Re: Russian lenses: it's true

["Charles E. Dunlap" <cdunlap@rupture.ucsc.edu>]

>Rainer Mueller wrote:
>>
>> I just received the first roll of film shot with my new Russian
>> lenses: a Russar 5.6/20mm and a Jupiter-3 1.5/50mm. We have
>> heard repeatedly (mostly by Marc and by joe b.) the stories about
>> the wonderful performance of Russian lenses, and at least for theses
>> two they are true.
>>
>> BTW: the Russar viewfinder sits very loose on the accy shoe, and
>> I let it fall down to the street. Now the front element is a bit shaky
>> inside (it can move a bit back and forth). Does anybody know whether
>> this is normal or whether it was caused by the fall? It's the
>> rectangular model.
>>
>If you have the later (and better) square black viewfinder with a
>rocking horse type parralax correction, the front comes off easily--too
>easily.  I had the same problem, until I removed the elements and used a
>bit of glue to get them to stay.  Luckily I did not have to do that with
>the lens.
>
>A few months ago I bought a 35 and 85 Russian LTM.   I brought them back
>within 10 minutes when one would literally not screw onto my Leica IIIF,
>and the other would not mate properly to the RF cam.
>
>The three Russars I bought, were great through.
>
>I can only suggest that when you buy one, try one on a Leica body before
>you pay for it.
>
>Stephen Gandy

The Russars are hit and miss. The rocking horse finder for my Russar-20 was
too big to fit in the hot shoe of my M6. I filed it down a bit and now it
fits, perhaps a little loosely. I haven't had the problem with the front
element that the two of you refer to. What I have seen is softness (heck,
clearly blurred) in the bottom right corner of my images. I usually shoot
at f/16, so this must be a grinding error in the lens. I don't see nearly
as much blur in the bottom left. I can't say yet about the top.

My Russian 85 tends to flare--more than would be normally acceptable. The
focussing helical is sticky and unfortunately this occurs right in the area
where a head and shoulders portrait is. It has good color rendition and is
softer than I would expect a Leica lens to be (I haven't use a 90 on my M6
yet). Its softness, however, is much more appealing than the fuzzyness in
the long end of my 28-85 Nikkor zoom. If the focussing helical were
smoother I would use the lens more often.

The star of my Russian lenses is the 35mm. It is as good as my Hexar which
is a cut beneath a Summicron (opinion only, no direct testing).

I would use all of the Russian lenses more frequently than I do if they
were easier to mount. I'm using Leitz LTM to M adaptors, but they each
behave a little differently. None goes on with the smooth ease of my 50
Summicron. In addition I don't have the back caps for the lenses with
adaptors attached and so can't easily switch them out and keep the rear
elements protected.

In short I agree that fitting a Russian lens to your camera and shooting a
roll before buying are important. I can remedy some of my problems, no
doubt, and when I get around to it I will. For the price, the Russian
lenses are good options for filling in at focal lengths that you don't use
frequently or rounding out a nascent system as I am doing.

- -Charlie

- --------------------------------------------
              Charles E. Dunlap
         Earth Sciences Deptartment
          University of California
            Santa Cruz, CA 95064
Tel.: (408) 459-5228    Fax.: (408) 459-3074
- --------------------------------------------