Kevcaster
Well-known
I grabbed a dysfunctional, and therefore cheap, Contax lla from eBay. With the help of multiple forum members I managed to restore the functions and now need a lens for it.
I have a 1961 F2.0 Zeiss Sonnar on a llla and wondered if this Russian bargain would do a good enough job compared with the Zeiss jewel.
I will post up the evidence in a moment once Flickr has resolved the upload problems currently being experienced. In the interim, let's look at the mechanics. This lens is new, bought from Rafcamera trading on eBay out of Novopolotsk, Belarus. The current price is $32 plus $12 shipping. It arrived in a circular black plastic keeper with the original, and now degraded, foam packing and a certificate in Russian cyrillic with a 1984 date stamp.
The appearance is good, bright aluminium with a black anodised aperture ring and click stops! The lens is clean and clear although there is some oil on the aperture blades.
The mount retaining screws stand proud and catch your fingers as you mount the lens, I suspect that one more assembly step was cut out drilling a seat for these but have not investigated as yet.
The bayonet itself is inaccurately milled and the lens wobbles on the Contax mount, the bayonet leaves are cut such that they sit away from the internal seat by a small but significant amount. In addition the lens catch is slightly smaller than the Zeiss allowing the lens to twist from side to side by a fraction when on the camera. It therefore feels a little insecure and lacking in the precision of the Zeiss lens. I prised the bayonet leaves in and they now locate on the seat more securely improving the handling experience. This material is aluminium not chrome as is the Zeiss and I expect it to wear with use.
The weight compares with the Zeiss at 158gms and Helios 156gms.
In use the Helios scores major points over the Zeiss for two reasons. The aperture control has click stops and, they are clearly marked and readable. The Zeiss scores as the focusing knurling is slightly easier to grab and away from the aperture control, which on the Helios encroaches on the focusing area.
Flickr still down so I will post results later, as a clue: Without a reference I cannot tell the negatives apart. For my purposes the pictures are equally good.
Kevin
I have a 1961 F2.0 Zeiss Sonnar on a llla and wondered if this Russian bargain would do a good enough job compared with the Zeiss jewel.
I will post up the evidence in a moment once Flickr has resolved the upload problems currently being experienced. In the interim, let's look at the mechanics. This lens is new, bought from Rafcamera trading on eBay out of Novopolotsk, Belarus. The current price is $32 plus $12 shipping. It arrived in a circular black plastic keeper with the original, and now degraded, foam packing and a certificate in Russian cyrillic with a 1984 date stamp.
The appearance is good, bright aluminium with a black anodised aperture ring and click stops! The lens is clean and clear although there is some oil on the aperture blades.
The mount retaining screws stand proud and catch your fingers as you mount the lens, I suspect that one more assembly step was cut out drilling a seat for these but have not investigated as yet.
The bayonet itself is inaccurately milled and the lens wobbles on the Contax mount, the bayonet leaves are cut such that they sit away from the internal seat by a small but significant amount. In addition the lens catch is slightly smaller than the Zeiss allowing the lens to twist from side to side by a fraction when on the camera. It therefore feels a little insecure and lacking in the precision of the Zeiss lens. I prised the bayonet leaves in and they now locate on the seat more securely improving the handling experience. This material is aluminium not chrome as is the Zeiss and I expect it to wear with use.
The weight compares with the Zeiss at 158gms and Helios 156gms.
In use the Helios scores major points over the Zeiss for two reasons. The aperture control has click stops and, they are clearly marked and readable. The Zeiss scores as the focusing knurling is slightly easier to grab and away from the aperture control, which on the Helios encroaches on the focusing area.
Flickr still down so I will post results later, as a clue: Without a reference I cannot tell the negatives apart. For my purposes the pictures are equally good.
Kevin
