A Few Shots From the Zeiss Ikonta 520/16

<p>Here's some shots from a tiny Zeiss Ikonta 520/16 that recently found it's way to a new home. There's some paint knocked off, but it operates smoothly in every way. I'd rather have a camera that looks like this, as there's no worries about a new nick here or there. The 75 3.5 Tessar is as clear as glass. The shutter was sticking, so it got a little cleaning w/ lighter fluid, which promptly leaked onto the blades inside. I unscrewed the rear element, cleaned it all up w/ Q-tips, and gave the glass inside a good clean while I was there. Otherwise, nothing's been done since it came in the mail. Shutter speeds were checked, and were OK after the cleanup. Photos are Tri-X developed in D76, and I used a yellow filter and hood. Scans were on an Epson 2450 flatbed, and have had little processing. The lens may actually be too sharp for my tastes however. Who knew an old uncoated lens like this (1938?) would be so sharp? Every Tessar I've ever owned imaged a little differently than the others.</p><div></div>

<p>camera 2</p><div></div>

<p>top</p><div></div>

<p>Daytona Beach 1</p><div></div>

<p>Daytona Beach 2</p><div></div>

<p>Daytona Beach 3</p><div></div>

<p>Funhouse Cropped</p><div></div>

<p>This shot is closer to what I'm after. On my first roll, I had taken a similar photo of the little kid ride, but it got overdeveloped and over agitated, and I used what I think was bad fixer. So, now I know how to get olde vintage photos.</p><div></div>

<p>Nice pics, Steve. I like the ferris wheel and fun house. To me grain is over rated and I don't use TriX often. I've got an Epson 2450, it's been on it's last legs for the last 4 years ;-)</p>

<p>That's a little gem of a folder,<strong> Steve</strong>, and the pics are great. "Railing", particularly, appeals. Not often one hears complaints about a lens being too sharp, but I take your point about desiring an antique look. Funny, how a modern generation of photographers are striving to make the images from their $3000 DSLR's look like something from a 1920's Box Brownie...Incidentally, what's your agitation regime for Tri-x in D-76? Sometimes I get what appears to be uneven development that shows in mid-tone areas, sky for instance, despite following a careful process. Thanks for an interesting post.</p>

<p>It still looks better than most of my cameras.</p>

<p>Nice photos Steve, and good story on the restoration, been there myself many times. That joker at fun center looks quite evil, not sure if I'd want to take my kids there :-). Thanks for the post.</p>

<p>Rick, my latest scheme is to develop for 9 minutes at 68 degrees using D76 at 1:1. I threw away that little rod that allows you to spin the reel inside the tank, as it was giving me very inconsistent results, and gave me those surge marks on the last photo. Now, I pour the developer in, tap the tank on the counter, and agitate gently w/ a spirally motion upside down then back down, for 30 seconds. Then, two gentle inversions every 30 seconds except for the last minute. The last 3 rolls I developed with this technique worked great. Before that I was pulling my hair out. I also use a stop bath afterwards, then the fixer.</p>

<p>My Epson 2450 scanner is hard to kill. The first day I got it, it took a header off the dining room table whilst it was scanning a neg. Plastic went flying everywhere, and the top glass popped out. I put it back together and it works perfectly, except for the newton rings. I need to make some film holders to keep the film off the glass.</p>

<p>If you think the character outside is shady Ralf, look what awaits inside. Taken w/ a Canon AE-1 and 50 1.8 lens about 20 years ago at the same arcade.</p><div></div>

I think Arcade pics are a bit spooky and have their own.. ummm appeal. I have a similar vintage 520. My glass and shutter are still great.I have done nothing. However my left ruby window has lightleak that I can'T seem to fix so I leave it taped over and check every other frame on the counter. What you said about too sharp is interesting. I recall advising another CC user about buying older Tessars. They do tend to be almost too good and if you want a vintage look you might want to go elsewhere..ie cheaper. I do agree that some have very different characteristics. My 1920s B&L (made under license) Tessar does provide a vintage look. I love my mid 50s CZJ Tessar rendition on modern film probably because of the early coatings. Similar but different is the Tessar ie front element on the Contaflex of the mid 60s. I generally don'T use Tri-X unless I need the speed. So many speak about a desirable grain.. while I can appreciate this I can't say I try to acheive it.<div></div>

<p>Love those little Zeiss folders, the quality really amazes...great work!</p>