Speaking of Contarex...

[tom leoni]

I am thinking about buying a Zeiss Contarex Bullseye with a F2.0 Planar.

 

Does anyone here have any experience with it? I have read some positive

comments about it on a few vintage-camera sites, but I wanted to see if any of

you have any practical experience/caveats to pass along.

 

Thanks in advance.

 

Tom

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

Mike Elek has quite a bit of experience shooting Contarexes (certainly compared to me!).

 

http://elekm.net/pages/cameras.html

[vincenzo_maielli]

Hi, dear Tom. The Contarex cameras are very sturdies, indestructibles, mechanically perfect, with plus of the interchangeable back (as medium format SLR), the lenses are extraordinary good in optical and mechanical quality. However, the Contarex cameras are fiddly and slow to use, are not too beautyful to see and very heavy. Particularly, the Bullseye have an external selenium cell, most probably exhausted.

Ciao.

 

Vincenzo Maielli Italy

[donald_brewster]

I find the Zeiss Contarex Bullseye (or Cyclops as it was known in Europe) to be a sigularly beautiful camera. The other Contarex models are too boxy and clunky looking for my taste -- all are ergonomic disasters. It is a phenomenally made camera -- truly an engineering marvel. They are a nightmare to repair (and only a few places will touch them). LOTS of beautifully machined little parts. The cameras are heavy. The lenses are heavy. The optics are phenomenal as well. Accessories are expensive, but wonderfully made and machined. They were the rolls-royce of cameras in their day. St. Ansel even used one for a while. I used to have an entire set, but am now down to just the Bullseye with a 50mm Planar -- it is my only "fondler" camera. It doesn't get used much. They were probably the only 35mm camera with an interchangeable back. Take a look at the Zeiss Compendium by Barringer and Small -- lots of pictures and information on a remarkable system.

[h._p.]

The Contarex wasn't the only camera with interchangeable backs, nor was it the first. As well as Zeiss-Ikon's own Contaflex, there was the Kodak Ektra (1941), the Adox 300 (1956) and the Mamiya Magazine 35 (1957). One might, naively, wonder why the concept never really caught on, especially among amateurs. I suspect it was the very high price of the magazines which made a complete seperate body a more attractive deal.

[vidom]

Don't expect the meter to work properly, even if it reacts to light. Use a handheld meter instead.

 

Focussing a C-Rex is a PITA due to the clear screen.

 

This is the most complicated mechanical camera ever made, it is made of some 1100 parts and AFAIK it takes something like 42 steps to even remove the top plate, so this is repairperson's hell. Don't even think of getting one that doesn't work properly.

 

Mechanically, the lenses are still the best of all ever made, period. Optically they are fine, but all the other camera makers have caught up since the 70s. Watch out for separation; some lenses are notorious (i.e. the 4/135 Sonnar, which is a vey nice lens if in good order).

 

It's fun to use once you got used to all the peculiarities, but if you want a reliable top quality vintage SLR for actual shooting you may better get a Leicaflex SL, a Spotmatic or a Nikon F.

[furcafe]

I have a Contarex Model 1 ("Bullseye" in the US, "Cyclops" in the UK) w/a non-functioning meter. Per Peter Volle's post, only the later versions of the Model 1 took interchangeable screens.

 

Personally, I prefer using the Contarex Special & Super; the Special because of its brighter screen(s) (due to the lack of a meter) & waist-level finder option & the Super because of its TTL metering. While the Contarex line does have its ergonomic peculiarities (e.g., aperture controls on the body, not the lens), I wouldn't call them ergonomic "disasters" (like, for example, the Voigtlander Prominents). The controls are pretty straightforward & the camera & lenses balance nicely (in my hands, anyway). You already know about the quality of workmanship, etc.

 

If you're absolutely wedded to the idea of getting a Contarex (I agree w/Peter Volle that there are less expensive & more practical classic SLRs to collect & use) & have the extra cash, I would hold out for 1 of the 2 meterless models, the Special & Professional, & just use a handheld meter. Leaving out the meter means 1 less mechanical system to worry about. The selenium meter in the Bullseye is pretty kludgy even when working (& has all the drawbacks of other selenium meters like poor low-light sensitivity) & the more modern CDs meter in the Super, while very useful, takes the old mercury batteries (same era as a Leica M5, etc.).

[yoyo_szeto]

Hi,

I find most of the Contarex lens has the flare problem as the coating and the optical adhesive are the 1960s products. The problem is quite serious when you shoot in the daylight and outdoor environments.

[santiago_montenegro]

I have a Contarex Super Electronic and I think it is the best 35mm I own, bar none. For me, it simply requires less effort to make good images than any other camera. Optics (I only have the 55/1.4 Planar)are simply spectacular. Onboard meter is spot on, and I have always relied on it. Frankly, I think this camera's only shortcoming is its undeniable ugliness. And maybe size and weight... BTW, having never used the mechanical ones, I wonder if their ergonomics are different, 'cause I find my Contarex very user-friendly. Well, the same applies to Rollei 35s, so it must be me :).

[david_m]

The important question is, will you get much better photos using this marvel of engineering - and the answer of course is a resounding No.

[vidom]

C-Rex SE: This is one of the first truly digital cameras: it only has two operations conditions, it works or it doesn't. There's no in between. It has a tendency to change from one to the other unexpectedly and irrevocably, leaving nothing but 1/1000 when the electronics are gone, so I wouldn't trust it and stay with the mechanical ones. I think that a Super or, indeed, one of the meterless ones will be the best choice as a shooter, but a Bullseye is not bad either as long as the meter can be ignored.

[scott_gardner1]

Peter wrote:

 

> "This is one of the first truly digital cameras: it only has two operations conditions, it works or it doesn't."

 

LOL!! True binary operation!

 

BTW, the Elek link above is broken. This one works:

 

http://www.elekm.net/pages/cameras/contarex.htm

 

His summary is very droll:

 

"If you have the strength to hold and carry this camera, you won't be disappointed."

 

Enjoy!/Scott