Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/03/24
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I'm mildly embarrassed to say that I paid $150 US for mine with a finder and case in the Netherlands. I bought it at the flea-market in Alkmaar, where many Russians gathered to sell optical and other technological "surplus" (right). I bought it with some trepidation because I was clueless as to its quality. I'd previously played with one in a boutique camera shop that was briefly in business in the Hague. The going price there was about 600 guilders--which I thought a bit steep for unknown performance. I've seen them for sale in the States for a variety of prices, seldom more than $400, often less. Stephen Gandy speaks pretty highly of the lens on his webpage. Marc Small's said kind things about it, thugh I take to heart his cautions about variation in production quality. Still for the price range, it's a pretty awesome lens paired with a screwmount body. Knowing what I know now, I'd pay in the $300 range for the lens w/finder. This may say more about my buying habits than anything else, though. Thanks for the kind remarks on the photos. The web has provided the first opportunity that I've ever had to circulate more than 20 years worth of messing about with cameras and film. CHandos At 01:03 PM 3/26/99 -0500, you wrote: > > >Chandos Michael Brown wrote: > >> Two things: >> >> There's been quite a lot of conversation here and elsewhere about the >> capability of the Russar 20/5.6. I've just posted a couple of images that >> I think pretty well capture its strengths and weaknesses. All shots are >> hand held. I metered exposure with a Luna Pro. >> >> The aperture in the color image is stopped all the way down; the B&W image >> is wide open.. I've shot hundreds of frames w/ this lens on IIIf and it >> still impresses me. Mine was manufactured in 1995. >> > >It is quite impressive, considering what I assume was its low cost...just how low >was its cost?...Low enough to justify the lack of speed?.. > > >> I now celebrate about a year's experience with the non-asp >> 35/1.4 and begin to feel as though I'm getting the hang of the lens. I'm >> shooting wide open. I'm curious: if I were taking the >> same photo with the newer asph. model, what sort of difference could I >> expect? >> > >That one is virtually impossible to answer, not having information about any >number of relevant factors. I will say, however, that having made the switch from >the pre-ASPH 35 1.4 to the ASPH version, the ASPH is a really incredible lens. >It's only draw-back is that it is larger and heavier than the earlier >version...but it is as close to flare-proof as you're going to get, and it is >tack sharp opened up all the way. For a low-light shooter, it is an ideal >"standard" lens - IMHO... :-) >B. D. > >Really nice images by the way---whether shot with L, Contax or Canon.... > Chandos Michael Brown Assoc. Prof. Hist and American Studies College of William and Mary http://www.wm.edu/CAS/ASP/faculty/brown/