vidom

Why should I want to schlepp around an additional camera body for the scarce opportunities when I need a super wide? My M5 is one of my working cameras for b/w; normally I don't take a second analogue camera body with me 'cause I dont shoot colour on film any more. Even if I thought this necessary, there's a rarely used IIIa on my shelf that would do this job perfectly. And I don't like the plastic sound and feel of the VC bodies.

Well, I've been going the Voigtlander way for a while now with my 1,9/28 Ultron which I find quite satisfactory, but thank you, I don't think I need another LTM or M body as long as any of my Leicas is still with me. Thanks for your information!

I'm about to get a Heliar 4,5/15. The only TTL metered camera body I

have that will work with this lens is my M5. I heard that the Heliar

4,5/15 doesn't interfere with the M5's meter cell mechanically, but is

there any problem to be expected with the meter reading? Is metering

accuracy affected in any way by the very short focal length?

I just wonder... vignetting with my 21 Biogon wide open never looks that bad. Did you use a shade?

One of my two IIa bodies and my Leica IIIf behave the same way. This doesn't seem to cause any (film flatness) problems with my Contax as long as the film runs between the outer rails of the film channel, which in my case it does. The distance between these rails seems to be wider than the width of the film itself. BTW you can see the same effect on some of Henri Cartier-Bressons pictures! Leicas seem to be especially prone to doing this, lacking a railed film channel.

What's wrong with the results? They look better to me than most b&w scans published in this forum, including some of my own. From my wet darkroom experience I must say that I prefer thin contrasty negs, they are easy to print as long as there is still detail in the shadows. Your mileage may vary.

OK, I was able to see the pics from my office pc. Impressive, as far as it can be judged from looking at the screen. Now I'm looking forward to my one to arrive even more!

Thank you for the information. Yes, I have a 35 Biogon so I'm delighted to hear that there is no vignetting with my new hood. The hood I've been using till now - an ugly plastic thing made by Pentacon I don't know for which lens or camera - did cause severe vignetting with the 35 Biogon.

I just bought a No. 1119 Zeiss Ikon lens hood. It has a 40.5mm

thread so it should work with Contax lenses. It looks like it works

with 50mm lenses. But as far as I can see from Contax literature the

original Contax lens hood for 50mm lenses had a different catalogue

number. Does anyone know for which lens the 1119 hood was originally

made?

@ Nicolas: Of course I found Mike Elek's site but the link to his pics doesn't seem to work with my computer. It seems to me that the Triotar is quite a rare bird because whoever could afford a Contax wolud have the means to buy the Sonnar instead. So while I'm waiting for my one to arrive I'd still be very much interested in other user's experiences. There doesn't seem to be much consensus about this lenses performance; Ivor Matanle rates it an excellent lens, Mike Elek also seems to like his, Stephen Gandy OTOH writes about it's "so so reputatuion". OK, I'll try mine and post some results when I have it.

In spite of me already owning two 85 Sonnars and a 85 Jupiter I

couldn't resist buying a Triotar off eBay because it was cheap, my

40.5 Filters will fit and I'm curious how it performs compared with my

trusted LTM Elmar 4/90. I know what it is - a 3-Element triplet - but

there is not much information available about real life performance.

I'd normally suspect that a three element lens would easily be

outperformed by a Tessar type 4-Element lens, but some enthusiastic

rave about the Triotar (and the fact that Leitz' own 3-element Elmar

is said to be a better performer than it's 4-element cousin) make me

wonder. Any real life experience with the post-war Triotar in this

forum? Anyone else actually using it?

The lens number makes it a pre-war or war-time camera, post war Zeiss Jena lens numbers start with 3.000.000. There are post war West German Super Ikontas with (coated) Zeiss Jena Tessar (T) lenses; I own one, but it's one of the small ones (4,5x6cm), made 1949 AFAIK. They stopped the East-West cooperation in the very early 50's.

The film of my choice for my M3 is Agfa APX100, developed in highly diluted Rodinal, as long as it is available. Fairly fine but crisp grain makes for an impression of sharpness and contrast that T-grain simply doesn't do, and traditional 400 ASA film is no challenge for a Leica IMHO.

Last one's one more Biogon picture.<div></div>

Here's one more Prominent shot:<div></div>

Sorry, forgot the picture:<div></div>

Next one a Biogon shot, obviously. Orange filter used, the clouds looked less dramatic in reality.

There are too many cameras. I really like to use all of my old

cameras, but when I spontaneously decide to go for a walk I nearly

always find myself grabbing a Contax or a Leica. For a change, I

took my Voigtlander Prominent to the beach; I hadn't used it for

more than a year. Well, 35mm is the widest lens for the Prominent

and I like wide angles on the beach, so I ended up packing my Contax

IIa with the 21 Biogon as well. So here are a few samples. It's

quite amazing what these old things are still capable of!<div></div>

Maybe this is just a problem with my browser or my provider.

Rick seems to have taken his wonderful camera site offline. Any

information available?

Why spend any money on a Bessaflex as long as there are Cosina Hi-Lites and similar cameras that can be bought for a song and that have about the same specs? Why consider replacing your Spotmatic as long as it still works? There will be lots of working m42 cameras around long after you're no longer around, so why worry now?

I'm using a Focomat IIc for all my b&w work. It has a V-Elmar 4,5/100 for medium format and a Focotar 4,5/60 for 35mm. Both lenses have not much of a repuation. I don't care. Both produce ultra-sharp contrasty pictures when stopped down a bit, so if other lenses are better, their perfomance exceeds my own abilities. Before getting the IIc, I have used Rodagon enlarigng lenses. I can't see any difference. All of these are good. Get a used Rodagon, it will be much cheaper than any Leitz enlarging lens and is at least as good.

Graham - I'd have to take some pics first. I've been using the 1,8/80 almost exclusively for portraiture, and I'm not going to post family pics here for reasons of privacy.

Gossen Lunasix 3 (regular use), Sekonic Dual Spot L778 (for large format), Voigtl䮤er VC-Meter (with small rf-cameras).

Very nice shots, Graham. Indeed, the Flektogon is a very capable lens. So are most of the other CZJ MC-lenses. I have one of these Flektogons, a Pancolar 1,8/50, a Pancolar 1,8/80 and a Sonnar 3,5/135. Combining these with a late Cosina Hi-Lite makes a nice, fine performing set with AE; you can have all of these for a song nowadays. I bought this stuff for photography at places where I don't want to bring expensive equipment but like to have high quality results. Try to find a Pancolar MC 1,8/80 - this is the lightest and most compact high speed short telephoto lens I know; performance-wise it's on par with the best of it's contemporaries. I really wish I had more time for photography... I haven't used this stuff for more than a year!