Sorry this is not a Leica question, but I thought some of you may have knowledge/experience of this oldie. How are the pics from it. I have seen a good price for one with a 5cm Sonnar f2 Jena lens. I have heard they are not that sharp but have a unique 'glow'. Any pro and cons on this camera would be greatly appreciated. Best,

-- Sparkie (sparkie@mailcity.com), September 05, 2001

Answers

I use a Contax IIa with the f:2 Sonnar lens. It is quite sharp, at least in the center of the field. No "glow" that I've noticed, but then my lens is coated.

-- Bill Mitchell (bmitch@home.com), September 05, 2001.

i have a contax II and i've serviced bunches. the postwar lenses are needle sharp, the uncoated prewar ones are a little flarey (but vastly better than most other uncoated lenses, particularly high speed prewar leica lenses).

the contax II is very durable and needs little attention, with the exception of the shutter ribbons which need replacing once a decade or two. the rangefinder never goes out of adjustment and it's very precise (though it, too, is a little flarey), and the shutter never fades and seldom goes awry at slow speeds either. the postwar contax IIa unfortunately shares none of these virtues, but it doesn't need the periodic ribbon service and it has those wonderful postwar lenses.

for someone accustomed to leicas, the contax is odd to handle: your right middle finger will want to block the rangefinder window. there's a particular way to hold it, with your index finger on the shutter release and your middle finger on the 'focus wheel', which works very well once you get used to the difference.

there are lots of quite decent if sometimes unaesthetic russian lenses available for the contax (as there are for the M39 as well); they tend to be cheaper inthe contax mount.

go for it!

rick :)= rick_oleson.tripod.com

-- Rick Oleson (rick_oleson@yahoo.com), September 05, 2001.

The old Zeiss lenses are quite sharp, but he prewar uncoated ones (usually that come with a model II) flare easily as most uncoated lenses will. Check out Cameraquest for the whole skinny on those cameras-no sense in me re-inventing the wheel. I had the later Contax IIa with a coated 1.5 Sonnar-spectacular lens. I didn't like the finder in mine however, a very tiny hole to look in and not very bright. The shutters can often no longer be repaired (no parts) and many are not working correctly.I came to the conclusion these were more for the collector than the shooter at this point.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), September 05, 2001.

I've used (& use) the Zeiss Ikon Contax II (as well as the post-WWII Contax IIa) & it's a truly wonderful camera that's built like a tank & has a shock-proof RF that's more accurate than the M3. Don't forget that most professional photographers using 35mm before, & immediately after, WWII (e.g., Robert Capa, Ansel Adams) used Contax, not Leica, equipment. In fact, Leitz developed the Leica M series (originally as the Leica IV) specifically to beat the Contax II & III w/their combined RF/VF, bayonet mount, & other innovative features (& it took them 17 years to do so). As to glass, IMHO & that of many others (like HCB), the Zeiss lenses for Contax RFs during the 1930s-1950s were usually superior to their Leitz thread mount competition, mainly because Zeiss designs were better (e.g., fewer elements) & they were the 1st to use lens coating. The Sonnar is a good example; in both f/1.5 & f/2 versions, it's generally acknowledged to be 1 of the best lenses ever made. Although they obviously fall a bit short of modern designs with multicoating & aspherical elements (particularly in the area of flare control & wide open performance), an uncoated or coated Sonnar is plenty sharp & provides a nice "boke" that will give a Summilux a run for the money.

One good thing about Contax stuff is that it's still (relatively) inexpensive compared to Leica. Assuming the 1 you're looking @ works properly & the lens is in good condition, I don't think you'll be disappointed. If you're really strapped for cash, the Soviet/Post-Soviet Kiev RFs are clones of the Contax & provide a great, & readily available, alternative source for bodies, lenses, & accessories.

BTW, Stephen Gandy has a good discussion of the Contax, & the great rivalry between Zeiss Ikon & Leitz, on his Cameraquest site:

http://cameraquest.com/zconrf2.htm http://cameraquest.com/lrfcrf.htm http://cameraquest.com/conrf.htm

Also, the Zeiss Ikon Collectors Group (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZICG) is another great source of info.

-- Chris Chen (furcafe@cris.com), September 05, 2001.

I guess the old Contax isn't any harder to handle as a user than an old screw mount Leica. My problem is that I was comparing it to my M3. The finder really is a tiny, fuzzy, squinty thing, and there are no diopters available for those who could use one. I am spoiled by finder lines as well, and didn't like having to use a shoe finder for every lens except the 50. If it had a better finder, I'd have kept mine for sure and found a few more Zeiss lenses to go with it. By the way, The Russian lenses do fit (sort of) the early Contax II, but not the IIa.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), September 05, 2001.

Thanks for all the responses. By the way, are the Jena lenses the pre- war ones and the Opton the post-war coated ones? And I read somewhere the Jena lenses were east german produced as the optons were west, and were of a better build. Am I right?

-- Sparkie (sparkie@mailcity.com), September 05, 2001.

I've never used the Sonnar 1.5 but I have a Jupiter-3 50/1.5 that I use on a IIIc and Fed-3 that is supposed to be an exact copy. I've read that for years the Jupiter was made with the same formula on the same equiptment "stolen" from Germany by the Russians after the war. My version was made in 1984 without any fog or cleaning marks and appears to be multi-coated. Also the glass used for the later lenses is supposed to be better than what was around in the 40's and 50's. At 2.8 or smaller the lens gives excellent results in my opinion easily comparable to a ridgid Summicron 50 I had for over 30 years and stupidly sold a little over a year ago. Between 1.5 and 2.0 the lens is almost useless with little contrast or sharpness.Between 2.0 and 2.8 it is passable but not great. For under $100 you are getting an improved Sonnar. The lens is almost useless

-- Gerry Widen (gwiden@alliancepartners.org), September 05, 2001.

The last sentence the lens is almost useless is a mistake.

-- Gerry Widen (gwiden@alliancepartners.org), September 05, 2001.

All Zeiss lenses prewar are Jena. After the war the East German lenses remained Zeiss Jena and the West German Zeiss called themselves Opton until they also came to claim the name Zeiss too. The East German lenses have a good reputation (at least from 1945-55), but their designs were essentially static for a good time while West German Zeiss continued to innovate. The Post war Jena lenses often have poorer finish than the Opton/W. German Zeiss equivalents.

The Contax II were great cameras, but as Andrew says, the M Leica viewfinder with parallax corrected frames wiped the floor with them for pure operating convenience.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), September 05, 2001.

Regarding E. & W. Germans lenses: Before WWII, Carl Zeiss Jena made lenses for the Contax cameras & these are incredibly well-made (heavy chromed brass). Most of these were originally uncoated; as the Zeiss lens coating technology was considered a secret during the war, only a few were sold to the public w/coating (after the war, many folks had their lenses coated by independent shops). After WWII, Carl Zeiss Jena ended up in E. Germany, whereas the W. German branch of Carl Zeiss opened up their own lens works--both made lenses for the Contax. The W. German lenses were 1st marked "Zeiss-Opton" & later just "Carl Zeiss"--they have nice chrome-finished brass barrels, have their focal lengths marked in millimeters, & have a purplish coating (many, but not all, are marked w/a red "T" to denote Zeiss T coating). The E. German lenses are marked "Carl Zeiss Jena"--they have flimsier aluminum alloy barrels, have their focal lengths marked in centimeters, & have a bluish coating (all are marked w/a red "T"). The W. German lenses are better finished & many of the designs were improved, but the E. German lenses, which tended to be just coated versions of the pre-war designs, are still darn good. The Contax II you're looking @ probably has a pre-war collapsible 50/2 Sonnar, but only you know for sure.

Also, just a clarification on Andrew Schank's point about Russian lenses fitting the Contax II, but not IIa. I think this applies only to their copy of the prewar f/2.8 35mm Biogon, which has a bigger rear element than the postwar W. German version (the Contax II & III have more room inside because the shutter is thinner). Just as the Kiev cameras were clones of the prewar Contax II & III, their lenses are coated copies of the prewar lenses (somewhat like the Carl Zeiss Jena glass).

-- Chris Chen (furcafe@cris.com), September 05, 2001.

You may be right Chris. I remember I was looking for a 35mm lens, and I had to be sure it wasn't an earlier version (the same style the Russian's copied).

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), September 05, 2001.

BTW, while I obviously like the Contax II & IIa, I agree w/everybody that the M3 & its progeny have better viewfinders. However, a properly cleaned Contax VF, something rarely seen today, is much brighter & closer to an M than 1 might expect & the Contax II/III's RF still has the biggest effective baseline (Leica's never had a direct-mount 180mm lens!). It's too bad that Zeiss Ikon never marketed an improved Contax to better compete w/Leica's M series & the Nikon & Canon RFs (as Rick Oleson notes, the IIa & IIIa were an improvement in some areas, but a step backwards in others)--I still find the Contax bayonet mount ergonomically superior in the field. Now that I have an adapter that lets me mount (most of) my Contax lenses on my M bodies, I like to think I have the best of both worlds!

-- Chris Chen (furcafe@cris.com), September 05, 2001.

Chris

I too am a fan of most Zeiss Ikon cameras - I like the Contarex and the Contaflex SLRs - just beautiful. The Contarex is clearly collected very heavily as their prices are at least on a par with Leica, if not higher - not bad for a camera company that has been dead for almost 30 years.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), September 05, 2001.

The CONTAFLEX AND CONTAREX are extremely complex camera. The contarex has more than 1000 parts! I gave up trying to fix a CONTAFLEX RAPID I have, too expensive. Some repair shops simply does not want to deal with older Zeiss products. Too bad! I use a Contaflex Super B (1961) and I get great results!

-- Samir (sjahjah@lemonde.fr), September 05, 2001.

The prewar Contax(s) and all but the last Postwar cameras had range/viewfinders with a very strong green tint to better contrast with the peach colored rangefinder patch. It is ghastly (even worse than the M2&3 blue viewfinders)! The last ones were nicely clear as are the M4,5,&6 Leicas.

-- Bill Mitchell (bmitch@home.com), September 05, 2001.

I have used a Contax IIa not a Contax II. If the viewfinder is clean, and the shutter intact (both long-term problems with these pre-war cameras) why not? The camera was 25 years ahead of its time (mid 1930s) and the rangefinder, a solid, long, prism is totally bump- proof, unlike today's Leica.

As for the lens, the post-war Zeiss Ikons are top glass, but pre-war uncoated Sonnars may or may not be up to your (presumably modern) standards. Notwithstanding that, they were far and away the best 35mm lenses of their time.

The key question? I don't know if the post-war Zeiss Ikon lenses work with the prewar Contaxes. The book, 'The Contax Way' has all these answers, but I don't have it handy. If you have access to a large, old, public library, look for a copy of this book. A terrific Contax rangefinder resource.

The bottom line, they are not only quite useable, they are not that far away from modern cameras; you will hardly find them to be quirky.

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), September 06, 2001.

Mani:

Actually, the pre-war Contax II/III has the superior, 1-piece, RF (bigger baseline & higher magnification, too), but has less eye relief (smaller opening in the eyepiece). The IIa/IIIa's RF can be knocked &/or drift out of alignment (& they are often found in such condition). However, it's easier to find a IIa/IIIa with a clean RF/VF (probably because they're younger).

Again, it's only the pre-war & post-war E. German f/2.8 3.5cm Biogons (& Soviet copies) that won't fit on the (smaller) post-war Contax bodies--the post-war W. German f/2.8 35mm Biogons will fit on the (bigger) pre-war bodies just fine. Also, all the wide angle lenses for the Nikon RF (S2, SP, S3, etc.) will work well on all Contax bodies--I think the Nikon f/2.5 3.5cm lenses are a particularly easy-to-find & economical alternative to the relatively rare W. German Biogons.

-- Chris Chen (furcafe@cris.com), September 06, 2001.

Mani:

Sorry, I now see that you were referring to the pre-war Contax. My mistake (must . . . read . . . more . . . carefully).

-- Chris Chen (furcafe@cris.com), September 06, 2001.

(must..write..more..carefully)

;-)

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), September 06, 2001.

A camera colector and old photographer friend of mine, swears on the sonnar, but he talks disapointed about Contax bodies, for him those are build like tanks but very sensitive to constant hard use, just oposite of leica bodies, wich are wearless in use but sensitive to knocks.

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), September 06, 2001.

I had own 6 Contax(s): A, F, II, IIa, III, IIIa, and full line of its lens, clear and clean. The first two are collectable items and I make no mention of them. A IIa/IIIa is better and more reliable than II/III. A coated Sonnar’s (7 elements in 3 groups) are significantly better than uncoated ones and fully comparable to old versions of a Summicron and a Summilux, which have more components (7/6 elements in 6/5 groups) and so, a lower contrast. Though in a practice it was impossible to discern the prints made with both lenses. A Sonnar 85mm/f2.0 has 2m min focus distance and it make impossible to shoot a good portrait. A Sonnar 135mm/4.0 is a great mid tele lens it’s better than a similar Elmar. A Biogon 21mm/f4.0 has a vignetting and is comparable to a S.A. 21mm/f4.0. A Biogon 35mm/2.8 is comparable to a similar Summaron. The bottom line, if you have any Leica SM or M- type a Contax will never be your favorite.

-- Victor Randin (ved@enran.com.ua), September 06, 2001.

I don't know what version of the f/2 85mm Sonnar Victor Randin is using, but both of mine (1 pre-war & 1 post-war) focus closer than 2 meters (just over 1m = 1.2m & 4 feet) & are some of the best portrait lenses I own.

-- Chris Chen (furcafe@cris.com), September 06, 2001.

I have called the today’s owner of the Sonnar to correct its data. Its version was as following:

*f 2.0 8.5 cm Sonnar T 2766682 Carl Zeiss Jena* The letter ‘T’ was in red.

Min focus distance was 1.8 m (not 2 m as I wrote in the above posting) that doesn’t allow me to shoot a tight portrait. Meanwhile it was very good lens.

-- Victor Randin (ved@enran.com.ua), September 10, 2001.

Victor:

That's interesting. I guess my post-WWII E. German 85/2 must be a later version (#3209810)--it focuses to a hair under the 1.2m marking.

-- Chris Chen (furcafe@cris.com), September 10, 2001.

Chris,

where is it from, Jena, Oberkohen?

Thanks, Victor

-- Victor Randin (ved@enran.com.ua), September 11, 2001.

It's E. German, so it's from Jena.

-- Chris Chen (furcafe@cris.com), September 18, 2001.

Thanks, Chris. Sorry, I didn't see the letter "E" from a first glance because I forgot my eyeglasses.

-- Victor Randin (ved@enran.com.ua), September 18, 2001.

I own two prewar Contax II cameras with f/2.0 50mm Sonnar lenses. I also acquired a postwar, coated f/1.5 50mm Sonnar. This latter lens works well with the prewar bodies. Sometimes, I pack a Contax II with f/1.5 lens in my camera bag along with the usual Nikon F equipment. I load both with Kodachrome 200 slide film. When I project the slides, I can't see the difference. Within its limitations of 50mm focal length and non reflex viewing, the Contax II with 50mm coated Sonnar is up to the most modern standards, in my opinion. As many others have noted, however, the shutter is complicated and requires periodic maintenance.

-- Jerry Raines (Jerachrome@aol.com), May 29, 2002.

I have used the pre-war Contax II and III, and the post-war IIa (black dial). These are superior cameras and in every possible way the equal of Leicas. Given that prices tend to be lower than for Leicas, they are great bargains. As far as comparison, it is pretty much a matter of what features you like. The screwmount Leicas are more compact and feel better in the hand, but have separate range and viewfinders as well as separate slow and fast shutter speed dials. And, you have to select the shutter speed after you advance the film. The Contax allows you to do this either before or after advancing the film, and has an integrated range/viewfinder. As far as loading goes, the Contax wins hands down -- no trimming of the film leader and the slip off back makes loading a snap.

As far as the Contax lenses go, I've found that it makes a BIG difference having them cleaned (even if there is no visible haze) and properly collimated, as things do tend to deteriorate when a lens is 50 years old. The glass on the old Contaxes is every bit as good as any Leica lens up to the 1960s, when comparing uncoated to uncoated, and coated to coated. Although I love the older Leica lenses for their special qualities, the prewar Contax lenses are far superior to the Wetzlar ones. I am told that the 28mm f8 Tessar for Contax is a dog, but I've never shot with it myself. The 50mm f1.5 Sonnar, 35mm f2.8 Biogon, 85mm f2 Sonnar and 135mm f4 Sonnar are all very good performers indeed. Zeiss and a handfull of other companies made lenses from 28mm to 180mm that were rangefinder coupled, and some others that worked with a reflex adapter. As others have pointed out in this thread, you can also use inexpensive Soviet lenses, although I've had better luck with the Zeiss products myself.

There are some assertions in this thread about not being able to repair the shutters on old Contaxes. I've had the shutters repaired on both pre and post-war Contaxes. Granted that it is harder to find qualified people to service these than it is with a Leica, but they can be serviced. Once serviced, they are very reliable cameras.

The downside? If you've never shot with a Contax (or with a Kiev -- the Soviet copy), you will automatically place your middle finger over the rangefinder window. You have to master the "Contax grip", which means that you use your index finger on the shutter release button, and your middle finger to operate the focus wheel (at least for the 50mm lens -- for the others, just get it out of the way). And you tuck in your 4th and 5th finger, or use them to lightly steady the camera. Your left hand has to support the weight of the camera, so you hang on to it with the most vise-like grip that you can muster. It feels weird the first few times you shoot that way. Now it just comes automatically to me.

It is true that the brightlines in a M Leica are a nice convenience, but the brightness and contrast of a properly cleaned Contax RF is very good indeed. And the incredibly long rangefinder base of the Contax compares favourably with the M Leica. I find that focussing very fast long lenses with the Leica to be somewhat less reliable than on the Contax. Like the Leica, the Contaxes, particularly the pre-war ones, are tanks that you can take anywhere. Contaxes also come with as wide a variety of accessories (finders, closeup attachments, the bizzare electronic flash adapter for the postwar IIa black dial, filters, etc.) as any Leica. With a little patience, it is easy to put together a nice outfit.

Mark

-- Mark Langer (mlanger@ccs.carleton.ca), June 13, 2002.