Russar-20 MP-2 this famous unknown

[mkok]

Hi,
I'm planning to buy this lens and I would like to know the year of construction, and if are there some difference of rendering from year to year.
I've taken a look around, but are there opposing opinions.
What do you think about?
Thanks.

 

[wolves3012]

I think you'll struggle to find the year of manufacture, the usual first-two-digits-of serial-rule clearly doesn't apply to that number. I think later ones were f/6.0 or f/6.3 so it looks like an earlier one. However, the Russar is not one of the common lenses, so best wait for someone who knows more. It has the KMZ logo on it, for what it's worth.

 

[avikrc]

I so wanted to use this lens, still do actually. But after I got the Voigtlander 15mm I didn't try to look for one any more.

Still the mysticism that surrounds this might one day temp me again.

 

[Dez]

I have had one of these lenses for a few years now, and am quite happy with it. The finish is the usual aluminum without a lot of finesse, but the aperture and focus mount are smooth and without play. It doesn't seem to be much affected by flare, and the finder is quite good.

A pretty nice lens, which cost me, with the finder, something like $300.

Cheers,
Dez

 

[raid]

I use its finder with either a Canon 19/3.5 or a W-Rokkor 21/4. I have not used the Russar.

 

[mkok]

What about the lens hood?
I think that the first glass of the lens isn't too much deep, so probably a good hood would be useful against flare, am I wrong?
Is a 49mm filter lens?

P.S. What a great combo DEZ!!!!

 

[Benjamin Marks]

I had one of these in the 90s. Optical quality on film was OK. It was one of those lenses for which I had no alternative in the focal length so I made due with what it was. If I was choosing today, I would choose the CV 21/f:4 over this lens.

Ben

 

[mkok]

Benjamin,
the CV 21/f4 is a great lens, very good in BW, less for color, in my opinion, overall the best for performance and cost, I think.
But the Russar-20 is a beauty on Leica screw camera and I hope quite sharp!
The alternative are Leitz super-angulon, but they are too much expensive for what I want spend for this focal.

 

[Vince Lupo]

I think if you can get it cheap enough it will be a fine lens to use (though I have seen some examples go for crazy prices on eBay). I bought one in Ghent, Belgium while on vacation there a few years back, and paid the princely sum of 75 Euros for it and the hood, plus both cases (eventually sold it about two years ago for I think $300 - $400). You mentioned a lens hood -- did they even make one for this lens? If not, you'd have to search around to find one wide enough that wouldn't cause vignetting. Personally I wouldn't worry about it.

The finder is very clear and easy to use, but as you can see from Dez's photo, it's a big mama. Just make sure you want to have something that big on top of your camera as you wear it around your neck. I actually thought its construction was a bit better than the lens (at least that's the way it felt to me).

Not that it really matters, but I don't believe the lens is rangefinder coupled.

Kobalux might be another lens to look at, but it has a huge finder as well. Prices can also widely vary.

 

[Membedeep]

I also have one of these. It is very light, I think the lens is much lighter than the finder. I have made only one film with it and I got 0 results, because of my mistake. Hope to test it again.

I would like to trade it for a Leitz M lens anyway for my new M4, if someone is interested.

 

[varjag]

Hi,
I'm planning to buy this lens and I would like to know the year of construction, and if are there some difference of rendering from year to year.
I've taken a look around, but are there opposing opinions.
What do you think about?

Russar family of lenses were first calculated around 1940 by Soviet mathematician Rusinov (hence the lens name). It was a marked breakthrough over previous heir of superwides, Zeiss Topogon. This was the first design to employ the so-called abberational vignetting, reducing the light falloff. All symmetrical designs since (90-degree Biogon, Avigon, Super-Angulon) are derivatives of this work.

Russars were used on aerial cameras until a slew of "civilan" designs (including Russar MR-2 for 35mm camears) appeared in 1950s. The design was unchanged in course of production.

I have a copy of it. Sharpness-wise I found it about the same as pre-aspherical Leitz Elmarit 21, but with less distortion.

 

[Tom A]

I have had several of these. Very nice wide-angle lens - and a good finder too. I found that the black versions were slightly better built - less "sticky" in the focus.
I bought one on Rome many years ago, cheap, I think it was $100 and I mainly wanted the finder. I shot a test roll with some color negative film, just to check it out.
It came back with a fuzzy circle (about 10mm diameter) on the negs. I checked it out and it turned out that one or several of the interior elements were missing!!!!!! Dont know if it was a factory mishap - or someone had raided it for parts. Gave it to a friend and I think he found a crappy looking one and replaced the interior elements.
If the price is right, I would go for it. Performance wise it is close to a SA 21f3.4.

 

[mkok]

....... Performance wise it is close to a SA 21f3.4.

Wow! I hope that It will be close to SA 21f3.4!
When It will arrive, I will test it with a roll and I'll show you same shot!
Bye.

 

[Tom A]

Russar 20mm f5.6 on a Leica M1. Neopan 100 in a modified split D76.

 

[varjag]

Also @ 5.6 here. PX in Rodinal. Swell little lens.


Kong Oscars gt. by varjagg, on Flickr

 

[georg16nik]

Hi,
I'm planning to buy this lens and I would like to know the year of construction, and if are there some difference of rendering from year to year.
I've taken a look around, but are there opposing opinions.
What do you think about?
Thanks.

I hope You already received the lens and are having a great time using it!
Russar MR-2 is pretty much the constant lens on my Leica 1.

The opposing opinions about Russar MR-2 are mostly amongst photo enthusiasts and based on heavily frankenshteined lens examples…

In 1935 M.M.Roosinov observed previously unknown phenomenon of aberration vignetting and designed vignetting filter deposited on the inner surface of the exterior lens of the objective.
In 1938 Roosinov introduced the idea of enlarging the size of the entrance pupil as angular coverage increases.
By 1946 M.M.Roosinov lens design was patented and documented widely and when Ludwig Bertele was commissioned by Zeiss in 1951 to design a wide angle lens for Contax and Hasselblad, Bertele could not obtain master patent for the use of single meniscus at each end of the lens as Roosinov had already covered this.
At the International Congress at Stockholm in 1956 Bertele paid tribute to Russinov for his highly interesting and original solution to the problem of securing adequate illumination in the picture corners etc. etc..
Leitz and pretty much everyone else came to the game pretty late as well.

In 2011 Dr. Hubert Nasse, senior scientist at Zeiss and chief optical designer wrote:

"In 1946 the first patent for a new kind of symmetrical wide-angle lens was applied for by the Russian lens designer Michail Roossinov. It looked as if two retrofocus lenses had been combined with the rear elements together and thus had a symmetrical arrangement of positive refractive powers close to the aperture, surrounded at the front and back by strongly negative menisci.
As of 1951, Ludwig Bertele carried this idea further and designed the legendary Biogon on behalf of Zeiss..."