Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1996/11/23

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: Zeiss Quality on the LUG? -Reply
From: Joel Tlumak <JT@JMBM.COM>
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 16:53:34 -0800

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.