Leicaflex or Contarex?

Here's a few more shots....

Contarex 85mm lens (not bad for a lens with separation!)
I think the shutter is capping slightly - this was taken at 1/1000th of a second
Contaflex6.jpg



Leicaflex 50mm
Leicaflex6.jpg



Leicaflex 28mm Soligor
Leicaflex7.jpg


Gotta admit -- that SL is a fun camera to use!
 
Last edited:
Diopters

Although I'm firmly in the Leicaflex camp, finding or making correction lenses for the SL is a real pain (same size as Viso III) since they appear to be more or less unavaliable. I don't know what the Contarex has but it if has an adjustable diopter it is certainly a plus point for ageing enthsuaists.

Michael
 
Dralowid said:
Diopters

Although I'm firmly in the Leicaflex camp, finding or making correction lenses for the SL is a real pain (same size as Viso III) since they appear to be more or less unavaliable. I don't know what the Contarex has but it if has an adjustable diopter it is certainly a plus point for ageing enthsuaists.

Michael
Click to expand...

Hi Michael -- I didn't really feel like I had trouble focusing with the Leicaflex, but looking at that wrought iron photo (and a few others on the roll) has me wondering. I'm a glasses wearer, so looking through viewfinders has always been a bit of an adventure (my favourite is the small viewfinder of a Nikon D200, and of course a screw mount Leica!), but I actually found the Leicaflex to be quite nice. It's definitely larger than the Contarex.

I can certainly understand your being 'firmly' in the Leicaflex camp -- it is a very nice camera, and I was actually pretty surprised at what the Soligor 28/2.8 lens delivered...very sharp, and quite a well-made piece of glass.

Maybe I'll run a roll of colour through each, and perhaps use both cameras without their half cases. As I mentioned in an earlier post, the lovely curve of the Leicaflex back makes it very nice to hold, but of course that design feature is negated when you stick the camera in a half case.

Just out of curiosity - have you ever used a Leicaflex I?
 
Last edited:
Interesting samples, for sure. Some showed roughly the same thing, while others you got a good sense of the differences between the Planar and the Summicron (or is it a Summilux?).

I don't know about the close-focus abilities of the Leica's 50mm lens, but I know that the f/2.0 Planar lets you get very close.

The performance of the 135mm lenses appears to be close.

The shots of the Ford Falcon and the wrought iron table are indeed interesting. Both have their own appeal. I found the Leica shot of the Falcon more appealing, while I favored the Zeiss lens of the table and also the ice crystals.

Interesting comparison, for sure.

(Vince, you called it a Contaflex -- instead of Contarex).
 
ZeissFan said:
Interesting samples, for sure. Some showed roughly the same thing, while others you got a good sense of the differences between the Planar and the Summicron (or is it a Summilux?).

I don't know about the close-focus abilities of the Leica's 50mm lens, but I know that the f/2.0 Planar lets you get very close.

The performance of the 135mm lenses appears to be close.

The shots of the Ford Falcon and the wrought iron table are indeed interesting. Both have their own appeal. I found the Leica shot of the Falcon more appealing, while I favored the Zeiss lens of the table and also the ice crystals.

Interesting comparison, for sure.

(Vince, you called it a Contaflex -- instead of Contarex).
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm a goofball - I just realized it too, and made the correction :bang:

I'm of the same opinion about those photos too. This is becoming much more difficult than I thought. Maybe I should do some colour shots.
 
The only significant difference I see if that the Leicaflex lenses are of higher contrast, not a lot more, but evident by comparison. I pretty much expected that based on design philosophy and the fact that Leica lenses are of a later generation by about 10 years.
 
I think the Contarex looked better on the wrought-iron/glass shot, though these aren't a matched pair. And on the table with the two bowls I liked the Leica's rendering of the top of the table but preferred the Contarex's OOF rendering of the table's base. I kept going back and forth in the pairs of the Falcon and the 135mm tree branches trying to see why I thought the Leica shots looked slightly better... it has to be something in the contrast ...
 
Methodology?

Methodology?

Vince, I'm glad to see you got your film back. Look like you got a bit of snow as well! 😉

Before offering any comments, I'd like to know how these images got to my screen. You mention the two rolls of Tri-X were "processed the same". After that, how were they moved from the analog to digital world?

Also, I know RFF restricts the size of uploaded images; what did you do to stay within the limitations?
 
scottgee1 said:
Vince, I'm glad to see you got your film back. Look like you got a bit of snow as well! 😉

Before offering any comments, I'd like to know how these images got to my screen. You mention the two rolls of Tri-X were "processed the same". After that, how were they moved from the analog to digital world?

Also, I know RFF restricts the size of uploaded images; what did you do to stay within the limitations?
Click to expand...

Oooh - good question!

Okay, I had my local pro photo lab process the film in their Jobo (I know, I need to set my darkroom up again!), and I had 4"x6" prints made. Then, the film was scanned with their Noritsu at what they call '4 Base' level, which is a lower quality scan, but good enough for a nice print or the web. I then brought them into PhotoShop and reduced their sizes to 'web' sizes -- each one is more or less 13" at its longest side, full frame, and 72dpi. File sizes are about 1.61mb uncompressed, about 204kb compressed. The shots were uploaded to PhotoBucket, and then copied from there onto the RFF page.

Hope that helps clarify things...thanks for asking!
 
Doug said:
I think the Contarex looked better on the wrought-iron/glass shot, though these aren't a matched pair. And on the table with the two bowls I liked the Leica's rendering of the top of the table but preferred the Contarex's OOF rendering of the table's base. I kept going back and forth in the pairs of the Falcon and the 135mm tree branches trying to see why I thought the Leica shots looked slightly better... it has to be something in the contrast ...
Click to expand...

Doug you're right - those two wrought iron shots aren't exact. Here is the Contarex equivalent of the Leica shot.

Contarex7.jpg




And here is the Leicaflex shot again for comparison
Leicaflex5.jpg



As well, I thought these two were very interesting. Now keep in mind that both of these shots were done on a very crappy day, weather-wise.

Contarex w/50 Sonnar
Contarex8.jpg



Leicaflex w/50 Summicron
Leicaflex8.jpg
 
Last edited:
Vince, crappy weather lowers subject contrast, so performance differences in lenses becomes much more obvious. These last shots show the Summicron to be the better performer. The black branches have more "pop" and there's more detailed rendered in the house, especially with the horizontal lines being evident in the trim. With the Planar, some of the house trim detail is absent or washed out and the branches appear dark gray rather than black.
 
Last edited:
Well you guys are going to think I'm totally off my rocker and have wasted my time, but I've made a decision: I'm selling both cameras.

I've decided that I don't need either camera kit, and this exercise has actually reinforced my love for rangefinders.

Right now this is the rundown of what I have (not including the Contarex or Leicaflex kits):


Leica M2 & M5 kit

Leica Screw Mount Kits (too many to mention)

Contax I / II / Kiev III kit

Nikon S Kit

Robot Royal 36 Kit

Contaflex TLR kit (oh coveted one!)

Exakta VX Kit

Hasselblad CM, SWC, ELM Kit

Miscellaneous Folders, FED, Kodak Medalist, Retina Etc.

My Digital setup for my commercial (paying!) work.


Quite honestly, I think this is still too much stuff, and I think that keeping both of these kits will only add to the pile (I'm trying my best to unclutter my life). I think I just want to have a few core kits, and I honestly can't see how either one of these cameras is adding to what I already have. Don't get me wrong - I think they're both awesome, and clearly this exercise has only reinforced how difficult it is to choose between the two systems. But, for what I do, I think that many of these other cameras can do all of it just as well.
 
Last edited:
Based on what you own, if you do little or no macro work and your lens preference doesn't go beyond short tele, your decision makes perfect sense. The only advantage of the Contarex or Leicaflex SL is the added versatility of an SLR for close-up and zoom or longer lens use. It sounds like your more of a rangefinder shooter.
 
You're pretty well right on those counts -- I generally don't use anything longer than a 90mm, and if I do closeup work my Exakta lenses have been more than up to the task (particularly my Steinheil 55/1.9 Auto Quinon). I suppose an argument could have been made to get rid of the Exakta stuff in favour of either the Contarex or the Leicaflex, but i've been pretty devoted to Exakta for more than 30 years, so I don't think that could happen at this point. And when I'm reaching for a camera in my 'personal' time, it's usually a rangefinder or that gorgeous Contaflex TLR.

So yeah, I think this is the right decision -- and I already found a buyer for the Leicaflex!
 
I think so too. I do appreciate everyone having weighed in on this very challenging matter, and I do think it was worthwhile.

In the final analysis, I think if I had to choose between the two, it would have been the Leicaflex. I think the combination of quality, relatively inexpensive price, the beautiful viewfinder, and the overall results of the testing gave me the answer. Ergonomically, I think it was better too, though as I mentioned in an earlier post, the use of the half-case pretty well negated that advantage.


BTW, I just sold the Contarex kit yesterday, so it will be on its way out the door soon. The Leicaflex went to its new owner last week, and he seems very happy with it.

I was thinking what would have been interesting would to have included a Pentax Spotmatic in the mix to compare the three. I don't have one of those, however. Any thoughts on how that camera might have fared in this shootout? I understand those Super Takumars are fantastic lenses, but I don't know anything about the body (its ergonomics, viewfinder, etc).
 
Last edited:
I don't believe that the Leicaflex screen was even close to 98%. The wonderful myopic folks at Leitz thought their competition was going to be the Zeiss Contarex, and ignored their Japanese peers..
 
That's a good question, though I really couldn't answer it. I do know that the Leicaflex was in fact larger than the Contarex, but I didn't compare it to other cameras (Like a Spotmatic, Nikon F, etc). It was pretty impressive though!
 
Well it seems that the sale of the Contarex kit may not go through after all -- unfortunately the purchaser has gone silent, and I still haven't received payment. Soooo, I've had the opportunity to do yet another comparison while I decide what to do: Comparing the Contarex kit with a Pentax SV kit. The Pentax SV is a little sweetie-pie from the early '60s (pre-Spotmatic), and I have a 55/2 Super Takumar, a 105/2.8 Super Takumar, and a Vivitar 28/2.8. I've been shooting them both side-by-side with Tri-X, and hopefully I'll see some results next week.

If this Contarex sale doesn't go through, I'm still going to sell it, but I might wait a while. Stay tuned....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom