Zeiss Ikon Contessa

<ul>

<li>Lens: Carl Zeiss Tessar 2,8/50 coated lens, front element

focusing, from

3 feet to infinity, red color 20 for hyperfocusing

<li>Aperture :2,8 to 22 : 8 in red for hyperfocusing

 

<li> Filter thread: 27mm

<li> Shutter: Pronto SLK Spezial, B,1,2,4... 500

<LI> X: flash sync,V: timer, M: bulb flash

<li> Meter: match needle selemium exposure meter

</ul>

 

This Contessa has a decent lens, although not as sharp as

the Tessar on Contaflex super<p>

 

Any one knows what "SLK" stood for ?<P><div></div>

Pop up film rewind crank at bottom. This bottom rewind crank was common in many German cameras, such as Rollei 35, Edixa 16...

SLK is the model of prontor shutter (I think)

This model has speed below 1/15th which all other contessas don;t

 

It's the only difference I see between this camera and others

Look in the pacific rim cameras for a more detailed explanation of each model of contessa.

 

http://www.pacificrimcamera.com/pp/zeiss/contessa/contessa.htm

Martin, it seems that there were several different models from that era, correct? I haven't spent much time investigating these.

 

So many cameras, so little cash in the account.

 

Your comment about the Tessar is very interesting. I guess the demise of the folding cameras spelled the end of an era in many ways.

 

Have any photos that you've taken with it?

Mike, according to the pacificrim site given by Pablo, my Contessa is

a Contessa LK model, with viewfinder by no rangefinder. When I bought

this camera there was a rangefinder Contessa, which looked very much

the same from the outside, the only difference is the LKE model

has a coupled rangefinder; however that camera was defective, so I bought this LK. It shutter is remarkably good at slow speed, quite accurate even at 1 sec<p>

I did take photo with this Contessa from time to time, in particular

when going to places like Pioneer Village.

I have one of those myself, but need to get it CLA ($80 - 100. or twice as much as I paid for the camera) so I have it boxed by now.

 

It takes really good pictures, both in BW and color. The meter is broken so I have to hand meter or guesstimate the light.

 

This one is one of the latest pics I took with it. After this roll I felt the shutter didin;t "charge" until I moved the film-advance lever another 1/4 turn.

Stupid Lousy Klinker.

Bill wrote:"Stupid Lousy Klinker"<p>

 

Nonsense !

<ul>

<li>Contessa has a brigher and larger viewfinder than Leica IIIc.

<li>It has built in exposure meter, which Leica IIIc does'nt

<li>It can flashsync to 1/500, IIIc does not even have flash

<li> It has timer, IIIc none

<li> 4 element 3 group tessar lens comparible to 4 element 3 group

Elmar, and one stop faster.

</ul>

It is quite an elegant camera by Zeiss.

Martin wrote: ...although not as sharp as the Tessar on Contaflex super.

 

Did Zeiss change the Tessar formula? If not, please, don't attribute the lack of sharpness due to the focusing front element on your Contessa.

I recall reading that Carl Zeiss reformulated most of its lenses after the war. But that wouldn't necessarily explain the differences in the lenses from one camera to the next.

 

The Tessar on the folding Contessa is very sharp. The Tessar on a Rollei 35 (the same era as the Rollei 35) is also very sharp. The Tessar on the Contessa S 310 is soft in the corners, although both are roughly from the same era. In fact, the S 310 is a later camera.

 

The Tessar for the prewar Contax: Sharp. Rolleiflex: Very sharp. Roll-film Ikontas: Extremely sharp. Kodak/Nagel Duo 620: Somewhat sharp.

 

Is it possible that acceptable sharpness might have changed depending on expectations of the intended buyer??? I don't know. Just posing that question.

 

Haven't had a chance to test the Contaflex Tessar. And I wish I had a postwar Tessar for the Contax.

The Contaflex Super unit focusing Tessar was recomputed as one of

Zeiss Satz-Tessar series of convertible lenses including 35mm, 50mm, 85mm.<p>

 

In general, for any given Tessar, a unit focusing version always

outperforms a front element focusing one, it is the law of physics<p>

 

Rudolph Kingslake wrote in A History of Photographic Lens:<P>

"About 1900 someone suggested focusing a lens by moving only the

front element instead of the whole object......<p>

"The penalty of using this arrangement is that the aberration correction carefully built into the design is completely upset if

the front airspace is altered".<p>

"The penalty of using this arrangement is that the aberration correction carefully built into the design is completely upset if the front airspace is altered" This was in 1900, now, Mr Kingslake continues: "HOWEVER, by overcorrecting the spherical aberration at the infinity setting, where the lens will generally be used stopped down, the undercorrection at close distances will be reduced"

Rudolph Kingslake HPL page 14.

 

This overcorrection is what Zeiss did from the 30s on up to the 60s on all front element focusing Tessars.

 

I found Mike's Contessa pictures to be as sharp and contrasty as 11x14 BW enlargements taken with my 1934 S.Ikonta C 105/4.5 Tessar and the ones taken with my Super Ikonta C MX 105/3.5 Tessar.

Kinglake said it well, front elemnt Tessar has to be used stop down

to look good. Well, when stop down, even Holga looks good<p>

 

 

With unit focusing Tessar, there is no need to overcorrect spherical

abberation, hence the lens much sharper at f2.8 then a front element

focusing Tessar at wide open.

For a typical 50mm front focusing Tessar lens, when focus at infinty

the focal length of the lens =50mm<p>

 

When focus this lens at 1 meter, the focal length of lens becomes

47.62mm.

 

All the abberration become worse due to first airspace increase:

<ul>

<li> Spherical abberation doubled.

<li> Coma abberation doubled

<li> Primary axial color abberation increased ten folds

<li> Primary and secondary lateral color abberation doubled

</ul>

 

With unit focusing Tessar, this two to ten fold increase in

abberations will not happen.

Focus at 1 meter, the ray intercept plot becomes ugly, ie, abberation

become bad.

Well, Kingslake did very well as he only mentioned just one type of aberration - spherical and not coma, astigmatism, field curvature, distorsion, and chromatic. All front focusing Tessars are ideal at f8 for infinity and or close to infinity. At closer distances it shows the undercorrect spherical aberration becoming a lens suitable for portraiture.

<pre>

 

Field curvature has nothing to do with airspace thickness, hence

front focusing has no effect on Petzval curvature

For a 50mm/2.8 Tessar lens, when change the first airspace from

a thickness of 3.339178mm to 5.129178mm, focal length becomes 47.62mm

In both cases, Petzval radius: -180.418350mm

 

As evidence from the following abberation data, abberation worsened,

in particular PAC,SAC the primary/secondary axial color.

 

Tessar 50/2.8 abberation

 

 

*CHROMATIC ABERRATIONS

SRF PAC SAC PLC SLC

SUM -0.004121 0.002003 0.018884 0.015203

 

*SEIDEL ABERRATIONS

SRF SA3 CMA3 AST3 PTZ3 DIS3

SUM -0.304342 -0.079325 0.065611 -0.212271 0.138688

 

*FIFTH-ORDER ABERRATIONS

SRF SA5 CMA5 AST5 PTZ5 DIS5 SA7

SUM 0.231279 0.092593 -0.029856 0.176178 0.007683 0.163192

 

Tessar 47.62/2.8 abberation

 

*CHROMATIC ABERRATIONS

SRF PAC SAC PLC SLC

SUM -0.041799 -0.025445 0.038346 0.028890

 

*SEIDEL ABERRATIONS

SRF SA3 CMA3 AST3 PTZ3 DIS3

SUM -0.539498 -0.173933 -0.055872 -0.192586 0.621373

 

*FIFTH-ORDER ABERRATIONS

SRF SA5 CMA5 AST5 PTZ5 DIS5 SA7

SUM 0.000190 -0.021376 -0.025364 0.218086 0.093070 0.025093

 

</pre>

 

This doubling of monochrome abberation, quardupled distortion and ten fold increase

in primary/secondary axial color abberation at 1 meter for front focusing

Tessar lens happens also with Tessar 50/3.5 front focusing lens

 

What it means is that at close range, the blur spot size is nearly

doubled, in otherword, the line pair/mm resolution nearly drop by half.

Well Mr.Tai. I still follow Kingslake for my excellent pictures done with a front focusing Tessar. The rest, are computer oriented graphs and numbers to suit an argument. Good for a PhD thesis!

You misinterpreted Kingslake's performance compromise as performance

enhancement-- you think front focusing Tessar is better than unit

focusing Tessar<p>

Marc Small (Author of Zeiss Compendium ) commented on the front elment

focusing f2.8 Tessar on Super Ikonta B vs Unit focusing Tessar on

Ikoflex III , Rolleiflex 2.8A - the unit-focusing lens wins in

resolution, edge contrast, and definition.<p>

 

http://www.digistar.com/rollei/1999-11/0130.html<p>

 

The unit focusing Tessar on my Contaflex Super B is visibly superior to the front element focuisng Tessar on my Contessa<p>

 

Similarly the unit focusng Sonnar lens on my Rollei 35S is much

better than the front element focusing Sonnar on my Rollei A26<p>

 

Front unit focusing is a means by manufacturer to cut cost, because

unit focusing lens is much more complicated to manufacture.<p>

It is a well known fact that a front focusing f2.8 Tessar has to be used at f5.6 to f8 for better results. Even in your unit focusing Contaflex.

 

Marc Small wrote: "Many of these folders are still in use today; the 75mm, f3.5 Tessar of the "A" and the 105mm, f3.5 of the "C" are lenses capable of first-class results, even in this day of computerized generated optics, though the 80mm f2.8 Tessar of the "B" and "BX" is regarded as a triffle soft at FULL APERTURE. Marc Small- Zeiss Compendium p24.

 

I agree with Kingslake's singling out just one type of aberration -spherical and not the 3-4 that you incorporated in your computer generated graph. Besides, you had cut his remarks just to fit your argument and did not continue after the word "HOWEVER".

 

Zeiss went to the unit focusing in order to compete with the market using the so-so Pro Tessars instead of changing the design in order to accommodate "primes", and I think the manufacturing of Pro-Tessars were a more expensive endeavor than changing the design from a front focusing to a unit focusing as you claim.

 

I have the Contaflex l and a Contaflex Rapid (unit) and both give me excellent results.

 

Look again at Mike Elek's pictures with his Contessa. I don't see any flaws on them. Do you?

 

Like I said before: I use my front focusing Tessar with its undercorrected spherical aberration for portraiture, and as you may well know the so called soft lens have an uncorrected spherical aberration.

 

BTW, is your 35mm Minox front or unit focusing?

"your 35mm Minox front or unit focusing"<p>

The Minoxar/Minoctar 35mm/f2.8 lens is arguabley the best designed

front focuisng Tessar type lens ever, said designed by Leitz for Minox

using lanthanium glasses<p> I don't know Zeiss themselve ever made

a simi wide angle f2.8 lens with Tessar formular. <p> The front focusing Tessar on Rollei 35 is excellent, but only made to 40mm

and f3.5<p>

The Minoxar/Minoctar lens does makes sharp pictures--- stop down,

when used at wide open, the front focusing nature of the lens

reveals its flaw: visible coma abberation at the corners. <p>

The Complan/Minox lenses on Minox 8x11 are unit focusing lenses,

always used at wide open and does not exhibit such flaw.<p>

 

Leica never make their 4 element 3 group Elmar into front focusing

lens. Zeiss had being more sloppy. <p>

I am not saying front focusing lens no good, on the best designed

ones are darn good. However unit focusing lenses always superior,

period.

going back to the original point of the topic.

 

My guess is that Contessas were the Point and Shoot of the times, therefore pretty darn good for such purpose.

Front focusing Tessar lens if used properly can be very good. Since

in such kind of lens, the performance varies with distance, there must

be ONE distance at which the lens performance is the best. The trick

is to know whether this point is :)

Contessa is a 100% metal camera<p>

There is some plastic material on Contaflex Super B.

<p>