joseph_wei

Try a Yashica Electro with a clean viewfinder. You'll find it very comfortable to see all the framelines and area beyond, even with glasses. Working examples go for very little, and a convenient battery adapter is availible from yashicaguy.com if you'd like to take advantage of the extremely accurate built-in meter. Sharp, fast Yashinon lens included.

JW

I think some of the Exaktas used a left hand advance lever.

JW

If you're looking into Yashica TLRs, almost all of them are excellent except for the last model - the Mat-124G. This model has been known to have quality control issues, and isn't as dependable as the other TLRs in the Yashica line. Everything up to that, including the G's predecessor, the Mat-124, is great (and less expensive). If you can find a Yashica D or a Yashica 635 with a Yashinon lens, then you have a basic, solid camera with nice optics and a low price. I personally would recommend a Yashica-Mat (one of the first models) with either a Lumaxar or Yashinon lens. You do trade some reliability for convenience, but they are plentiful, easy to use, and capable of great images and dependablility.

JW

I have an Ansco Standard Speedex with the same lens you have described. Images it produces are unbelievably sharp. Although you have to work within a three shutter speed and five aperture stop range, it can still handle a variety of shooting situations well. I've used it for hiking and travel shots, as well as a few candids (no one thinks it looks like a "camera"). Even though the bellows on mine are worn, they are still light-tight. You can check this by going into a dark room and shining a flashlight through the camera with the bellows extended. It is also the most compact medium format camera I've used.

Since the Speedex is so simple, with no rangefinders, complicated shutters, or double-exposure-prevention mechanisms to fail, it is a rugged and dependable camera.

However, if you don't mind losing the compactness of a folder, I would suggest looking into a solid TLR from a reputable manufacturer for the best combination of economy, versatility, and dependability. I've used an early Yashica-Mat, a Yashica 635, a late Minolta Autocord, a Rolleicord V, and a Kalloflex, and they are all excellent performers.

JW

I've never found the 75mm Rokkor to be noticably soft in the corners at any aperture, even wide open. It's contrastier and sharper than any Rollei Tessar or Xenar, and (stopped down) comes very close to the quality of Rollei Planars and Xenotars. The increased film flatness due to the Autocord's redesigned film path (the film gets bent 90 degrees over a roller only after it's been exposed, unlike Rollei) also helps image sharpness. You can keep film in the camera for a long time without worrying about it going out of shape.

JW

All Minolta Autocords use the same Rokkor lens (although later models from the 60s may have better coatings) - it's extremely sharp and contrasty at all apertures. You'll not be disappointed.

JW

I was shooting my Yashica-Mat a few days ago when the tripod I was

using literally fell apart. Actually, it was partly my fault. The

tripod was a home-made device that my neighbor built that consisted

of a central metal pipe and wooden legs with spreaders attached to

the central pipe. There was a lock at the head of the hinged legs,

and another lock at the spreaders. Both of these locks loosened,

causing the central pipe (with the camera at the top) to fall through

and smash into the ground. I'm sure the vibration of the impact

passed completely through the pipe and into the camera.

Here's the problem: the Yashica-Mat worked perfectly after the

accident; at first, I didn't see any visible damage. I ran through

the roll of film as normal and removed the camera from the tripod to

unload it. When I did, I found that the back opening knob at the

bottom was very hard to turn (it had been smooth and fluid before).

Looking closer, I saw that the knob was tilted at a slight angle,

causing it to rub against the camera base. After removing the film

and inspecting the inside of the camera, I found no visible damage to

the back or the pressure plate.

I'm wondering whether the camera is still usable in this condition.

The accident came at a bad time; I'm planning to take this camera on

a camping trip next week. I know that a trip to the repair shop means

a costly repair (they'll inevitably tell me that it'll cost a lot),

and no Yashica-Mat for the next month or so. However, if this damage

is potentially severe, I don't want to unknowingly sacrifice my

vacation pictures. What do you guys think? Thanks!

JW

Peter,

The Lumaxar lens was the earliest form of a four-element lens mounted on the Yashica-Mat. According to Mark Hama, the Lumaxar was made in Germany to Yashica specifications. Cameras with these lenses were produced from 1957 to around 1960, when the lenses were renamed Yashinon and the 75mm focal length was dropped in favor of the 80mm (Lumaxars had been offered up until then in both focal lengths).

My particular Lumaxar-equipped Yashica-Mat has produced very sharp images at f/8 and below, and is surprisingly capable wide open. One shot I took was of the interior of a local church in the evening. I was perched on the edge of the choir loft, high above the pews, and shot at 1/10 of a second at f/3.5 handheld. With a 6x loupe, I can clearly read the gold-letters "Holy Bible" printed on the Bibles stuck in the backs of four or five pews far down below! These letters are almost invisible on the negative when viewed without a loupe.

Enjoy your camera!

JW

I would have to go with the FD 135mm f/2.5 S.C. and the FD 85mm f/1.8. Both are pleasingly sharp lenses at all apertures, are excellent glass for portraits, and have sufficiently high speed for almost any shooting situation. The 135mm f/2.5 has a smooth, yet sharp tonal quality that wasn't present in any of the other lenses I've used (much like images typical of the Zeiss Sonnar design). The 85mm f/1.8 stopped down past f/2.8 is extremely sharp and great for general use.

JW

Thanks for all the helpful advice. I got the first roll from the Contax back from development today. Unfortunately, it showed that even at the high speeds, the shutter wasn't closing fully now and then - causing burnt-out frames - so an overhaul's definitely needed. In addition, all the pictures looked like they were taken with a soft-focus filter - shaded or not. This is fine for the few portraits on the roll, but generally distracting. I might have to start saving up for another Sonnar (Russian lenses seem like too much of a gamble to be worth the time and effort).

One question: Ritzcam's offering a 50mm f/1.5 Sonnar that is listed as having "edge seperation". What's edge seperation, and is it a progressive or detrimental problem? Thanks again!

Cheers,

JW

Well, the Contax II with its uncoated Sonnar and ever-ready case

arrived two days ago. Comments: The finish is remarkably high quality

for a camera that old. The wind and rewind knobs are extremely

smooth. The long-base rangefinder/viewfinder is relatively clear and

accurate. Overall, it looks like a camera that's seen some use, but

not abuse. (Amazingly, someone in the past had neatly engraved the

initials "HCB" on the bottom of the ever-ready case - could it be...?

Cartier-Bresson? Hmmm...)

The best part? I thought the shutter straps were broken. But they're

not. In the first few minutes of playing with the controls, I was

surprised to hear the whisper-like "snick" of the shutter firing at

1/125. Opening the back, I found that the shutter was working nicely

at all speeds 1/125 and above. The slow speeds, on the other hand,

are completely dead. When set at 1/50 or below, the shutter curtains

crawl across the film gate with a low "zzzzzz" and stop halfway open.

The bad news: Looking at the front element of the lens, I thought

there was a film of grease or fingerprints covering the surface. Five

minutes of careful cleaning later, it was still there. Closer

inspection revealed that it was in fact an ugly mass of the dreaded

cleaning scratches!

I've shot one roll of color print film with it, and am awaiting the

results. The camera is so silent, and so fast to focus, it makes a

great candid shooter. However, the lack of slow speeds limits my

shooting to bright light and small apertures - both of which

basically negate the advantages of having a long-base rangefinder and

a wide-aperture lens.

Questions: (The unimportant one) How do you reset the film counter?

(The important one) I have an unserviced camera that is clean, but

works at only the four highest speeds. It has a lens that has the

heck scratched out of its front element. And there's only $130 left

in my photo equipment budget. I can either spend the money on a

complete shutter overhaul/CLA, or a cleaner Sonnar (which may take me

a long time and much effort to find a good one). What should I do?

Thanks in advance for your help.

Cheers,

JW

Ja, ich spreche Deutsch auch - ich habe es drei Jahre in der Schule gelernt. Ich glaube, dass es nicht so gut ist. Vielen dank fuer das Information, Peter. Es war ausgezeichnet und sehr interressant.

Finally, I get a real-life chance to use this high-school German that I've been studying for these past three years! :-D

Thanks to all of you for your comments, information, and advice. I'll add an update and hopefully post some pictures once the Contax is in full working order.

Cheers,

JW

Isaac,

I've shot some portraits with my Yashica-Mat wide open, and I understand what you mean. My best medium-format portraits were actually taken with a very old Mamiyaflex TLR with an equally old 180mm f/4.5 Mamiya-Sekor lens pair I borrowed from my school photo department. Unfortunately, not long after I returned it, it mysteriously disappeared (probably stolen).

I think this camera/lens combination is still availible on Ebay for not much money, and you can always substitute a newer camera, such as a Mamiya C2, C33, or C330, for the body. If you do get this setup, you probably won't need another TLR for portraits again. True, the f/4.5 aperture is rather slow indoors, but the bokeh and sharpness are incredible. The limited depth of field and lens design really makes for smooth skin tones and an old image quality that can only be described as "three-dimensional". Hope this helps.

JW

Thanks once again for all the great responses! I'm now much more confident that the Contax will perform nicely once it's up to spec.

To Mike Kovacs - the local guy is offering $130 for the overhaul. I've seen Henry Scherer's site, and although he seems to be a extremely meticulous and competant repairman, my meager student budget just can't afford the price of his work. You mentioned the possiblity of the shutter being swapped for a Kiev copy - is there any way I can check this after my camera's repaired (without having to tear it apart, of course)?

Very last question: do any of you guys have a spare Contax lens cap lying around? No one in my area - including the seller, repairman, or camera shop seems to have once of these. As long as it fits well, any condition would do fine. I'd be willing to pay a small sum for it too. Thanks a lot!

Cheers,

JW

Many thanks to all of you! The information so far has been extremely encouraging and helpful. I asked the question in order to find out whether I should invest in my first Contax camera - a prewar Contax II with a 50mm f/2 Sonnar. Well, the camera's now in the mail, and I'll be sending it straight to the local repairman as soon as it arrives (the shutter straps are broken).

Has anyone used an uncoated Sonnar with color (print or slide) film? I can easily compensate for the change in contrast on B&W film during printing, but will the lack of coating cause unpleasant color casts on color film?

My final question (I think) is actually about the Contax II camera itself. If the shutter is so complex, as many sources have mentioned, does that mean that these straps will have to be replaced periodically? Mantele also mentions that "the shutter repays constant use." Would that mean if I left the camera idle for a few months (which I might have to do, due to the demands of school and life), it would slowly "degrade" and fall apart?

Thanks once again for all your help!

JW

When I first started out in photography, I thought all my equipment had to be shiny clean. Now I know better. I'd take a good, working, beat-up camera or lens any day (optics have to be at least OK on lenses, though - they're the ones that actually "make" the pictures). It's way better than having to worry about adding that extra scratch to that flawless chrome finish. Plus, it's often very economical. :-)

JW

For the best quality and the least expense, try the FD 28mm f/2.8 (bayonet mount) and FD 135 f/2.5 S.C. (silver breechlock mount) lenses. I've used those two, along with my FD 50mm f/1.4 for several years with great results. In my opinion, the 24mm focal length is a tad bit too wide/easy-to-cause-distortion, and 35mm is too narrow for a good "wide-angle effect". Prices combined, these two won't cost you more than $160 or so. When you get used to the 135mm focal length, you might want to add an 85mm f/1.8 as an in-between lens. Almost 95% of my photography is done with these four lenses. Hope this helps.

JW

A question to those Contax rangefinder users out there.

I understand that the Sonnar lenses are sharp and have lots of "bite"

(not sure exactly what that is; Ivor Mantele mentions it in his book,

Collecting And Using Classic Cameras). However, my previous, short-

lived experience with a Zeiss Nettar 6x4.5cm folder makes me

suspicious about the uncoated aspect of the Sonnar. The uncoated

Novar on the pre-war Nettar was so flare-prone, and so soft, that

almost every image I made with it in the one week I borrowed it was

flat & disappointing.

Is the Sonnar different in this respect? In your use of uncoated

Sonnars, have any of you found them to be deficient under conditions

such as bright sunlight or while using low-contrast film? Mantele's

sharp, contrasty pictures supposedly made with an uncoated Sonnar in

his book seem to be on par with results I see regularly from my Canon

FD lenses. Do you think he was using high-contrast film (i.e. Pan F)

to reduce the flare and make the image look "sharper", or is the

Sonnar really that good? Thanks!

JW

The Autocord III that I've used had a terrible magnifier. Not only was it small, but the spring was also worn out, which caused the magnifer to hang at an angle, out of parallel with the focusing screen.

On any TLR, I would never try to compose with the magnifier. Too often, the magnifier distorts the edges of the screen. I find it much easier to focus with the magnifier first, and then use the ground glass to compose.

JW

I went back to the store yesterday and found the man who had repaired my Yashica-Mat there, inspecting the cameras. Turns out he was the one selling the Kalloflex! He told me that the Kalloflex had been completely CLA'd only a few months ago, and that the chip in the glass had been there when he had first received the camera. Because of the defect, he also lowered the price on the spot to $50. I went ahead and bought it.

As Francois mentioned, the focusing screen is pretty dark in the corners compared to my Yashica-Mat. However, I found that using the magnifier helped focusing significantly, and that the screen was perfectly fine outdoors. The tough build quality of the camera is very impressive, and the winding is super-smooth compared to my Yashica-Mat. I plan to use this camera for applications that require its ruggedness, such as hiking and mountain climbing. Thanks to all who contributed. As always, it was a great help!

JW

After reading so many posts regarding the wonderful archival quality

of 35mm Kodachrome - and knowing that this film hasn't been available

in MF for some time, I was wondering if a film with the archival

quality of Kodachrome exists in MF. I've shot a couple of rolls of

Ektachrome with my Yashica-Mat with great results, but I'm now

starting a family documentation project that would really benefit to

have some kind of archival color MF slide film. Any ideas? Thanks!

JW

Dana,

My Yashica-Mat was CLA'd by a retired local repairman - he did a good job repairing and restoring the camera, but it took over a month, and the slow speeds still run a tad bit too slow. If I were you, I'd send your camera to Mark Hama in Georgia. He used to work in the Yashica factory, building and servicing Yashica-Mats. I believe a full CLA by him costs around $100. His website is www.markhama.com

JW

I've searched both photo.net and the internet and have gotten very

little information on this TLR. A local antique shop is offering this

camera for $100. Main features include a 75mm f/3.5 Prominar lens,

Seikosha shutter, and combined wind lever/focus knob.

From the few sources I've seen, the Kalloflex seems to be a

relatively rare and rugged camera, and my first impressions handling

it were favorable. However, is it worth selling my decent, recently

CLA'd 1957 Yashica-Mat for? The Kalloflex in question is pretty

dirty, may have a permenantly damaged view lens surface (looks like

someone chipped a small, round piece off the glass at the edge), and

has no known history of repair. The relatively low price is pretty

suspicious, too. Any ideas, info, or comments? Thanks!

JW

Dana,

The film wind lever is attached to the stub with a small metal bar that threads through the prongs on the lever and through the hollow stub. On my Yashica-Mat (one of the earliest 1957 models), this little bar tends to thread itself out of position after prolonged winding, causing the lever to loosen from the stub. This may be why your Yashica-Mat is missing its wind lever. If you do find a replacement lever, make sure it has that little metal bar. I really like my Yashica-Mat - even though it's old and battle-worn, it manages to produce sharp negatives and slides every time. Hope this helps.

JW

That gear is a mechanical film sensor for activating the film counter. It shouldn't be secured; instead, it's supposed to contact the film and be pushed back in order to unlock the film counter. In addition, since 120 film is paper-backed, there should be no danger of the gear scratching the film.

JW