Originally Posted by kr236rk
No problem. I just saw someone's review of the Lubitel 166 Universal on the internet and bought one based on the positive things that were said and the screen size images. I can see someone using it for a special project but as an every day shooter I thought there should have been an evaluation with a comparison to other widely available cameras.
That may be so. I only bought one Lubitel 166 before giving up. My problem with the camera is in all the years I've researched the camera people who like it just say it's "sharp." They never say compared to what. Well I read one person who ranked it slightly lower than a Hasselblad Zeiss and above a Contax lens. Allegedly that guy's Lubitel was even sharper than Bronica lenses if I read his rather lengthy post correctly. I've shot Lubitel and I've shot Bronica ETRS. The Lubitel was not even in the same ballpark. Like I said though I only used one copy of each. I usually don't get into this lens is sharper than this lens debates for the simple reason that once you reach a certain level of sharpness like the better Rollei/Hasselblad and Mamyia lenses other camera/system considerations are what differentiate. But my Lubitel 166 was so inferior to every Canon (including FD), Nikon, Rollei Zeiss, Bronica PE, etc lens I have ever used it really did warrant being mentioned.
Originally Posted by rich815
Oh, and the guy that said the Lubitel 2 was slightly less sharp than the Hasselblad also claimed Rollei SLR lenses are sharper than Hasselblad lenses... Not sure if the guy realized several of the Zeiss lenses are the exact same design in both mounts. He did mention "better dampening" with the Rolleis but one can only assume he was unaware of MLU... assuming "dampening" was even an issue with the Hasselblad. Anyway the whole thing was quite dubious.