I love my Lubitel 2. And if I could figure out how to accurately focus it every time, I'd love it even more.
It is a 'copy' of a Voightlander Brilliant, eg see
http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Voigtländer_Brillant
But in plastic
The lens on mine is reasonable, allowing that focusing is not exact but it was cheap 10£ no box NOS.
...
f/8 or smaller stop works ok.
Film kink is a lesser problem at f/8 or smaller.
Sorry. Film kink?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The film is bent through 90 degrees between feed spool and exposure it won't necessarily be flat at exposure depending on temperature and time is is left at 90 degrees.
A TLR is not the worst for bent feed paths.
I know, reviving a dead thread here but if you find it difficult to hold steady when releasing the shutter, try using the cable release that usually comes with them. They're a short cable on purpose so you can easily hold the camera steady and you don't have to push on the shutter at all- just on the cable release.The film advance knob directly moves the film, no gears, so if it doesn't advance, don't force it. Those parts are plastic on the Lubi.
I owned a 166B and it was love at first sight, but THEN i discovered many flaws which made me sell the camera:
- difficult to focus viewfinder
- difficult to hold steady while releasing shutter
and the worst:
- lens not sharp enough(!!), even when used stopped down to f8-11 and after performing focus check on the film plane.
Due in no small part to using J.W. Christie's suspension design. https://www.rbth.com/defence/2015/0...s_an_american_tank_for_the_soviets_46135.htmlThe Soviets were good at making things their T34 MBT was the best designed tank of WWII.
The little Cooke triplet clone in my Lubitel is ok at f/8 or smaller film, as film flatness from the 90degree turn of the film the major problem.
If the shutter jams it is the Soviet grease has turned to epoxy resin.
I know everyone will crap on it, but Lomography's 166+ has a split prism viewfinder (and ground glass). It's a lot easier to focus.I bought a 166U in the 1990s, excepting the shooting procedure (no interlocks, red window film advance etc.) it is a perfectly usable camera. It wasn't totally pin-sharp but made up for that with the tonal graduation compared to 35mm. The only problem was that the 6x4.5 mask scratched the film so I stopped using it. My only real annoyance is the focussing 'screen' having only ground glass in the centre, it means you need to be more careful (take more time) when focussing.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?