Contaflex 11

[marc_bergman1]

<p>Tony,</p>

<p>Wonderful post. I am surprised when you say that the negatives were dense because your resulting images look fine. I was going to compliment you on the nice tones.</p>

<p>Perhaps I should amend my reluctance to own some leaf shutter cameras.</p>

[tony_lockerbie]

<p>Thanks Bruce, Marc.<br>

Bruce, the Bessamatic is really just a personal thing, but I'm taken by it's ease of use, lovely feel and it looks the bomb too!<br>

Also, I think that the lenses for the Bessamatic were equal, and at times better than the opposition, particularly the Septon.<br>

Marc, they did scan quite well, but Rick alerted me to the fact that slightly underdone negs seem to scan better, and he is quite right.</p>

[tony_lockerbie]

<p>Picture of the Bessamatic and also some of it's rivals.</p><div></div>

[tony_lockerbie]

<p>Now the others.</p><div></div>

[royall_berndt]

The II is my favorite of the line--because the focusing is smooth and has a short throw. I find later Contaflexes to have very stiff focusing and a long throw. Also, the meter on the II is simpler to read than the others.

[tony_lockerbie]

<p>Now we should have a show of hands as to which you prefer.</p>

[james_elwing]

<p>Tony:<br>

Hey these are all German. In the interest of fairness, shouldn't you throw in a Topcon Uni or similar :-)</p>

[brett_rogers]

<p>^^<br />The Germans pioneered the lens shutter (they pioneered the lens shutter SLR, and, the SLR for that matter). I doubt any of the Oriental offerings could match a Contaflex or a well cared for Bessamatic for reliability. I'd take a Fujicarex given the opportunity though, my experience of their 1960s rangefinders and their lenses has been generally good and they're better made than a lot of people realise.<br /><br />There were two variations of Contaflex II. The earlier one with dual range meter such as Tony has pictured, may easily be confirmed by the two small slots for the high EV range which functions with the cover closed (the low range, of course, being utilised with the cover open. The second variation has a single range meter requiring the cover to be opened for metering at any usable EV. I think there's one at the front in the group photo <strong>Tony</strong> posted.<br /><br />Coincidentally, after having it for a year or two I put a roll of Acros 100 through one of my IIs a couple of weeks ago. The one second speed can slow after sitting for a while, and it could probably make exposures slightly faster than it is doing after activating the release. But it's working well enough to not worry about stripping it down at this point. I'm lucky to have one in immaculate condition like Tony's (I have a few others also) and the meter is in perfect working order and dead accurate at high and low EV on the DIN scale. It came out pre-ASA re-calibration so won't match modern meters perfectly for ISO but this is a consequence of the change in metrics, not any variation from its spec.<br /><br />The catalyst for getting it out and using it was my recent acquisition of a Teleskop 1.7 x converter and its bracket in good repair. I was keen to try it out. It's a very usable focal length, long enough to stand out from the 45mm Tessar but short enough to be very versatile for general photography.<br /><br />I've just scanned the film today and initial indications are that the Teleskop is good and sharp in the centre but this falls of markedly at the edges. In fairness I seem to recall Zeiss recommended it be stopped down for best performance, and the few images I made at smaller apertures show much better performance across the frame. Having said this there's no doubt it's not up to the 85mm Pro Tessar available for unit focus models. It's still a worthwhile addition for portraiture since it's sharp enough in the centre and edge sharpness is often of less importance, also useful for landscapes, with the proviso that, if one is seeking edge to edge sharpness, stopping down will be required, and in this context I'd almost consider it a tripod lens (unless you prefer faster films or have a lot of light at your disposal). It also looks a million dollars fitted to a I or II and really transforms the appearance of what is already a very attractive camera, and a very, very well made one.<br /><br />Unit focus Contaflexes are sometimes stiff to focus with. But this is only because the original grease has dried out. It can also be responsible for some play in the shutter/lens assembly. Nothing complicated about why: there's just not enough grease in the threads to eliminate play. Once they've been cleaned and lubricated with fresh grease, not only are they much smoother, there's no play in the assembly, either. It's an easy job to do once you're familiar with the type, but can be tedious if the helicals are not assembled correctly because if one does not know how to approach the task it's very easy to get the infinity off. Front cell I and II models can get stiff too occasionally. The original type also had several different focus rings with varying throws from close to infinity, several different shutter installations and lots of little running changes. The earliest types with the Compur Rapid shutter design are a pain in the proverbial to work on, not only are they very different to later unit focus types, they're very different to later Contaflex Is. Just about the only type I really don't like to work on. Easiest model? Probably the first model Super, or the Super B. Every model type (except the BC/S, the same model, really) has its own unique differences in lens mount, shutter, retaining rings, shutter drive, etc. Zeiss kept on fine tuning the configuration until the end, some changes were improvements, others, perhaps less so.<br /><br />All the models featured a small inspection port inside the rewind side of the back. If your II has a spotty finder, you can try removing this, <strong>Tony</strong>, there's not a lot of room but it gets you inside the mirror box. With some care and ingenuity it is possible to clean the underneath of the focus screen and the mirror without removing the lens and the shutter, first. I'd advise against blowing it out, however as experience suggests you're likely to send as much contamination up past the edges of the screen to where you can't access it without top cover removal, as you would extract from the cavity. Gentle vacuum might be a better scheme, if there's more dust than a few passes with a dampened lens tissue can't pick up.<br /><br />If you're not up to sorting out your Supers slow speeds, send them down to me in Tasmania, I can do them in my sleep, really. I'd only charge you a moderate fee, and would be open to swapping a project or two instead, for the work, if it's interesting, and German (or <em>very</em> interesting, and Japanese!).<br /><br />That black S is very fetching, although I personally think the Super BC with "Zeiss Ikon" in large script is just slightly more appealing than the S version. They also made a few BCs in black. Black S or BC models are the only Contaflex Tessar variation I don't have, yet, and a black BC would be a very, very tempting addition one day. I'd add a shot of my Contaflex family but not sure I have a lens wide enough for them all. It's usually a Super BC that gets the nod, or a Rapid. Generally, the later the model, the sharper the Tessar. Much debate without any general consensus has taken place within the ZICG over precisely when the Tessar was recomputed. Without doubt any version is a good performer, but my Super BC and very late S are stunningly sharp. <br /><br />I wholeheartedly agree the Bessamatic is a superlative SLR and as a bonus has possibly the sexiest sounding mechanism ever made. Of all the lens shutter SLRs I have handled it has the best ergonomics. You can use it as you would any other SLR without making any allowances for its shutter design, and it handles better than many much younger types. Only the lack of an instant return mirror really dates it, otherwise you might be forgiven for thinking it was made in the 1970s, not the 1950s, so easy is it to shoot with. They're also a lot more reliable than they are generally given credit for. Although some parts have a tendency to wear and they're arguably not as long lived as a Contaflex (which, if cared for, will last a <em>very</em> long time) I would argue that their biggest typical problem was their owners not understanding their design features, or poking their fingers at that rear capping plate!<br /><br />They're also a true Voigtlander. Which means they're about twice as complicated as a Contaflex, beautifully finished, unusually constructed, and require an open minded technician to be able to enjoy working on them. I had a good run out of my original model for years (Tony's is the later, Deluxe, version) until it abruptly locked up late last year. It's probably just the bottom rack under the lower cover that needs some adjustment, but I've been too pre-occupied with my Contax to work on other types lately. Thanks for the images and information, <strong>Tony</strong>.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>I agree with you, Tony: that Bessamatic combo is beautiful.</p>

[Aoresteen]

<p>Nice!!! I prefer my Rapid to my Super. I just got my Contaflex S Black back from a CLA today and will use tomorrow if the weather is better!</p>

[tony_lockerbie]

<p>Thanks for all that comprehensive info Brett, much appreciated! Nice to know about the viewfinder access, I will check that out.<br>

I will send you a PM in due course...<br>

Cheers,<br>

Tony</p>

[chuck_foreman1]

Wow.. Brett ...you packed a lot of info here. Amazing that you know so much about this model as I have

benefited immensely from this knowledge .. I have assumed I have too many cameras and have very little

attention given to the Bessamatic type here. I loved your building shots ..showed excellent contrast and

tone despite your comments to the contrary. I have a super B and I think it'S a III model. Both have the

removable 2.8.Tessar. I have always been very impressed with the performance of this lens so I really want

to get my Super B back up and running. The focus is blocky that is; it is stiff to move but once moving, OK

.

Tony Thanks for a very proactive post on a model that many of us have experience with across the ages.

[bruce_z._li2]

Hi Tony, maybe another treatise on the Bessamatic and

Septon? Would be quite interesting.

[MTC Photography]

<p>My first Contaflex is Contaflex II, it is nice camera made good pictures, however mine was not reliable at all:<br>

the shutter jamed up several times, was repaired several times. Freezed shutter of used Contaflex II in used camera dealers is a common problem. <br>

So I bought a Contaflex Super B instead, apparently, this one is more reliable than the II<br>

One more problem with II, the film winding and shutter clocking wheel is extremely tight, hard on the fingers,<br>

I remember I had to bite my teeth to wind the film on Contaflex II<br>

The Super B has a film winding lever, winding film is a lot easier</p>

[MTC Photography]

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18194322-md.jpg" alt="" width="473" height="680" /><br>

Contaflex II, 1968 Beijing Blue Cloud Temple</p>

[MTC Photography]

<p>Carl Zeiss 8x30B monocular can also be directly attached to Contaflex SLR for telephoto and<br /> macro photo</p>

<p>The proxar lens for Contaflex SLR: 1M,0.5M,0.3M,0.2M push in type 4 in a set</p>

<p>Proxar 27mm thread 0.1M bought separately.</p>

[brett_rogers]

<p>Perhaps your Contaflex II needed better attention than it got, <strong>Martin</strong>? I've got four or so IIs here, the worst I could say about them is that if the shutter blades are dragging, it will be a bit harder than usual to wind one, but this reflects a need to clean them, continuing to use one in this state places a lot of additional stress on the blades attachment points which can lead to failure. It sounds like something else was badly adjusted in yours, though.<br /><br />The original model and the II are quite different in many ways to subsequent designs (with early versions of the original having their own particular differences, as touched on previously). The drive system for the aperture mechanism and the shutter cocking is completely different to the unit focus models. But you can't single out the Super B as being the best. The New Super has a different shutter mount to the Super B. The original Super has a different coupling system to the later one. The Rapid has a lever wind and is different again, and the III and IV are unit focus but still have a knob wind. And yet all of these can be pleasant and reliable cameras to use, as, indeed, can the Super BC and S.<br /><br />I wouldn't single out the II as being the least reliable because all of these types are over forty years old, some over sixty. Like any other type or make of camera that has a Synchro Compur shutter of the same vintage, nearly any Contaflex found today is not likely to function correctly at all speeds until the shutter mechanism has been cleaned and lubricated. Of the 30 plus I have handled only around 10% of those worked well as received, most at the least had sticking slow speeds if not sticking aperture systems, too. Occasionally mirror height needs some fine tuning or rear capping plate timing adjusted for wear with certain models.<br /><br />I'm not dismissing your experience with your own (though I do ponder if it received competent attention from someone who understands the type). Clearly it happened to you. But the II isn't the lemon of the Contaflex line. In my view it's no better or worse than any other type, it just has its own peculiarities. It's really just a later original model with a built in meter added (much as a Contaflex IV is a essentially a III with meter installed). I've made a few IIs run well and, as far as I know, they are still running well. They're not my favourite model to work on, but this isn't because of their quality, rather the fiddly way in which the front components come apart. Later, unit focus models have their own pitfalls (Eg. it's very easy to throw the infinity focus off and have to reset this from scratch if you don't know how to avoid this). I just find, personally, they're easier for me to work on. But the II is well made and high quality, in fact, in a few little details they are actually better made than later models. Lens components are matched and marked as a set. Shutter and aperture speeds are engraved and painted. The backs are numbered to the camera body. All of these things were dropped by the time later models such as the Super B came out: it's very easy to inadvertently rub the aperture markings off the control ring on a Super B just by using it, they're simply screen printed on. There are good and bad points to all of them. It's a case of finding the one you get along with. I like all of them, so have one or more of each.</p>

[tony_lockerbie]

<p>Turned into an interesting thread, thanks all, especially Brett. The 11 is still my favourite, both of mine work well and have that Contax like smoothness to the controls.<br>

There is no doubt that the later Tessar on the Super B etc. is a jewel of a lens, but I still found that all of the Tessars are very good.<br>

Brett, I have noticed that the mirror moves very slightly on my Super B when you half press the shutter release, this changes the focus a bit....hard to know where the correct focus is. Have you seen this problem?</p>

[brett_rogers]

<p><strong>Tony</strong>,<br /> No, I understand precisely what you are describing, but it's not an issue that I have encountered personally and I have handled more than a few Contaflexes. Just to be sure, I took a Super B, Super, III, Rapid and a II out of my cabinet and wound and released them all as gently as I possibly could, several times. In every case, the mirrors remained perfectly still until the finder blacked out when the front shutters closed. <br /><br />I suspect that in the case of your Super B the release mechanism is sticking a little, just enough to delay the closure of the lens shutter? One should usually never see the mirror of a Contaflex retract, because it should do so after the shutter has closed first. As far as which position is correct, I'd suspect the initial setting on being wound would be the most likely to be right, and you can of course confirm this by doing an infinity check through the lens. Should it happen to be the second position that is right I would have to presume that the mirror mechanism may not be moving smoothly. There's just enough room through that aforementioned access port to actuate the mirror gently with a toothpick or similar to check its operation. If it is at fault, the simple way (well, relatively), to reach the components is to remove the lens/shutter. Top cover removal might be in order depending on what the fault was but it doesn't take long to take the front off a Super B, so that is where I would start looking if needed. Being a Super B, you can mount a 85mm or 115mm Pro Tessar if it helps, to magnify the image through the finder when you're checking it. Let me know how you get on, please. I'll reply to your email probably later tonight, too.</p>

[tony_lockerbie]

<p>Thanks Brett, your help is much appreciated!</p>