vidom

Any of these would do as a nice classic slr for serious work. Show me a modern 35mm camera that can seriously outperform these! If there is any truth in what HS writes about C'rexes I can't confirm it from my own experience - both my C'rexes are great shooters, the shutter is reliable and precise enough for me; only the Bullseye's meter is somewhat unreliable, so I'm using the camera with an external meter.<div></div>

Why not stay with the brands you already have and like? I'd suggest a Leicafelx SL or, if you can find one, a Contarex Super. Both meet all your requirements, and as both have TTL metering they are quite usable. A Contarex is difficult to service, but those that have survived will propably survive more amateur use for a long time. I'd keep my hands off a Bullseye as a shooter unless you don't mind using a handheld meter because the selenium cell is not reliable even if it still works. Alpas have a reputation for shutter tapering and are also difficult to service, and a C'rex is much better value for less money - think of all those wonderful lenses! Doug Herr features the Leicaflex SL somewhere on PN so I don't have to describe it.

What Ronald said. Both lenses are very prone to fogging. Nine out of ten collapsible Summicrons also have cleaning marks due to the soft glass and coating of the front lens. A clean Summarit will easily outperform a Summicron with cleaning marks. Sure, the Summarit is somewhat soft wide open, but there is not much relevant difference between both from f4. There really is not much difference in contrast, both are relatively low contrast lenses. Contrary to PN wisdom the collapsible Summicron is anything but a stellar performer by today's standards - the big step was the one between the collapsible and the rigid 'cron, which is great indeed.

 

Do yourself a favour and try to get a clean rigid Summicron; if you only have the choice between a collapsible 'cron and a Summarit take the one that has better glass.

Depending on mechanical condition, the Carl Zeiss Tessar that came with the Icarexes (which is a relabled Voigtlander Color-Skopar, which, OTOH, is a Tessar clone construction-wise - the Icarex being a Voigtlander camera that came to the market after the Zeiss-Ikon-Voigtlander merger) is actually a very fine performer. It must not be confused with the M42 Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar, which can be crap mechanically , but should - like most Tessar type lenses - also be a nice performer. The Icarex' shutter is quite reliable, the meter is not. A Spotmatic is a fine camera, and if its meter works properly, it's propably a more reliable camera than the Icarex. That said, I'd still perfer the Icarex if it were in perfect condition - everyone has a Spotmatic...

I have two SL and a SL2 and I like all of them. Actually, I like the SL better because it has a somewhat softer sound and I find it more pleasant to hold in my hands due to it's rounder edges. That said, I prefer the screen of the SL2 and my 2,8/24 is the R lens I most often use and it doesn't work with the SL, so I'm glad I don't have to decide between them. They don't make things like these no more!

Actually, this is a no-brainer: The Color-Skopar is a 4 element Tessar type lens, the Color-Lanthar is a simple consumer grade triplet. You're confusing the Color-Lanthar with the APO-Lanthar, which is a highly corrected (and regarded) 5-element Heliar type lens for medium and large format. There also is a 3,5/90 Apo Lanthar made by Cosina for their Voigtlander brand which is a modern lens for LTM and has nothing to do with the classic Lanthar lenses.

Like all Tessar type lenses, the Elmar is a little soft wide open and has to be stopped down to f8 for best performance. Stopped down, there is - in my humble experience - not much visible difference between the two. As Harold Merklinger put it: "It (the first 'cron) was the first 'high speed' lens that equaled the performance of the 3,5/50 Elmar at any given f-stop" (<a href="http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/SHBG12.pdf"> Shutterbug June 1994</a>)- that's it. There also is not too much visible difference between the first 'cron and the coated post-war Summitar. The first rigid 'cron plays in a different league by comparison, as Merklinger also points out.

I think it very much depends on what equipment it is. If you happen to have a mint Leica 250 or an early Nikon RF, a Super Nettel II or something rare like that, you'd annihilate lots of value by adding signs of use. OTOH it doesn't make much sense to preserve a mass produced camera for posterity - using them keeps them alive.

I'd like to expand my R range, the longest lens I now have being a 2,8/135. As a

180 would be too close to the 135 I already have, I think about buying a 4/250

(1. version) because it is quite cheap. Any first hand impressions here? I've

read Erwin's "expertise" on this lens, but it can't really be that bad, can it?

 

Regards

Peter

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.

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.

I do. The 426 was made for the Contina III with interchangeable Pantar lenses, it has framelines for the 30, 45 and 75 mm Pantar lenses. The 427 is a Contax finder with 35, 50, 85 and 135 mm framelines (some also have framelines for the Stereotar half frame).

I have recently got one and was quite surprised: I think it is better than it's reputation. From the few test shots I have taken I can tell that it is fairly soft wide open, better but still soft at f 2 and becoming contrastier and sharper from f 2,8. My one seems to be on par with the coated post war Elmar 3,5/50 from f 4. I'd think the sweet spot is between f 5,6 and f 8 when the edges of the frame gain contrast and resolution. The wider apertures may be nice for a semi soft-focus-like pictoral effect.

Check some of my old posts for some Biogon 21 shots and other shots made with most of the Contax RF lenses that were available in the 50s; I own most of them. Look out for mechanical faults and separation of lens elements, which seems to be the most common fault with Zeiss glass (the 4/135 Sonnar is notorious in this aspect). When in good working order, all of the post war Zeiss lenses deliver the goods. Don't expect miracles.

I stole this pic somewhere. I own one of those. It is a relatively big finder with brightline frames for 35, 50, 85 and 135 mm, mirror-projected into view from the top window. Some also have half frames for use with the Stereotar (mine doesn't); the space outside of the 35mm frame covers the 21mm field of view. All framelines can be seen all the same time, so the view is somewhat cluttered. It is a late universal finder made for Contax IIa/IIIa that covers all focal lengths made for the Contax. I love to use it with the 21mm Biogon because the framelines help to level the camera against the horizon whereas both the 21mm finder and the 440 universal finder distort the view too much to level the camera from looking through the finder. As long as you don't mind all those framelines, this is the brightest universal finder for Contax you'll ever find.<div></div>

I have a post war coated Opton 1,5/50, an Opton and a Carl Zeiss 2/50 and a post war coated Carl Zeiss Jena 2/50. The 1,5/50 at f/2 seems to be a little contrastier than any of the 2/50s at f/2, but from f/2,8 I can't see much difference between any of them; the 2/50s may benefit more from stopping down - I think from f/4 on they are a little contrastier than the 1,5. I can't see any difference in performance between the Zeiss Jena 2/50 and both Zeiss Oberkochen 2/50s; mechanically, however, they are worlds apart. All of them are nice performers with quite a similar fingerprint and there is no real world difference to be seen unless you compare test shots side by side.

I just wonder what effect the twenty-eight paper-bound detective stories had on her photography - maybe the lack of enough detective stories is what's wrong with my photographic efforts!

I own a third party M42-K adaptor (made by HAMA in Germany) that I bought 15 years ago; it doesn't have any infinity focussing problems with Zeiss Jena (or any other) M42 lenses. Pentax OEM adaptors may still be available from the maker as they would fit the latest Pentax DSLRs as well. Novoflex will most certainly make one.

I'm not exactly an expert, and I only have a European view to add, but please allow me a few comments regarding Part III (post war) - my expertise is that I bought some of the lenses recently:

 

It seems unlikely that the post war Jena Sonnar 2/50 is more expensive than a 2/50 Opton Sonnar, and Sonnar 2/50s - all of them - are so common that 200 or 300 bucks seem a bit overpriced. The Sonnar 1,5/50 is, in my experience, generally more expensive than the 2/50. As Contax cameras are rarely sold without a normal lens, these are seldom sold separately, so you do most definitely get a better deal if you buy a Contax with its Sonnar; a disfunct Contax with nice Sonnar will be much cheaper than the Sonnar sold separately.

 

There are post war Tessar 3,5/50 lenses made by Zeiss Jena and Zeiss Oberkochen, but the Jena one is collapsible, not so rare and will most definitely not cost $ 750. The rigid Zeiss Oberkochen one is quite rare, but will propably also be sold for less if one ever gets available.

 

There is no post war (!) Zeiss Jena Triotar 4/85, only an Opton (very rare) and a Carl Zeiss Triotar (Oberkochen, still relatively rare). They may be more expesive due to rarity, but OTOH this is a much underestimated lens so that may also influence its value.

 

Peter

@ Bill Mitchell: You're wrong; it's the Bessa II with 4.5 Apo-Lanthar for both b/w and colour.

Charles, I work this way for test shots. As a collector/user of old cameras I am quite often interested in testing newly acquired lenses or cameras (some of my pics posted here were made this way); there is not much sense in printing yet another pic of the old monastry's brick wall, OTOH it gives a much better impression of the results if you can view them on the screen. I found the quality of my amateurish scans made with a cheap film scanner unsatisfactory for prints, so if I want a high quality print I still use my wet darkroom. AFAIK it takes a very high quality scanner, much effort and great skills to get high quality pics from scanning regular b/w film. It may be easier with chromogenic b/w film. But if you want to skip wet processing there simply is no alterative to a hybrid workflow.

Look <a href="http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~Srawhiti/index.html">here</a> for instructions. Great page!

You may want to shoot a test film with a fast lens wide open, scale focused at infinity, aiming to something really far away. If the pics come out sharp, you can be sure that nothing is wrong with the film-flange distance. It must be mirror or screen alignment then. If they are not sharp, it may be the mount.

A Hexar AF may be in the price range; if so, you won't find anything better.

The one for the collectors is the III (captital) C. It is a IIIc with frames for 35, 50 and 80 mm in the viewfinder so you don't need an external finder for the additional focal lengths. Check Stephen Gandy's Cameraquest Site for a nice review. I second his opinion that there is much undeserved hype about the IIIC. For me as a collector/user (with emphasis on "user") the Retina II are better because a 50 year old selenium meter's days are counted even if it works when you acquire the camera. As long as you don't need the additional focal lengths a IIa may be the best choice because it is even smaller and has a f/2 lens (OTOH if I wanted a folder with a nice non-interchangeable f/2 lens I'd have a Vitessa).