The Contaflex Revisited

Every now and then I experience an irresistible urge to pick up and use one of the loveliest cameras in my collection. It's the Zeiss Ikon Contaflex Super.

 

Contaflex Super

 

 

 

The Contaflex Super appeared 1959, part of a large family of cameras Zeis Ikon maufactured in the 50's and 60's. I don't think anyone would argue with my opinion that the Contaflex oozes more quality than almost any other camera in existence. The engineering is advanced in design and impeccably executed, and the standard of finish and attention to detail is beyond that which one would reasonably expect in a camera. If I had to pick just two cameras to display as examples of German quality construction, I think the Contaflex and the not dissimilar Voigtlander Prominent would be the two I'd choose. Of course, there is a trade-off in terms of sheer weight; the Contaflex, while not unduly large, feels like block of solid metal. Being one of those odd creatures who like a solid camera, this suits me just fine, and the Contarex is so ergonomically agreeable that I find it a great camera to handle. It's a leaf-shutter SLR, a camera concept that many other manufacturers adopted for a short period in the 1960's and then abandoned because of the complexity, fragility and expense. However, there were advantages; the Contaflex has a Synchro-Compur shutter with speeds from 1 second to 1/500th plus B, and the sweetest, softest shutter release imaginable. Several of the images I'll post were shot at 1/30th with no evidence of camera shake.

 

The selenium meter is still dead accurate on this example. It's a centre-the-pointer system visible in the viewfinder and on the top deck, which is sometimes very useful, and it's mode of operation is ingenious and sensible. In a sense it's shutter priority orientated, in that it works best to set the shutter speed on it's ring, and then adjust the aperture using the adjustment wheel on the front of the camera body, just where your left index finger would like it to be. This correspondingly adjusts the pointer in the meter display. The aperture and speed rings will then move in tandem, which I find useful if I decide to use a different shutter speed or aperture.

 

The only poor feature is the viewfinder, which is rather dim with only a circle of microprism in the centre of the viewfinder available for focusing, with a very small split-image aid in the centre of the microprism area. The rest of the viewfinder is available for framing the subject, and that's about all. I guess it's a feature of the leaf-shutter design, with only narrow throat available in which to mount lenses The standard lens is the 50mm Tessar f/2.8, and there were three Pro-Tessar interchangeable lenses available, a 35mm f/3.2, a 80mm f/4 and a 115mm f/4. These are not "supplementary" or "add-on lenses"; the front element unit of the standard lens is detached from the camera leaving the rear elements, which then complete the configuration of the Pro-Tessars. They are all truly excellent lenses, right up to Zeiss standards and a joy to use.

 

The images below are from a walkabout I took around town yesterday on a rare sunny morning, so my apologies for the repetitious subject matter. We have to get some good weather eventually... The film was Ilford FP4 Plus developed in PMK Pyro and scanned on an Epson V700 Photo using Silverfast SE software. I'll indicate in the caption which lens was responsible.

 

Morning (50mm)

 

 

Stables (35mm)

 

Woodhenge (50mm)

 

 

 

Abandoned (35mm)

 

 

Sauce of Your Choice (115)

 

 

The Obligatory Vehicle (35mm)

 

 

Market (115mm)

 

 

Metallic (35mm)

 

 

Fish (115mm)

 

Edited April 17, 2017 by rick_drawbridge

Beautiful camera and great results. My Super B lacks a light meter and the Super BC's light meter is kaputt, but with an external meter, they still deliver. I find the viewfinders on mine to be bright, but the focusing aids need a bit of a squint!

Very fine results, Rick. I've seen countless ads in my dads old photo magazines and remember reading about the split image focusing aid. I'd always wondered how it compared to later SLR's that had the feature. I also wondered why the feature lost popularity for a number of years. Among focal plane SLR's, IIRC, the Minolta SR-3 originally had a split image aid, but the later SR-3 (which gained automatic diaphragm) did not have the aid. Maybe among focal plane SLR's the early split image didn't work as well. Regardless, I still hope to acquire a Contaflex some day. Thanks for sharing.

I have a Super BC. It is surprisingly small and not particularly heavy either. The lack of an instant return mirror is not much of a disadvantage. Although I don't use mine any more, I have a hankering to complete the set by getting the other lenses. I think there was a 35 f 4 too which was smaller than the f3.2.

I used Zeiss Ikon Contaflex I in Beijing during the 70s. The little picture on the rihgt was me with Confaflex I.

 

Ten years ago, I bought a Contaflex Super BC, its selenim meter is still quite accurate.

 

I don't use it to take pictures anymore, only take it out from time to time to excercise the shutter, I like is sound ZZZZZZZzzz. zak.

The best next thing to a superb camera system ( Never mind the Camera - feel the weight!) is the quality of the photography of the object itself. The leading Product Shot. Lovely. I wonder if Zeiss ever recovered their investment in this system, but I doubt they did.

Rick that picture of the camera and its associated items is really good, as is typical for all the photos of your stuff that you're kind enough to share with us. I haven't seen a Contaflex look so good for ages.

 

You've done well to have such a tidy Super with a good working meter. Zeiss dispensed with the protective cover fitted to some earlier metered models like the II and the IV. Although grey selenium is a base element and (contrary to some accepted wisdom) does not wear out with constant exposure to light, the cells seem to deteriorate eventually. Whether it is deterioration of the external coatings that seal the various layers from the atmosphere or corrosion in the conductive layer, depends on the cell type, and how it has been kept. Exterior corrosion around the cell contacts is also a reason why even cells producing good output may not power a galvanometer correctly. Whatever the typical cause, the dozen or so examples of the original Super that I've personally handled have not included many with really good, accurate meters. Four have worked well, some have been substantially out, and a few more just didn't respond to light at all. I have a really nice example in my collection with a good meter and another has recently turned up locally (not mine) that needs to find a good home, actually (and which I can arrange the purchase of, if anyone here is actually interested in one). Because the II and IV meters tend to have a much better survival rate, I'm inclined to think that the presence of those cover flaps is a contributing factor to their superior longevity (I keep small pieces of black tape over the cells of my Super and Super B Contaflexes when not in use, for this reason).

 

I'm sorry to hear your viewfinder isn't too bright. There can be some variation from camera to camera. I think it's got to be the condition of the silvering or the cement. I have a very early original model here and I'm certain the prism was joined with balsam but I'm sure later ones would have used synthetic lens cement that Zeiss began to use for their lenses. In general, I would say that the very brightest viewfinders are those of the later Super B, new Super, BC and S which can be excellent. But I have used first model and early Supers that are very bright and usable, too. Much as I love my SRT101s, even with the two stop advantage of a f/1.4 Rokkor mounted on them, none can compare to any model Contaflex for finder brightness f/2.8 lens notwithstanding, if it's in prime condition.

 

You're absolutely right about the quality of the Pro Tessar lenses Zeiss made for the unit focus versions. I don't think they are highly regarded by people who haven't used them. Zeiss included a number of optical elements in each Pro Tessar to ensure that even though they all had to share the rear three lens cells fixed in the shutter, they'd still perform really well through them, and they featured lens coatings that give gorgeous results with colour and black and white film.

 

I can highly recommend the 85mm Pro Tessar too. It has a minimum focus distance that is noticeably smaller than the 115mm and it's very sharp. Unfortunately I think it is the single Zeiss lens from the period that suffers most from failure of the synthetic lens cement used to join bonded groups. It's the exception rather than the rule to locate one that is still perfect but with some persistence really good ones are still out there. My f/4 version has some minor edge separation which doesn't seem to have any noticeable effect on image quality but I also have a f/3.2 version that's perfect.

 

There were three or four versions of the 35mm Pro Tessar. A large and small f/4 and a larger f/3.2. The smaller lens had an adapter sleeve ring produced to enable the same lens hood and filters as the larger ones take to be fitted to it. These used the 60mm external thread around the edges of the larger 35mm and the 85mm (in f/4 and f/3.2 versions) that doesn't look like a thread at all, rather, knurling which enables the user to grasp the lenses securely in use. It also performs this function admirably, of course, but some owners have been unaware of its additional function as a thread, for fitting accessories, until it's been mentioned to them. ;)

 

I've found the 115mm to be overall a reasonable performer, but five or six years ago I did get some shots wide open with some edge distortion. I'd been doing some photos of my son playing AFL. Photographing moving subjects in the middle of winter using Pan F Plus is not ideal, as lovely as the fine grain and sharpness of this film can be. Not surprisingly, whenever I had the 115mm fitted durng a match it was usually wide open at f/4. Centre sharpness was fine and the players were rendered OK, but, I did note that some fences off in the far distance had a noticeable barrel curve towards the edges of the frame. Stopped down a bit, it performs very well at all distances. But Zeiss did a lot of testing of additional lenses in longer or shorter focal lengths, and I believe they even made prototypes with behind the lens shutters and completely independant lenses, along the lines of Voigtlander's lovely Bessamatic models. For whatever reasons these did not make it into production, but the Zeiss Historica Society can provide a lot more detail about what might have been.

 

The Zeiss Monocular could be fitted to the unit focusing Contaflex models (and also to the Icarex SLR in conjunction with the appropriate adapter for the front of its 50mm Tessar, and, interestingly, even to the Contarex SLRs). I have yet to acquire a Monocular myself (which was made in two or three versions over the years). They're not particularly cheap these days and I confess I'd assumed optical performance would be as uninspiring as their effective aperture of f/14. Well-crafted images using good overall technique from the Monocular are not abundant on the web, but last year I did, finally, spot a few someone made with their Monocular, and, contrary to my expectations, it doesn't seem to perform too badly at all, so I'd like to get one now, (as well as the 1:1 Pro Tessar which most who've used it, say is capable of excellent macro images). Although I haven't bothered tracking down every filter, lens hood and miscellaneous widget, I do have every other major piece of the Contaflex system except the Steritar, including the Teleskop for the first two 45mm Contaflexes, the magazine backs, right angle finder and so on, and at least one example of all the versions with a Tessar (except the 126 Contaflex). Although I consider any Contaflex Tessar to be a very good lens, the last versions fitted to the late Super, B, BC and S models can be phenomenally good and bear comparison with any 35mm camera system (with the possible exception of the Contarex), not just the lens shutter competition. They are razor sharp. The set of four Zeiss Proxar lenses supplied for the standard Tessar are very high quality too. They can be found for under $20 if you know where to look, Rick, and perform well. If you'd like to get a set in its neat plastic case with the depth of field calculator wheel on the reverse, let me know and I can point you towards a reasonably priced kit.

 

Bill, Zeiss Ikon sold nearly a million of all types of Contaflex SLR from 1953 to 1971 and thereabouts. This includes Tessar models, the cheaper Pantar versions and even the 126 Contaflex. The biggest selling major type was in fact the first Super as illustrated in Rick's image above. The rarest, the Contaflex Rapid, (8000 pieces) with the Contaflex III and the New Super also being somewhat less easy to locate. Considering the enormous cost of making the Contarex professional SLRs and their relatively poor sales, I suspect that the success of the Contaflex series was one of the factors that kept Zeiss Ikon in the business of making cameras for as long as they did. As magnificent as they are, it certainly wasn't their Contarex line.

I have a Super BC. It is surprisingly small and not particularly heavy either. The lack of an instant return mirror is not much of a disadvantage. Although I don't use mine any more, I have a hankering to complete the set by getting the other lenses. I think there was a 35 f 4 too which was smaller than the f3.2.

I had the 35/4 on mine, which I think was the larger version. I don't recall who ended up getting that one. Mine had a busted meter and was pretty rough, but worked well and the 35/4 was a nice lens with that yummy Tessar look. Like so many of those lenses it had visible edge separation which seems not to have bothered it at all.

Honors to you for the wonderful assemblage/kit and even more for the results you got.

 

Since I was gathering pre-war and post-war "Zeiss" materials from Dresden, I had to try one Contaflex ( Contaflex Prima - "Zeiss Stuttgart" )

I suspect that the success of the Contaflex series was one of the factors that kept Zeiss Ikon in the business of making cameras for as long as they did. As magnificent as they are, it certainly wasn't their Contarex line.

I agree. The Contaflexes were at least kind of affordable, unlike the Contarex which was super-expensive to manufacture. My super BC has a fairly bright screen, given it is f2.8, and the focusing is pretty snappy. I remember being impressed by the auto exposure on these when I first saw one. Auto exposure SLRs were not that common then. There are many design similarities between the 'flex and 'rex types too: chrome, removable backs, similar fit and finish. I have always wanted a Contarex...

Thanks, Brett, I was hoping you'd come to the party with your encyclopedic knowledge of the Contaflex family! This has really fleshed the thread out. I, too, would love a Contarex but they have priced themselves beyond my meagre budget, at least for the time being. I notice I made a Freudian slip in the text, referring to the Contaflex as a Contarex... And thank you Rajmohan, Mike, Robin, Ian, Matthew, MTC and JDM for your input.

Brett - thank you for adding your detailed and fascinating account from which I learned much!

 

Rick and Robin - if you're ever in my neck of the woods, you're welcome to try the Contarex which I purchased in a moment of madness. But it is every bit as special as I had hoped! :)

Thanks Rajmohan, I'll certainly bear that in mind!

CONTAFLEX SUPER B

CONTAFLEX SUPER B WITH ZEISS IKON 8X30B MONOCULAR

CONTAFLEX FILM BACK

I think I may have added this the last time.. so this is also "revisited". The split image focus is the real Godsend, because the despite the fresnelbrightner, the focus dosen't seem to be what you might expect.. ie this is not your bread-n-butter ground glass and I've been tricked into thinking it was and ending up with oof pictures.

I have a Super B in partial disassembly, trying to get to the shutter leaves. I suspect they are stuck with dried lube that neeeds to be cleaned..anyway to be continued... MY other Contaflex which still works fine is a simpler model III. I too love the rendering of this later Tessar....the coating makes for great color photos.

 

 

 

So here in the attachment is a discussion of the viewfinder from the early 60s...

 

 

Edited April 26, 2017 by chuck_foreman|1

This doesn't seem normal to me... Is my shutter acting badly?

 

The camera seems work fine from 30th to 500th of a second although all speeds sound/look the same speed.... but 1sec to 15th of a second the shutter fires but doent close again like it does above a 30th... Seems like that would be letting light get to the film until you cock the shutter again. So that cant be right?? Any thoughts ?

 

Also another question is that film back. I saw on the web that the later models bodies got bigger as they went on so the corresponding film back also get bigger. Searching/seeing them on ebay they all look the same... Are they different ? How do I know which one I need for the Super (old) ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bit of my camera history:

Back in the early 60s my dad was stationed in Germany on the Pershing Missile base into the beginnings of the Vietnam War . While there one of the things he bought besides cuckoo clocks was a Contaflex Super. Having recently been reinspired to shoot for fun, not just work, I dug out my old film cameras and now that I have tested them all and got the juices flowing , I decided to give his old Contaflex a try. Jumping the gun a bit I bought a 35mm 3.2 lens from ebay for 25 dollars without doing any research and later read that the 3.2 is for the later models and is not supposed to be the same mounting as the F4 version . However it arrived in the mail today and sure enough if it doesnt just bolt right on... Hurray.... But the web does say that its not supposed too. Am I missing something? Obviously I have not shot any film through it yet. Will it work?

 

 

signed

Newby to Contaflex but excited to use it

Rick that picture of the camera and its associated items is really good, as is typical for all the photos of your stuff that you're kind enough to share with us. I haven't seen a Contaflex look so good for ages.

 

 

I couldn't agree more, all your kit shots are great, Rick.

stuart_pratt said:

I couldn't agree more, all your kit shots are great, Rick.

Thanks Stuart, cameras are fun things to photograph and I make it my rainy-day occupation, if other chores permit. There's a collection of images here:

 

The Cameras

 

wadeschields, welcome to the forum and I wish I could be of more help. That definitely sounds like a shutter problem but hopefully someone with more knowledge than me will provided some more information. So far as I know there was only one back made for the Contaflex, though there is an almost identical one for the Contarex. They are not interchangeable.

Thanks rick_ Reading another thread on here I think I know the reason for the confusion on the backs. It was stated that ebay sellers say that the backs are for the contarex and the contaflexes but it turns out that the booklet is for both but the backs are different as you said. So I was confused by sellers descriptions .... They just dont know what they have . But how do I tell the difference just from the ebay pictures?

 

I got another body from evilbay that arrived today and the shutter works as I expected it should so my dads camera will need to be looked at by a "specialist" But the new body has issues too. The shutter button has to be pushed so hard that I have to use two thumbs sometimes. So I think I will keep looking for a nicely working body.... I know these two will be costly to fix. I will get them fixed though... At least my dad's camera.