Contarex 135mm f4 any good?

[campy51]

I purchased a Bullseye without a lens and I want to test it out but the 50mm f2's in good condition are a little overpriced for what I want to spend right now. The 135mm seems to be much cheaper but how is the quality?

 

[Larry Cloetta]

I have and use both the 50 and 135, along with others in the line. My personal opinion is that the 135 isn’t bad, but it’s not a standout, relative to other lenses in the line. I’d call it one of the last additions one would make to a Contarex kit, something someone with the 50/2, 85/2, 35/4 or 35/2, and 55/1.4(!), would add just to make an inexpensive range-filling addition.
If you have just bought a Contarex body, and want to try a lens in order to learn what all the fuss is about, the 135 won’t be the lens to show you that. You might try the 135, decide the system wasn’t anything special, and abandon the whole idea. Which would be a mistake. The 135 isn’t cheap because they are more plentiful than the 50’s, they are cheap because that’s what they are worth.
Definitely get the 50 first, even if it means saving for a little while. The 50’s are the best bang for the buck, because they are plentiful.

 

[Pioneer]

I agree with Larry but I might put it a slightly different way. When you compare the Zeiss 135 for the Contarex system with other 135mm lenses of the day it is a good lens and is equal to or better than most of what was being produced at that time. I own one and I use it quite a bit since I like telephoto lenses.

However, when you compare that lens to the others for the Contarex system it is not the best of the batch. As Larry says, if I were to pick one of the best Contarex lenses the 135 would not make my first buy list.

IMHO the 85 is the best of the batch, but I do like telephoto lenses. A very close second would be the 50/2 and I would look for the Blitz version which had some features that are nice if you want to use flash.

Another point to be made is that once you do buy a lens I would have it professionally cleaned. Several of the ones I have picked up have been just a bit hazy but once cleaned became extremely sharp. Perhaps the oils or greases that Zeiss used for their focusing helicals have off gassed onto the glass over the intervening years and needs to be removed. I have read a couple of lens reviews which professed that the Zeiss glass for the Contarex cameras were not all they were hyped to be. I think a reason for this may be because the glass needed cleaning.

Anyway, enjoy the camera, they are a lot of fun.

 

[Larry Cloetta]

Weighing back in here, I’d agree with everything Dan said. Including the information about the lubricants outgassing. I’ve bought some that I was happy with, but on getting them cleaned they were even a little bit better. I’m not saying lenses that haven’t been cleaned recently always need cleaning for you to enjoy great results from a given lens, because most of the ones I have ended up with have been great right off the bat, but cleaning at some point isn’t a bad idea.
Another note on lenses: I haven’t checked prices lately, but the 35/4 is a nice lens as well; if you happen to find one of those that is affordable. Less expensive than the 35/2 by a long way.

 

[campy51]

I initially bought the camera with the intention of putting it in my small but growing collection of older cameras, but I guess I may have got caught up in the moment of the auction. It wasn't an ebay auction and the camera really is in great condition and I thought I could find a lens that was in as good condition as the camera at a reasonable price so I could display it, but that has not been easy so far. I do prefer the chrome lens for display purposes but I would also like to shoot a roll or two to see how they look. I have always loved the look of these cameras and now I have it I can see the build quality of the camera. What's your thoughts of this camera going way up in value in the next 20-30 years? If I new it would be a solid investment I might spend the money for a nice 50mm.

 

[Larry Cloetta]

I’ve been wrong before, but even though I have and use the bodies, mostly Supers at this point, I doubt they will ever be worth more than they are today. Which isn’t all that much. The lenses are expensive now, and they very well might go up in monetary value, but that’s because they are great lenses, and can be adapted to mirrorless bodies.
The camera bodies are fiendishly complicated and difficult to impossible to repair. Plus they were prone to reliability issues when new, a fact which is generally considered to be responsible for driving Zeiss out of the camera business. If your Contarex works now, consider yourself lucky, use it and enjoy it while it lasts, would be my recommendation. There’s no cottage industry of repairers outside of Henry Scherer. He can fix them, maybe the only one still willing to do a CLA on these, but it’s extremely expensive and time consuming. If you look at an exploded diagram of that camera, you will understand why that is. That lovely whirring sound when you press the shutter release is the result of a lovely, fragile clockwork mechanism that was a little too complicated for its own good.
I love the lenses, though.
Anyway, good luck, get a nice lens and enjoy the camera, but don’t expect to use it as a nest egg.