veraikon
xpanner
Zenit Krasnogarsk produces a new series (imho a re edition) of the Russar MR-2 5.6/20mm in LTM for Lomography. It is named Russar+
* the upper MTF diagramm is from the new Russar+, the lower from the Zeiss Distagon 21mm
More informations (with MTF*s ) => http://www.photoscala.de/Artikel/Russar-5620-mm
* the upper MTF diagramm is from the new Russar+, the lower from the Zeiss Distagon 21mm
veraikon
xpanner
the english Lomo page (without any information 
) http://shop.lomography.com/us/lenses/art-lenses/russar-plus
) http://shop.lomography.com/us/lenses/art-lenses/russar-plus
Fotohuis
Well-known
EUR. 600,- for such a lens is, like always at Lomography a very steep price. The old C.V. SWH 15mm or the 21mm LTM versions were EUR. 400,- and these prices were incl. a suitable VF.
So I am looking a bit further for my Zorki and FED cameras with an average price of EUR. 40,-.
So I am looking a bit further for my Zorki and FED cameras with an average price of EUR. 40,-.
farlymac
PF McFarland
For that much money, one could keep themselves in FEDs and Zorkies for a long time.
PF
PF
veraikon
xpanner
Yeah a Voigtländer 21/4.0 is about 150-200 € cheaper (and imho "better"). But I don´t think "we" are the target group.
alienmeatsack
Well-known
When I first saw these show up as a new lens on the Lomography site, I was excited, until I saw the cost. Ouch.
So, I went and did some digging on eBay and looked around online and found that the original version of this lens is also very expensive. They seem to run anywhere from $500-700 USD for one in decent working condition.
I don't think either is worth that much money. Not when you consider the alternatives that are cheaper, the build quality, and the value in general.
I think if it was $400 USD or less, it would sell many more units. That would put it near the competition like the VC 21/4 mentioned above.
As far as the target group, I think we are that target group. The lens is being marketed towards people with LTM and M Mount cameras, ranging from FSU units to Leica, Zeiss and Voigtlander LTM/M Mount cameras and all of those people who shoot digital with an adapter (which aren't actually their target group at all, digital there is considered a sin to many members). And those people need to have money to spend. That is the people here from my perspective.
Their Petzval, while expensive to me is actually worthy of the price. It's well built and is a large chunk of materials so it feels like it's something substantial. It takes great photos as well and puts Petzval looking photos into the hands of anyone who has the money and a Canon or Nikon or digital w adapter for those.
This one however, not so much value. Especially considering most of their products are cheap plastic cameras. But it does carry their "Lomography Markup" that all of their products have. I am sure it will do super well. But I don't see myself owning one, not when I can get a VC for less and know it's good. Or just wait for the fever for this to die down and look casually for the original Russar lens to drop.
So, I went and did some digging on eBay and looked around online and found that the original version of this lens is also very expensive. They seem to run anywhere from $500-700 USD for one in decent working condition.
I don't think either is worth that much money. Not when you consider the alternatives that are cheaper, the build quality, and the value in general.
I think if it was $400 USD or less, it would sell many more units. That would put it near the competition like the VC 21/4 mentioned above.
As far as the target group, I think we are that target group. The lens is being marketed towards people with LTM and M Mount cameras, ranging from FSU units to Leica, Zeiss and Voigtlander LTM/M Mount cameras and all of those people who shoot digital with an adapter (which aren't actually their target group at all, digital there is considered a sin to many members). And those people need to have money to spend. That is the people here from my perspective.
Their Petzval, while expensive to me is actually worthy of the price. It's well built and is a large chunk of materials so it feels like it's something substantial. It takes great photos as well and puts Petzval looking photos into the hands of anyone who has the money and a Canon or Nikon or digital w adapter for those.
This one however, not so much value. Especially considering most of their products are cheap plastic cameras. But it does carry their "Lomography Markup" that all of their products have. I am sure it will do super well. But I don't see myself owning one, not when I can get a VC for less and know it's good. Or just wait for the fever for this to die down and look casually for the original Russar lens to drop.