Lubitel

Good day,

 

my only medium format experience up till recently consisted of my

Holga shots, and I really felt like trying one of these funny looking

TLR's. Seagull seemed to be a lot of hype for nothing (too good for a

toycamera, not good enough for a real camera), and I decided I would

try something more toy-like first before, perhaps, moving 'up' to a

Yashica, Rollei or something similar.

 

After reading about the Lubitel-166 I knew that would be what I was

looking for... A little while ago I found something else, a Lubitel-2

to be specific. I immediately bought it for a full $10. The camera

looks a lot better than the 166(U), very much like a 'real' TLR

(someone new to TLR's might not immediately tell the difference

between the Lubbie-2 and a Rolleicord for instance), unlike the 166

which looks like the box grandma used to store cookies in, it also

takes marvelous pictures - not sure whether it is still a toy-camera

or not!

 

The image below is taken with one, I made a guesstimate of the

shutter speed/aperture using the "Sunny-f/16-rule", and I'm quite

happy with how it turned out! The film was cheapo "Fortepan 100 ISO

B&W". The actual quality is even better than what you see here, I

have no negative scanner so I simply took a photo of the negative

with a very simple point and shoot digital Sony.

 

The only real lens distortion I can see is some coma in the lower

corners. Admittedly, it was taken at f/16 which is a "safer" aperture

than, for example f/4.5 (the widest it goes).

 

Any comments would be greatly appreciated, anyone else have a Lubitel

in whatever variation? Share some pictures!<div></div>

Here's what the Lubitel-2 looks like. Essentially a copy of the Voightlander Brilliant.

 

Picturen taken from <a href "http://fotografika.andrysstienstra.nl/kamera.php?ID=54&t=">here</a>.

http://fotografika.andrysstienstra.nl/kamera.php?ID=54&t=<div></div>

Lovely picture. Really quite sharp. Love the look of Tlrs and, when I get get my Ricohmatic 44 going I'll be able to post as well.

For my money, the Lubitel isn't a toy camera at all; in fact, the main "crappy" feature is the central spot focusing within the "brilliant" finder. The lens is about as good as the Seagull's lens, and the shutter has a better reputation for reliability (Seagulls are notorious for breaking the shutter with no warning and for no apparent reason, while thousands of Lubitels up to 50 years old are still in daily use).

 

I very nearly bought a Lubitel (and I was looking at the 2 instead of the 166, too) when I got back into medium format a couple years ago; the only reason I wound up with a Seagull is that I came on a trade deal for one (gave a Minox 35 with sticky shutter and a spring piece fallen out for the Seagull with one shutter speed not working and front leatherette long gone). I've since traded away the Seagull, and I confine my "toy" cameras to those originally intended to be cheap (for TLRs, I have an Argoflex, slightly better than a Lubitel, and a Kodak Reflex II, with one of the best 4 element lenses ever made).

I'm waiting for a Lubitel 166U to arrive at the moment - I'll post a pic when I get the

chance. Your photo suggests it wasn't a bad choice, though. And it'll be interesting to

compare it with my Rolleiflex! Glad you're pleased with your Lubitel.

Donald, you are right in saying it shouldn't really be considered a toy-camera. I figured it was a toy before I saw the results - mainly because of the focusing (which is a joke) and the name - Lubitel means "amateur". I didn't exspect them to put "Amateur" on the camera if they hoped to sell it to people who want something more than a toy.

 

Looking at the results, it's look and the way it handles (minus focusing) I'm more and more starting to believe it was the first "prosumer" camera avant-la-lettre. ;-)

Well, really, there are other cameras from the same era that are about as good, and better in some respects. If you like the Lubitel except for focusing, you really owe it to yourself to get an Argoflex E, EM, or EF (the EF is the best, IMO, because it has a hot shoe, though it's still M synch unless you modify the synch contacts for X). These have a metal body, full ground glass for focusing with gear coupled lenses, and high quality coated triplet taking lens; they're pretty much an American Lubitel but with metal body, and you can get them for not much more than a Lubitel. Natively 620, but easily converted to full 120 on both supply and takeup (well, no conversion needed on the takeup end) Mine, however, is not for sale... :)

 

Better still, competitive with Rolleiflex for image quality but much lower priced, is the Kodak Reflex II. Also 620, which helps keep the price down, but the lens is, IMO, better than any Tessar despite being front-cell focused, it has a Fresnel bright ground glass that's much easier to focus in sunshine than the Argoflex and an accurate and robust frame counter so you don't have to use the red window except to start the roll. The supply side is easily converted to take 120, or will take trimmed spools as built, though I've never heard of one being successfully converted on the takeup end -- not a big problem if you get a few 620 spools and either do your own developing or have a cooperative lab. Flash synch is via an ASA post (like many Kodaks from the 1950s and 1960s); there are converters available, and this camera is X with a settable M delay (often mistaken for a broken self timer); very unusual given the last of them were shipped in 1954.

 

But now we're out of the "alternative" camera genre and into genuine classics...

I still have my first "real" camera, a Ricoh VI TLR that my father bought when he was in Korea in 1953, and it is now so funky that it probably falls into the alternative camera camp. Haven't used it for a couple years, but it is the only film camera I've kept, both for sentimental reasons and the fact that it is smaller and lighter than my now gone Diacord L, and also delivers some nice Atget-like flared results with b&w film and sunny-16 exposure guestimates.

 

A friend has a Lubitel and really likes it.

For what you pay they could be the best MF camera on the market. I paid 10 euro for my 166B

Hi,

 

I have Lubitel 2 but its written in Russian. How different it is from the English one.

 

I have bought that from the flea market for USD 2.25. Its working fine but needs some serivce. I have not put the roll in as yet.

 

Regards,

 

Rizwan<div></div>