Leicaflex or Contarex?

[shadowfox]

Let the testing begin!

I can't say that I like the look of the Contarex, and I am doubtful that it's an ergonomic darling either 🙂

In your shoes, I'd sell both and hunt for a black Leicaflex SL2.

 

[raytoei@gmail.com]

Well how do you like using the SL? How does it compare to other SLR's that you used in the past or currently use?

Well, I like my Black SL more than my Chrome SL.

I like the fact that there are quite a bit of adapters for it and for a newbie this is a good and cheap source of lens. I hate the manual focus of SLR, I cannot be as exact as compared to rangefinders. The bright viewfinder is definitely one of its strengths.

 

[awilder]

Vince, when I owned the Leicaflex SL, I had the 90/2.8 Elmarit R and it was a superb combination, perfectly balanced and a joy to focus with the large central microprism spot. The 90 was extremely sharp, one of the best short teles I've ever used, similar sharpness to the my 105/2.5 Nikkor AIS but with far better correction of chromatic aberration. Speaking of focusing screens, the SL was unique in that the central focusing aid was a coarse microprism and the remainder of the screen was a very fine microprism design. Also, the slope of the central microprisms were cut for f/2.8 or f/3.4 (I can't remember which) while Japanese cameras were typically cut for f/4.5. This supposedly improved focusing accuracy allowing better discrimination. The standard Contarex screen uses only the central fousing aids to focus while the rest of the screen provides a bright clear non-focusable image similar to the previous Leicaflex Standard with it's non-TTL meter and mirror lock-up feature for the legendary non-retrofocus 21/3.4 SA (actually this camera is more comparable to the Contarex).

 

[furcafe]

What about another possibility: selling the Bullseye/Cyclops body & getting 1 of the newer Contarex models? This has the advantage of allowing you to keep using the Zeiss glass & basic Contarex "operating system." Yes, the other models are harder to find & more expensive than the Bullseye/Cyclops, but any guy who's actually been able to assemble a Contaflex TLR system should have no problem finding a suitable Contarex body.

Also, I'm merely a Contarex user & don't have personal experience w/the Leicaflex, but I do know that as you've framed your choice, on a straight feature-to-feature basis, the comparison is (unfairly IMHO) weighted in favor of the Leicaflex simply because it's more modern. For example, the Contarex Super, both top & front-switch versions, is actually more contemporaneous w/the Leicaflex SL ('67-72 for the Super v. '68-74 for the SL) & has a similar semi-spot TTL meter, interchangeable focus screens, etc. The Supers also have other improvements, e.g., lighter weight, quieter & smoother shutter release/mirror flap, etc. If you want to go meterless, both the Special & Professional are nice upgrades over the Bullseye/Cyclops, too (you have a waist-level VF option for the Special & the Professional has a brighter VF than the Supers while retaining the other improvements).

EDIT: Here is a photo of my Professional, which has the same appearance & layout of the Super & Super Electronic:

BTW, there are black Bullseye/Cyclops bodies out there, but they are extremely rare. I have 1 (not for sale), & though Charlie Barringer of the ZICG believes it's probably genuine, it could be an after-market job (which are also not common). The problem is that Zeiss Ikon never offered a regular factory black finish for the Bullseye/Cyclops & just occasionally painted over a chrome body, sometimes for market-testing purposes & sometimes as a special order for customers (photojournalists).

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....

 

[Vince Lupo]

Yes, I've been trying to find a Contarex Special, but it seems that the prism itself is somewhat elusive. KEH has a Special with a waist-level finder for $500, and if they also had an accessory prism available, I'd do exactly that. I probably would not have bought the Leicaflex in the first place, but the whole outfit was relatively inexpensive, and my plan was to just resell it, but now I find myself liking it more and more.

But man, that Contarex is something else, and their whole system is so nicely designed. For example, that binocular case is great -- the top holds three lenses, and there is a 'mount' for each lens in the case. You just open the case, pull a lens out, drop another one back in, you're done. The base has a spot for either two lens shades or an accessory back (yes, the ones with the light leaks). Plus, despite the frequency of light leaks in those backs, the whole concept of interchangeable backs on a 35mm camera is amazing. I can only think of the Rollei SL2000F or the 3003 as another 35mm camera that offers that.

Yesterday was interesting -- I took the Leicaflex out in the wild and walked around the winter wonderland (almost 30" of snow!). The Leicaflex is okay with gloves on, but I found the lever advance 'throw' to be a bit far for my liking, but as I say, this is with gloves on. It's pretty quick to work with though, as I came upon a few kids playing with a little dog in the snow, and I was able to snap a half-dozen shots without them really paying attention. I'll try the Contarex outside today, as I think there will be more folks on on my street digging out. Might be a nice little photo essay or portrait session!

 

[furcafe]

I hear ya, it took me about 6 months to find a fixer-upper Special w/regular prism (actually my 1st Contarex), & then another few months to find a waist-level finder, full set of screens, etc.

Funny you mention shooting in the snow. I've been shooting my Bullseye (the black 1 mentioned above) over the past week & it seems to be working fine, w/the small exception of the frame counter, which seems to be malfunctioning from the cold, probably from grease stiffening up in the mechanism (the meter has never worked while in my possession).

Re: interchangeable backs. I've had better luck than you, w/only 1 out of 4 backs having light leaks (easily repaired BTW, according to Ken Ruth)--I don't use mine often mainly because loading them is a bit of a pain (probably 1 reason why I never took to Hasselblads!). IIRC, the Kodak Ektra of 1941 was the 1st 35mm camera to have interchangeable backs. Whatever the shortcomings of the Ektra, ergonomic & otherwise, the magazine backs actually work pretty well & are less complicated than the Contarex.

Yes, I've been trying to find a Contarex Special, but it seems that the prism itself is somewhat elusive. KEH has a Special with a waist-level finder for $500, and if they also had an accessory prism available, I'd do exactly that. I probably would not have bought the Leicaflex in the first place, but the whole outfit was relatively inexpensive, and my plan was to just resell it, but now I find myself liking it more and more.

But man, that Contarex is something else, and their whole system is so nicely designed. For example, that binocular case is great -- the top holds three lenses, and there is a 'mount' for each lens in the case. You just open the case, pull a lens out, drop another one back in, you're done. The base has a spot for either two lens shades or an accessory back (yes, the ones with the light leaks). Plus, despite the frequency of light leaks in those backs, the whole concept of interchangeable backs on a 35mm camera is amazing. I can only think of the Rollei SL2000F or the 3003 as another 35mm camera that offers that.

Yesterday was interesting -- I took the Leicaflex out in the wild and walked around the winter wonderland (almost 30" of snow!). The Leicaflex is okay with gloves on, but I found the lever advance 'throw' to be a bit far for my liking, but as I say, this is with gloves on. It's pretty quick to work with though, as I came upon a few kids playing with a little dog in the snow, and I was able to snap a half-dozen shots without them really paying attention. I'll try the Contarex outside today, as I think there will be more folks on on my street digging out. Might be a nice little photo essay or portrait session!

 

[awilder]

It's ashame the Contax RTS (especially model II or III) system isn't a consideration as their lenses were better especially the high speed models. Interestingly, lenses like the 25/2.8 and 18/4 were optically idendical to the the Contarex versions except for T* coating. True, their bodies and lenses don't have that old German all mechanical excecution and feel of some of the Contarex system, but I suspect the RTS system is more reliable and the glass has a very nice Zeiss signature. To make your choice even more difficult, you might find Erwin Puts comments and review of Contarex lenses very interesting as seen here: http://www.imx.nl/photo/zeiss/zeiss/page67.html. I found it very enlightening and complementary.

 

[Vince Lupo]

Re: interchangeable backs. I've had better luck than you, w/only 1 out of 4 backs having light leaks (easily repaired BTW, according to Ken Ruth)--I don't use mine often mainly because loading them is a bit of a pain (probably 1 reason why I never took to Hasselblads!). IIRC, the Kodak Ektra of 1941 was the 1st 35mm camera to have interchangeable backs. Whatever the shortcomings of the Ektra, ergonomic & otherwise, the magazine backs actually work pretty well & are less complicated than the Contarex.

Oh yes, I forgot about the Ektra! Sorry for the omission.

So do you happen to know what the 'easy repair' is for Contarex backs? Or is it something that only Ken knows and has to do? I have two backs that are in beautiful condition, but they leak on the bottom right on the curved edges of the slot.

 

[Vince Lupo]

It's ashame the Contax RTS (especially model II or III) system isn't a consideration as their lenses were better especially the high speed models. Interestingly, lenses like the 25/2.8 and 18/4 were optically idendical to the the Contarex versions except for T* coating. True, their bodies and lenses don't have that old German all mechanical excecution and feel of some of the Contarex system, but I suspect the RTS system is more reliable and the glass has a very nice Zeiss signature. To make your choice even more difficult, you might find Erwin Puts comments and review of Contarex lenses very interesting as seen here: http://www.imx.nl/photo/zeiss/zeiss/page67.html. I found it very enlightening and complementary.

You know Alan, I have an uneasy feeling that I'm going to end up keeping both of these cameras. There are just too many good things about both of them.

 

[ErnestoJL]

Why not keep both?
Both are excellent cameras with different design principles. Both lovable but different in basic concept, so apart of lens quality and/or reliability there is a question of which one do I (You) prefer. My choice will be the Contarex just because I´m a Zeiss fan, but being honest, both will do.
Good luck with your choice and if you keep both, just enjoy them!

Ernesto

 

[Dralowid]

View attachment 76722
SL MOT with the wonderful 60mm 2.8 Macro Elmarit used as an everyday standard lens

View attachment 76723
This time with the 21mm 4 Super Angulon that does not foul the mirror so no need for an external v/f

What can I say? I came to the SL late when I finally lost patience with my Visoflex...a camera that does things my M can't. The Telyts and the macro are excellent. I only bought the 21mm because it was so much cheaper than the M equivalent.

To be honest the motor (which I have left off) is plain big and ugly.

Yes the Leicaflex is a much newer design than the Zeiss but the way it is built is truly traditional. I am a Zeiss fan (Contax I, Super Nettel etc) but I think the Wetzlar mob win this one.

Michael

 

[furcafe]

IIRC, the problem w/the Contarex backs is that the light seals break down over time, so it's a relatively simple matter of replacing some flocking materials (velvet?).

Oh yes, I forgot about the Ektra! Sorry for the omission.

So do you happen to know what the 'easy repair' is for Contarex backs? Or is it something that only Ken knows and has to do? I have two backs that are in beautiful condition, but they leak on the bottom right on the curved edges of the slot.

 

[Vince Lupo]

IIRC, the problem w/the Contarex backs is that the light seals break down over time, so it's a relatively simple matter of replacing some flocking materials (velvet?).

Hmmm -- maybe I should take one of mine apart to see how tough it is to DIY.

 

[rxmd]

I seem to recall that GIMA in Munich will repair Contarexes. They do have a large supply of original spare parts.

Henry S will probably service it as well if you don't mind the waiting list (and possibly the attitude).

 

[furcafe]

You should give Ken a call for pointers, he'll probably talk your ear off. 😉

Hmmm -- maybe I should take one of mine apart to see how tough it is to DIY.

 

[Vince Lupo]

Well I've finished shooting about two rolls in each camera (all Tri-X), and I'll hopefully be dropping it all off at the lab this morning. I mixed it up in terms of the different lenses that each kit has, as well as trying to get a few things beyond the snowstorm. Depending upon the lab's schedule this week (more snow is expected!), I may or may not have it all back this week.

Though of course I haven't yet seen the results, but after having weighed the pluses and minuses of keeping both kits, I'm leaning towards selling the Leicaflex kit. I really have too many camera outfits, and having one more around here won't really help matters. I was also thinking of selling the Bullseye body and trading up to a Professional, but that doesn't seem to make a lot of sense right now.

But all this is subject to change of course -- I might change my mind after seeing the photos!

 

[Vince Lupo]

Finally made it to the lab yesterday, and due to the weather they were on a skeleton staff. So it will probably be sometime next week before I see any results.

 

[Vince Lupo]

Well I finally got my film back yesterday, and the results were pretty interesting. I did do a few side-by-side shots (not on a tripod), the shots are pretty close to each other, but there are a few differences:

Contarex 50mm

Leicaflex 50mm

Contarex 135mm

Leicaflex 135mm

Contarex 50mm

Leicaflex 50mm

Contarex 50mm

Leicaflex 50mm

Contarex 50mm

Leicaflex 50mm

The two pairs that I find most interesting are the shot with the Ford Falcon, and the closeup shot of the wrought iron/snow on the glass. The detail on the Falcon in the Leicaflex shot is amazing, whereas the closeup shot of the wrought iron looks better with the Contarex (admittedly, my focus could have possibly been in error when I took that shot with the Leicaflex). I think both portraits look good, but I didn't test the Contarex with a closeup portrait, though I did do a few shots with the 85mm, which I can post.

All the side-by-side shots were taken at the same aperture/shutter speed settings, using the same film (Tri-X) and processed the same.

This is really tough!

 

[sevo]

As far as I am concerned, the strongest discernible difference is a tendency to back focus the Leicaflex. Are the eye pieces corrected for identical diopters (considering that camera manufacturers tend to consider anything between 0 and -1 diopter as "normal")?

Sevo

 

[Vince Lupo]

Hmm...that's a good question. I'll have to check that out to see.

The one thing about that first pair of shots is that the Contarex seems to put out flatter images (as in, less contrasty). But of course we're dealing with two mechanical cameras, so there could be slight variations in the accuracy of their shutters.