I had a lubitel 2 when I was a kid, I was into photography already then. it was a decent camera and it worked for years. I moved on to a used mamiya c2 when I was an arts student. I still own this one as a back-up and it still works fine. all my artist photographer's life I stayed with the mamiya c series. I tried others, but in the end they were no better for me. so I would vote for a mamiya c. if you are patient, they are as cheap as a lubitel...
...
Really, most decent folders that you can find for under $100 would have a better lens than the Lubitel if you're ok with zone focussing..
A Lubitel, a Kiev 6C or 60, a Praktisix, or a Flexaret.
Are you good with doing your own repairs?
You can say that again.Although a Rolleicord is always worth considering
Did you ever put flocking material in it? I don't even know where to put the material, but I’ve heard people recommend it.
+1!Although a Rolleicord is always worth considering.
Plus, a lot of that stuff from Japan has thorium in it, which I want to avoid. I know there's been many discussions of it and a lot of people consider it safe, but I want to avoid it in my family home.
If I were in Honolulu, I would be looking toward Japan, not eastern Europe.
Although a Rolleicord is always worth considering.
You can say that again.
the Mamiyas, etc., are all quite desireable by collectors, and still expensive.
Plus, a lot of that stuff from Japan has thorium in it, which I want to avoid.
Try the lubitel 166+ from Lomography. It's got a split prism viewfinder- much easier to focus. It's not as cheap as I'd like it to be, but having both the 166B and 166+ I can tell you the build quality is the same. The only thing I've noticed is that lomography's version lacks the light seals that the original has. However- because it doesn't have that seal, the back of the camera opens and closes with much greater ease.Not at all. I'm looking for something with a better viewfinder than the Lubitel though.
I recently acquired a Lubitel 166B but I haven't finished a roll yet. I'm wondering, what is out there to "move up" from this camera in MF these days? I've heard that this camera is inferior to Yashica, Mamiya, etc. models. due to Russian construction and poor optics.
But for the price, I think it's pretty good and I wanted it to get me started in medium format.
However, if it ever were to break, I'd like to replace it with a better model. I'm thinking about a Kiev 6C (Pentacon 6 copy), how is this camera? Or a Kiev 88, but it looks like it's difficult to find one in good condition. A Kiev 6C can be found for maybe $100 without a lens, is this a decent deal? Or maybe an old Soviet Iskra camera, but it seems like it might be risky because of the bellows being fragile.
I'm looking to spend maybe $150 max (for now) on a medium format camera. Is this realistic? Or is the Lubitel a decent enough MF camera that I can stick with it over the more expensive models.
Also, do I need to worry about thoriated eyepieces or lenses with these old soviet cameras? I've heard the soviets did not have the technology to use thorium, so it's nothing to worry about (plus they used outdated designs).
Not worried about the lenses so much as the eyepieces, which I've heard can actually be a little bit harmful and there's regulations against.
I disagree on one point,IKOFLEX cameras were not "lower end",if anything they are over engineered,very robust,reliable and with excellent lenses.You can still find Flexaret, Yashica, Minolta Autocord, Konica, Ricohflex, Ikoflex, and a couple of others at under $150. Just be sure it's advertised as in "working" condition, and the worst you'll be out is the shipping cost. Look for a "Tessar type" lens instead of a triplet, and a decent focusing screen. Lower end TLRs are one of the few remaining bargains in the medium format field. Good luck!
Andy
I disagree on one point,IKOFLEX cameras were not "lower end",if anything they are over engineered,very robust,reliable and with excellent lenses.
You are quite right in that they were in no way low-end in their day. Lower end on the used market is the phrase I should have used. I think that problems with the film advance and focusing mechanisms have been known to be troublesome at times and that's why they end up at the lower tier pricewise these days. I bought one from the 1950s for less than a hundred bucks on eBay just a couple of years ago, which is far less than it should be selling for.
Plenty in the under $200 range, even today.... including some of the late model, top end versions.
https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_fr...0.Xikoflex+.TRS0&_nkw=ikoflex+camera&_sacat=0
There are a few that seem to be quite high priced, but this seems to be based more on scarcity than usability.
Andy
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?