Larry Cloetta
Veteran
The “sliding mirror problem” exists, but it’s an easy ten minute fix that anyone can do and fix it permanently. Can be googled, but basically was due to the adhesive they used originally to hold the mirrors in place, an adhesive which slowly failed over time, especially in warmer climates, allowing the mirror to slip forward as the adhesive stretched and thinned out. Resulting in partially blanked out frames.
You gently, carefully remove the mirror which is not difficult and reattach it with Pliobond which won’t fail over time. Mine are going on over twelve years now, at any rate.
Were that every fix was this easy. Nothingburger.
Yes, my 159 had mirror slip. It was very very slight...the mirror would hang with the 45mm lens attached but not with a 50.
As Larry says, it's a ten minute job.
As Larry says, it's a ten minute job.
Yeah, I've realized that I might have been limiting my choices by only looking at contaxes.
The issue is, when the choice is between three cameras (like in my original post) it's a simpler choice, then if it's between all cameras out there
People pointed out that if I want a small classic SLR with a 40-45mm lens (which is my favorite focal length) I should look at the Olympus om-3 ti or some of the nikon Fs.
If it wasn't for the comment about the S2 build quality I must admit I would have already bought the S2 or the S2b depending on available options.
Nikon has two 45s, one is still very pricey. The other doesn’t focus close and is quite ancient, with low contrast. Much prefer the Zeiss 45 over either Nikkor.
For a Nikon body I’d go with the 40/2 Ultron, not the latest SL II S as it’s not a true pancake; the SL II N is. Close focus .45m. Much much better lens than the 45 Nikkor and a stop faster. Plus it will work on old bodies as well as modern ones like the N80/F80.
CharlesDAMorgan
Veteran
I agree totally - a super lens, light and compact, lovely rendering and beautifully made. And so many bodies of great quality and modest cost to choose from.
Larry Cloetta
Veteran
People say that the S2 was made by Cosina anyway, along with the FM10, so this is a good idea for someone stuck on that focal length.
People say that the S2 was made by Cosina anyway, along with the FM10, so this is a good idea for someone stuck on that focal length.
The latest SL II S has the same excellent optics, but it focuses all the way to 0.25m. If pancakey-ness isn't important...
The Ultron is great one-camera, one-lens setup...semi-wide, semi-normal, semi-macro and f/2.
This thread is no good for GAS in these times...
p.giannakis
Pan Giannakis
Oh.. be carefull - you are going down a slippery road and you won't stop untill you have all 4 of them
redimp
Member
One question I have to the Aria or S2 owners in this thread – does anyone here use m42 glass with the adapters?
I am trying to understand how the camera will handle such a shooting scenario, since the aperture will not be controlled by the body anymore.
I am trying to understand how the camera will handle such a shooting scenario, since the aperture will not be controlled by the body anymore.
Larry Cloetta
Veteran
I have posted this before, so I apologize for the redundancy, but after having used, at some length, every one, I think, of the more highly regarded “usual suspects” in M42 bodies, I dumped all of them after adapting my M42 lenses to Contax bodies. You can’t adapt M42 lenses to Nikon bodies without using an adapter which contains a corrective lens in it, due to problems with the flange distance.
But, M42 lenses adapt to Contax bodies like a charm. Most of the five 139Q bodies I mentioned earlier are more or less wedded to specific M42 lenses.
My pleasure with shooting M42 lenses has tripled since I got rid of the original bodies they were used on. No offense intended to those likely to find this heretical.
Yes, you have to use stop down metering, but, here’s the thing about that: the viewfinders on the Contax bodies are so much brighter than anything on any older M42 body (possible exception of Bessaflex which I haven’t used) that you can easily both compose and meter at f/5.8 or f/8. No need to meter at the desired stopped down aperture then having to open it up to compose, then holding steady and stopping it down again, or composing and then stopping down to meter and shoot, while hoping that you didn’t lose the composition. The viewfinder on the 139Q is brighter at f/5.6 than it is on a nice Spotmatic wide open.
Plus, you get the advantage of generally more accurate shutter speeds, higher shutter speeds in some cases, always useful, and much better metering.
I just keep a decent adapter permanently married to a Contax body dedicated to M42 lenses and treat it as if it were an M42 body.
Sacrilegious, but you’ll never go back to an older M42 body once you’ve tried this, except out of historical interest. And there’s nothing wrong with that if you just love the feel of a Spotmatic, etc.
But Contax body is easier to use with M42 lenses than a “real” M42 body.
The aperture pin on some (few) M42 lenses meant that they could only be used either with difficulty or not at all on bodies from other manufacturers, or earlier bodies from the same manufacturer. With judicious modification to an adapter, even this difficulty can be overcome fairly easily, making a Contax body a universal M42 body. But, I can’t explain that in a post, though it’s pretty easy to accomplish..
The question “What is the best body to use with M42 lenses?” has a completely different answer than the seemingly similar question, “What is the best M42 body to use with M42 lenses?”
2 cents. YMMV.
CharlesDAMorgan
Veteran
Just to add to Larry's post, a friend has been using a 167MT with native Planar f1.7 and his CZJ 35mm Flektogon M42 with adapter, with no issues.
redimp
Member
Thank you, Larry. Does the camera understand that the attached lens is not native and that the aperture won't be controlled by the body?
For example shooting a native lens set to f8, the metering would be via wide open lens, and the body would stop it down to 8 when taking a shot. My worry is that if I shoot a non-native lens at f8, body will meter a scene at f8 thinking it's metering wide open, and then attempt to stop the lens down? Or does it know that the attached lens is not native because it will not engage various pins inside the body when mounted?
santino
FSU gear head
The camera „thinks“ you are using f1.2. Every time you fire the shutter it tries to close the aperture. There is no problem exposing the shot at f8 while the camera thinks its f1.2
ACullen
Well-known
I’ve recently slimmed down to just two M42 lenses that I exclusively use on Contax bodies . A 17mm/f4 and 55mm/f1.4 Super Takumars. The former is my only fisheye lens.
It’s a lot of fun for very occasional use. Definitely a niche lens. The 55/1.4 is used wide open pretty much exclusively. For regular use I prefer Planar 50/1.7 or Tessar 45/2.8 lenses.
It’s a lot of fun for very occasional use. Definitely a niche lens. The 55/1.4 is used wide open pretty much exclusively. For regular use I prefer Planar 50/1.7 or Tessar 45/2.8 lenses.
rbiemer
Unabashed Amateur
These two comments are what I consider the ones that get to the heart of the matter.
And how I would think about which of the three options you've asked about.
Were I making this same choice, I would do a couple of things. Firstly, I would read a bit and get to a more thorough understanding of the different meters--center weighted and spot--and how they are best used. To, hopefully, figure out which will suit my photography better.
Once I had a handle on that, my specific camera choice would likely come down to which I could find that had the best chance of being in the best condition. Where I live I am forced to rely on buying on-line so I can't actually handle any cameras or lenses I want to buy.
I would choose the Aria over the others primarily because the Aria seems to offer more options in how I can use the camera.
Lastly, when I did decide to buy a Contax--after quite a few decades of longing and not having the $ for them--I ended up buying an N1. A year or so later, I'm still very happy with that choice.
Larry Cloetta
Veteran
You may be overthinking this. I was pretty much talking about the Contax bodies with meters, though the basic ideas more or less apply to the fully mechanical bodies like the S2.
The camera doesn’t understand that it’s a non-native lens, but if you are doing stop down metering, which you would have to do with an M42 lens, the camera doesn’t need to understand that. The bodies all use through the lens metering, so the metering is determined solely by how much light is passing through the lens; the meter doesn’t know or care who made the lens, and the pin doesn’t come into play since, because you are doing stopped down metering, you have already taken the automatic stopping down of the lens, via pin actuation, out of the equation. It would be perfect if one could use every M42 lens on e.g. and Aria or 139Q body, and, no matter where you had the aperture set on the lens, the blades were always wide open until you released the shutter, and the pin arrangement instantly closed the aperture down to the preselected aperture and the metering system took care of the rest. This is only going to work with lenses which are compatible with the bodies they were designed for. M42 lenses are only going to provide this function for M42 bodies, and even then, there are a lot of M42 lenses which will only provide this level of automation on the bodies they were made for, not just the manufacturer but the model as well, because pin placement which varied from lens to lens creates incompatibility.
When I was trying to use one M42 lens from one manufacturer on an M42 body from another manufacturer, where the only option was stopped down metering, it was often unsatisfactory because the viewfinders were so dim at f8 that, if you wanted to shoot at f/8, you couldn’t possibly compose at f/8, you had to jockey back and forth between metering at f8 then opening it wide open to compose or vice versa. It was a lot of monkey motion, which is why few people were in love with stopped down metering.
My proposition, based on experience with, instead, using any M42 lens you have on metered Contax bodies, is that the viewfinders are bright enough that most of the time you can just set the camera to “auto”, set the aperture on the lens to whatever you want for the scene, and compose and shoot without having to do all the back and forth normally inherent to stop down metering. The camera doesn’t know you have a Takumar or Flektagon mounted, and it doesn’t know that when the shutter is released the body wont be able to automatically stop down the lens. It won’t be stopping down the lens, even though it’s trying; it doesn’t need to because you have already stopped it down. Camera doesn’t know, native or non-native, doesn’t need to know.
So, I am just using these M42/Contax setups as auto aperture metered cameras. Let’s say I have a 35 Flektagon on a Contax 139Q. I set the camera shutter speed dial to “auto” and look at the scene through the viewfinder. As I change the aperture on the lens, moving from wide open to more and more stopped down, the image in the viewfinder becomes progressively less bright and I can watch the meter selected shutter speed change, in the readout, in concert with the aperture selected. The image in the vf rarely gets so dim that I cannot easily compose. When you have the aperture shutter speed combo that you want for the scene, just take the picture.
In really dim situations this does become less easy, but most of the time it’s not an issue.
Hoping this has made things more clear rather than less so. Bottom line, if used like this, the lens doesn’t know it’s not on an M42 camera, and camera thinks it’s just another lens letting light through to its meter, which meters just as usual.
For me, these cameras with adapters, are just nice, easy to use, universally compatible M42 cameras. I treat them like that, leaving adapters permanently on 139 bodies and only using M42 lenses on them. I use an ST and RTSIII for Contax lenses. I have too many cameras, but it’s easy enough, probably simpler/saner to just use one body for everything.
valdas
Veteran
Larry,
What kind of adapter do you use? I checked ebay - there are plenty of cheap ones from China, are those ok or do you recommend some particular branded version? I have two Contax 139q cameras so I like the idea to permanently mount my Super Takumar 50/1.4 on one of them.
What kind of adapter do you use? I checked ebay - there are plenty of cheap ones from China, are those ok or do you recommend some particular branded version? I have two Contax 139q cameras so I like the idea to permanently mount my Super Takumar 50/1.4 on one of them.
Larry Cloetta
Veteran
Here is one of those times when I can become somewhat less than reliable, or somewhat less than conclusive.
I have several kinds, bottom line, in terms of the photos produced, I can't say that I have ever noticed any difference. However, I have never done any brick wall type testing with any of them, just used them to take photos. I have a couple of cheap Chinese ones, a couple of Fotodiox/Fotodiox Pro ones, a Kipon (most expensive) and a couple of identical ones I picked up on eBay from people here in the States. These were apparently from 'back in the day' probably the '80s, and are very well made. Unlike the others, the inner ring is black, but I don't know who made them. Not sure it is important.
The Kipon and my older ones are probably the best made, but I can't tell that it really makes any difference. Since the adapter fits inside the C/Y mount, you are not having to worry about the flange thickness since the M42 lens will end up screwing up flush with the outside of the C/Y mount anyway, the adapter won't limit the seating of the lens to the body no matter which one you use.
All of them fit flush with the circumference of the Contax mount when screwed into the body, and all of them allow infinity focus.
The inner ring, with the cutouts for the aperture pins, is different from brand to brand however. In general this has never presented an issue with any of the M42 lenses I own. Recalling from memory now, there was a Yashinon 50/1.7 I used to have that required me to grind out a bit of the inner ring of the Fotodiox adapter (and only the Fotodiox adapter) to allow the lens to be screwed to place. This modification had no other effect on usability other than to allow the use of the Yashinon. Never had any issues with any of my other lenses on any of the other adapters.
Worth noting that because the C/Y mount is larger in diameter than the M42 mount, the adapter will click into the Contax body and be flush with the outside of the mount. Once clicked firmly to place it is not easy/really hard to remove it with just your fingers. Some of the adapters come with a spanner to use to easily unscrew these from the body, as shown in the attached ad. Those are nice, but not absolutely necessary. You can use any kind of lens spanner to remove, or, really, any kind of pointed tool pushing on one of the notches in the adapter to get it started moving from its fully wedged in position.
So, the spanner is not absolutely necessary, or not necessary at all if just leaving the adapter in place, but thought I should mention that. I used these for a long time before I ever got one that came with the spanner tool.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Rare-Penta...690145?hash=item3421391ba1:g:zrIAAOSw3SdeO6hu
valdas
Veteran
^^^
Great info. Thanks.
Great info. Thanks.
great info, Larry! I have a 50/1.8 Fujinon in M42 that rightly should be tested on my Contax 159!