Who Knows the Quinon?

<p>What would you say if someone at a New Year's gathering says,"I've heard that you collect old cameras and we've found this old Paxette-thinggy amongst our great-aunt's odds and ends; would you like it for your collection?" ? While I do have a fair assortment of Paxette bits and pieces it would have been churlish to have refused such an offer, despite a sharp feminine elbow digging me in the ribs... Anyway, the Paxette eventually turned up, somewhat the worse for wear but still functioning; shutter speeds sounding believable, rangefinder spot bright and accurate, and the nice little Bewi exposure meter reading correctly, despite having lost it's cute red cap. Here's how it looked:</p><div></div>

<p>Despite all the disparagement and ridicule Paxettes get heaped on them in various Forums, I'll have to admit to being a Paxette fan. The damn things are just so cute, for a start, and while the overwhelming weight of opinion seems to suggest that they're poorly made and a dreadful design, I can't go along with this, in it's entirety. Quirky they may be, but seldom have so many metal components been packed into such a small camera. There's no waste space, and they feel like an ingot in the hand. Sometimes I think that people who like Voigtlanders probably like Paxettes, as well... It's a brave man who attempts to take one apart, but I have around a dozen and the shutters are the only consistent issue, getting sticky with age as Prontors do, but with the Paxette it's easy to unscrew the lens and get at the problem. However, more of the Paxette family in a later post.</p>

<p>The Paxette's poor reputation was brought about in large part by the crappy standard lenses most of the exported cameras were fitted with. Built to a price to avoid UK import restrictions, they arrived with dreadful little triplet lenses with names like Kata, Cassar, and Cassarit, hopelessly flare-prone, extraordinarily low in contrast and sharp in the middle, only when well stopped down. What many critics never grasp is that there was a very large range of lenses available for the Paxettes; this model is a later Super II BL, and here's the range of standard lenses available when it was released in 1957: Kata (45&50mmf/2.8), Cassarit (50mm f/2.8), Xenar (50mm f/2.8), Tessar (50mm f/2.8), Ultralit (50mm f/2.8) Luxon (50mm f/2), and Quinon (50mm f/2). If that's not a fairly comprehensive range of options, tell me what is. Down here in Australasia the overwhelmingly most common lens is the aforementioned Cassarit, right down at the bottom of the range, and it just doesn't do much to enhance the Paxette's reputation as a system camera; I have the Xenar and Tessar and the results one gets are just what one would anticipate from these fine lenses. I've never come across the Luxon, while my favourite has been the Staeble-Braun Color-Ultralit, a Tessar-pattern lens that out-performs the Tessar. In my opinion, of course...</p>

<p>However, I was delighted to discover that the lens on the new arrival is the 50mm Steinheil Munchen Quinon f/2, a rare lens in my part of the world, and one that seems to be rather undocumented on the Internet. Rumour has it that it's a Sonnar clone, constructed to the original Zeiss formula, and it's performance tends to confirm this. This copy has taken rather a battering, with abrasions to the filter ring, though a filter can still be mounted, with difficulty, but the glass is in good shape and mechanically it's smooth enough. I'd be delighted to accumulate more information regarding the Quinon; I know there's a f/1.9 version in LTM and a few rare examples of these f/2's in the same mount, and the occasional one in M42, but other than learning that they attract rather fancy prices on the Great Auction, I know very little else. (For the uninitiated, the Paxette has a unique lensmount, M39 but with a registration distance of around 24.3 compared to the Leica's 28.8, so Paxette lenses just don't focus properly on any other camera and, so far as I know, there are no available adapters to mount them on digital cameras.)</p>

<p>With a few misgivings I loaded a short length of Kentmere 100 into the poor old camera and took it down town where I snapped off a few frames, purely test shots. The scans suggested that this was a very sharp and contrasty little lens:</p><div></div>

<p>No.2</p><div></div>

<p>In experimental mode I mounted it on a M39 adapter for the Canon DSLR's and found that I had focus extending from about 300mm to 2 metres (1 foot to 6 feet), so I shot a few images around the garden, in between showers of torrential summer rain. I like the results, and I'll try the lens with a color film and also find a very slim M39 extension ring to extend the possibilities with the DSLR's. What do you think; is it worth persisting with?</p><div></div>

<p>No.4</p><div></div>

<p>No.5</p><div></div>

<p>No.6</p><div></div>

<p>No.7</p><div></div>

<p>No.8</p><div></div>

Never knew about this one. Great shots, too. Thanks for an informative post.

<p>Rick - you certainly draw the best out of some of these old clunkers. Nice job...I'd never heard about this particular model, and it is fascinating that it was sold with such a wide variety of lenses.</p>

<p>IIRC there was also an f1.9 Quinon available in the Exakta mount. In the late '50s, when I avidly read all the ads, the top normal lenses for the VXIIa in the US were the Steinheil Quinon, Zeiss Jena Biotar, and Schneider Xenon.</p>

<p>Quinon is to Steinheil as Ektar is to Kodak. More than one design type, top of the line for focal length and speed.</p>

I converted a 50/2 Quinon to RF coupled Leica mount for Raid.

 

Swirly Bokeh wide-open, almost like a Summarit. I would like to find another to convert.

Despite there no being any available adapter to mount to DSLR you managed to "adapt" something very

well. I too was pleased to see such a variety of lenses available for the humble Paxette. I think back in the

day when they tried to make something affordable the cut corners on the optics.. regrettably. So Sonnar or

Planar? I guess your assessment is Sonnar though the lens mass looks a bit thick a la Planar/Biotar. I

trust your experience!! Thanks for enlightening me to this unique camera/lens and look forward to your

hinted future post on the marque Braun Pax/Paxette

<p>Thanks, <strong>Robert</strong>, I've seen the Quinon name in relation to the Exactas but never taken much notice. <strong>Dan,</strong> your comment regarding "more than one design type" reinforces a conclusion I was arriving at; the "Quinon" tag may have attached to several different constructions. Wish they wouldn't do that! Thanks, <strong>Mike</strong>, <strong>Chuck</strong> and <strong>Stephen</strong>; I sort of grew up with Braun Paxettes and down here, in my era, they were every young photographer's dream; it will be fun to re-visit them in a future post. <strong>Brian</strong>, you're right about the bokeh; I attach a quick snap which demonstrates the OOF background at f/2. I may well be wrong, but it looks pretty much Sonnar to me...</p><div></div>

<p>Chuck, the VM is a little muddled on Quinons, does eventually come down firmly that the the fast ones (f/2 or so) are 6/4 double Gauss types and that the f/5.6ers are probably 6/4 plasmat types. IIRC, this last has been confirmed for the 210/5.6 V-Quinon.</p>

<p>You could use that lens as a cure for Malaria...sorry! You would think that the Quinon name would indicate five elements.<br>

I have never owned a Paxette, but they do have a poor reputation here as well, mostly for the reasons that you outlined. Shame because these reputations are often not deserved,as is the case with your camera.<br>

The problem is that manufacturers like Steinheil and Meyer are usually judged by their base line lenses, as people rarely see the best that they produced.<br>

Your pictures highlight the quality available from the Quinon, the shot of the pencils is a real classic, and you can see why digital users are really discovering these fast old German lenses...they have a really unique quality.<br>

Thanks for the post on the Paxette, we hope to see some more from it.</p>

<p><img src="http://www.pixel-wave.com/images/Braun_Quinon_50mm_9662.jpg" alt="" width="720" height="1080" /><br>

The 50mm f/1.9 version was available in DKL mount (Kodak Retina Reflex / Braun Reflex). As I recall, it's performance was first rate.</p>

I believe the Quinon that I converted was a Planar- but I've seen another one in that was a Sonnar formula,

think it was the same name. The Sonnar lens is shorter, more compact.

<p>Beautiful pictures, as always. Love the Gladiolus! You bring the best out of any camera and lens. Thanks. sp</p>

<p>Beautiful pics. Thanks NV</p>

<p>Outstanding, Rick!</p>

<p>Thanks <strong>Tony</strong>; I'd wondered about the quinine connection. An aunt of mine partook of copious quantities of gin and tonic, maintaining that the quinine content in the tonic kept malaria at bay, but I suspect it doesn't quite work like that... Great pic, <strong>Timothy</strong>, with that interesting 3D effect red roses display on a monitor. Thanks <strong>Dan</strong> and <strong>Brian</strong> for the further information, and <strong>SP</strong>,<strong>Vasudevan</strong> and<strong> Robert</strong> for the kind words. It's nice to feel appreciated!</p>

Its a grain, right? Very nice. Looks like a frankenstein of Voigt, Zeiss, Altix.