Lubitel 166 surprise

[MontanaJay]

I bought a Lubitel 166 for $2 at a yard sale years ago and set it aside. Just discovered a roll of Plus-X was in it, after opening the back after finding the film was not advancing.
I've heard these cameras are touchy on the type of backing paper on the roll. Is that true and can that cause a jam? If so, would Ilford (or some other 120 option) work better?

I backed the film out in the darkroom and hope to find some mystery photos on the roll -- at least the part I did not flash expose. The Russian/English box the camera was in is dated April 1996, if that's relevant.

I want to order some 120 for this and for my college Diana, which we were forced to use in Photo 101 back in 1972, and want something that won't jam.

 

[Alex Muir]

I had one which I bought new around 1996. I once had a problem like you describe. It was with an old Agfa colour negative film. I used several Ilford films in it with no problem. The colour film was noticeably thicker, so I would stick to B&W. The camera produces nice results, but is not very robust. Forcing the film advance would quickly damage the mechanism. I also stripped the tripod socket on mine, so be careful if you use that.
Alex.

 

[gzhuang]

Time for a Thread Revival?

Expired Fuji Provia 400 (+3 stops) developed in Tetenal E6 at 28C. Grain be gone.

 

[Xmas]

Apart from needing to flock the bottom plate inside the camera to stop reflections of sky clouds mine is ok.
Lens hood not good enough.

 

[flavio81]

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.

 

[gzhuang]

Shot some Holga 400 with Canon 1.75x converter attached.

 

[klownshed]

and the worst:

- lens not sharp enough(!!), even when used stopped down to f8-11 and after performing focus check on the film plane.

All the other problems listed are very evident on my Lubitel 166u, but sharpness? Mine's not too bad...

https://www.flickr.com/photos/johncompiani/8956708757/in/album-72157644775454245/

I've had film advance issues that can be very frustrating but overall, it's a fun little camera.

 

[gzhuang]

All the other problems listed are very evident on my Lubitel 166u, but sharpness? Mine's not too bad...

Nice and sharp there.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

I had a 166U years ago that was sharp as a tack. My first medium format camera actually. Build quality was another issue entirely and eventually the shutter and advance all froze up on me. But the lens was phenomenal.

 

[flavio81]

All the other problems listed are very evident on my Lubitel 166u, but sharpness? Mine's not too bad...

https://www.flickr.com/photos/johncompiani/8956708757/in/album-72157644775454245/

I've had film advance issues that can be very frustrating but overall, it's a fun little camera.

Can't judge MF camera lens quality with a 1MP scan. My lubitel was sharp enough for such images but not sharp enough to justify shooting 120 film.

 

[klownshed]

I can judge from The negatives and The 166u is nice and sharp and can have a particular look that makes a nice change. I don't use it much but when I do the results are often worth it.

Sometimes the SQ-A kit is just too big and heavy to take out. The 166 weighs nothing.

 

[klownshed]

Oh, and sharpness can be overrated anyway. The Lubitel has character. That's a good thing.

I've seen some fantastic photos taken with toy cameras and pinholes. If you can't take an interesting photo with a Lubitel, a Hasselblad won't help.

Not that the photo I linked to above is any good mind! It's not one of my best that's for sure ;-)

 

[zanxion72]

If your lubitel has clear lens then it needs adjustment. Lubitel 166 and Lubitel 2 have the same triplet lens which is quite sharp. Here is one at 5.6

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

A Lubitel 166U image from me:

 

[gzhuang]

A Lubitel 166U image from me:

Nice and sharp too.

 

[gzhuang]

Use Lubitel as a Micro Four Thirds medium format camera. Shot on 35mm Portra 160NC.

 

[Cycler]

Lubitels were reputedly made in the Soviet prison system, by low-grade 'political' prisoners. Reputedly those criminals who thought a 'Political' statement would get them a comfortable cell. Wrong! Yelling, "Down with the revolution!" Tended to get you a kicking and a cold cell in a factory prison building Lubitels or the 35mm equivalent. The Soviets stole the Lubitel design from the German originators in 1945; together with the plant to make it. Unfortunately, machinery removed from factories using a T-34 tank tends to be a bit 'out-of-kilter' afterwards!

 

[Xmas]

The 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.

 

[blockend]

I had two Lubitels from new, one was reasonably sharp, the other much less so. The triplet lens should be okay, but in practice there are so many production variables it's impossible to be definitive. The focus is dim enough to be unusable in normal conditions, and a distance scale is a more practical proposition. The shutter mechanism and overall build is best described as delicate. Compared to a Zeiss Ikon Nettar with a similar designed but better quality 3-element Rodenstock lens, a cheaper price, and infinitely superior build and engineering, the Lubitel makes no sense at all.

 

[Dali]

Like with any other TLR, one should check if viewing and taking lenses are synchronized in case of poor sharpness. The Lubitel lens is a triplet and like any other triplet can't be optically perfect but should give good results because of the film format.

 

[gzhuang]

Compared to a Zeiss Ikon Nettar with a similar designed but better quality 3-element Rodenstock lens, a cheaper price, and infinitely superior build and engineering, the Lubitel makes no sense at all.

I'm planning to shoot 30x42 format 35mm non-perf film permanently with my Lubitel. The lens wasn't any good with 120 format just like the Lomo stuff. I wonder how easy it is to shoot Tri-Chrome with the Zeiss Ikon Nettar?

 

[blockend]

I'm planning to shoot 30x42 format 35mm non-perf film permanently with my Lubitel. The lens wasn't any good with 120 format just like the Lomo stuff. I wonder how easy it is to shoot Tri-Chrome with the Zeiss Ikon Nettar?

My first Lubitel cost £12, new. The second was £15. It's a fancy toy camera, I wouldn't hold out any great hopes of longevity, but while it's still functioning it should take okay pictures. When it falls apart (as it surely will), there are much better 3-element 120 cameras out there.

 

[flavio81]

Like with any other TLR, one should check if viewing and taking lenses are synchronized in case of poor sharpness. The Lubitel lens is a triplet and like any other triplet can't be optically perfect but should give good results because of the film format.

I synchronized lenses on mine but the results were still not good enough. My Zeiss Nettar folder, with a comparable 75/4.5 lens, was better.

Russian lenses can be very good but the one on the Lubitel 166B wasn't designed to be very good, it seams. The rear element is held on by a circlip (!!)

 

[rhmimac]

I bought a new lomo lubi 166+ some years ago. It's a fantastic plastic toy camera which some of you already marked, weighs 'nothing' compared to my other MF beast ,a pentax 67. I take the lubi everywhere hanging around my side with the thin leather strap, mostly loaded with ilford delta 3200@1600 or lomo 800 c41 or even fuji400h. The weight bonus can't be stressed 'nough... The pics are always great, I shoot it down to 1/15 without any trouble due to it's almost silent leaf shutter, a great street shooter too for that reason. So a new lubi is a toy but a damn good one imho.

 

[Zorkiphoto]

I've owned various Lubitels over the years. I've done most of my shooting on the Lubitel 166U which I have at the moment.

I have a few dozen Soviet cameras and am pretty well-versed in the pitfalls of using them. You can get a great camera or a paperweight, depending on who was working in the factory at the time they amde it.

The Lubitel I have was bought off eBay, in mint condition and works flawlessly. No light leaks, no issues with speeds, no problems with focussing. And the lens is super sharp. I've been really impressed with slides taken on it - see below.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/stephendowling/17774010279/in/album-72157650392783987/

It's a lightweight camera, mostly plastic, but I've taken it on a half-dozen trips with no issues.

S