Contax RF 135/4 Sonnar

Mike Elek sold me this fine lens a short while ago and someone had

asked about me using a telephoto in my Toronto series. No I never

used one because it hadn't arrived yet but this one is from my

upcoming Port Stanley series. I think this lens is maligned for some

reason but here is my take:

 

<p>Is it sharp? Uh huh!

<p>Does it focus close? 1.5m is TIGHT for a rangefinder with a 135.

Headshot territory.

<p>Is it worth owning? <b>YES!</b> The second most inexpensive lens

in the Contax lineup next to the 50mm. f/4 is not fast but its worthy

of the Zeiss name.

<p>Is it as good as the 85/2 Sonnar? I guess I will have to find-out

some day.<div></div>

detail - 400 speed film, handheld at 1/250<div></div>

Marvlous shot. You really got impressive dof and tonality out of that lens.

What 50mm f/4?

That was two sentences:

 

"50mm." ends one sentence. "f/4" starts the next sentence.

 

This really is an unheralded lens. Very sharp, lightweight and very versatile. And almost always less than $150. A real bargain, as far as Carl Zeiss glass goes.

 

Glad to see you've had a chance to use it.

Nice to see someone else using it too. I have a prewar uncoated one with a small aperture

problem (it only opens up to about f5) but optically it's exquisite, the price was right (a

gift!) and I dearly love using it. It can be a wonderful portrait lens. If you have the right

circumstance, it is easily the equal of the 85/2 Sonnar.

 

I do alot of barns from the side of the road and the 135 is a real blessing for that.

 

One little trick if you don't want to deal with an external finder is that the RF patch on the

Contax and Kiev is just a tiny bit smaller than the FOV of the 135. Frame using the patch

and you'll do just fine.

 

William

<i>One little trick if you don't want to deal with an external finder is that the RF patch on the Contax and Kiev is just a tiny bit smaller than the FOV of the 135. Frame using the patch and you'll do just fine.</i>

<p>Now that is something I did not know! (parallax must be accounted for up close though)

Mike , thanks for posting the photo. I have been wondering about this lens for quite a while. I have a couple of 135mm F4 ,Retina lenses that I use on the IIIs and a reflex. The problem with that lens is it focuses to far away (9 ft if I remember correctly). I will look for one of these lenses. I have heard that the Russians can be just as sharp , but you might have to go through several to get a good one.The tip about using the focusing patch is a good one.

Michael - I think the main advantage the prewar Contax has over other cameras is the 90mm rangefinder basewidth which translates to some 10% more in effective baselength than a Leica M3. I have no idea how the Retinas compare in this regard. I am certain this long baselength has a lot to do with the 1.5m minimum focus on this lens. Even through the basewidth was somewhat reduced in the postwar Contax cameras, it was kept in the postwar versions.

 

I've never used a Jupiter-11 so I cannot comment on the Russian 135/4 lenses. This Sonnar is late post war and coated without the red T mark, like my 50/1.5 Sonnar. Construction quality is nice chrome not aluminum.

I used to have a Jupiter 11 as well (I recently traded it to a Kiev user for a nearly pristine

Argus C3 brick :) Yes, I'm insane.) I can not tell any difference in my prints or negatives

between the two optically. I could tell the difference when using it (chromed nickel vs.

aluminum) but the Sonnar design being centered on maximum performance from

uncoated lenses really doesen't, in my experiance, gain as much as other designs from

being coated. Kinda like Tessars in that respect (gee, I wonder why??? :)

 

In the end, it's a sweet lens. If you like longer lenses and RF cameras, there is no finer

combination, in my mind, than a Zeiss designed 135/4 and a Zeiss designed camera...

 

William

I think the close focus distance of the Retina 135mm Xenar is something like 11 or 13 feet. Not really usable.

 

I tried the "central" patch for framing when I forgot my finder. OK for distance shots. Not good at all for medium to close shots. You would need to adjust down and to the right somewhat. Not sure if this would different between the II and IIa, but I can tell you that all of my shots closer than 20 feet were off significantly.

 

I handled a Soviet lens a couple of years ago. Felt OK.

Nice job, Mike. Love the classic atmosphere of the photo. This is a really underrated lens.

Did you finally get a Zeiss viewfinder (torpedo, turret, mask, or whatsoever) ?

No - still using the Soviet finder. Its accurate at the 135 setting at 1.5m.

Mike, very well done! Interesting that years ago, you could find the 135mm lenses for rangefinder and SLR at the camera shows for "peanuts" as nobody wanted them. I'm glad that Mike K., Mike E., Mike C., and Nicolas are reviving those and the soviet shooters, as well.

 

I regret that 20 years ago, I either traded or sold,...I don't remember, my Contax IIa with the 50/2 and the 135/4. I could kick myself!

 

However, I have the Angenieux 135/3.5 for my Exakta and the RF Nikkor 135/3.5 for my S2.

 

History tell us that the first 135mm lens for a 35mm camera was the adaptation of a 9x12 Zeiss Tessar 135/4.5 by Max Berek to be used on the Leica I...Elmar 135/4.5. Same design!

Mike - my wish list is a book...

My list is a book too (Ivor Mantele is a good start) but I've really been cut-off by the wife.

 

But the folks here keep finding ways to keep cameras flowing into my household! (repair, trade, charity...) I like to hibernate through the brutal Canadian winter by fixing these oldies, and shooting only long enough that my fingertips turn white rather than black :)

Should have left a little more room around this one, but again details are there, even handheld.<div></div>

detail, strobe left of horn<div></div>

"Is it worth owning? YES!" Your photos finally did it. I got one. Don't want to run into the same that happened with 85/2.0s, that is, they were very reasonably priced until they turned collectible about what? six years ago? How I wish I had gotten one then! Now they are out of reach.

HA! Another one bites the dust.

>I think this lens is maligned for some reason but here is my take:

 

 

I think I better get off the dime myself!

 

P.S. Really liked the rope picture.

Mike

 

I tried the rangefinder patch with my ContaxIIA and late production 135mm F4 Sonnar, boy was I off. Now I just use my IMARECT finder.

 

The lens as you mentioned is quite contrasty and very sharp. Unfortunately, I don't use it that much ever since I succumbed to a 21mm Biogon....that, almost never comes off the camera. My 21mm CV finder works like a charm with that lens. If you have not tried the Biogon..you must.

Unfortunately the 21/4.5 Biogon is well beyond my means!

This was made with the 135 Sonnar. My success rate is not so great with this lens; the Contax IIa / Sonnar 135 outfit is so light that camera shake when pressing the shutter release button becomes a problem, and I like to shoot slow films, handholding the camera. There is no way for me to get a sharp pic with this lens below 1/250 without a tripod. I have no problem getting reasonably sharp pics with a 135 at 1/125 with a Leicaflex! Must be the weight. I'm still looking out for an affordable post war Zeiss Oberkochen 2/85 for my Contax outfit; the Jupiter 9 I have is crap.<div></div>