33dollars
Active Member
http://shop.lomography.com/us/russar-pl ... =affiliate
How about a new Russar for your GXR? Will it fit ??
How about a new Russar for your GXR? Will it fit ??
GR User Forum
The spot for all Ricoh GR camera users
Register for free, meet other Ricoh GR users, share your images, help others, have fun!
Tell your friends about us!A new Russar
- Thread starter 33dollars
- Start date
riccadonna
Member
I`ve bought one ages ago and used it as a poor mans pocket wide on LTM and M cameras. It was jammed so I had to butcher it to get it going and futher on I disposed of filter ring to make it truly pocketable. Of course on FF it`s 20mm, on APS-C is 30mm. That`s why I don`t use it much on GXR. It had one merit on analogs. It`s absolutely rectilinear due to it symmetrical lay-out. Sharpness not in the class of angulons or distagons but many memorable picts were made with it in Russia with or without love. Stanis
Attachments
AlbertTRAL
Member
Interesting samples. This Russar is known for it pretty consistent performance (on the contrary, as always with Russians lenses, what happened with its manufacturing). It can be seen (as much as the low res samples let us) that really the distortion is down to zero as it should, but I am astonished that with such short backfocal distance there is almost no smearing nor color cast... obviously some vignetting, but this is just physics...riccadonna":2j5ir196 said:
...Bravo for this little symmetrical...... but a bit expensive..... :cry: It is exactly 10.98mm away from the image plane, so yes, really close...thelps":2j5ir196 said:
Tom Caldwell
New Member
I have two Russars. One has a "0" start number and I presume it was a first-year made lens aka "prototype". It is well worn from obvious significant use. But it works fine. One day I will pull it apart and restore it properly. But I have a few lenses in that category. The other was sold to me as "new" and has a 1980's number. It certainly looked new and was considerably more expensive than these new-production items. I hope it was not the product of the same machine shop that is producing the latest ones (which are cheaper).
I like the lens and shold use it more often.
The original Russars, like the cheaper and also very nice Jupiter-12, fit on the m mount module quite well and give no problems. However their rear protrusion makes them impossible to fit on any other adapted mount, but of course they will fit on Leica bodies.
Just to be sure of my facts I just re-tried my #850032 MR-2 on a Panasonic GM1. No way this baby is going to mount on M4/3. But there is room to re-design the mounting of the rear element to make it more compact without changing the lens specification.
This is why I was rather curious about the announcement of a new-production Russar. There was some talk in the release notes about the lens being modified. Certainly some modification will be necesaary to fit on any other digital camera body. It seems to me that the worst problem in fitting a Russar in a non-oem specified LM body cavity is not so much the depth of the rear element but its width. For instance the wide rear bulb of the Jupiter-12 is fixed and could never be changed, but the rear element of the Russar is relatively small and there is room to reduce the diameter and even depth of the rear protrusion. As the principal problem is the diameter of the rear element housing causing it to impact on internal light baffles or electronic contacts it is possible that with a narrower (perhaps even shorter) rear protrusion the lens might be made fit on all digital cameras of the mirrorless type via adapters.
Certainly the new design is not necessary for Ricoh GXR-M users as the original fits well, but it might have a side benefit of bringing down the used Russar prices to a more reasonable level. If any Russian LTM lens has collector's price levels then the Russar is it.
What is not commonly known is that the Russar was an original Rusinov Russian design and even patented in the USA. But was in fact much copied by Ziess and others. A sort of turn around from the usual run of the usual "Commie-copy" insult or maybe deja-vu. Not that lens manufacturers were adverse to copying good ideas when they could get away with it by a twiddle here and a twiddle there - even the greatest of the greats. Think of the embittered Joseph Petzval who was outwitted by his former mate Mr Voigtlander.
TomC
I like the lens and shold use it more often.
The original Russars, like the cheaper and also very nice Jupiter-12, fit on the m mount module quite well and give no problems. However their rear protrusion makes them impossible to fit on any other adapted mount, but of course they will fit on Leica bodies.
Just to be sure of my facts I just re-tried my #850032 MR-2 on a Panasonic GM1. No way this baby is going to mount on M4/3. But there is room to re-design the mounting of the rear element to make it more compact without changing the lens specification.
This is why I was rather curious about the announcement of a new-production Russar. There was some talk in the release notes about the lens being modified. Certainly some modification will be necesaary to fit on any other digital camera body. It seems to me that the worst problem in fitting a Russar in a non-oem specified LM body cavity is not so much the depth of the rear element but its width. For instance the wide rear bulb of the Jupiter-12 is fixed and could never be changed, but the rear element of the Russar is relatively small and there is room to reduce the diameter and even depth of the rear protrusion. As the principal problem is the diameter of the rear element housing causing it to impact on internal light baffles or electronic contacts it is possible that with a narrower (perhaps even shorter) rear protrusion the lens might be made fit on all digital cameras of the mirrorless type via adapters.
Certainly the new design is not necessary for Ricoh GXR-M users as the original fits well, but it might have a side benefit of bringing down the used Russar prices to a more reasonable level. If any Russian LTM lens has collector's price levels then the Russar is it.
What is not commonly known is that the Russar was an original Rusinov Russian design and even patented in the USA. But was in fact much copied by Ziess and others. A sort of turn around from the usual run of the usual "Commie-copy" insult or maybe deja-vu. Not that lens manufacturers were adverse to copying good ideas when they could get away with it by a twiddle here and a twiddle there - even the greatest of the greats. Think of the embittered Joseph Petzval who was outwitted by his former mate Mr Voigtlander.
TomC
Tom Caldwell
New Member
Obviously I should look at the link first
The Russar + is indeed the old Russar MR-2 wih an adapted rear element holder. The bulb now protrudes beyond the tube whilst it doesn't on the original. Also final element holder mount seems to be of smaller diameter. Otherwise I presume it is made to the exact Russar specification. Perhaps the only questionable point is that the original has concentric light baffle rings inside that extended tube which must have been omitted on the new version. It cannot be determined from the publicity shots as there does not seem to be one that looks directly into the rear of the lens.
With the existing tight fit and light baffles of the present mirrorless camera models the lack of the extra baffles on the new lens probably is meaningless.
This should be a nice lens addition to a collection but nicer if it was half the price at which point I would love to have one for my GM1.
TomC
The Russar + is indeed the old Russar MR-2 wih an adapted rear element holder. The bulb now protrudes beyond the tube whilst it doesn't on the original. Also final element holder mount seems to be of smaller diameter. Otherwise I presume it is made to the exact Russar specification. Perhaps the only questionable point is that the original has concentric light baffle rings inside that extended tube which must have been omitted on the new version. It cannot be determined from the publicity shots as there does not seem to be one that looks directly into the rear of the lens.
With the existing tight fit and light baffles of the present mirrorless camera models the lack of the extra baffles on the new lens probably is meaningless.
This should be a nice lens addition to a collection but nicer if it was half the price at which point I would love to have one for my GM1.
TomC
riccadonna
Member
Tom writes "What is not commonly known is that the Russar was an original Russinov Russian design and even patented in the USA. But was in fact much copied by Zeiss and others. A sort of turn around from the usual run of the usual "Commie-copy" insult or maybe deja-vu"
Well Tom, as much as I like to banter congenially on various topics, seen in the light of Putin proceedings in Ucraina, I`ll add a bit of "Commie-copy" insult , by adding some corrections to geniality of mr. Rusinov, who no doubt was a great matematician and optic inventor.
The idea of extreme wide was already defined in 19 century by Goertz by employing a symmetrical pair of very thin sickle formed meniscuses, called Hypergon. Excellent optical proprieties with two drawbacks, very small apertures ( f: 22-f:45 ) and vignetting.
Comes Topogon further developement by Richard Richter patent obtained in 1933. The lay-out of Topogon can be seen in postwar Jena Topogon 25/4, Cannon 25/3.5. Nikkor 25/4 and Orion 28/6. Joined later by famous Hologon 15/8 ( only 3 glass elements! ). All of aforementioned lenses were ment for 35mm RF cameras of course.
Mr. Russsinovs contribution was creating 20mm edition of Topogon while loosing just a stop comparing to 25/4 versions.
The sticking out of the mount back element, if true, would be gross stupidity, exposing fragile glass to potential damage.
The idea of using Russar on anything but FF is not really attracting, loosing its main point, compact, rectilinear 20mm.
I would definitely prefer some inventive lens makers ( Cosina, Samyang, Sigma? ), to pick up a challenge, creating a minuscule Topogon superwide ( 15-20mm eq. ) for M43 or APS-C.
Stanislaw.
Well Tom, as much as I like to banter congenially on various topics, seen in the light of Putin proceedings in Ucraina, I`ll add a bit of "Commie-copy" insult , by adding some corrections to geniality of mr. Rusinov, who no doubt was a great matematician and optic inventor.
The idea of extreme wide was already defined in 19 century by Goertz by employing a symmetrical pair of very thin sickle formed meniscuses, called Hypergon. Excellent optical proprieties with two drawbacks, very small apertures ( f: 22-f:45 ) and vignetting.
Comes Topogon further developement by Richard Richter patent obtained in 1933. The lay-out of Topogon can be seen in postwar Jena Topogon 25/4, Cannon 25/3.5. Nikkor 25/4 and Orion 28/6. Joined later by famous Hologon 15/8 ( only 3 glass elements! ). All of aforementioned lenses were ment for 35mm RF cameras of course.
Mr. Russsinovs contribution was creating 20mm edition of Topogon while loosing just a stop comparing to 25/4 versions.
The sticking out of the mount back element, if true, would be gross stupidity, exposing fragile glass to potential damage.
The idea of using Russar on anything but FF is not really attracting, loosing its main point, compact, rectilinear 20mm.
I would definitely prefer some inventive lens makers ( Cosina, Samyang, Sigma? ), to pick up a challenge, creating a minuscule Topogon superwide ( 15-20mm eq. ) for M43 or APS-C.
Stanislaw.
Tom Caldwell
New Member
Stanislaw,
I cannot agree with Putin's brinkmanship which seems to relate back to pre-WWI gunboat diplomacy and I do hope that a bucket of cold water can be poured over the issue.
Most of the time great effort is put into the "naughty nations" copying the "good nations" but in this instance I think credit must be given where credit is due (these are my sources):
Kingslake in his valuable text "A history of the photographic lens" (1989) goes to some 'length' to omit all reference to the Russian lens industry - perhaps a cold war influenced omission? In any case at page 128 he states that the Zeiss Biogon was a revival by Bertele of the Miniature Plasmat design (1931) and no reference is made anywhere to Rusinov. However Gregory Hallock-Smith writing later in his text "Camera Lenses" (2006) states at page 169: "Biogon: The real breakthough in the design of large format wide-angle lenses came in 1946 when MM Roosinov in the Soviet Union .... In 1951, L Bertele designed for Zeiss the first popular wide angle lens based on Roosinov's idea, which was called a Biogon (my edit: this is the second lens type of the name and a cause of considerable confusion). Since that time, other lens manufacturers have used that approach too. Those lenses by Schneider are called Super-Angulon, and those by Rodenstock are called Grandragon."
Certainly Rusinov's Russar lens optical scheme was patented in the USA in 1946. Optical schemes confuse me - several quite different looking schemes (often many) can be said to be similar. But the optical scheme of the Russar is symmetrical and looks quite different from a Biogon design and closer to a Topogon to my eyes. Whereas the optical design of the Jupiter-12 can be easily related to Bertele's "The first Zeiss Biogon" as illustrated in Kingslakes book at page 128.
I tend to accept that Rusinovs idea was in fact "1935". Bertele's later design was based entirely on Rusinov's 1946 patented design idea as the Russar did not see public exhibition until 1958. The two completely different Zeiss lens schemes were both known as "Biogon" to confuse the issue. The first one may have been the Bertele Zeiss design that became the Jupiter-12 and the second Rusinov's (eventual) Russar that inspired Bertele to design his "cheekily renamed" but different Biogon of 1951.
This is not a note of approval for the quality of the Russar but more noting that the German lens makers were also guilty of copying a Russian idea as much as most of the technological copying went in the opposite direction.
I agree that the Russar would be best used on FF cameras and note that it is a pretty slow lens anyway.
And there probably is a market for a new super-wide Topogon. Good if one could be made for aps-c.
Tom
I cannot agree with Putin's brinkmanship which seems to relate back to pre-WWI gunboat diplomacy and I do hope that a bucket of cold water can be poured over the issue.
Most of the time great effort is put into the "naughty nations" copying the "good nations" but in this instance I think credit must be given where credit is due (these are my sources):
Kingslake in his valuable text "A history of the photographic lens" (1989) goes to some 'length' to omit all reference to the Russian lens industry - perhaps a cold war influenced omission? In any case at page 128 he states that the Zeiss Biogon was a revival by Bertele of the Miniature Plasmat design (1931) and no reference is made anywhere to Rusinov. However Gregory Hallock-Smith writing later in his text "Camera Lenses" (2006) states at page 169: "Biogon: The real breakthough in the design of large format wide-angle lenses came in 1946 when MM Roosinov in the Soviet Union .... In 1951, L Bertele designed for Zeiss the first popular wide angle lens based on Roosinov's idea, which was called a Biogon (my edit: this is the second lens type of the name and a cause of considerable confusion). Since that time, other lens manufacturers have used that approach too. Those lenses by Schneider are called Super-Angulon, and those by Rodenstock are called Grandragon."
Certainly Rusinov's Russar lens optical scheme was patented in the USA in 1946. Optical schemes confuse me - several quite different looking schemes (often many) can be said to be similar. But the optical scheme of the Russar is symmetrical and looks quite different from a Biogon design and closer to a Topogon to my eyes. Whereas the optical design of the Jupiter-12 can be easily related to Bertele's "The first Zeiss Biogon" as illustrated in Kingslakes book at page 128.
I tend to accept that Rusinovs idea was in fact "1935". Bertele's later design was based entirely on Rusinov's 1946 patented design idea as the Russar did not see public exhibition until 1958. The two completely different Zeiss lens schemes were both known as "Biogon" to confuse the issue. The first one may have been the Bertele Zeiss design that became the Jupiter-12 and the second Rusinov's (eventual) Russar that inspired Bertele to design his "cheekily renamed" but different Biogon of 1951.
This is not a note of approval for the quality of the Russar but more noting that the German lens makers were also guilty of copying a Russian idea as much as most of the technological copying went in the opposite direction.
I agree that the Russar would be best used on FF cameras and note that it is a pretty slow lens anyway.
And there probably is a market for a new super-wide Topogon. Good if one could be made for aps-c.
Tom