LorenzaF

<p>J.P., great idea. I'll try this asap.<br>

Kelly, thanks a lot, yes I think so. I'll see after the check according to J.P. suggestion whether to have it fixed or keep it as it is.<br>

Thanks a lot again.</p>

<p>Thanks, J.P., I thought there could be a misalignment issue. The knob does have the marking down to 1,7 meters, but it reads 6,5 when it focuses at infinity and 2.2 when it focuses at the closest distance. I have no idea whether the lenses are collimated. I'll see when the trial shots I have made are developed, and in any case I'll have it cleaned and checked. Thanks again.</p>

Thanks, J.P., I thought there could be a misalignment issue. The knob does have the marking down to 1,7 meters, but it reads 6,5 when it focuses at infinity and 2.2 when it focuses at the closest distance. I have no idea whether the lenses are collimated. I'll see when the trial shots I have made are developed, and in any case I'll have it cleaned and checked. Thanks again.

<p>I have a question regarding a Rolleiflex Standard 622 with tessar 3,5, the one with the bubble level in the lower right corner of the viewfinder. There is one thing I could not figure out reading the manual and other resources, here and on the net. When the lenses plate is completely retracted, the focusing knob is at 6.5, and when it is completely extended (after 1 and 1/2 turn) it stops at 2.2 (reading the distances in correspondence of the white dot). Is it correct? I have no problem in focusing the camera, irrespective of the point the focusing knob starts and stops according to the distance scale engraved on the knob itself through the focusing screen, but I would like to understand why the knob does not start at the shorter distance (1.7) and stops at infinity. It sounds wrong (this way, there are two different plate positions where the camera is supposed to focus, let's say, at 4 meters) but a reference in the manual ("in focusing from infinity to 1 meter the focusing knob makes 2 complete turns") makes me think that probably I am missing something. Thanks a lot to anyone who can tell me if the camera needs to be fixed or explain the reason of this.</p>

Michael, thanks a lot. This thing of the classic cameras must be too difficult for me as, following the link you posted, I could not even understand where the Contax manual were.

 

There was no manual for the Contax II (I found the one that used to belong to my grandfather), so I dowloaded the one for IIIa, assuming that IIIa is the evolution of II. At least, the looks of the two cameras are similar, and it is better than nothing to start with, I guess.

 

Thanks again. Bye, Lorenza

Andre, unfortunately I have no information togive and I hope you don't mind if I add another request to your post.

 

I have found at my parent's house a camera that should be a Contax II, surely pre-WWII (serial no. B19938), with a tessar 50mm f2.8 (photo attached). Seems in good conditions.

 

I too would love to find more information on how it works and if it is possible to find somewhere a user manual.<div></div>

Did you find the manual for the Contax?