Contax 11A

[tony_lockerbie]

<p>More rainy weather and I'm stuck inside so great chance to post some more!<br>

Had to put up a Contax after doing the Nikon just to prove no favouritism. Frightful ergonomics aside, the Contax is a lovely thing, beautifully made by a company that was at it's height when this camera was made. The Contax, although beautifully made and blessed with exceptional lenses, was just no match for the Leica M3, M2, with their big parallax corrected and multi-frame viewfinders.<br>

The Leica went on to great things and the Contax just faded away...along with Zeiss Ikon unfortunately.<br>

My 11A is of course a post war camera, but here I have used the pre-war uncoated 1.5 Sonnar. The Sonnar, in both F2 and 1.5 versions is just a fabulous lens and I'm sure the reason a lot of people opted for a Contax. Even uncoated, this lens is sharp and contrasty. The 11A differs from the 111A in not having a meter on top, but I think the camera looks neater without it.<br>

When I go walkabout with my 5x4 gear I often throw a CMC in my bag as well, and the Contax came with me on an excursion to a windswept beach near my home.</p><div></div>

[tony_lockerbie]

<p>First Pic.</p><div></div>

[tony_lockerbie]

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

[tony_lockerbie]

<p>No.3</p><div></div>

[tony_lockerbie]

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

[tony_lockerbie]

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

[tony_lockerbie]

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

[tony_lockerbie]

<p>Ignore that last one...it's not swamp grass! Try to find it.</p><div></div>

[tony_lockerbie]

<p>The sonnar has a magic look wide open, very sharp when stopped down. That's all for now and the film was Pan F+ developed in Rodinal 1:50, scanned on an Epsom V750, and hey...I only forgot to re-size one!<br>

I did use a light yellow Zeiss filter and a lens hood from my coated 50mm F2 Sonnar and noticed that there was a little clipping at the corners of the frame...so the hood is not quite suitable for the 1.5 for some reason.</p>

[gene m]

<p>The grass at the right and left foreground on <em>Wallagoot Beach</em> is remarkable. Hell. They're all remarkable and inspiring.<br /> I used to shoot lots of 35mm B&W. I'm going to start doing so again.</p>

<p>Thanks</p>

[tony_lockerbie]

<p>Thanks Gene, I know you are a Contax lover.</p>

[tony_lockerbie]

<p>Thought I would post an older pic taken with the Sonnar wide open, I do like the look.</p><div></div>

[subbarayan_prasanna]

<p>Very nice sharp pictures. Love the wild beaches and the cloud formation. Thanks <strong>Tony</strong>. sp.</p>

[rod_larson]

<p>I hope it keeps on raining if it keeps you posting. The grass is a very nice, peaceful photo.<br>

Keep up the good work.</p>

[Mike Gammill]

<p>While all images are nice, the Wallagoot Beach is my favorite. Thanks for posting.</p>

[chansonbleu]

<p>Wonderful images Tony! The last photo of the Sonnar wide open really shows what a fne lens it is.</p>

[tony_lockerbie]

<p>Thanks to all! James, Holly is a cross Poodle-Cavalier Spaniel....but she does love the water. Zeiss may have pioneered coating but only at the end of WW11, before that all lenses were uncoated.<br>

The other lens I have is the post war coated F2 Sonnar, contemporary to the camera.</p>

[steve_mareno1]

<p>I love uncoated glass. There's two Ikofex TLRs sitting here w/ identical lenses, except that the earlier camera has the barely coated Novar, while the later one has the obviously coated lens w/ deep blue coloring. In B&W, the earlier lens is sharper and just plain images better, assuming that you put a good hood on it of course. It's funny. I understand that coatings increase light transmission, yet they also seem to significantly affect IQ as well. Some people may object to the visible grain in your skies and OOF areas, but I like it very much. It unifies the whole composition in a nice way. </p>

[john_wiegerink1]

<p>Great camera! Great shots! I sold my last Contax about 12yrs ago and wish I would have kept it. I'm not loosing sleep over it, but do wish it were still around. It was a mint IIA color dial with an equally nice red t coated Sonnar. I made a choice to keep either my Leica IIIA with Summitar or the Contax. I picked the Leica instead. Why? Well, I never got used to the focus wheel/viewfinder location on the Contax cameras. I would constantly forget to crook my finger and block the stupid window with it. Just me I guess, but I found the Leica a dream to use in comparison to the Contax. That f2 coated Sonnar was the "cat meow" for color slide film and super sharp, but I like the Summitar better for B&W. Many people think the older uncoated Sonnars were the best 35mm lens ever for B&W work since the internal flare seemed to help "dig" into the shadows more and give your shots longer tonal scale than the high contrasty coated lenses do. I think Tony's beach shots prove this very thing. Makes since to me. I just might have to watch for a Contax to come by and snatch it up when it does. NICE SHOTS! JohnW</p>

[chuck_foreman1]

Excellent shots .. Indeed... let it rain. I loved the big shots with the sky. I loved the look wtih the filter. It's something I'm going for a lot these days.. You're a lot better at it than I am. Overall you have worked a lot with B&W and it shows ihn your compostitional style. I think it's all about knowing what you want and making it happen. It's happening here

 

. A few years back I shot some Ilford 50 and I was very disappointed in my result. Too much contrast, I had no breadth to the tone. I proabably should practice a bit and experiment too with wider apertures.

A real Zeiss Sonnar has long been on my wish list .... but they're so damn expensive!!

[rick_drawbridge]

<p>Great stuff again <strong>Tony</strong>; that coffee is really going for it! (Are you sure it's not Irish coffee?) All nice, though I reckon Wallergoot Beach is the pick of them. It's the sort of photograph that makes me wish I could work in oil paints...Most Sonnar-style lenses appeal to me, and this original lives up to it's reputation. I'd also agree that the meter-less Contax (or Kiev) is a better looker than the top-heavy metered version.</p>

[steve_levine]

<p>That's a beauty Tony, and lovely shots too.It's hard to slam the ergonomics on something so precisely built. Especially on a camera first sold in 1950!</p>

<p>The focus wheel, and those knobs will eventually endear themselves to the dedicated user. As for the uncoated lenses. Try shooting color film on a cloudy bright day. They look is unique, and has that vintage feel to it.</p>

[tony_lockerbie]

<p>Thanks Rick, double shot espresso! Look forward to some snow pictures from you from the weather that we just sent over.<br>

Steve, you're right , I'm a bit hard on the ergonomics but the silky smooth wind knob makes up for it I guess. Never shot colour with the Contax, but took some with the Prominent and Nokton...they were vintage!</p>

[Troll]

<p>Just before WW2 the Contax II was actually slightly cheaper than the equivalent Leica, and actually outsold them.<br>

I LOVE my IIA (very, very late model), but you're right that the ergonomics really suck (compared with the Barnack Leicas). (The viewfinders on BOTH brands sucked.)</p>

[tony_lockerbie]

<p>Thanks to Steve , John and Chuck for your nice praise. I do love my B&W, seem to see everything in Mono!<br>

PanF+ can be a handful if you are not careful, I find that by diluting Rodinal to1 :50 that the contrast is pulled in nicely. Uncoated lenses can be really excellent on B&W as Steve has said, the internal reflections actually help with opening out the shadows and can give a nice glow to brightly lit subjects.<br>

If you want a bit more kick in the contrast, just add a yellow or orange filter. A lot of early fast lenses suffer from astigmatism, and that usually affects the blue wavelength most. The slight blue focus difference will show as a blue cast on colour or that nice "Leica" glow in B&W. A yellow filter will almost eliminate this effect if that's what ou want.</p>