General Classic RF questions, Contax IIIa also

Hi,

 

Showing color photos taken with color film with circa 50s lenses, people say

they look like postcards from the 60s, in a sense, they are, is there anyone

that likes this "look"? To me, the colors are soft pastels, they are sharp,

the Biogon/Sonnar formulas were sharp, comparable to the modern Nikon stuff I

used to have, the colors are definitly muted, I think there is a project there

waiting to be discovered. Do you like the look of these pre modern lenses

with modern color films?

 

Does anyone shoot with the orginal accessories? I have a film cannister, I'm

looking for another, just to try, enjoy the technique of loading film,

winding, rewinding onto these old spools.

 

Does anyone use the flash synch available available on the IIIa?

 

What do you use for lens hoods? I have a photo that I really like, the sun

was at about a 45 degree angle in front/right. With the 35mm Biogon, it looks

like it flared a tad, this photo is missing some contrast. What do you use

for lens hoods?

 

Does anyone shoot with the Olympia of longer lenses with the Flektoscope?

 

How about the cut film stuff? Am I starting to become a little nuerotic and

should I buy a digital SLR and stop pondering these things? :)

 

I'm still marveling at the mechanical shot counter.

Contax rangefinders are stunningly nice cameras. And those older Zeiss lenses are really special. You really need one!

Sharpness used to be favored over contrast in lens design. Of course, the Kodachrome film of the 1950's was contrasty and sharp, so a little loss of contrast in the lens just tamed the film.

 

Nikon was one of the first companies to turn towards higher contrast. Leica followed. Zeiss gave up on consumer cameras by about 1960...

 

There's not a lot of circa 50s lenses for which rectangular hoods we made. Leica made them for their Summar, Summitar, Summarit, and Summicron lenses. Canon made them for their 50/1.9 and 50/1.8 lenses. The Zeiss 50mm lenses had rotating fronts, so rectangular hoods were not feasible.

 

So we just use the best round hoods we can find, hopefully "vented" for seeing through...

Lenses have little effect on the color in photos. The 1950's colors you are referring to are the result of the primitive colour films used at the time.

I always thought Zeiss was the early proponent of the high(er) contrast look, 1st on account of their lens designs w/fewer elements than the competition & later w/their use of the Smakula single-coating process.

 

Anyway, lenses can have a noticeable effect on color. True, not nearly as much as film, but they do have a real effect, particularly if you compare uncoated w/coated lenses or single-coated glass w/modern multi-coated optics. But David M's correct, you need an old style emulsion + vintage glass (& or the right amount of work in Photoshop) to get that classic look.

I use some of the original accessories w/my Contax cameras, but don't like the humongous Zeiss Ikon lens hoods, so I use the vented Walz/Hoya hoods (or modern reproductions from heavystar, etc. on eBay). For the Biogons & other wides I use generic stubby 40.5mm hoods for wides (also from the 'Bay), though there's not much you can do to prevent the type of flare you describe, other than keep the sun @ your back.

 

I've never tried to use flash w/any of my classic cameras.

Zeiss Sonnars were high contrast lenses for their day, and the postwar West German ones from the Contax IIa/IIIa still hold up pretty well. The leaders in sharp, low contrast lenses were Leica and Schneider, both of whom added elements to optimize correction and lost contrast in the bargain due the the added reflections.

 

If you like the sharp-but-low-contrast look, a good choice is a Retina IIa with the f/2 Schneider Xenon.

 

I think the 'high contrast look' really came in with more efficient coatings that killed off the reflections created in more complex, high resolution lens designs.

Hi Robert, I fell off the deep end, 21, 35, a beater 50 with fungus damaged coating, 85 and 135 lenses, and a nice working quality camera, not a showcase piece. The 21 and 35 are probably nicer then I should be carrying as a "daily" shooter, they're in pretty damned perfect condition, the Jena 85 is a beaut also.

 

Thanks for the inputs guys. I made the comparison against modern G2 Zeiss glass, and the difference in color is dramatic. The older year 50s Biogons vs. the new stuff, the colors are so much more muted, attractive, but the color vibrance, saturation, brillance, or accuracy is so much more apparent with the new stuff. The pictures were shot at the same time and processed on a Fuji Frontier, opticaly printed. Same film, el cheapo Fuji stuff.

 

I'm a little surprised at the answers, I thought that others would notice what I am experiencing. Guys that I work with (not photographers, nor would I claim that title), have commented, it stuck out to them as being very different.

 

Also, thank you for the advice on the lens hoods, I need to find some, but have stayed away from that auction site, perhaps I should forget my aversion and find some hoods.

 

BR~md

I've not used a Contax, or anything so posh; my classic RFs are a pair of Zorkis, an old Argus, and a pair of (6x7cm) Rapid Omegas. (Unless you count 2-1/4 by 3-1/4 press cameras as rangefinders...) That said, the old lenses can definately have unique character, but IMO if you're getting the flat, low-contrast look of old, faded postcards, your lens probably needs a good cleaning. :) I regularly shoot Provia in a Zorki with a single-coated 50/3.5 Industar-22, and the results are every bit as sharp, contrasty, and saturated as any other camera I own. The overall "look" might be a little bit different than other lenses, but nothing so artistically vintage as you describe.

 

My lowly Argus' Cintar lens isn't the sharpest piece of optics ever produced in this country, but pictures taken with it certainly aren't low in contrast, or saturation, or anything else; for a couple years, I've had a neat contre-jour landscape taken with the Argus hanging on the wall, to help remind me that expensive equipment does not automatically a better photo make.

 

I used to try for that vintage look in color, with Agfa's long-discontinued Portrait 160 film (at the time, the lowest-contrast color print film around) in a huge variety of cameras. Admittedly, I never tried box cameras, but nothing I did try produced a negative with anything like the dreamy, nostalgic look of old postcards; that result was really only achievable thru printing, or Photo Shop, or both.

There can be a difference in look between "classic" and modern lenses, likely due to more thorough modern corrections for various aberrations. Often the background blur is smoother...

 

Here's a recent shot from my IIIa and Opton Sonnar 1.5/50mm on cheap Fuji Super HQ 200 film. Doesn't seem to lack for sharpness or saturation.<div></div>

<p><a href="http://members.aol.com/dcolucci/zc.htm">Contax Rangefinder Lens Page</a>

I made a big mistake when I sold my Contax IIIa, 35mm post-war Biogon, and CZJ 85mm (overhauled by Henry Scherer). But I needed to fund a Bronica RF645. So now I'm on Henry's waiting list for a Contax IIa. I expect delivery in about 2 years. At least I've been able to locate another 85mm CZJ. Now I need a Biogon.

 

As for the muted colors of the older lenses - I tend to like lower contrast films for color. And I can punch up the colors when I desire with different films.

I have seen a distinct difference in colour prints from a Elmar 50mm f3.5 lens - still sharp but as you say with a softness as well.

I think older lenses DO make a difference in image quality. Their coatings contribute to the lower contrast and slightly different look. Consider that Voigtlander produces a 40mm f/1.4 Nocton in single as well as multi-coating.

A lot of that postcard "look" needs to be credited to the types of inks used in printing back then as well as Kodachrome and Anscochrome. Take a look at a 1950's National Geographic and try to reproduce that using modern film in a Leica IIIf with a Summitar lens. I think the only way that those tints can be re-done today is through digital manipulation. Kodachrome ASA 10 had a unique tone to it.

 

-Paul

I have a Contax II with one of the very early f1.5 coated Sonnars (1937). The pictures it produces are special and I do think the colors--even with modern film--are more muted. Maybe it's just the way I look at the photos.

I often use a Kiev with Zeiss lenses. My favorite is a collapsible Sonnar 50/2.0. As many followers of this forum recognize I am somewhat of a nut on rectangular hoods. The Contax system uses rotating lenses which require that the hood be re-oriented after focusing which is a PITA. A solution to the problem is to rig a rectangular hood on a bracket that clips into the accessory shoe and suspends the hood over the lens but free therefrom. It has been quite handy for contre-jour lighting situations which seem to confront me more often than I would otherwise desire. OTOH, the 'split-finger' grip has been a constant bane to me and I can imagine no mechanical solution!

Hi Doug,

 

I'm not getting the vibrant colors that I see in your photo, it may have been the film, I'll try some better quality stuff.

 

This picture was taken on Fuji Superia, a 100% clouded over day. I'm not sure if it is a good example of the colors I mentioned.

 

Thank you to all who have taken the time to conribute~md

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/4901141

Robert Budding makes a reference to Henry Scherer who I have seen mentioned elsewhere. I have just located my Dad's IIa colored dial which is almost in mint condition, except for the Contax bumps. The shutter is not functional. How do I "contax" Mr. Scherer? Are there others who do a reputable job reconditioning? Are the bumps worth removing from a value standpoint? As to competing with my Digital SLR Pentax 10D, no attempt, I just want to have several "period" 35mm cams that I can use to show that non-professionals can take excellent film pictures with old equipment.

I have seen some difference with a Elmar 5cm f3.5 lens and was quite happy with that difference. You are still to some extent at the mercy of the print lab unless you shoot slide film.