Leicaflex or Contarex?

[Vince Lupo]

Okay, big decision here. I just picked up a very nice Leicaflex SL camera kit - a clean working chrome body, 50/2 Summicron, 135/2.8 Elmarit and 28/2.8 Soligor with a Leica R mount, instruction manual and ever ready case. Everything is really nice, meter works, all glass is great etc etc.

However -- I also have a very nice Contarex Bullseye set -- body, 35/4 lens, 50/2 lens, 85/2 lens, 135/4 lens, and one of those cool binocular cases that holds three lenses. The meter in the camera doesn't work, but I usually guesstimate the focus with my manual cameras anyways, so no big deal. And, as many of you know, the Oberkochen lenses are top-notch.

So - here's my dilemma: I don't want to keep both kits. Originally I bought the Leicaflex kit to resell, but now that I've cleaned it up and have checked it out some (I haven't shot with it), it's looking more and more attractive. But, the Contarex Bullseye kit is great, and the images I've gotten from that outfit have been fantastic (scary sharp, actually).

Any thoughts out there?

Thanks in advance....

 

[not_in_good_order]

I'd keep the system with the functioning meter.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Reparable or irreparable?

Cheers,

R.

 

[Vince Lupo]

Reparable or irreparable?

Cheers,

R.

The meter? The meter in the Bullseye is a selenium cell, and I don't know offhand anyone who repairs selenium cell meters (though I'm sure they're out there). The fact that the Bullseye's meter doesn't work isn't really an issue for me, and I'm sure that most Bullseyes out there have non-functioning meters anyways. And, who knows what it would cost to fix.

Maybe what I need to do is to shoot a roll with the Leicaflex this weekend, then run a roll through the Contarex, and see which I prefer.

They are both high-quality cameras with high-quality lenses, so this makes the decision even more difficult! But I really don't want to keep both -- it's either one or the other.

 

[Roger Hicks]

The meter? The meter in the Bullseye is a selenium cell, and I don't know offhand anyone who repairs selenium cell meters (though I'm sure they're out there). The fact that the Bullseye's meter doesn't work isn't really an issue for me, and I'm sure that most Bullseyes out there have non-functioning meters anyways. And, who knows what it would cost to fix.

Maybe what I need to do is to shoot a roll with the Leicaflex this weekend, then run a roll through the Contarex, and see which I prefer.

They are both high-quality cameras with high-quality lenses, so this makes the decision even more difficult! But I really don't want to keep both -- it's either one or the other.

Dear Vince,

I was thinking more of the (reliable but complex) Zeiss mirror lift mechanism.

You're dead right, though. Shoot pictures, and see which you like more. If reliability mattered, I'd never use my KowaSix

Cheers,

R.

 

[Vince Lupo]

Thanks Roger -- actually, everything about the Contarex is fine, except the meter. I love the sound of it -- that nice KACHUNK that the shutter/mirror makes, the heft of the camera, the ease of lens changing, the aperture changing wheel on the body. BUT, that Leicaflex is pretty special - everyone seems to wax philosophical about the viewfinder, and yes it is really nice -- uncluttered, bright, very nice.

I'm going to put a roll in the Leicaflex, maybe post some of the shots (if they're of any interest), and we'll see where it goes from there. Of course, unless you guys know something about either one of these cameras that I don't. I mean, is there anything to watch out for, as far as either camera goes? Does one camera excel at one thing better than another? Has anyone used both?

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Vince,

They're both beautifully made and very reliable: Ilford used a Contarex for film testing. But IF the Contax packs up, you're looking at serious money.

So? Wait until it packs up, which may never happen...

Even as a Leica addict, I'd probably take the chance on the Cyclops.

Cheers,

R.

 

[burninfilm]

Just sell me your Leicaflex SL... problem solved!

One thing on the SL to watch out for is the lens release button. The originals were red plastic which break fairly easily. If yours still has the plastic red release, be careful. Often they were replaced with silver metal versions, which are much more durable. From what I've read, the Leicaflex cameras were way over-engineered, built to be far more durable than necessary. An SL2 MOT took a 25,000 foot drop out of an airplane and survived in one piece... it was even declared "repairable" by Leica!

 

[ferider]

I would go for the Leica for sure, but I might be biased. My father used one when I was a kid. These days you can get all these great lenses for it, for not much money. Have you seen the Nikkor conversions ? That alone would be attractive enough for me. Imagine: a Nikkor 35/1.4, a Summilux 85/1.4, and an Elmarit 180/2.8 ....

Best,

Roland.

 

[Beemermark]

I have a SL2, never owned a Contarex. I love the Leica lenses. One thing to consider is that Leicaflex bodies are relatively cheap, they are easily repaired and if the repair is too expensive it's not hard to find a replacement. I don't think you can the same about the Contarex.

 

[PMCC]

Never tried the SL, but the SL2 was a joy to use, and as Roland says, all those great lenses. A big fan's SL report: http://photo.net/equipment/leica/leicaflex/

 

[CameraQuest]

Contarex are relatively undependable and very difficult to work on, despite superb lenses.

I would sell the Contarex. If you want digital, use the R lenses on a digital Canon EOS or even M43 camera via adapter.l

Stephen

 

[ZeissFan]

It comes down to Leitz vs. Zeiss, as far as the lenses go.

If the Contarex body is working now, I would expect it to be working in five, 10 or 15 years. That is, if it hasn't broken down since the 1960s, it probably won't break down any time soon. And it's not a rare camera, so you can always buy another body.

See which camera you enjoy using more.

I think this is purely a personal decision based on which camera feels the best to you.

 

[BillBingham2]

I had an SL-MOT and traded it for a 21/2.8 Elsomething, should have kept the SLR. Quite frankly the SL/SL2 is a wonderful camera. I think Sherry can still fix the meters but I'm not sure.

Sell the Contarex and the Leica glass and pick up the Elmarit 180/2.8 and something Leica between 75 and 90. Carry that with an M with normal to wide and you are set.

B2 (;->

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Do you really need the funds from a sale?

Keep both. You like both, they render different results. Both are fun to use, life is too short.

I could put Olden Camera back in business if I ever decided to keep just one system.

 

[BillBingham2]

Brian,

Think of how much more room you would have if to sold of just 1/2?!?

How many shoes and closets would that be for the girls?

B2 (;->

 

[raytoei@gmail.com]

hi,

I actually have 2 SLs and no Contarex.

The Leicaflex SL is relatively inexpensive, which is a good / bad thing. The upside is that R Lens are inexpensive to own relative to their M counterparts. The R Summicron and Elmarits are fantastic lens which I could never afford for my CL.

And then there are adapters for it too, I bought a Vivitar T4/TX adapter from SL guru Don Herr. On eBay, there are T4 / TX mount Vivitar 90-200mm zoom lens going for silly cheap 20 USD (!). I am currently eyeing the Hasselblad to SL adapter.

In the event of a SL failure, the R4(s) bodies can be gotten under 150, preserving the usefulness of the lens. (Of course, the SL Lens to EOS bodies adapter work as well)

raytoei

 

[Roger Hicks]

It comes down to Leitz vs. Zeiss, as far as the lenses go.

If the Contarex body is working now, I would expect it to be working in five, 10 or 15 years. That is, if it hasn't broken down since the 1960s, it probably won't break down any time soon. And it's not a rare camera, so you can always buy another body.

See which camera you enjoy using more.

I think this is purely a personal decision based on which camera feels the best to you.

Good point.

Cheers,

R.

 

[awilder]

Meter issue aside, the Contarex design always "suffered" from mirror "brownout", i.e. the lens remains stopped down to the selected aperture after the shutter fires and the mirrors flips back down, only reverting to full aperture when the advance lever is cocked for the next shot. Not a problem if you always shoot wide open but a minor irritant if shooting at f/8. The Leicaflex SL behaves like every other modern SLR, the aperture is always wide open for viewing unless you depress the DOF button. Also the Leicaflex is a bit quieter and weighs less than the Contarex. The Leica R and Contarex lenses are close enough to be a draw but while Contarex lenses while top drawer at the time, they were never upgraded in design over time like Leica had the opporunity to do over about 40 years. The biggest advantage of the Contarex system was it's abilty to take interchangeable backs, something normally associated with larger format cameras like Hasselblad. It also has some really neat accessories especially with the later cameras like the Contarex Electronic.

 

[ZeissFan]

Vince, you know that I've shot the heck out of my Contarex and like it a lot. It's a beast of camera, and even the body with a three lens kit (35-50-135) is a lot to haul around.

The preset 250 Sonnar is a monster of a lens. You couldn't handhold it unless your name is The Hulk.

But I love the Planar, Distagon and Sonnar, so you put up with it.

Lately, I've traded the Contarex setup for a Rolleiflex SLR setup with the same lenses. Upside: A lighter weight kit. Downside: Finding a working SL 35 E body -- or almost any working Rolleiflex SL 35 body.

Certainly, you can't go wrong with the Leicaflex. Great lenses, too.