Contax II Problem

D

dustym

Member
Local time
1:16 PM
Joined
Aug 3, 2005
Messages
18
View My Gallery
I have just recently purchased a contax II . Fifties body earlier lens, only achieves f11 as minimum apeture
Cant seem to get anything in reasonable sharpness, the images are what can be described as soft and lacking contrast. The lens looks in good condition its a rigid 1. 5 cm Zeiss Jena.

I shoot Trix 400 as my main film

Cant stop using it but its driving me mad , I have shot a test roll at F8 as I was advised this would be the optimum apeture for this camera.
Anybody else had similair issues.:bang:


Rgds
Dusty
 
vintage lenses tend to be lower contrast than newer ones - especially if it is uncoated, or has haze/cleaning scratches/etc.

But without seeing some sample images, it's hard to know what could be the cause. For all I know it could be bad processing on the TriX.

I agree that for sharpness you'll want to stay in the f4-f8 range - maybe the rangefinder is slightly mis-aligned? or the lens is out of collimation?
 
Can you post some examples? Fifties body? wouldn't that be a IIa? My uncoated 1936 5cm f/2 sonnar has pretty good contrast.
showphoto.php
 

Attachments

  • FH000013.JPG
    FH000013.JPG
    68.7 KB · Views: 1
Last edited:
The RF may be out. Do the coincident images merge at infinity? Check also close focusing: focus camera/lens on an object of known distance away, around 2 metres. What does the focus scale between lens and body read?
 
FrankS said:
The RF may be out. Do the coincident images merge at infinity? Check also close focusing: focus camera/lens on an object of known distance away, around 2 metres. What does the focus scale between lens and body read?
Click to expand...
I did that focused on the fridge 10 feet away and checked the distance and it was spot on.
I have just processed some negs in ddx trix 400 at f8 and the negs shot with the meter set on 500 iso have a great deal more contrast. The film was processed at 400 iso times the RF is accurate at infinity.
can these be adjusted at home or not.

rgds
dusty
 
rogue_designer said:
vintage lenses tend to be lower contrast than newer ones - especially if it is uncoated, or has haze/cleaning scratches/etc.

But without seeing some sample images, it's hard to know what could be the cause. For all I know it could be bad processing on the TriX.

I agree that for sharpness you'll want to stay in the f4-f8 range - maybe the rangefinder is slightly mis-aligned? or the lens is out of collimation?
Click to expand...

I use 120 trix in my rolliflex and fuji gs645 so processing is not an issue.
I love the camera to bits but its driving me mad.

dusty
 
Given the minimum aperture of f11, the lens is one of the earlier 50/1.5 Sonnars, and dates to about 1935 or 1936 if in chrome finish, and earlier if the finish is black/nickel . It is quite possible that the lens elements are full of oil/grease, and that a good cleaning would help. Normally, one should not have to stop down to f8 with this lens to get decent sharpness. Typically, the center of the image is pretty sharp by f2.8, and very sharp by f4, with the resolution decreasing toward the corners of the image very smoothly.

Also, second what Frank said- check that the rangefinder is in alignment.
 
Try another lens if you can - borrowed from a friend or from a photo store for a few minutes to take some photos outside. That way you can isolate the problem to the camera OR lens.
 
dexdog said:
Given the minimum aperture of f11, the lens is one of the earlier 50/1.5 Sonnars, and dates to about 1935 or 1936 if in chrome finish, and earlier if the finish is black/nickel . It is quite possible that the lens elements are full of oil/grease, and that a good cleaning would help. Normally, one should not have to stop down to f8 with this lens to get decent sharpness. Typically, the center of the image is pretty sharp by f2.8, and very sharp by f4, with the resolution decreasing toward the corners of the image very smoothly.

Also, second what Frank said- check that the rangefinder is in alignment.
Click to expand...


I forgot to add that I have a 50/2 Sonnar that produced fuzzy pictures until I had it cleaned. I could not believe that the photos taken after and before the cleaning were produced by the same lens.
 
And yes, if the body dates from the fifties, it is a IIa. Very different rangefinder mechanism, succeptible to adjustement woes. The one in the pre-war Contax II and III, it is almost impossible to get it out of whack!
 
There is definitely a problem, based on your results. Since it could be either lens or camera at fault, I'd try to isolate it. Did you do the flashlight test on the lens? Wouldn't be surprised at some haze that could cause at least some of your observed problem. A good cleaning would usually take care of that.

I'd be less concerned about the camera, unless it has been dropped/abused. The IIa is a bit more sensitive than the earlier one, but still pretty stable. Testing the camera with a known good lens will answer most of those concerns. It appears at worst a good CLA and lens cleaning will give you what you are looking for in the combo.

There are a number of good techs that can provide the service you may need. Shop around, and you may be pleasantly surprised at the price quoted.

Harry
 
harry01562 said:
There is definitely a problem, based on your results. Since it could be either lens or camera at fault, I'd try to isolate it. Did you do the flashlight test on the lens? Wouldn't be surprised at some haze that could cause at least some of your observed problem. A good cleaning would usually take care of that.

I'd be less concerned about the camera, unless it has been dropped/abused. The IIa is a bit more sensitive than the earlier one, but still pretty stable. Testing the camera with a known good lens will answer most of those concerns. It appears at worst a good CLA and lens cleaning will give you what you are looking for in the combo.

There are a number of good techs that can provide the service you may need. Shop around, and you may be pleasantly surprised at the price quoted.

Harry
Click to expand...
I have carried out some further tests at f4 f2.8 and f2 and the negs look so much sharper.
I will get the lens cleaned and calibrated, got a price of £40 as I live in the UK
by a well respected camera shop whos owner happens to be the custodian of a very fine rangefinder collection started by his father .

rgds
dusty
 
I would be interested in hearing about the results once you have it cleaned. Also, it sounds like the prints were an issue, given that the negs look sharper.

Post a before and after pic once you have the lens cleaned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom