Hilarious Ebay Contax score....

[Mark C]

I have the same lens (black/nickel 1628901), also in a near mint condition. However, when I use it on a Contax I, it vignettes in an extreme way, the corners are totally black. When I use the same lens on a Nikon S2 there is no vignetting at all. Maybe this is the reason that the lenses did not see much use on Contax I bodies.

Erik.

I have one in black/nickel about 500 numbers before yours Erik. From what I can see in the picture of Gben's lens, his is an earlier version than mine. Mine is like the first one shown on this page at Pacific Rim Cameras:
https://www.pacificrimcamera.com/pp/zicontax50f15.htm
He calls it a type 3 and dates that to 1935, but with a higher serial number than mine.

I believe I've been misstating the date for mine, and remember being confused by the serial number information that I could find when I first got the lens last fall. It is odd that mine seems to be a slightly newer style than Erik's, but with a lower number.

Gben and Erik, are do yours both have f11 minimum aperture? I assume Erik's does, but don't know the serial number range for Gben's.

I use mine on M's with an Amedeo adapter. I like it a lot, and it has been my most used 50 lately.

 

[Fuchs]

Congrats!! Super nice (and hot hahaha) finds!

 

[Corran]

Mine is like the first one shown on this page at Pacific Rim Cameras:
https://www.pacificrimcamera.com/pp/zicontax50f15.htm
He calls it a type 3 and dates that to 1935, but with a higher serial number than mine.

Thanks for the link. It's weird, he mentions Type 3 has an f/16 min. aperture but the one in the photo and mine as well is still f/11 min.

Where was the aperture in the older versions I wonder? There is no photos of older Type 1 or 2.

He says Type 2 was made up to serial # 1628xxx, mine is serial # 16283xx so I'm right on the edge, but it looks just like the Type 3 in the photo.

 

[Erik van Straten]

I have one in black/nickel about 500 numbers before yours Erik. From what I can see in the picture of Gben's lens, his is an earlier version than mine. Mine is like the first one shown on this page at Pacific Rim Cameras:
https://www.pacificrimcamera.com/pp/zicontax50f15.htm
He calls it a type 3 and dates that to 1935, but with a higher serial number than mine.

I believe I've been misstating the date for mine, and remember being confused by the serial number information that I could find when I first got the lens last fall. It is odd that mine seems to be a slightly newer style than Erik's, but with a lower number.

Gben and Erik, are do yours both have f11 minimum aperture? I assume Erik's does, but don't know the serial number range for Gben's.

I use mine on M's with an Amedeo adapter. I like it a lot, and it has been my most used 50 lately.

Thank you Mark. Yes, mine has the maximum aperture of f/11 and looks the same as the lens on the site of Pacific Rim Camera. However, mine is completely nickel (with a black band). The Pacific Rim lens seems to have chrome front parts. I understand that there are quite a lot of decorative differences between the lenses. The lens was available from 1932.

I have problems with vignetting on two Contax I bodies.

I would like to have the Amadeo adapter, but I am confused wich one to take. Wich one do you have? Then I can order the same.

The lens draws beautifully.

Erik.

 

[Dralowid]

Erik,

Remember that you can make a cheap adaptor for digital from bits of an old Kiev!

Michael

 

[Erik van Straten]

I thought the black/nickel 50mm f/1.5 lenses were the standard lens for Contax I cameras? Why wouldn't it have been - what else would it have been made for??

My black and nickel 50mm f/1.5 came on my Contax I, and works just fine, no vignetting. Sounds like there is an issue with your pairing.

The other 50mm lenses are more common, except the 50mm f/2. Most often seen is the 50mm f/2.8, not really the best lens around.

As I've said in the other post, the Sonnar f/1.5 vignettes on two of my Contax I cameras, however more on my v7 than on my v4. Actually it came on my v7 and it looked like it was there since 1934!

Erik.

 

[Erik van Straten]

Erik,

Remember that you can make a cheap adaptor for digital from bits of an old Kiev!

Michael

What did I hear? Digital? Me???

Erik.

 

[Gben]

This lens has a serial number starting in the 145xxxx range, which from the list I have dates it to 1933. It is limited to f11. The first version was limited to f8, so this is the second version. It has not filter threads, so it is the second version.

 

[Mark C]

Thanks for the link. It's weird, he mentions Type 3 has an f/16 min. aperture but the one in the photo and mine as well is still f/11 min.

Where was the aperture in the older versions I wonder? There is no photos of older Type 1 or 2.

He says Type 2 was made up to serial # 1628xxx, mine is serial # 16283xx so I'm right on the edge, but it looks just like the Type 3 in the photo.

I think that was one of the other things that confused me when I was trying to date my lens. He doesn't clearly state that he means all Type 3 have f 16, but that is certainly how I would interpret what he says. Perhaps just an error in writing since he does show Type 3 with f11, and both Erik and I have that combination. Maybe changed sometime before it went to chrome, or maybe not.

 

[Erik van Straten]

Maybe changed sometime before it went to chrome, or maybe not.

Kuc says in his book about the Contax that only later on in the production of the chrome Sonnar 50mm f/1.5 the range of f/stops became f/16. After the war it became f/22.

Erik.

 

[Mark C]

Thank you Mark. Yes, mine has the maximum aperture of f/11 and looks the same as the lens on the site of Pacific Rim Camera. However, mine is completely nickel (with a black band). The Pacific Rim lens seems to have chrome front parts. I understand that there are quite a lot of decorative differences between the lenses. The lens was available from 1932.

I have problems with vignetting on two Contax I bodies.

I would like to have the Amadeo adapter, but I am confused wich one to take. Wich one do you have? Then I can order the same.

The lens draws beautifully.

Erik.

Good eye. I hadn't noticed the chrome, but it seems clearly to be. I wish he had given an idea of serial number on the one pictured. He seems to imply that he believes type 2 went through 1628xxx, which it obviously did not, so I assume his is later and possibly close to the transition to chrome. I don't mean any criticism of the information; he clearly does know quite a lot about these lenses, and a lot of little changes went on.

Mine too is all nickel, with the black band, like the one at Pacific Rim. Gben's looks to be the earlier version with the aperture ring in the middle. Mine is a bit fussy to adjust the aperture, but I do like having the option of focusing with the middle ring. I had the other problem of aperture constantly getting bumped when I was shooting with my 40 Nokton instead last night.

I bought the Amedeo dedicated 50mm adapter from CameraQuest. It was much cheaper, plus is small and focuses like a Leica lens. The only lens I have that would need the other adapter is an 8.5 cm Triotar, which I don't have any particular interest in using.

Oddly, I was having vignetting problems at long distances, but that turned out to be due to the lens shade I was using. I thought it was original issue, but probably not. I haven't seen a picture of the original. I don't know what could cause the camera specific problem you are seeing.

 

[Erik van Straten]

I bought the Amedeo dedicated 50mm adapter from CameraQuest.

Can you say wich one exactly? At CameraQuest I am also confused.

I also thought that it was the shade that caused the vignetting (indeed at long distances). I used the original one from Zeiss. Did not like it because it falls off all the time. Now I have a cheap generic Chinese one, screw in.

I was astonished that there was no vignetting whatsoever on the Nikon S2. Is there no vignetting on the M-Leicas?

Erik.

 

[Deklari]

Can you say wich one exactly? At CameraQuest I am also confused.

I also thought that it was the shade that caused the vignetting (indeed at long distances). I used the original one from Zeiss. Did not like it because it falls off all the time. Now I have a cheap generic Chinese one, screw in.

I was astonished that there was no vignetting whatsoever on the Nikon S2. Is there no vignetting on the M-Leicas?

Erik.

I was little confused. If lens make a same covering circle and size of each shut and distance to film is the same, how it vignetting come in one camera but not in another?

 

[Erik van Straten]

I was little confused. If lens make a same covering circle and size of each shut and distance to film is the same, how it vignetting come in one camera but not in another?

The Contax I and the Nikon S2 are very different and there are differences between the different models of the Contaxes. I think the lenses were not checked on all the bodies. In those years every separate handmade product was different from another. I guess.

Erik.

 

[Deklari]

The Contax I and the Nikon S2 are very different and there are differences between the different models of the Contaxes. I think the lenses were not checked on all the bodies. In those years every separate handmade product was different from another. I guess.

Erik.

True, but it sound like a lens didn't fully cover 36mm or back plate has a small tilt or shift (like in large format photography).

 

[Erik van Straten]

True, but it sound like a lens didn't fully cover 36mm or back plate has a small tilt or shift (like in large format photography).

That may seem the case, but I think that from the inside the aperture of the bayonet is obscured by some object so that the image of very fast lenses is cut off in all the four corners, but only when the lens is focused on an object far away. Close up is no problem. The angle of view is smaller then.

I always print the whole negative. Maybe the people that used the camera and the lens before me did not.

Erik.

 

[Deklari]

That may seem the case, but I think that from the inside the aperture of the bayonet is obscured by some object so that the image of very fast lenses is cut off in all the four corners, but only when the lens is focused on an object far away. Close up is no problem. The angle of view is smaller then.

I always print the whole negative. Maybe the people that used the camera and the lens before me did not.

Erik.

I see. Did you print and scan you shuts or scan negative directly?

 

[Erik van Straten]

This is a scan from such a picture. I always scan the negative.

Erik.

 

[Deklari]

This is a scan from such a picture. I always scan the negative.

Erik.

That is defiantly from the inside the aperture. Focus is nice and equal no any tilt or shift.

 

[Erik van Straten]

That is defiantly from the inside the aperture. Focus is nice and equal no any tilt or shift.

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.