Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Classic Film RangeFinders & Other Classics > Zeiss Contax

Zeiss Contax Forum for the classic Zeiss Contax I, II, III, IIa, IIIa , G series, and if you want to push it, the nice Contax point and shoots. Some spill over from the Kievs, the Soviet copy of the Contax II/III can also be expected. Plus the ONLY production camera ever made in classic Zeiss Contax Rangefinder mount WITH TTL metering ... the Voigtlander Bessa R2C.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Old 01-08-2017   #41
Mark C
Registered User
 
Mark C is offline
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 406
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erik van Straten View Post
Yes, in fact the sharpness is stunning. That is why I would like to use the lens. So, maybe with an adapter on a M-Leica. It would be more fun on a Contax I, of course.

Erik.
Have you looked through it from the back, or can you do that on a Contax I? You should be able to see if there if something in the mount interfering by look from the corners of the frame with the camera angled.

I have this adapter:
https://shop.cameraquest.com/nikon-c...sc-to-leica-m/
You specify for Contax or Nikon lens. Focus seems to be set for about 2.8, but easily corrected to 1.5 by very slightly unscrewing the rear group (a small fraction of a turn), see my and Dante's comments later in this thread,
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/foru...ad.php?t=79437

I don't get any vignetting like you are showing. Some falloff at large apertures obviously.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-08-2017   #42
Dralowid
Michael
 
Dralowid's Avatar
 
Dralowid is offline
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 2,235
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erik van Straten View Post
What did I hear? Digital? Me???

Erik.
Of course, my apologies Erik, you would never go over to the dark side...
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-08-2017   #43
Erik van Straten
Registered User
 
Erik van Straten's Avatar
 
Erik van Straten is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,758
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark C View Post

I have this adapter:
https://shop.cameraquest.com/nikon-c...sc-to-leica-m/
You specify for Contax or Nikon lens. Focus seems to be set for about 2.8, but easily corrected to 1.5 by very slightly unscrewing the rear group (a small fraction of a turn), see my and Dante's comments later in this thread,
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/foru...ad.php?t=79437
Thank you, Mark, this is really helpful!

Erik.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-08-2017   #44
Erik van Straten
Registered User
 
Erik van Straten's Avatar
 
Erik van Straten is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,758
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dralowid View Post
Of course, my apologies Erik, you would never go over to the dark side...
Allright, apologies accepted.

Erik.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-08-2017   #45
Erik van Straten
Registered User
 
Erik van Straten's Avatar
 
Erik van Straten is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,758
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark C View Post
Have you looked through it from the back, or can you do that on a Contax I? You should be able to see if there if something in the mount interfering by look from the corners of the frame with the camera angled.
Yes, you can of course, but you do not see anything remarkable. I think it is a design fault as it happens in two of my Contaxes. I have a Kiev too. I will try the lens on that one soon.

Erik.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-08-2017   #46
Corran
Registered User
 
Corran is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 797
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erik van Straten View Post
This is a scan from such a picture. I always scan the negative.

Erik.

It looks to me like the lens is slightly higher than intended (a bit of front rise, so to speak). Very strange that it happens on two different Contax I bodies, but nevertheless the cut-out corners in the upper left/right (as apposed to just heavy vignetting on the bottom) seem to indicate that.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-08-2017   #47
Erik van Straten
Registered User
 
Erik van Straten's Avatar
 
Erik van Straten is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,758
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corran View Post
It looks to me like the lens is slightly higher than intended (a bit of front rise, so to speak). Very strange that it happens on two different Contax I bodies, but nevertheless the cut-out corners in the upper left/right (as apposed to just heavy vignetting on the bottom) seem to indicate that.
Yes, but you mean slightly lower (the top of the picture is at the bottom). Also strange is that my other lenses, Jupiter 8M and Tessar 50/2.8, work perfectly on the cameras. And the Sonnar 50/1.5 works perfect on the Nikon S2 (I did however not check the sharpness, only the vignetting, totally absent).

I think that the curve that controls the rangefinder in the cameras is too big for the lens. This curve is much steeper than the curve on the back of Leica-lenses. That part simply gets too much in the way. I see that now. In the Kiev it is much smaller.

Erik.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-08-2017   #48
Corran
Registered User
 
Corran is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 797
No, I do mean too high (the lens). Just like when I use too much front rise on a large format camera, which causes vignetting at the top of the image (bottom of the film). It is strange, though perhaps the other lenses have slightly larger image circles? Or maybe you are right and it's something internal to the cameras, but I'm at a loss as to how.

I've shot my b&n and Contax I(f) and never seen that, but also mine just simply will not shoot properly with the cassette, even with spacers, always slipping down and causing sprocket holes in the image, as I've mentioned in the past. I don't take exacting notes so I'm not 100% sure if any of my images were shot with the 50mm f/1.5 at near infinity.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-08-2017   #49
Erik van Straten
Registered User
 
Erik van Straten's Avatar
 
Erik van Straten is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,758
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corran View Post
perhaps the other lenses have slightly larger image circles?
The curve that drives the rangefinder is right behind the bayonet-fitting. The Sonnar f/1.5 is bigger than the other lenses. The curve that drives the rangefinder is a very large part. It obscures the lens partly at infinity, towards the bottom of the camera. When you focus the lens, the part moves up (turns) and the lens moves forward, so at close distances there is no problem anymore. The curve works as a too long lens hood on the inside of the camera.

It is a design fault. The makers improved it in the Contax II. To improve it on the already sold cameras was too much trouble.

Erik.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-08-2017   #50
Corran
Registered User
 
Corran is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 797
Do you mind posting an image of what you are talking about? I don't see anything like that on my camera.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-08-2017   #51
Gben
Registered User
 
Gben is offline
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 38
Here is one shot of the side of the lens sitting on the body I purchased with it, and another of it head-on:



  Reply With Quote

Old 01-08-2017   #52
Erik van Straten
Registered User
 
Erik van Straten's Avatar
 
Erik van Straten is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,758
You can see it if you remove the back of the camera and open the shutter at "B" or "Z". Then look through the opening of the shutter towards the lens. Then you see on the Contax I the curve that drives the rangefinder. That part is the cause of the trouble.

I can not take any pictures of it now, I'm afraid.

Erik.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-08-2017   #53
Erik van Straten
Registered User
 
Erik van Straten's Avatar
 
Erik van Straten is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,758
Thank you, Gben, can you make a picture from the back of the Contax I with the shutter open to show the curve that drives the rangefinder? You must remove the back then.

Erik.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-08-2017   #54
Erik van Straten
Registered User
 
Erik van Straten's Avatar
 
Erik van Straten is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,758
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corran View Post
mine just simply will not shoot properly with the cassette, even with spacers, always slipping down and causing sprocket holes in the image,
Maybe you have to alter the turning prongs in the camera so they fit better into the cassette. I have a Contax I with the same problem. Always sprocketholes in the pictures.

Erik.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-08-2017   #55
Gben
Registered User
 
Gben is offline
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erik van Straten View Post
Maybe you have to alter the turning prongs in the camera so they fit better into the cassette. I have a Contax I with the same problem. Always sprocketholes in the pictures.

Erik.
If you are so interested in this problem you are having with your cameras, then you should start a thread on it instead of hijacking other people's?
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-08-2017   #56
Sarcophilus Harrisii
Brett Rogers
 
Sarcophilus Harrisii is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erik van Straten View Post
Maybe you have to alter the turning prongs in the camera so they fit better into the cassette. I have a Contax I with the same problem. Always sprocketholes in the pictures.

Erik.
I noticed that with a couple of films in one of my IIs. My other one never had this problem. After closely examining various (Contaflex SLR) take up spools I have here, I noticed something. Whilst most removable Zeiss spools will fit a Contax (II/III, at least) later ones have a ridge around the inner diameter of the top (Ie the end closest to the top of the camera when installed). This lowers the film enough that sprocket holes intrude into the image area. I substituted a spool with a completely flat end when I loaded my most recent film and I think it's going to eliminate the issue but obviously, I won't know for certain until I've finished and developed the roll.

Not having used the original Contax I don't know if it will make as much difference with that, however I do recommend inspecting the take up spool you use and substituting the correct type, because, whilst it may not completely eliminate the issue with your camera, I think at the minimum it will probably improve it somewhat.
Cheers,
Brett
__________________

  Reply With Quote

Old 01-08-2017   #57
Corran
Registered User
 
Corran is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 797
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gben View Post
If you are so interested in this problem you are having with your cameras, then you should start a thread on it instead of hijacking other people's?
Thread drift is a fact of life. Everyone is discussing Contax I cameras, including foibles that very well may affect yours. Lighten up.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-08-2017   #58
Corran
Registered User
 
Corran is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 797
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erik van Straten View Post
You can see it if you remove the back of the camera and open the shutter at "B" or "Z". Then look through the opening of the shutter towards the lens. Then you see on the Contax I the curve that drives the rangefinder. That part is the cause of the trouble.

I can not take any pictures of it now, I'm afraid.

Erik.
Thanks. Still not seeing anything that I can identify. Maybe I'm just being dense.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-09-2017   #59
Highway 61
Revisited
 
Highway 61's Avatar
 
Highway 61 is offline
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,516
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarcophilus Harrisii View Post
Whilst most removable Zeiss spools will fit a Contax (II/III, at least) later ones have a ridge around the inner diameter of the top (Ie the end closest to the top of the camera when installed). This lowers the film enough that sprocket holes intrude into the image area. I substituted a spool with a completely flat end when I loaded my most recent film and I think it's going to eliminate the issue but obviously, I won't know for certain until I've finished and developed the roll.
This is all true. I have some Contax take-up spools which were in some Zeiss Ikon reloadable cassettes originally. They are shorter than the take-up spools designed to be used with disposable film cartridges.
__________________

  Reply With Quote

Old 01-09-2017   #60
Erik van Straten
Registered User
 
Erik van Straten's Avatar
 
Erik van Straten is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,758
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarcophilus Harrisii View Post
Not having used the original Contax I don't know if it will make as much difference with that, however I do recommend inspecting the take up spool you use
In my camera with the sprocket problem the cause is on the other side of the camera. The teeth of the prong are too big (or the holes of the Kodak cassette are too small) for the ready bought Kodak cassette. I need to file them off. I am not sure that I will do that, however.

Erik.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-09-2017   #61
Sarcophilus Harrisii
Brett Rogers
 
Sarcophilus Harrisii is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erik van Straten View Post
In my camera with the sprocket problem the cause is on the other side of the camera. The teeth of the prong are too big (or the holes of the Kodak cassette are too large) for the ready bought Kodak cassette. I need to file them off. I am not sure that I will do that, however.

Erik.
Ahh, OK, well it's good to be aware of that issue too, thanks for clarifying it, Erik.
Cheers,
Brett
__________________

  Reply With Quote

Old 01-09-2017   #62
Erik van Straten
Registered User
 
Erik van Straten's Avatar
 
Erik van Straten is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,758
This is a drawing of my vignetting problem. I am not as good a draughtsman as Deklari I am afraid.

The control curve of the camera is marked grey.

Erik.

  Reply With Quote

Old 01-09-2017   #63
Mark C
Registered User
 
Mark C is offline
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 406
This makes a lot of sense if the Contax I came out before the 1.5 existed. I wonder if they redesigned the mount later during the Contax I run. That would explain why some people don't have the problem.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-09-2017   #64
Erik van Straten
Registered User
 
Erik van Straten's Avatar
 
Erik van Straten is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,758
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark C View Post
This makes a lot of sense if the Contax I came out before the 1.5 existed. I wonder if they redesigned the mount later during the Contax I run. That would explain why some people don't have the problem.
As far as I know the lens came out together with the camera, in 1932.

The camera carries the number Z45930, the lens 1628901. The lens came on this camera, one of the last batches (1935 or 1936). They could have corrected the problem by then I guess.

Erik.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-09-2017   #65
Mark C
Registered User
 
Mark C is offline
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 406
Odd to see they would have that kind of problem. Is the vignetting any better at close distances? Or worse? I can't really think that one through without it in front of me.

They seemed to have considered this a special purpose lens with its initial minimum aperture of f8. I don't buy the idea of diffraction; that wouldn't be any different from other lenses. A real mystery how the vignetting issue could have existed. Maybe Gben will get his running and we can hear if he has the issue.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-09-2017   #66
Corran
Registered User
 
Corran is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 797
Thanks for the drawing Erik. In truth, I have nothing like that in my camera I don't believe. My serial # is slightly earlier, but this camera seems to have been well cared for in its life - there is even a service sticker inside dated '96. Perhaps mine was modified or upgraded by Contax to fix such an issue. The inside looks almost the same as my Contax III.

I'll try to make sure I shoot a frame at infinity with the 50mm f/1.5 next roll.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-09-2017   #67
Erik van Straten
Registered User
 
Erik van Straten's Avatar
 
Erik van Straten is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,758
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark C View Post
Is the vignetting any better at close distances?
There is much less vignetting at close distances. Actually none. See picture.

Yes, it is bizarre, above all if one takes into account that the lens was as expensive as the body; in fact it was the most expensive lens for 35mm photography available before the war.

Contax I v7, Sonnar 50mm f/1.5, 400-2TMY.

Erik.

  Reply With Quote

Old 01-09-2017   #68
Erik van Straten
Registered User
 
Erik van Straten's Avatar
 
Erik van Straten is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,758
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corran View Post
In truth, I have nothing like that in my camera I don't believe. The inside looks almost the same as my Contax III.

I'll try to make sure I shoot a frame at infinity with the 50mm f/1.5 next roll.
Anything is possible.

Erik.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-09-2017   #69
Highway 61
Revisited
 
Highway 61's Avatar
 
Highway 61 is offline
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,516
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark C View Post
Odd to see they would have that kind of problem. Is the vignetting any better at close distances? Or worse? I can't really think that one through without it in front of me.

They seemed to have considered this a special purpose lens with its initial minimum aperture of f8. I don't buy the idea of diffraction; that wouldn't be any different from other lenses. A real mystery how the vignetting issue could have existed.
According to what I understand, this is not vignetting (if we call "vignetting" what is actually optical light fall-off at the periphery of the image circle) but something opaque getting in the image circle by blocking the lens rear element.
__________________

  Reply With Quote

Old 01-09-2017   #70
Erik van Straten
Registered User
 
Erik van Straten's Avatar
 
Erik van Straten is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,758
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highway 61 View Post
According to what I understand, this is not vignetting (if we call "vignetting" what is actually optical light fall-off at the periphery of the image circle) but something opaque getting in the image circle by blocking the lens rear element.
Yes, you are right, but in the case of blocking lenshoods we also speak of "vignetting", at least we do so in The Netherlands.

Erik.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-10-2017   #71
Highway 61
Revisited
 
Highway 61's Avatar
 
Highway 61 is offline
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,516
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erik van Straten View Post
Yes, you are right, but in the case of blocking lenshoods we also speak of "vignetting", at least we do so in The Netherlands.
Someone told me that The Netherlands are a country where many criminal Russian people live nowadays. They use to gather into terrible gangs in order to spread fake Contax cameras all over the whole world. Your Contax I may have been tailored by those people, who want our own minds to vignette, too. You may want to dump that thing and buy a genuine Contax from California.
__________________

  Reply With Quote

Old 01-10-2017   #72
Dralowid
Michael
 
Dralowid's Avatar
 
Dralowid is offline
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 2,235
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highway 61 View Post
Someone told me that The Netherlands are a country where many criminal Russian people live nowadays. They use to gather into terrible gangs in order to spread fake Contax cameras all over the whole world. Your Contax I may have been tailored by those people, who want our own minds to vignette, too. You may want to dump that thing and buy a genuine Contax from California.

To test the authenticity of a Contax I is very simple. If it floats it is a fake.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-10-2017   #73
Erik van Straten
Registered User
 
Erik van Straten's Avatar
 
Erik van Straten is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,758
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dralowid View Post
If it floats it is a fake.
I did this test. All my cameras are real. But how can I get them back?

Erik.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-10-2017   #74
Erik van Straten
Registered User
 
Erik van Straten's Avatar
 
Erik van Straten is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,758
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highway 61 View Post
Someone told me that The Netherlands are a country where many criminal Russian people live nowadays. They use to gather into terrible gangs in order to spread fake Contax cameras all over the whole world. Your Contax I may have been tailored by those people, who want our own minds to vignette, too. You may want to dump that thing and buy a genuine Contax from California.
Yes, that is the widely feared Petrakla gang. They origin from Petersburg, but now they are all over the place.



Erik.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-10-2017   #75
Highway 61
Revisited
 
Highway 61's Avatar
 
Highway 61 is offline
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,516
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dralowid View Post
To test the authenticity of a Contax I is very simple. If it floats it is a fake.
With a Contax I, yes.

But with a Contax II if it leaves stains of pure-bred German petroleum grease on the Thames water surface this is another proof it wasn't a fake. Counterfeit Kievs made in The Netherlands would leave whale lubricants behind.
__________________

  Reply With Quote

Old 01-10-2017   #76
Dralowid
Michael
 
Dralowid's Avatar
 
Dralowid is offline
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 2,235
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erik van Straten View Post
I did this test. All my cameras are real. But how can I get them back?

Erik.
Do you have the telephone number for those nice people who dredge up bicycles from your canals? They may be able to help...

My wife and I once spent an enjoyable hour or so sitting in the sun with a glass of something watching them at work, such skill, beats 'Changing of the Guard' any day.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-13-2017   #77
Gben
Registered User
 
Gben is offline
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corran View Post
Thread drift is a fact of life. Everyone is discussing Contax I cameras, including foibles that very well may affect yours. Lighten up.
Lightening up has nothing to do with it. If you want the forum to actually be useful, then it makes sense to put information into threads that have relevant titles. If someone is looking for information on f1.5 Sonnars having problems they are probably not going to take a look in this thread because neither "Contax I" or "f1.5 Sonnar" is in it's title.

Thread Drift happens, but it should not be a goal if anyone wants the forum to be useful and popular, but maybe nobody does, maybe it is just a toy for a small handful of individuals to sit in a circle and pleasure each other....
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-13-2017   #78
Corran
Registered User
 
Corran is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 797
you must be fun at parties
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-14-2017   #79
Highway 61
Revisited
 
Highway 61's Avatar
 
Highway 61 is offline
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,516
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gben View Post
If someone is looking for information on f1.5 Sonnars having problems they are probably not going to take a look in this thread because neither "Contax I" or "f1.5 Sonnar" is in it's title.
This is all true. People looking for good information about the classic Zeiss Contax gear on this forum were certain to find some in a thread having "Hilarious" in its title and created by someone having posted 38 times so far.
__________________

  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:46.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.