Lubitel 2 a decent shooter?

[George Mann]

I have seen a lot of opinions concerning this series of camera. Some like it well enough, and some think that it is no better than a Holga.

My main contention on the Diana/Holga is the performance of their lens. Surely the Lubitel triplet is better? Hard to focus because of its quality, or just slower and more deliberate?

Any other weaknesses or complaints that stand out?

 

[Cholentpot]

I have seen a lot of opinions concerning this series of camera. Some like it well enough, and some think that it is no better than a Holga.

My main contention on the Diana/Holga is the performance of their lens. Surely the Lubitel triplet is better? Hard to focus because of its quality, or just slower and more deliberate?

Any other weaknesses or complaints that stand out?

My first TLR and really my first camera. I shot it for 8 years and then it died. It is very capable. Downside is the focusing, you only have that 'lil tiny circle in the middle to focus on.

 

[gone]

The lens is fine, it's very good. The problem, unfortunately, is the rest of the camera. I owned one, along w/ a Seagull TLR. The latter also had a great lens and some neat features, but once again, the rest of the camera was crap.

If you want that Holga look you would probably be better off w/ one of those. Any of the lower tier TLRs w/ triplet lenses will give good pics stopped down, the Rolleicord is miles better and smaller. If you're patient you can snag one w/ a Triotar lens for $100-$125. The bakelite Argoflex cameras are good too. Light, nice lens, and cheap, maybe $40 for the models that take 120 film.

 

[AgX]

To my understanding the finder yields both, an aerial- and a groundglass-image. By this one saves on a ground screen by grounding the central part of the finder's field lens. Manfacturing wise I do see a benefit, one saves one pane of ground glass but has the hassle to ground a patch on a lens.
But this optical approach should yield a much brighter image. This I assume was the idea behind it. As far as I see, a unique approach.

 

[Dali]

The TLR camera I use the most. Focusing is a pain but apart from that, I have no complaint.The camera is very light and using a cable release prevents the body to shake when tripping the shutter. An highly recommended accessory!

 

[spark]

Used one a long time ago. Very decent lens, a pain to focus. I bought it new and it included a remote release with a very short cable

 

[AgX]

This finder was used in 3.6 million cameras. Seemingly only in Lubitel models.

At Apug it is regarded difficult to use.

Have I summed it up correctly?

 

[henryvk]

I have a 166B and I think it's pretty well made, on par with Japanese TLRs that I've owned. It could use some new lube but otherwise in good shape. The shutter works despite probably never having been service and the film advance gives you a pleasant feedback from what I assume is a ratchet wheel inside the knob, unlike the Seagull or the Lubitel 166+ where the advance knob just turns smoothly without much haptic feedback. The Lubitel is very light (about half of a Yashica Mat or Rolleicord) and has a lower profile and more rounded corners than most other TLRs. The lens is capable of producing decently sharp images as well as lo-fi lomography. There is some vignetting when shooting, say, blue skies wide open but it's not a problem I usually run into. An old 40.5mm lens hood can be used to improve contrast and help with flares which the lens is somewhat prone to.

There are, however, some drawbacks. It can be very tricky to focus the original Lubitels due to the ground glass spot being so very small. It's been suggested to treat the ground glass like an inverted split-prism, i.e. trying to make straight lines match up at the edges of the ground glass spot. It's important to keep in mind when composing that the viewfinder only shows 80% of what the taking lens sees. Another problem is that, particularly on the 166B, the shutter release lever is somewhat diminutive and also has some sharp edges. This can be remedied by using a cable release (which also reduced camera shake stemming from the Lubitel's lightweight construction) or one could try to melt/hot glue a plastic button onto the release to make it more ergonomic. The release is also right underneath the cocking lever so it is possible to fumble and fire the shutter right after cocking it.

I also have the Lomographic Society's improved Lubitel 166+ model. Basically, this model introduces a flat fresnel focusing screen (Jinfinance or similar) that covers 100% of the image and makes precise focusing pretty easy. There are a number of other improvements but the focusing screen is the most important one, really. Like Lomography's other cameras, the 166+ is not exactly cheap, but then again, it is also very much a niche product.

All things considered, I really love the Lubitel for it's simplicity, low weight and soviet charm. It is my go-to travel camera because I can have medium format without lugging a >1 kg brick around.

 

[AgX]

It's important to keep in mind when composing that the viewfinder only shows 80% of what the taking lens sees.

How come?
To my understanding all Lubitels got a 6x6cm format with a finder-image size of 4x4cm, a difference which was corrected for by giving the finder lens a respective shorter focal length. A 20% (inear or integral ?) safety margin makes no sense to me.

(But we got an issue of this kind with the Zenit too.)


I found it hard to find respective data on the Lubitels, and strange enough I never got one in hand, thus my questions.

 

[henryvk]

I'm actually not sure myself. Best guess is that even with the finder lens' shorter focal length *and* the curved "focusing" screen squishing the image it still doesn't quite makeup for the difference.

 

[Dali]

This finder was used in 3.6 million cameras. Seemingly only in Lubitel models.

At Apug it is regarded difficult to use.

Have I summed it up correctly?

Don't understand what you try to demonstrate...

 

[AgX]

The thread is about merits and shortcomings. A camera that is not a toy, but still sold in millions hardly can be that bad. And as I posted further above there seems a valid idea behind this finder design. On the other hand no other models got such, which of course makes one think. And experienced users here reject it too.

I do not want to demonstrate anything, to the contrary. As said I lack personal experience with a Lubitel and thus would like a discussion about merits and shortcomings, to learn from this.

 

[henryvk]

A camera that is not a toy, but still sold in millions hardly can be that bad. And as I posted further above there seems a valid idea behind this finder design. On the other hand no other models got such, which of course makes one think. And experienced users here reject it too.

The original design for the curved focusing screen comes from the Voigtländer Brilliant S. As to why they did it that way, maybe a Rollei patent prevented them from using a "normal" ground glass screen? German companies were supposedly loathe to license stuff from other manufacturers. Maybe it was just cheaper and more straightforward to produce, with the Brilliant being aimed at amateurs while the "real" Rollei TLRs were for professionals/prosumers.

I think people usually say that the Lubitel is not worth buying because instead of spending 25€ on a Lubitel you can spend 50€ on (depending on location) a Flexaret, Ciroflex or Ricohflex and get a TLR with a proper focusing screen and as good a lens as the Lubi. Now, that's sound reasoning but still the Lubitel has that je-ne-sais-quois that is lacking with the other cheap TLRs.

 

[Dali]

Reproducing a mistake 3.6 million times does not make it right. Also the main improvement of the Lubi 116+ is the full ground glass to replace the little dark spot.Last, it is not a coincidence that 99% of Libitel users complain about the ground glass as it is pretty much useless. Now, one can takes pictures by guessing the distance, this is what I do most of the time.

I don't want to bash the Lubi (again, it is the TLR I use the most) \, just to highlight what is IMO its main shortcoming: I don't have light leak, the shutter works as it should, the lens is very decent (way above the Holga / Diana style). And as Henryvk stated, it has its own character.

 

[AgX]

Thank you for hinting at the Voigtländer model !

Actually, it is not a "curved focusing screen" but at least at the Lubitel a biconvex lens with at one apex a flat ground screen.

As I tried to explain above, the idea is based on the fact than a aerial image is brighter than a ground screen image. This is why aerial finders at box cameras were called "brillant"-finders in Germany and seemingly why that Voigtländer model is called brillant.
But to make a fair comparison one needs a TLR with a groundscreen and a viewing lens of same focal length and aperture as with the Lubitel.

 

[AgX]

Reproducing a mistake 3.6 million times does not make it right.

Yes. And I expected such reply.
But in the history of camera making it has shown that consumers did not take all errors. I can't say for the USSR, but at least in the GDR cameras remained at the stores as consumer disliked them or rather as they got a bad reputation.
In this meaning my remarks of millions sold sample makes some sense, to me.

 

[xya]

the Lubitels are a copy of the Voigländer Focusing Brillant or Brillant S, see https://www.oddcameras.com/vogtlaender_brillant_s.htm . The Brillant S is better, but more expensive these days. Once you get used to the spot and with the help of the built-in loupe, focusing is OK, the finder is extremely bright. The best Lubitel is the the 166 Olympic, see https://www.oddcameras.com/lubitel_166_olympic.htm ... if the automatic film transport is working. I bought 3 of these, but had no luck so far. I will insist and one have a working one. The Lubitels are smaller and lighter than all the rest, and yes, smaller and lighter than the Rolleicords. As said, image quality is decent. So IMHO it is a decent shooter.

 

[AgX]

By now I got that curious that I just got the idea to make such briliant, focusing finder myself, just to see how it works. Of course a great deal of the advantages of a reflex finder get lost by this design, and this may be the reason that it got rejected here.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

Very much a decent shooter. I had one. The Lubitel 2 and a Miranda where my first cameras (around 1982). Unfortunatly shutter blade started to not close fully so lost some rolls. I replaced for another camera after that. Lens quality is ok. Don't go expecting a Rolleiflex quality here but it is quite decent.

Like all FSU, you may get alemon or get a very good example. To be honest you would probably do better with a Yashica A or other similar level camera, but if you like cameras with an attitude (and musky aroma), you may have quite some fun with the Lubitel.

 

[Cholentpot]

Don't forget about the secret filter compartment on the side. I found a yellow filter in mine 6 years after buying it.

 

[Jay Schrotenboer]

Don't forget about the secret filter compartment on the side. I found a yellow filter in mine 6 years after buying it.

Is it to store filters, or did you under expose every shot for 6 years?!?

 

[Cholentpot]

Is it to store filters, or did you under expose every shot for 6 years?!?

Store filters. There was a yellow filter stashed in there. One of those slide onto lens kinds.

 

[xya]

Only the Lubitel and the Lubitel 2 have this filter compartment which they inherited from the Voigtländer. The 166 models are a relaunch in a different plastic material. They don't have it anymore.

 

[Cholentpot]

Only the Lubitel and the Lubitel 2 have this filter compartment which they inherited from the Voigtländer. The 166 models are a relaunch in a different plastic material. They don't have it anymore.

Interesting.

My shutter failed and then fell apart so my Lubi is now in the kids toy box.

 

[Jay Schrotenboer]

Store filters. There was a yellow filter stashed in there. One of those slide onto lens kinds.

That is a really nice feature.