contax iia vs leica iiif

E. von Hoegh · Nov 14, 2013

randy6 said:
I read elsewhere that the f1.5 sonar renders a different look then the f2 sonar. I don't see it but I rarely shoot wide open.
The f2 is six elements and the f1.5 is 7 elements added in the front right?

The rear cell of the f:1.5 is a triplet, in the f:2 it is a doublet. Both the f:1.5 and the f:2 have four internal surfaces, this was important before lens coatings were widely applied.

P.S. "sonar" is an underwater locating system using sound. "Sonnar" is the lens; it comes from the German 'sonne'; sun.

Richard S. (rich815) · Nov 14, 2013

E. von Hoegh said:
The rear cell of the f:1.5 is a triplet, in the f:2 it is a doublet. Both the f:1.5 and the f:2 have four internal surfaces, this was important before lens coatings were widely applied.

P.S. "sonar" is an underwater locating system using sound. "Sonnar" is the lens; it comes from the German 'sonne'; sun.

Love my 50/1.5 Sonnar, it's a pretty late one. Really nice signature on my IIa:

I found an old pre-war 50/2 Sonnar too. Not used much yet but it looks uncoated. Should be fun to see what I get from it. And compare to my 50/1.5 Summarit which is also old and pre-war. Use that on my IIIf.

pstake · Nov 14, 2013

Here are a couple for observation. The Jena 50/2 is no slouch but, IMHO, the 50 1.5 outshines between 2.8 and 5.6, and the full open f1.5 painterly "look" or "glow" is not quite attainable with the the F2 Sonnar. Still, they are both wonderful lenses to use.

Opton Sonnar 50 / 1.5 wide open at about 1m on Tri-X @1600

Jena Sonnar 50/2 wide open at about 1m on Ektar 100

EDIT: I should add that I use a 1A or 1B skylight on every lens, so the warmth in these photos is not accurately representative of these lenses sans filter.

E. von Hoegh · Nov 14, 2013

rich815 said:
Love my 50/1.5 Sonnar, it's a pretty late one. Really nice signature on my IIa:

I found an old pre-war 50/2 Sonnar too. Not used much yet but it looks uncoated. Should be fun to see what I get from it. And compare to my 50/1.5 Summarit which is also old and pre-war. Use that on my IIIf.

I had a couple Summarits, mine were very clean. They were a bit 'weird' wide open, but withal a good example of the double Gauss type. AFAIK, the Summarits were all coated postwar examples of the prewar uncoated Xenon which was actually made for Leitz by Schneider and a real handful as regards flare.
My prewar f:2 Sonnar was pretty well behaved, use it with a good shade and I bet you'll really like it.
The f:1.5 version is somewhat of an anomaly, actually being regarded as better than it's slower sibling!

I think the old Sonnars are aptly named, there's something bright and cheerful about them. I see this in my J-8 as well.

Mustafa Umut Sarac · Nov 14, 2013

Richard,

This is really nice, I would steal a bank to get same quality from my Sonnar 40mm. Honestly talking , I left photography for 10 years because I had no Leica and than I bought Leica Mini Zoom. Its extremelly costly to pay the postage fees for Pyro , HC110 and Tri X and I bought an Bolex camera with 2500 frames for 11 dollars. There are few suppliers of film for that camera and I am still looking for film.

pstake ,

I think this is similar to what I got from Sonnar. We accept that Richard made it.

But you will find more details at the horizon with Leica, Richard and less grain. And rendition of Leica would pop up the details even more on bridge. Your image is in my mind as all other good zeiss pictures. You will have less contrast - Zeiss looks like cyan separation newspaper print- but more romantic feel.

umut

Mustafa Umut Sarac · Nov 14, 2013

Sonnar 40mm Rollei 35S Fuji 200 ASA

Leica IIIC Elmar 5cms on Plus X

pstake · Nov 14, 2013

Mustafa Umut Sarac said:
Richard,

This is really nice, I would steal a bank to get same quality from my Sonnar 40mm. Honestly talking , I left photography for 10 years because I had no Leica and than I bought Leica Mini Zoom. Its extremelly costly to pay the postage fees for Pyro , HC110 and Tri X and I bought an Bolex camera with 2500 frames for 11 dollars. There are few suppliers of film for that camera and I am still looking for film.

pstake ,

I think this is similar to what I got from Sonnar. We accept that Richard made it.

But you will find more details at the horizon with Leica, Richard and less grain. And rendition of Leica would pop up the details even more on bridge. Your image is in my mind as all other good zeiss pictures. You will have less contrast - Zeiss looks like cyan separation newspaper print- but more romantic feel.

umut

I'm not positive but I believe Rich's photo was taken at a smaller aperture. I would guess F8 or F11.

That makes a significant difference in sharpness, and both Sonnars perform exceptionally at that aperture.

The Sonnar's signature, to me, is the way it draws extremely sharp photos stopped down and draws the creamy, impressionistic out-of-focus areas at wide apertures.

Makes it such a versatile lens you can take it anywhere. And attached to a Contax, a real pleasure to use.

Mustafa Umut Sarac · Nov 14, 2013

I see , thank you,

Umut

aoresteen · Nov 26, 2013

I have and use both a Contax IIa and a Leica IIIf. Both were overhauled by the best -Don Goldberg did the Leica and Henry Scherer did the the Contax. Both are superb cameras.

I mostly use the Contax with a CV 25mm lens when I'm using my Nikon SP with the the 35mm f/1.8 Nikkor lens. The Leica IIIf most often has the CV 21mm lens on it when my Leica M4-P has the CV 28mm Ultron f/1.9 on it.

Both have good 50mm lenses - the Canon 50mm f/1.8 and the Sonar f/1.5. I'll flip a coin to see which one I'll take when I want just one body and a 50mm (sometimes the M3 with the ZM 50mm Planar f/2 wins).

As for teles I have a 105mm Nikkor for the Contax. The Leica has a 135mm Canon that never gets used on it as the rare times I use the 135 it's on the M3.

Richard S. (rich815) · Nov 26, 2013

pstake said:
I'm not positive but I believe Rich's photo was taken at a smaller aperture. I would guess F8 or F11.

1/250th, f/5,6

Mustafa Umut Sarac · Nov 26, 2013

I am still have not enough experience about soft creamy and high contrast and sharper images depends on aperture. I did not experience that with my Leicas but because of buying them , less money had been left for film.

Knjy · Jan 23, 2014

To add my two pennyworth, I love all of these cameras - Leica Zeiss Nikon Canon.
I have just finished stripping and servicing two dysfunctional Contaxes, a lla and a lla. Both had multiple problems, shutter not firing on some speeds, other speeds awry, viewfinders dull and hazy, helical mounts rattling and dry.
These cameras are easy to access and very well made making the job of restoration predictable and straightforward, at every stage I was totally impressed with the design, manufacture and materials.
With ultrasonic cleaning of the slow speed escapement and self timer mechs, flood cleaning of the wind on and speed changing assemblies the speeds were revived. Further work on the shutter tensioning and general lubrication and thorough cleaning has brought both cameras back to full operating condition with bright viewfinders, focusing is smooth and accurate, speeds accurate and the wind on train is silky and frame spacing spot on. Each camera took about two days of work and while the shutter mechanisms and complicated they are not difficult to service and require very little regular adjustment once setup, if any at all - they just work.
This was a fine post-war design (as was the Leica M), that was built to be serviced and not built to require repair or frequent adjustment. I would say that the Contax was better engineered, and handled better than the Leica screw cameras but was out performed by the later M series in terms of handling.
As for the lenses, I have never been able to exploit the outer limits of lens performance -Leitz or Zeiss - on any picture I have ever taken with any lens I have ever owned. My own shortcomings with camera shake, film choice and development, focusing technique have always been the limiting factors. In addition all the pictures I have dared show others have never produced the comment, "the definition is a bit soft at the edges".
With analogue love.

Xmas · Jan 23, 2014

The only thing questionable about the Contax II or IIa was they had more piece parts than a Leica III. So they cost more to make, less profit for Zeiss.

They (Contax or Kiev) are nicer to maintain until you need a spare part.

All mine (including Kievs) with meters are still working accurate enough for Kodachrome - alas not needed.

Nikon copied the mount and rfdr from Contax sticking an N in front of the Ikon... rather cheeky. But cloned the Leica shutter. Replacing the rubberized fabric with titanium part way through SP production.

Leica went to M series viewfinder.

Canon cloned the Leica III until the VI and P (again steel shutter) then afterwards they went to Canonets, simpler, higher volume more profit, though they still did LTM professional models and lenses to '72

Yashica/Nicca ditto they even cloned the M back door.

They all went to SLRs for high volume sales, some sold better than others.

Cosina made modern lenses for Contax, Nikon and Leica (clones). Nikon did memorial cameras.

If you don't need fast reportage with a fast 35mm the knob wind and bottom load is not a problem.

If you do need fast then Nikon S3, or SP, Canon VI, P or 7, or Leica M all have lever winds and non rotating dials to not snag, (though the M is bottom load)

From 60-75 most hot news pros carried a Nikon F motor drive and 5cm /1.4 and a rfdr (from last para) with fast 35mm.

If you don't need fast reportage any of the old cameras are ok, but not all lenses are completely interchangeable

The old lenses produce lower contrast images pastellising colours, indeed many old lenses live on dig&@&@ cameras using adapters and many Contax and Nikon lenses live on M cameras, there is a cottage industry turning Kievs into (cheaper) M adapters, and parts Kievs are cheap if you don't need a lens mount.

Buying one of each is an option... oops

elekm · Jan 23, 2014

Both camera makers understood that a Contax or a Leica would neeed to be serviced. Today, both are reasonably simple to service.

A Contax isn't that complicated, although it does take time to disassemble and reassemble.

I don't believe any of the parts are interchangeable between a Contax I or II and a postwar IIa/IIIa. The only thing that is the same is the specifications for the lens mount to ensure lens compatibility between models. Except for the prewar Biogon, which shouldn't be used on a postwar Contax.

Some prefer the viewfinder of the Contax II. My own preference is for a postwar IIa. The IIIa is a good camera, but I find that the meter addds noticeable weight to the camera.

The early Nikon S rangefinders are well made, but I think that they are heavier than they neeed to be.

Xmas · Jan 23, 2014

The J12 the FSU clone of the 35mm Biogon should not be mounted on the IIa or IIIa either the optic will hit the shutter baffles. It is very close to some Kievs and Contax II.

GOOGLE before you buy a lens.

Aleksej6 · Oct 7, 2015

I have a Kiev IV (70's) and I could not imagine a better camera for general use.

aoresteen · Nov 7, 2015

aoresteen said:
I have and use both a Contax IIa and a Leica IIIf. Both were overhauled by the best -Don Goldberg did the Leica and Henry Scherer did the the Contax. Both are superb cameras.

I mostly use the Contax with a CV 25mm lens when I'm using my Nikon SP with the the 35mm f/1.8 Nikkor lens. The Leica IIIf most often has the CV 21mm lens on it when my Leica M4-P has the CV 28mm Ultron f/1.9 on it.

Both have good 50mm lenses - the Canon 50mm f/1.8 and the Sonar f/1.5. I'll flip a coin to see which one I'll take when I want just one body and a 50mm (sometimes the M3 with the ZM 50mm Planar f/2 wins).

As for teles I have a 105mm Nikkor for the Contax. The Leica has a 135mm Canon that never gets used on it as the rare times I use the 135 it's on the M3.

I also have a Leica If that has my 15mm Voigtlander on it. As you can see I tend to use wide angles with the IIIf & Contax but I do have a 105mm f/2.5 Nikkor for the Contax IIa that is fun to use.

Xmas · Nov 7, 2015

Or

http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/filmcamera/rangefinder/sp/

Роберт · Nov 8, 2015

Well, in 1934 Contax cameras and lenses (Zeiss) were better then the Leica equivalent. The best Kiev RF cameras were build up from 1949 from German Contax parts.
I have a Kiev-4AM from 1980, on some points modified a bit and normally not known as the best series Kiev's they made but the camera with Jupiter-8M is really amazing good. Comparing the camera with my actual Leica M7 with F/2,0-50mm Summicron (IV) the differences are not that big when enlarging the 24x36mm negative to 40x50cm. But in the same series you can have a bad production unit, even the camera or the Jupiter (Zeiss copies) lenses.

contax iia vs leica iiif

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency