Testing the Pro-Tessars

<p>Very interesting post Rick, great work as usual, and the plum and nectarine sign reminds me of why I like this season so much!<br>

I reckon that Zeiss must have sold a boat load of Contaflexes, really neat little SLR's, but a lot of them are dead these days with gummed up apertures and shutters. Hard to find anyone to work on them as well.<br>

The Pro-Tessars are right up there in the impression ratio, those huge front elements really look the business! I have found them to be just a little soft, but still quite good given the optical gymnastics that Zeiss had to overcome.<br>

The little 50mm Tessar though, is a right gem, credit to Zeiss that they get that quality out of four elements. Ivor Mantanle likes the later version the best, and it is a cracker. Funny, but I have found that the later cameras are less reliable, more prone to shutter problems, could be that the shutter is more exposed to dust and grime.<br>

I was just cleaning up an original Contafex 1 to put a roll through it, so your post is very timely. If I get something half decent I will do a post on that camera soon.</p>

<p>Rick - thank you for the informative post and great images. I also like my Contaflex system - a bit quirky, but that is precisely the appeal for me! A couple of examples from my Super and the 115mm f4 lens with Tri-X:</p>

<p>1. In the park<br>

<img src="https://farm1.staticflickr.com/773/23840736791_c7af6d5bec_b.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>2. Friends<br>

<img src="https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5629/23736340912_35a529aea6_b.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>My own experience has been that the 115mm is OK across the frame stopped down. But I did shoot some shots of my son playing football a few years ago with my Super B and Pan F+. Not the easiest of combinations for winter light conditions. Unsurprisingly I did more than a few shots wide open. Near infinity I noticed some distant fences were markedly lacking in rectilinear rendition. It's worth noting that many unit focusing Contaflexes found today will benefit from inspection and if needed, adjustment of the mirror height to optimise focusing accuracy. Not to mention the primary lens focus which of course has to be checked anyway to verify viewfinder accuracy. This should be OK but given incorrect adjustments by owners or others unfamiliar with their idiosyncracies may no longer be optimum. Also they frequently improve in their lens alignment as a result of stripping, cleaning and re-greasing the helicals. The original dried out grease can be responsible for excess play in the threads and result in some wobble. As a bonus when it's corrected as above they're nicer to focus, too.</p>

<p>I rate the 35mm and 85mm Pro Tessars much better than the 115mm. Overall sharpness and distortion are superior. As I have mentioned above, much depends on the condition of the body to which they're fitted though. I tend to mostly use mine with my Super BC, Rapid or S, although I have all the various types either ready to go or waiting for me to find the time to make them so. I don't yet have the Monocular or 1:1 Macro but possess most of the other accessories for the Contaflex system. Just last week I finally procured a reasonable Teleskop and mounting bracket for the I & II and have ticked that off my list. Whilst I have no shortage of good kit to image with, whenever I head out for a day with no real idea of what I might find, a Contaflex gets the nod most often, because, with three x magazine backs for E-6, C-41 & B&W, Proxar close up lenses, and 35mm to 115mm lenses in a compact bag, I can turn my attention to more subjects, with one camera body, than just about any other alternative for the same size, weight and price.<br>

Note that Zeiss did trial Pro Tessars in other focal lengths and mounts, which, for various reasons did not make it into production. They certainly did a lot of work with the modular lens concept generally unreported. <br /> Thanks, Rick, for giving this vastly underrated system some attention and for your typical excellent images.</p>

<p>It's hard to tell a great deal of difference between them all but my own (very late production) S has one of the brightest viewfinders I've ever used on any camera. Note that the Contaflex standard 50mm Tessar is a f/2.8. It easily surpasses other SLRs with much faster lenses fitted to their mounts and I think this attests to the quality of the Zeiss pentaprisms and focus screens. I cannot say I've noticed a pattern with regard to the various models, except that some of the numerous Supers (first type) I own have varied according to their condition. Not surprisingly perhaps, the dirtiest and least cared for specimens have sometimes had the some of the least bright viewfinders too. The Super (second type) that I have also has one of the brightest Contaflex ones I've seen, personally (and I've seen a few). But I also have first and second types with excellent finders, and some with not so bright ones. I'm pretty sure Zeiss were still using Canada Balsam in the earlier prisms so expect these to potentially vary subject to condition. One I have is no longer usable. As far as sharpness goes, the late Tessar lenses are better than most 50s I have used in any camera, from any manufacturer regardless of type or shutter. Earlier ones are excellent, too, but the late ones are positively superlative. Nothing wrong with their colour rendition, either. </p>

<p>Thanks <strong>Brett</strong>, I was hoping our resident Contaflex expert would chime in! Yes, I like the viewfinders, though I have to agree with <strong>Chuck</strong> that matters could be improved by having the whole screen usable for focusing. Nice pics, <strong>Rajmohan</strong>, the 115mm lens performed well for you. Like you, I like slightly oddball cameras. Looking forward to your Contaflex images, <strong>Tony</strong>. And thank you <strong>John</strong>, <strong>Bernard</strong>,<strong> Anthony</strong> and <strong>Matthew</strong> for your contributions.</p>

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?

 

And last question - If its 3.2 and the camera is still reading 2.8 , Do you still go by the meter ? or close down half a stop ? Or something else?

 

Opps - One more question :( It came without any lens covers. The 115 I have is in a plastic case. What else can I use?

 

PS Dad passed away 20 years ago so I cant ask him any questions. Hope you dont mind me asking here...

 

signed

Newby to Contaflex but excited to use it

<p>Just last week I finally procured a reasonable Teleskop and mounting bracket for the I & II and have ticked that off my list. . <br /> T.</p>

 

 

So the Teleskop only works on the earlier models right. No need for one on the Super (Since there is an 80mm lens) ..... But it looks like such a cool piece of kit !!!!

Sorry - Another question - When using a 35mm , 85mm or 115mm lenses, albeit 3.2 or f4, the camera body still goes to f2.8 . So do I need to compensate for exposure to the difference of fstop on the current lens in use. As in open up a half or full stop for the 3.2 or f4 equivalent. Im just not understanding what the f# means on these lenses. Is it just a matter of compensating on the ASA ????????? Nothing is mentioned in any of the manuals I have.

Thanks

<p>The problem of creating interchangeable lenses for leaf-shutter SLR cameras confronted the manufactures of all such cameras, as the position of the shutter and the size of the throat dictates what can or can't be done. Zeiss Ikon approached the problem by creating these Pro-Tessar lenses; there is a 35mm lens of either f/3.2 or f/4. and two telephoto lens of 85mm and 115mm, both f/4. I'm lacking the 85mm example; it seems to be a little harder to find than the 115mm. Sadly, there is a problem with all these lenses with the front elements separating as the early optical cement that Zeiss used deteriorates, resulting in a sort of "rainbow" appearance behind the front element. Mind you, the balsam that was traditionally used can do the same thing, but these Pro-Tessars are somewhat infamous in this respect. I've looked at many 85mm Pro-Tessars but most show quite severe separation, while the two I feature here are relatively free of the condition.</p>

<p>At first glance the Pro-Tessars resemble the "attachment" or "auxiliary" lenses that were screwed into a standard lens to provide wide-angle or telephoto capability, but they're much more sophisticated than these. The front element of the standard 50mm f/2.8 Tessar detaches, leaving behind the remaining elements, shutter and diaphragm, and the pro-Tessar mounts into the recess. Obviously, the Pro-Tessars do not have diaphragms, the aperture being controlled by the camera. I like to think of the system as one lens that changes it's configuration.</p><div>[ATTACH=full]806031[/ATTACH]</div>

Hi

Can these Pro Tessar lenses be used with a Leica M mount?

Hi

Can these Pro Tessar lenses be used with a Leica M mount?

 

No, only the Zeiss Contaflex cameras for which they were designed.

 

The Pro-Tessars are not complete lenses: just front barrels with front element optics. The focus helical, aperture and rear elements are integral to the Contaflex camera body and non-removable: depending which Pro-Tessar you mount in front of the fixed rear elements of the body you get different focal lengths (35, 50, 85, 115).

If its 3.2 and the camera is still reading 2.8 , Do you still go by the meter ? or close down half a stop ? Or something else?

 

Depends on the Contaflex model. Versions without a meter, or with external selenium meter, require you compensate by whatever variance the Pro-Tessar introduces (half or full stop). Your idea to alter the film speed is probably the easiest solution. Contaflex with internal TTL AE feature is self -compensating (assuming the meter still works accurately): it reads thru the lens, so despite the controls and finder display being engraved f/2.8 it will set a correct T-stop to match your chosen shutter speed/film speed. IOW, when it indicates f/2.8 in the finder scale the film actually receives corrected f/2.2 or f/4 thru the Pro Tessar.

 

Workable, but not the most intuitive or fast-handling system. The cameras themselves were surprisingly popular, the Pro Tessars not quite as much.

When it comes to Rick's posts, I don't mind re-animations at all.

This reminds me that I have a set of wide and tele Schneider lenses for my convertible Retina IIIc, and which (oh, the shame!) I've never used in earnest.

 

FWIW, the Zeiss Jena Werra cameras overcame the leaf-shutter issue by fitting an interchangeable lens entirely in front of the shutter. I have such a Werra - model 3 - but the price of the Cardinar(?) and (name escapes me) WA lenses is just silly today. That's if you can find 'em.

Yes, the Werra is superb and pretty unique. The wide-angle is a trusty Flektogon 35/2.8. There's a bit of stuff on the Werras here:

 

The Ultimate Werra

 

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?

 

And last question - If its 3.2 and the camera is still reading 2.8 , Do you still go by the meter ? or close down half a stop ? Or something else?

 

Opps - One more question :( It came without any lens covers. The 115 I have is in a plastic case. What else can I use?

 

PS Dad passed away 20 years ago so I cant ask him any questions. Hope you dont mind me asking here...

 

signed

Newby to Contaflex but excited to use it

The point that is perhaps under-reported about the various unit focusing Contaflex models is that Zeiss did subtle alterations to the dimensions of the camera body bayonet and to certain lenses. But the alterations were made in such a way that certain lenses would fit all unit focus models, and certain others would not, based on the relative dimensions of the lugs on the lenses, and the lugs on the camera bayonet.

 

For instance the standard front cell of a late model Contaflex such as the Super B or S will not attach to the front of, say, a Contaflex III or IV. And vice-versa (from memory).

 

There were early and late versions of the M1:1 Pro Tessar produced, and, based on the camera bayonet dimensions you need to have the late lens for late models and early one for early models.

 

As far as I am aware the precise size of the bayonet lugs for the 35mm, 85mm and 115mm Pro Tessar lenses were chosen to be slightly smaller than some other Contaflex lenses. This is not obvious without close examination, but it ensures that they can engage with the mount on any of the unit focus bodies from III to S inclusive. I'm not aware of any differences between the f/4 and f/3.2 versions either. I'm not sure I have a copy of the f/4 35mm, but I certainly have the f/3.2 type, as well as both f/4 and f/3.2 versions of the 85mm (the 115mm was only ever a f/4), and I can't ever recall an occasion when any of those would fit one unit focusing model but not another (and I have all the Tessars from III to S inclusive to try them on).

 

Zeiss supplied plastic bubbles in which to store the Pro Tessars and I have a few of these. They're adequate for display purposes but not really up to extended field use. The black plastic base the lenses bayonet into have an unfortunate tendency to crack or for the metal bayonet moulded into them to detach. Zeiss offered an attractive leather carry case able to take a couple of Pro Tessars. For use out in the field it's probably preferable although the bubbles, being clear, will admit light and perhaps slow fungus down better than the carry case for display use.

So the Teleskop only works on the earlier models right. No need for one on the Super (Since there is an 80mm lens) ..... But it looks like such a cool piece of kit !!!!

Yes that is correct. The Pro Tessar lenses are modular in design. That is to say they substitute for the standard front glass of the 50mm Tessars and transmit light through the remaining three elements. But the Teleskop is an additional lens design. It fits in front of the standard 45mm Tessar installed in the original Contaflex and the Contaflex II but is not compatible at all with any of the unit focusing Contaflex types. It's rather soft in the corners until stopped down to f/11-f/22 but in fairness its main purpose was intended for portraiture. The one time I used it for landscape I found as above it wasn't really suited unless stopped well down, but, when this was done it was surprisingly sharp. This image was made with my first version Contaflex II (the one with the dual range light meter) with Teleskop fitted on Fuji Neopan Acros 100.

Sorry - Another question - When using a 35mm , 85mm or 115mm lenses, albeit 3.2 or f4, the camera body still goes to f2.8 . So do I need to compensate for exposure to the difference of fstop on the current lens in use. As in open up a half or full stop for the 3.2 or f4 equivalent. Im just not understanding what the f# means on these lenses. Is it just a matter of compensating on the ASA ????????? Nothing is mentioned in any of the manuals I have.

Thanks

The easiest way to put it is that with a Pro Tessar attached, regardless of what the meter says, the lens no longer has a maximum aperture of f/2.8, but becomes a f/3.2 or f/4 optic (as the case may be). If the meter says your aperture is f/2.8; you need to lengthen the exposure time by a stop (and possibly also close the aperture down to f/4 if you're shooting colour positive with a f/3.2 lens, with black and white or C-41 obviously, it's of less consequence).

brett_rogers said:

Zeiss offered an attractive leather carry case able to take a couple of Pro Tessars.

 

It's a nice case, with provision for carrying filters which, sadly, I don't have...

 

The easiest way to put it is that with a Pro Tessar attached, regardless of what the meter says, the lens no longer has a maximum aperture of f/2.8, but becomes a f/3.2 or f/4 optic (as the case may be). If the meter says your aperture is f/2.8; you need to lengthen the exposure time by a stop (and possibly also close the aperture down to f/4 if you're shooting colour positive with a f/3.2 lens, with black and white or C-41 obviously, it's of less consequence).

 

But F 8 or F 16 or whatever F stop above the fastest, is still the same no matter what lens??

But F 8 or F 16 or whatever F stop above the fastest, is still the same no matter what lens??

Absolutely.

Just think of it as if you were changing the lenses of a completely conventional focal plane SLR. If you take off your 50mm f/2 lens, and fit a 100mm f/2.8: regardless of which lens is fitted, f/8 is still f/8. Right? But you can't set the 100mm lens to f/2, if it has a maximum aperture of f/2.8, can you? Well, the Pro Tessars work precisely the same way. As I said: "The easiest way to put it is that with a Pro Tessar attached, regardless of what the meter says, the lens no longer has a maximum aperture of f/2.8, but becomes a f/3.2 or f/4 optic (as the case may be)." It's that simple.

Rick, I once owned a Retina IIIc with a 50mm Rodenstock lens. The lens was superb. I also acquired the telephoto lens, also by Rodenstock. And again, super sharp with good tones in b&w. Awkward to use, but the results justified extra trouble.

Absolutely.

Just think of it as if you were changing the lenses of a completely conventional focal plane SLR. If you take off your 50mm f/2 lens, and fit a 100mm f/2.8: regardless of which lens is fitted, f/8 is still f/8. Right? But you can't set the 100mm lens to f/2, if it has a maximum aperture of f/2.8, can you? Well, the Pro Tessars work precisely the same way. As I said: "The easiest way to put it is that with a Pro Tessar attached, regardless of what the meter says, the lens no longer has a maximum aperture of f/2.8, but becomes a f/3.2 or f/4 optic (as the case may be)." It's that simple.

 

Got it Thanks !!! I guess I was in the train of thought of a cheaper zoom lens that looses a stop when zoomed to Telephoto. ie . two marking on the aperture ring , one for wide one for long.... Different animal !!!