scottgee1
RF renegade
Money talks, bull$hitters walk . . . one of the downsides of doing business virtually rather than in person.
On the bright side . . . another comparison! 😛
Leicaflex or Contarex?
- Thread starter Vince Lupo
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 115
- Views 20K
Money talks, bull$hitters walk . . . one of the downsides of doing business virtually rather than in person.
On the bright side . . . another comparison! 😛
Vince Lupo
Whatever
Yeah, it's too bad that this transaction doesn't seem to be working out, and it's the first time this has happened (I've sold all kinds of cameras to people all over the world, so this is a bit of a disappointment). Who knows - I've given the fellow until Friday, so he might come through.
Of course the one clear difference between the Contarex and the Pentax is the size. The Pentax is positively miniscule compared to the Contarex, and the viewfinder is really nice. Plus, the SV does not have a meter (which I like), so everything is nice and clean and straightforward. I've read about the legendary qualities of the Super Takumars, so it will be interesting to see how they fare against the Zeiss optics. The Vivitar 28mm lens was a $15 purchase a number of years ago, and it's pretty well in mint condition (the first two numbers in the serial number are '37', so I believe it was made by Tokina). The camera body is finished in black, so it's a very handsome camera indeed. I kinda regard this camera as a sort of SLR equivalent of a Leica in terms of size, handling, etc., but I'm sure that point could be debated!
Of course the one clear difference between the Contarex and the Pentax is the size. The Pentax is positively miniscule compared to the Contarex, and the viewfinder is really nice. Plus, the SV does not have a meter (which I like), so everything is nice and clean and straightforward. I've read about the legendary qualities of the Super Takumars, so it will be interesting to see how they fare against the Zeiss optics. The Vivitar 28mm lens was a $15 purchase a number of years ago, and it's pretty well in mint condition (the first two numbers in the serial number are '37', so I believe it was made by Tokina). The camera body is finished in black, so it's a very handsome camera indeed. I kinda regard this camera as a sort of SLR equivalent of a Leica in terms of size, handling, etc., but I'm sure that point could be debated!
Good to hear your comments, Vince... I have handled a Contarex when they were new and I worked in a camera shop, and that's sure an impressive piece of machinery. But I came to admire Pentax as attractive-looking, simpler, durable, and affordable. My first was an H2 I believe.
I do now have an SV (the US Honeywell name for it was H3v), but it's not the desirable black like yours! This was the most well-equipped model prior to the Spotmatic. 1/1000 shutter, able to accept the meter that fit over the top of the prism, instant-return mirror (a Pentax innovation), and a self-timer. The self-timer might not be recognized immediately, as it's a ring around the rewind crank, and the ring has a V on the front.
One caution you may already be aware of... Early SV bodies made before the Spotmatic shouldn't be fitted with the Spotmatic's 50mm f/1.4 Super Takumar, as the mirror may hit the rear element when focused to infinity. Later they shortened the mirror slightly to avoid this interference. This later (1964-68) variety can be distinguished by the orange R on the rewind knob, and the back catch attached to body rather than the back.
Have fun with the comparisons, and I'm looking forward to your results. 🙂
I do now have an SV (the US Honeywell name for it was H3v), but it's not the desirable black like yours! This was the most well-equipped model prior to the Spotmatic. 1/1000 shutter, able to accept the meter that fit over the top of the prism, instant-return mirror (a Pentax innovation), and a self-timer. The self-timer might not be recognized immediately, as it's a ring around the rewind crank, and the ring has a V on the front.
One caution you may already be aware of... Early SV bodies made before the Spotmatic shouldn't be fitted with the Spotmatic's 50mm f/1.4 Super Takumar, as the mirror may hit the rear element when focused to infinity. Later they shortened the mirror slightly to avoid this interference. This later (1964-68) variety can be distinguished by the orange R on the rewind knob, and the back catch attached to body rather than the back.
Have fun with the comparisons, and I'm looking forward to your results. 🙂
Vince Lupo
Whatever
Thanks for the comments Doug, and I'm very interested to see the results as well.
I actually didn't know about the 50/1.4 lens, so that's good information to know. I guess it's also good that I chose a 55/2 lens as my standard, so I won't have to worry in that regard.
If I do decide to keep this camera kit, I can't decide between replacing that 35/2.8 Vivitar lens with a 35/2 Super Takumar, or just keeping the Vivitar and getting a 28/3.5 Super Takumar, or just being content with what I have. Of course, a 17/4 Super Takumar would be really great, but they are a bit out of my price range.
I like the idea of the self timer being located around the rewind knob, as it keeps the front of the camera very clean. As well, these cameras are relatively inexpensive and pretty easy locate (I actually could buy another black SV from the same source if I wanted, but one for now is fine!). All in all a well thought out camera that has everything I need. We'll see what the results are like!
I actually didn't know about the 50/1.4 lens, so that's good information to know. I guess it's also good that I chose a 55/2 lens as my standard, so I won't have to worry in that regard.
If I do decide to keep this camera kit, I can't decide between replacing that 35/2.8 Vivitar lens with a 35/2 Super Takumar, or just keeping the Vivitar and getting a 28/3.5 Super Takumar, or just being content with what I have. Of course, a 17/4 Super Takumar would be really great, but they are a bit out of my price range.
I like the idea of the self timer being located around the rewind knob, as it keeps the front of the camera very clean. As well, these cameras are relatively inexpensive and pretty easy locate (I actually could buy another black SV from the same source if I wanted, but one for now is fine!). All in all a well thought out camera that has everything I need. We'll see what the results are like!
Vince Lupo
Whatever
Well the Contarex kit is officially un-sold. Bummer. But, I have it up for sale again, so hopefully we'll have better luck this time.
On the plus-side, I dropped off my film to the lab yesterday, so hopefully I'll see the results of the Pentax/Contarex shootout by Wednesday or so. I tried to do as much side-by-side as possible, and shooting wide open and stopped down, various focal length lenses etc etc. Should be interesting.....
On the plus-side, I dropped off my film to the lab yesterday, so hopefully I'll see the results of the Pentax/Contarex shootout by Wednesday or so. I tried to do as much side-by-side as possible, and shooting wide open and stopped down, various focal length lenses etc etc. Should be interesting.....
Vince Lupo
Whatever
Finally got my film back from the lab on Friday, and have had a chance to look at the Pentax-Contarex shootout. Very close indeed!
I had to keep in mind that (in general) the Contarex lenses focus closer than the Pentax lenses, and I have an 85/2 lens for the Contarex, and a 105/2.8 lens for the Pentax. Even so, the results are as interesting as the ones between the Leicaflex and the Contarex.
Contarex 50/2
Pentax 50/2
Contarex 50/2
Pentax 50/2
Contarex 50/2
Pentax 50/2
Contarex 85/2
Pentax 105/2.8
Contarex 35/4
Pentax (Vivitar) 35/2.8
Contarex 50/2
Pentax 50/2
Contarex 50/2
Pentax 50/2
Looking at these examples, it seems that the Contarex lenses offer more depth of field than the Pentax lenses (all comparison shots were taken at the same relative settings). But, I have to admit that I prefer the handling and size of the Pentax....another tough choice!
I had to keep in mind that (in general) the Contarex lenses focus closer than the Pentax lenses, and I have an 85/2 lens for the Contarex, and a 105/2.8 lens for the Pentax. Even so, the results are as interesting as the ones between the Leicaflex and the Contarex.
Contarex 50/2
Pentax 50/2
Contarex 50/2
Pentax 50/2
Contarex 50/2
Pentax 50/2
Contarex 85/2
Pentax 105/2.8
Contarex 35/4
Pentax (Vivitar) 35/2.8
Contarex 50/2
Pentax 50/2
Contarex 50/2
Pentax 50/2
Looking at these examples, it seems that the Contarex lenses offer more depth of field than the Pentax lenses (all comparison shots were taken at the same relative settings). But, I have to admit that I prefer the handling and size of the Pentax....another tough choice!
Last edited:
Nando
Well-known
- Local time
- 10:30 AM
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2006
- Messages
- 1,122
Hi Vince,
Thanks for the Contarex and Pentax samples! I've tried a lot of different 35mm SLR's and the only one that I really LOVE to use is my Spotmatic II. I've been very satisfied with my collection of Super-Multi-Coated Takumars. I found all of the lenses I've tried to be very good. I'm glad that your Taks compared well to your Contarex lenses, as quite a number of people regard Contarex glass to be among the best ever made, both mechanically and optically.
Thanks for the Contarex and Pentax samples! I've tried a lot of different 35mm SLR's and the only one that I really LOVE to use is my Spotmatic II. I've been very satisfied with my collection of Super-Multi-Coated Takumars. I found all of the lenses I've tried to be very good. I'm glad that your Taks compared well to your Contarex lenses, as quite a number of people regard Contarex glass to be among the best ever made, both mechanically and optically.
Last edited:
Interesting, Vince... In some of the 50mm shots the Planar seemed to do better and in others the Takumar looked better. I think the Vivitar 35 didn't do as well as the Zeiss 35 (nicer tonality), at least in that one scene.
Vince Lupo
Whatever
Yes, I'd agree that the Vivitar isn't as impressive as the Contarex 35mm lens. I wonder what the 35/2 Super Takumar would do?
Dunno....I may be pulling back from selling the Contarex!
Dunno....I may be pulling back from selling the Contarex!
Vince, I do have an SMCT 35/2 but not a Contarex 35 for comparison. Can't really tell much from these smaller pics but I think the Pentax lens does pretty well.
Here's what Pentax literature of the time said about the SMCT 35/2: "One of the fastest wide-angle lenses for 35mm single-lens reflex cameras. Edge-to-edge sharp resolution at full aperture; unique lens design without distortion; perfect for pictures of large groups, buildings, sports events, and other large spectacles."
The lens diagram, as shown below, is not much like a Zeiss Distagon as currently made by CV for SLRs. And the latest (and well-reputed) 35/2 Pentax-FA is a simpler arrangement of 6 elements, one being aspherical, a smaller lighter lens.
For interest, here are a couple shots with an SMC Takumar 35mm f/2 on a Pentax ESII with Fuji Super-HQ 200.
Here's what Pentax literature of the time said about the SMCT 35/2: "One of the fastest wide-angle lenses for 35mm single-lens reflex cameras. Edge-to-edge sharp resolution at full aperture; unique lens design without distortion; perfect for pictures of large groups, buildings, sports events, and other large spectacles."
The lens diagram, as shown below, is not much like a Zeiss Distagon as currently made by CV for SLRs. And the latest (and well-reputed) 35/2 Pentax-FA is a simpler arrangement of 6 elements, one being aspherical, a smaller lighter lens.
For interest, here are a couple shots with an SMC Takumar 35mm f/2 on a Pentax ESII with Fuji Super-HQ 200.
Attachments
Vince Lupo
Whatever
Well I'd say that lens is impressively sharp indeed! May possibly be the next lens on my shopping list.....
Vince Lupo
Whatever
Contarex is finally sold and paid for -- yippee!
steveyork
Well-known
If size matters, you need a contaFLEX! Smaller then a leica m w/ zeiss optics. A surprisingly under appreciated camera.
Vince Lupo
Whatever
Been down that road already with a Super BC, and didn't like it. I didn't like the focus (among other things), and I just wasn't crazy about the camera overall.
However, I do have a Contaflex TLR from the '30s, and that one I really like!
However, I do have a Contaflex TLR from the '30s, and that one I really like!
steveyork
Well-known
Agreed: I wouldn't have a Contaflex for an only system. But for a change of pace, as a step back into history, it is great. And it's inexpensive too -- the entire limited system can be put together for about $100. Makes all those $1000s I spent on Leica seem rather unwise, but, of course, in most cases I can sell my Leica stuff and make a little money.
The Contaflex is indeed quirky. It predates (the iv I have) the standardizing of cameras. But some of that is just getting used to its' controls. And it certainly makes you focus on taking pictures. And for me, this results in better pictures. It makes picture taking a very conscious activity.
It's small, very light, the system is extremely limited (which is good for GAS), it's well made -- little made in the 70's, 80's or 90's can compete with the quality -- it's slow (both in operation and lens speed), the focal lengths are limited to 35/4, 50/2.8, 85/4 and 115/4, and my limited experience is that the optical qualities, by today's standards, aren't "great," but good.
And the viewfinder is very good. As bright or brighter then the Leicaflex, and easy to see, even with eyeglasses (but the SL has a tad bit more eye relief).
The demeanor of the earlier Contaflex (i-iv) is different from the later ones.
All in all, for the money, it's one of those systems that "can't be beat."
The Contaflex is indeed quirky. It predates (the iv I have) the standardizing of cameras. But some of that is just getting used to its' controls. And it certainly makes you focus on taking pictures. And for me, this results in better pictures. It makes picture taking a very conscious activity.
It's small, very light, the system is extremely limited (which is good for GAS), it's well made -- little made in the 70's, 80's or 90's can compete with the quality -- it's slow (both in operation and lens speed), the focal lengths are limited to 35/4, 50/2.8, 85/4 and 115/4, and my limited experience is that the optical qualities, by today's standards, aren't "great," but good.
And the viewfinder is very good. As bright or brighter then the Leicaflex, and easy to see, even with eyeglasses (but the SL has a tad bit more eye relief).
The demeanor of the earlier Contaflex (i-iv) is different from the later ones.
All in all, for the money, it's one of those systems that "can't be beat."
Last edited: