Re: [Leica] Russar?

[Stephen <cameras@jetlink.net>]

I've had about two dozen Russars over the years.   While most were excellent
lenses for the money, they never impressed me as approaching Leica or Zeiss
quality.

Quality of the Russian LTM lenses in my experience is all over the place.  I
once bought six lenses, and returned five of them five minutes later -- they
would not screw on a Leica IIIC!!   Quality control of the Contax mount Kiev and
its lenses, up to the the Kiev 5, seems to be better.

I've shot with the Heliars, and got better results with them than I got with the
Russars.   No, I am not saying they are Leica quality, but they are excellent
lenses.

I find Marc's negative comments on the quality of Heliar pics in the current
Viewfinder pics rather odd, since they are infinitely better than the only Marc
Small photographs I have -- the poorly done ones in his LTM book (or at least I
presume he did not hire a photog for them).

But then perhaps the problem is the printing reproduction.....in which case Marc
shouldn't be in such a hurry to judge a lens he has not shot.

Stephen Gandy



Marc James Small wrote:

> At 10:45 AM 8/21/1999 +0200, Raimo Korhonen wrote:
> >If remember
> >correctly even the guru Marc had trouble finding himself a decent one. So
> >how many Avenon/Kobalux lenses has he tested? And on what kind of a test is
> >based the claim that the Heliar is - to use the proper optical term -
> >*shit*. I´m still waiting for my Heliar, so no other comment at this stage.
>
> No, I had no problem finding a good Russar -- the first one I bought, I
> purchased sight-unseen from Mark Chaney, and it has been a true gem.  I had
> never even seen a Russar before.  Others, however, have experienced
> problems finding a decent Russar or, for that matter, a decent SPS lens of
> any description -- you just have to be willing to shop around when
> purchasing hand-assembled lenses, precisely as Leica buyers had to be
> careful for the same reason until the 1960's.
>
> As I have stated time and again, I have never even seen the Avenon/Kobalux
> nor the Kenko "Voigtlander" lenses, nor do I expect to seem any of these at
> any time in the future.  I have been careful not to be critical of the
> Avenon/Kobalux lenses as I have never seen any photographs taken with them.
>  My critical comments of the "Heliar" were based on Tom Abrahamson's
> pictures published in the current VIEWFINDER and on other pictures I have
> seen taken with the lens.  The "Heliar" is a decent, cheap lens.  It is a
> cheap lens, and yields the sort of less-than-sterling images its price
> would suggest.  The Japanese are bound by the same economic realities which
> afflict the Germans or, for that matter, any other nation:  to build a
> world-class lens, they would have to charge far more than they are charging
> for the "Heliar".
>
> There is an old saw that runs along the lines of, "the dissatisfaction of
> poor performance lingers long after the thrill of a low price has
> evaporated".  I doubt if this would be the case with an occasional lens
> such as a 15mm -- many of us would use this lens no more than four or five
> times a year, so the "Heliar" would do as well as any other lens of like
> specification.
>
> What I object to are the rather wild claims being made for the "Heliar".
> It is a decent, cheap lens in an unapproachable focal-length.  It is not a
> world-beater.
>
> Marc
>
> msmall@roanoke.infi.net  FAX:  +540/343-7315
> Cha robh bas fir gun ghras fir!