brett_rogers

<p>As soon as I spotted the Konica in my Flickr feed, I knew it was yours, Rick. The detail in that shot of the stump is nothing short of phenomenal. I don't have a Konica SII, but I do have an Auto S2, and your post reminds me I ought to get it out and use it again soon. Its Hexanon 45mm is one of the sharpest lenses I own.</p>

<p>It's hard to tell a great deal of difference between them all but my own (very late production) S has one of the brightest viewfinders I've ever used on any camera. Note that the Contaflex standard 50mm Tessar is a f/2.8. It easily surpasses other SLRs with much faster lenses fitted to their mounts and I think this attests to the quality of the Zeiss pentaprisms and focus screens. I cannot say I've noticed a pattern with regard to the various models, except that some of the numerous Supers (first type) I own have varied according to their condition. Not surprisingly perhaps, the dirtiest and least cared for specimens have sometimes had the some of the least bright viewfinders too. The Super (second type) that I have also has one of the brightest Contaflex ones I've seen, personally (and I've seen a few). But I also have first and second types with excellent finders, and some with not so bright ones. I'm pretty sure Zeiss were still using Canada Balsam in the earlier prisms so expect these to potentially vary subject to condition. One I have is no longer usable. As far as sharpness goes, the late Tessar lenses are better than most 50s I have used in any camera, from any manufacturer regardless of type or shutter. Earlier ones are excellent, too, but the late ones are positively superlative. Nothing wrong with their colour rendition, either. </p>

<p>My own experience has been that the 115mm is OK across the frame stopped down. But I did shoot some shots of my son playing football a few years ago with my Super B and Pan F+. Not the easiest of combinations for winter light conditions. Unsurprisingly I did more than a few shots wide open. Near infinity I noticed some distant fences were markedly lacking in rectilinear rendition. It's worth noting that many unit focusing Contaflexes found today will benefit from inspection and if needed, adjustment of the mirror height to optimise focusing accuracy. Not to mention the primary lens focus which of course has to be checked anyway to verify viewfinder accuracy. This should be OK but given incorrect adjustments by owners or others unfamiliar with their idiosyncracies may no longer be optimum. Also they frequently improve in their lens alignment as a result of stripping, cleaning and re-greasing the helicals. The original dried out grease can be responsible for excess play in the threads and result in some wobble. As a bonus when it's corrected as above they're nicer to focus, too.</p> <p>I rate the 35mm and 85mm Pro Tessars much better than the 115mm. Overall sharpness and distortion are superior. As I have mentioned above, much depends on the condition of the body to which they're fitted though. I tend to mostly use mine with my Super BC, Rapid or S, although I have all the various types either ready to go or waiting for me to find the time to make them so. I don't yet have the Monocular or 1:1 Macro but possess most of the other accessories for the Contaflex system. Just last week I finally procured a reasonable Teleskop and mounting bracket for the I & II and have ticked that off my list. Whilst I have no shortage of good kit to image with, whenever I head out for a day with no real idea of what I might find, a Contaflex gets the nod most often, because, with three x magazine backs for E-6, C-41 & B&W, Proxar close up lenses, and 35mm to 115mm lenses in a compact bag, I can turn my attention to more subjects, with one camera body, than just about any other alternative for the same size, weight and price.<br> Note that Zeiss did trial Pro Tessars in other focal lengths and mounts, which, for various reasons did not make it into production. They certainly did a lot of work with the modular lens concept generally unreported. <br /> Thanks, Rick, for giving this vastly underrated system some attention and for your typical excellent images.</p>

<p>Sorry to hear of the gremlins in the camera but I've had great respect for the lenses available for the type for some years, when the stars are in alignment, they are capable of stunning results. Your images, as usual, provide adequate proof of this last comment. Thanks for sharing the images with us.</p>

<p>They mention the Contaflex TLR in the linked site above but I could find no mention of Contaflex SLR. I suppose you'd have to ask if they service the latter. Not in the USA, though. Some good articles and photos at the site, so thanks for the link.</p> <p>I think Carol Flutot used to work on Contaflexes? But I am not sure if she still does. Otherwise the only names I can recall hearing would be Bald Mountain and Henry Scheerer (whose site says he does now service the Contaflex SLRs) but of course, his waiting list is notoriously long.</p>

<p>The aperture mechanism in the lens seems to stop down readily, Rick. But the drive pin in the camera body isn't moving as much as it should to permit the lens to open. I've only had time to do the most cursory of investigations, though. As much as I like a challenge, (getting Bessamatics, Contaflexes, Exaktas, going etc.) I think I'll probably leave it to its own devices and if it sorts itself out well and good, if not, it won't bother me unduly (and as above, it might even be preferable, it's unlikely to be used for moving subjects much). </p>

<p>Well, <strong>Rick</strong>, after resisting the urge to acquire that Pentina a half a dozen times in the intervening 12 month-plus period, yesterday I visited the market and it was still there waiting for me in its original box, with a never-ready case and owners manual. I politely pointed out to the seller (a friendly chap I've bought several cameras from previously) that it had been languishing for well over a year, and he invited me to make an offer. Thirty Australian dollars changed hands and it was mine.</p> <p>The lens is the 50mm Tessar. All the shutter speeds seem right on, the self timer runs off, and the mirror is retracting correctly (as well as the viewfinder blind). The light meter appears to be working. It is the earlier version without the split rangefinder focus screen but I like a ground glass.</p> <p>The only fault spotted to date is that the aperture does not seem to be opening fully after winding the camera. In order to focus easier one must manually open the lens with the aperture ring and stop down again to the required f stop. Not being familiar with the Pentina I checked the manual, and it is meant to open the aperture on winding and stop down automatically when releasing the shutter. I was considering investigating this issue to see if I could make it run as intended. However one frequent drawback of 35mm leaf shutter SLRs is that they very rarely have any kind of depth of field preview function. Having to open and close the aperture manually will slow down the imaging process a bit, but on balance, I think I'd rather leave it as it is so I can see my DOF through the finder, so I think I'll leave it "broken" rather than trying to "fix" it.</p> <p>It may take me a while to run a film through it but I will let you know when I have.</p>

<p>You're killing me, <strong>Rick</strong>. I just got a Contax. I'm going to have to get a Prominent too, now. These are so freakin sharp, my eyes are bleeding. ;)</p>

<p>The 180mm Sonnar f/2.8 was originally made for 35mm Contax rangefinder mount, as I recall, not 56mm x 56mm.</p>

<p>If sharpness is really that important, fit a lens with a shutter to your focal plane body, prefire the mirror/body shutter, and use either a cable release (or the timer on the lens shutter if it has one, C types do). With a decent tripod supporting it, there's not much you or anyone else can do for better sharpness with a Hassy.</p>

<p>Tony, I have just paired up a Contax body and lens myself, and it's the reverse of the equipment you've used so well with these images. In my case, it's a 1936 Contax II, but I have acquired an Oberkochen Sonnar f/1.5 for it. Tempting as it was to procure a pre-war f/1.5, my online investigations suggested the post war Opton Sonnars are just a little sharper (as well as being coated, of course). And I was a little concerned about being able to find a decent pre-war lens that is completely original. It seems many of them have been tampered with and may be part-German, part-Soviet, from what I've gathered. But your Sonnar is gorgeous, and performs as well as I'd expect a good sample to. Congratulations, it makes for a very, very desirable piece of kit. I'd love to have one of each, to compare for myself. Maybe one day.</p>

<p>Rolleicords are lovely cameras and the Xenar is underrated. It was after all good enough to be fitted to many Rolleiflexes. A Planar or Xenotar will have sharper corners wide open but you have to make larger prints to really notice a lot of difference. Closed down a bit, I doubt many people would be able to tell a Xenar shot from one of the other two. Earlier Rolleicords up to and including the V had both focus and wind knobs on the right side, and I don't mind them at all. Va & Vb have the left side focus knob like a Rolleiflex, and these are also very capable. Which is preferred probably comes down to personal preference. Thanks for the post Tony, good photos.</p>

<p>Great shots, Rick. It's sharp. I found a Kiev 4A last year for $10. I was pleased with the roll of Delta 400 I ran through it. Having said that I think the RF vertical adjustment has moved a little so will want to check that before running another roll through mine. It will have to wait, though. I'm sorting out my Contax II, first. Dangerous things, those Kievs. ;)</p>

<p>See my other post in your discussion seeking a standard back. I've used magazine backs a lot, and haven't had a single light leak problem with three different backs that have seen dozens of rolls of B & W, E-6 and C-41. Three points.<br> (1) My Contaflexes usually live inside the lower part of their ever ready cases when I'm using them (unless they're on a tripod, I have the special bracket for the magazine backs to do this).<br> (2) I put a strip of black electrical tape over the slot for the dark slide when a back is attached to a camera body.<br> (3) I leave the dark slides out of my magazines if they are empty. I've read that over time they will compress the seals which is a part of the issue with them leaking light. Of course, whenever one is advertised the images always show the dark slide firmly inserted into the back, even though they have storage brackets on their rear for the slide...<br> <br />I've never tried to use my backs without a strip of tape across the slot. Being on the bottom of the camera the tape is usually out of sight. Maybe this makes a difference, I don't know. But I also can't recall the last time I actually used a late Contaflex with a standard back, and I use Super, Super B, Super BC, S and Rapid from time to time, so my experiences are not confined only to one camera/back combination, quite the contrary. <br /><br />You won't get any leaks from anywhere else in the back (unless, perhaps a numpty has tried to force the latches, which happens when they don't understand the interlocks that operate). The interchangeable backs fit around the camera body in the same way the standard backs do. If there are leaks from other than the dark slide slot, the back is not likely be the culprit. Try again, with some tape fitted over the slot.</p>

<p>OK: I don't own a Contarex (yet). But I have a lot of Contaflexes and three of the magazine backs for those. Apart from being a bit shorter left to right than the Contarex equivalent they operate in precisely the same way. Zeiss Ikon even issued the same instruction sheet for both types of cameras, they work the same way in every respect. I've run dozens of rolls of films through my magazine backs with virtually no problems. The one thing that caused a hiccup was when the spring on the take up clutch fork broke on one camera (the drive to the magazine began to slip a little). Replaced it with one from a spare body--no more problems.</p> <p>I have no special superpowers. If I can use my backs so much without drama--so can you. I suggest you try again, at least, until you procure a conventional back. Ask Peter Loy to keep an eye out for one for you.</p>

<p>Thanks <strong>Tony</strong>, I never get tired of seeing what these lenses can do. Great post. Pan F is one of my favourite films, too, although I usually stick to ID-11 for development. It looks great in Pyrocat too.</p>

<p>In my experience, Biotars, as found today, can vary a bit in their performance, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with yours, <strong>Rick</strong>. You couldn't want for any more sharpness than what your images demonstrate. I find locomotives to be interesting subjects, and I enjoyed these images, thanks. :)</p>

<p>Beautiful looking piece of kit, the Schneider lens is gorgeous. If you need any help setting up the rangefinder let me know, <strong>Rick</strong>. I'm sure you're up to the job. ;)</p>

<p>You couldn't want for more sharpness than you've demonstrated here <strong>Rick</strong>. I have long felt that some of the Praktica line offer a lot of bang for the buck, quality wise, and you have proved this again, with your images above. :)</p>

<blockquote> <p><em>Not falling into that trap Les :-)</em></p> </blockquote> <p>Too late. I would argue that, by making a broad brush statement, without being prepared to back it up, you are already IN. That's OK, by the way, people will draw their own conclusions. Cheers.</p>

<p>There are a few people re-painting Prakticas all sorts of odd colours lately, Rick. Not that I'm suggesting this was done to your example in the recent past, simply that it is not unknown. In general, I like Prakticas. I loaded a roll of Pan F Plus into one of my FXs the other day. Might take it out this afternoon. I bought a Praktina last week too. And so it goes...</p>

<p>It took a while for them to grow on me, but I rate my later SRT101s very highly, now. Their earlier models are also superb looking cameras, as you have once again demonstrated so well, Rick. Thanks for another enjoyable and, as always, interesting post, mate. ;)</p>

<p>Fuji are quite specific about the long term storage conditions of their colour films, including Velvia, Velvia 50, Velvia 100, Velvia 100F, Provia 100F, Reala 100, etc. If you need to know precisely what temperature range is recommended for storing their films <strong>Brad</strong>, visit their website and consult the data sheets for each film type you are using. They will answer any questions you have.</p>

<p>The first Zeiss Ikon Contaflex introduced in late 1953 featured automatic stop down of the lens aperture to the pre-selected f stop. The lens remained stopped down until the camera was wound on, at which point the lens shutter would open and the mirror would descend for reflex viewing through its wide open 45mm f/2.8 Zeiss Tessar lens.</p>

<p>I think you've summed it up well <strong>Rick</strong>. The light isn't metered from the mirror front surface of the Miranda, but it is picked up when it passes through the mirror to the cell attached to the back of it.</p>