M bodies (M5 and CL), but i've never used it with the LTM>M adapter; i don't even know if the shape of the lens allows to use it with a CL (with the swinging arm of the lightmeter) or with an M5 (enough room for correct reading on the curtain surface?).
At first i had in mind to buy an Epson RD, to use my LTM lenses with a digital body, then i realized that my photographic habits have changed a lot, and that i should start to sell something, after all the money i have recently spent on vintage LF lenses...
I love all the photographica stuff i have ammassed during the course of the years, without exception, and i'd love to keep them all, but if i have to sell something, better to start with something i am not using, and that has some appeal for the collectors.
In the process of deciding if i have to sell the Russar or not, i came to this post, and to many others with similar content.
It's very strange to find such conflictual opinions!
I remember that the few pictures i have shot with the Russar (long ago and none digitized) were quite good, and i have seen on the Web other very nice examples; why others have reported differently?
My favourite repairman says that there were some barrels left, at the original factory, and that there was still a request for the lens. Probably the first ones were badly assembled, or had a bad or missing element, with abysmal image quality. Then some were done with totally unrealated lenses, cut to size to be fitted to the barrel, but it meant that those lenses weren't even capable to project an image to the focus plane!
Add all that to the centering problems, either from the original assembly/quality check, or (more likely) for some accident during the long life of the lens,... and you'll get the picture. A certain amount of Russars can show sub-average performance.
With reference to chrome vs black versions, common knowledge says that the performance of a good example of both versions is the same, and that all the "fakes" (or "non original") should be black. That's what i have found reading and asking knowledgeable people.
My personal experience is good: at the time i was shooting with the best Pentax-K MF lenses ever made, so my standards were not so low... nevertheless the few rolls i did with the Russar were more than OK. I didn't even notice the small light falloff towards the corners, too much sky doesn't get along too well with a 20mm!
Having said all that, i would be happy to read other opinions.
I am trying to understand if i would end up with some remorse, after having sold the lens, but the only compatible (and affordable!) digital body would be the Epson, that's already a little too "aged" to invest on it. Do you agree? Am i missing something?
have fun
CJ
Last edited:
vorobaz
Newbie
Samples from black Russar-MR2 №800817 (Fujifilm Neopan SS ISO100) f8/-f/11:
