Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1996/11/23
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Charles Love just wrote, "the [Zeiss] lenses in question are of ancient design, and,based upon my own experiences with many different Leitz lenses, it's clear that, say, 1996 lenses are far better--using any reasonable criteria--than 1940's ones." From my experience, the Russian 35mm f/2.8, a Zeiss Biotar copy, is a fine lens. I have used it for many years with excellent results. The Russian Orion 28mm f/6.0 is razor sharp; though a slow lens (I use it as an f/5.6 lens); at slow shutter speeds I shoot with it in low light with great results. As for construction quality, although I can understand doubts given Russian quality control, I have found the Orion 28mm an extremely well-built lens. It is tiny and I now use it with a Leica IIIf as a pocketable camera; the 35mm f/2.8 doesn't appear to be as well-built as the Orion, but it appears to be much better built than the Russian 50mm f/1.5 and 85mm f/2.0. It has undergone heavy usage and been banged up but still performs very well. As for comparison with current lenses, I have no doubts that current lenses could outperform the Russian lenses. However, in critical circumstances I find the two Russian lenses I use a lot give me excellent blowups that at least at 11x14 I don't think I could tell the difference between photos shot with much more expensive -- and better -- Leica lenses. I understand that for many people some Russian lenses have proved disastrous. And I know for many people some Russian lenses have proven to be gems. In my experience, I have found it worth the gamble of $100 or slightly more to try a Russian lens. And if you win the gamble, you do get high quality optical results, regardless of 1930 or 1940 optical designs.