New M42 body instead of a second Contax/Kiev RF

[stephen_lumsden]

I was using my Contax ii out on the Moors in Yorkshire, UK. I usually use it for Street and am planning to use it now also for a bit of landscape. I have also been looking into getting a manual SLR and the Pentax sv/s2/s1a look reasonable (am offered a good deal on Ebay). They are sometime compared favourably to rangefinders. I have been thinking about getting a second Contax/Keiv body and also some wider lenses for them, maybe a 21mm, 25mm or 28mm , or all. Looking athe prices of Pentax M42 stuff, it looks like it would be cheaper to get an M42 body (with 55mm takumar) and get a 28mm and 20 mm down the line as this would be still cheaper. It may be better having a change now and again also. Are there people out there who have gone down this route? I do not care that the M42 models have no lightmeter, as I have a few external ones. Whats the reliability like also? It seesm easier to get them CLA'd also, especially as Oleg in OK Vintage Camera (Contax/Kiev repairs) may not be doing business for a while.

 

[xayraa33]

Any lens wider than the 35mm for the Contax II or Kiev RF cameras would be expensive, even the FSU made Orion-15 28 mm f 6 goes for good money these days. It would be cheaper to get an M42 SLR for wide angle lens use but any thing wider than 28mm , even for the off brand lenses and FSU lenses sell for good money... although I did run into some 24mm Takumars selling for very reasonable prices recently but I don't know what their real optical and mechanical condition was in .

 

[Sarcophilus Harrisii]

Owning a few pre-war Contaxes (actually, I cut and threaded a set of ribbons in one tonight) as well as several M42 bodies—in your shoes, my main consideration, would be whether I wanted to make images that looked like they'd been made with old Zeiss glass, or newer Pentax glass. Each has its appeal, obviously.

If you are planning to use a 21mm lens on a M42 camera, there is only a very limited range of bodies that offer the ability to lock the mirror up, (which will probably be necessary if using any non retro focus lens). As far as I am aware only three options exist. Two from Yashica: the TL Super, a purely mechanical shutter with CdS metering that probably won't work, now; and their TL Electro X which features electromagnetic control of the shutter speeds. Reliable examples of the latter may still be found but they can sometimes have inaccurate meters and/or shutters. Their shutters tend to be a bit more reliable than the metering, but can still lose accuracy. If meters drift out of range, they tend to do so in such a way that it is impossible to compensate satisfactorily by Eg altering the ISO.

Both models use stop down metering which was very much the norm than the exception for M42 bodies generally. Of the two, I'd suggest the Electro X is the winner. Rather than a hard to see when stopped right down needle, it uses a pair of illuminated indicators for over or under exposure that are always easily seen. And its electronically regulated shutter features fully variable speeds across its range from 1/1000 to 2 seconds plus Bulb. Just ensure you can inspect an example prior to purchase or you obtain return privileges to avoid being stuck with a less than perfect example. I've owned about four over the years and only two checked out well; the others had working shutters but compromised meters.

The last possibility is not easy to find. Honeywell modified some standard Spotmatics by fitting a lock up mechanism and external switch much like a standard stop down switch, but on the opposite side of the pentaprism. They are not sighted frequently and therefore somewhat collectible with prices reflecting this.

Personally I'd love a Biogon in Contax mount so, even though I have a tidy 100% functional Electro X, that would be my choice, (unless I stumbled across the Yashinon wide angle and matching finder Yashica produced in period with their bodies cited above at a price too good to pass up).

Of course one potential road block to going the Contax route is obtaining one in sound working condition. Once sorted, they tend to work well for a very long time, but as found, most will need servicing, and that is a problem. It's why I do my own repairs, and I suspect that a higher than usual percentage of owners actively using a pre-war Contax today, do likewise.

 

[stephen_lumsden]

Thx. I had forgotten about looking at Yashica bodies. I am a bit of a fanboy of their stuff.

 

[Sarcophilus Harrisii]

Thx. I had forgotten about looking at Yashica bodies. I am a bit of a fanboy of their stuff.

I do not care for their medium format TLRs at all, but some of their 35mm cameras and lenses are very good, indeed. I regard the Electro X as the best featured M42 body ever made for close up imaging, because no matter how much bellows extension is used the metering is always easily used, and its MLU enables sharp, high magnification images to be made due to low levels of mechanical vibration. These virtues also apply to the use of very long lenses.

 

[Coldkennels]

I do not care for their medium format TLRs at all.

Heathen! You'll have to prise the Yashica TLRs out of my cold, dead hands. But that's getting away from the subject a bit...

Personally, I never found an M42 SLR I really gelled with. Even the later Pentax K-Mount stuff that followed, while nice, didn't click with me like a rangefinder does. And the experience of using a wide-angle lens on them was always a bit meh, both in practice and the results. For instance, I have the aforementioned Orion-15 (albeit in "LTM" mount), and while it may not be as good optically as the SMC 28/2.8 in K-mount, I was always happier with the images from the Orion. It just has a certain charm to it.

I guess what I'm saying is that if you're already committed to and familiar with rangefinders - especially something as idiosyncratic as the Contax II - I doubt an SLR will scratch the same itch. The real problem, however, is that wides and super-wides tend to be rare, non-existent or expensive in that mount, as xayraa33 pointed out.

There's a great list of Zeiss' own lenses for the Contax here: https://www.rangefinderforum.com/node/175841

As you can see, slim pickings for 28mm and wider. The Voigtlander lenses in the Nikon/Contax mount are probably going to be your best bet if you can find them, but they're likely to be a very different rendering than whatever else you're using at the mo.

 

[Sarcophilus Harrisii]

Heathen! You'll have to prise the Yashica TLRs out of my cold, dead hands. But that's getting away from the subject a bit...

Personally, I never found an M42 SLR I really gelled with. Even the later Pentax K-Mount stuff that followed, while nice, didn't click with me like a rangefinder does. And the experience of using a wide-angle lens on them was always a bit meh, both in practice and the results. For instance, I have the aforementioned Orion-15 (albeit in "LTM" mount), and while it may not be as good optically as the SMC 28/2.8 in K-mount, I was always happier with the images from the Orion. It just has a certain charm to it.

I guess what I'm saying is that if you're already committed to and familiar with rangefinders - especially something as idiosyncratic as the Contax II - I doubt an SLR will scratch the same itch. The real problem, however, is that wides and super-wides tend to be rare, non-existent or expensive in that mount, as xayraa33 pointed out.

There's a great list of Zeiss' own lenses for the Contax here: https://www.rangefinderforum.com/node/175841

As you can see, slim pickings for 28mm and wider. The Voigtlander lenses in the Nikon/Contax mount are probably going to be your best bet if you can find them, but they're likely to be a very different rendering than whatever else you're using at the mo.

Out of the two alternatives (Contax/Kiev RF v M42 SLR) I'd take a Contax and Biogon myself, as I think I mentioned. I was merely pointing out the few options available for using non retrofocus extreme wide angles natively on M42 bodies, because Stephen had floated the possibility. 🙂

I've seen some wonderful images made with Yashica twin lenses. Never used one but I'm told the later Yashinon lenses are very good. I'd believe that. The 50mm Yashinon that came with my Electro X is superb. But my sole experience working on a Yashica TLR for an acquaintance has coloured my view of them. I found the materials used lower quality than Franke & Heidecke employed, sorry. Brittle metal and the controls were not as taut as a Rollei. It sort of turned me off I'm afraid. 😉

 

[Coldkennels]

I've seen some wonderful images made with Yashica twin lenses. Never used one but I'm told the later Yashinon lenses are very good. I'd believe that. The 50mm Yashinon that came with my Electro X is superb. But my sole experience working on a Yashica TLR for an acquaintance has coloured my view of them. I found the materials used lower quality than Franke & Heidecke employed, sorry. Brittle metal and the controls were not as taut as a Rollei. It sort of turned me off I'm afraid. 😉

At the risk of taking this wayyyyy off track, I won't disagree with you on this point. If Rollei is the Leica of the TLR world, the Yashicas are the Canon RFs - technically competent, but missing a little something in feel and use. However, I've never picked up a Rollei with a (stock) viewfinder/ground class as crisp, bright and clear as a late Yashica (12/24/124), and that makes a huge difference for me. Even the earlier Yashica TLRs had great viewing screens compared to Rolleis; the cheap-as-chips and overly-basic Yashica A is still better than a lot of Rolleicords I've seen.

As far as lenses go, I used to quite like the Yashica D, which technically has a "worse" lens than the later crank wind models, but it just rendered things really nicely. By the time you get to the 124 and 124G, the lenses are really something else. The biggest problem tended to be internal reflections, I found; flocking the film chamber made a big difference to the performance of most of the Yashica TLRs.

 

[ranger9]

Canon RFs - technically competent, but missing a little something in feel and use.

Since you've already taken this off-track...

Conversations you get into with other Leica shooters: "What do you think of that new barmaid at the Yacht Club? All right, eh?"

Conversations you get into with other Canon shooters: "Cool 7! What film are you using? Hey, any ideas where I could score an accessory shoe?"

Definitely missing a little something, but it's something I don't miss...

 

[Mos6502]

You can get the Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 4/25 and 4/20 in m42 mount. They are pricey these days, but there aren't a lot of ultra-wides for m42, and there are even fewer which are as well corrected for distortion as these ones are. The only thing that sucks about using such a lens on an SLR is that the small aperture and the superwide angle of view combine for a very dim viewfinder. I'm not aware of any m42 wide angle lenses which require a mirror lock up, at least none that you could find today without spending a fortune for something that probably works even less well than the retrofocus type. Nikon famously made their non-retrofocus 4/21 for the Nikon F, but that's really an oddity. The Pentax 3.5/24 is another option, but personally, I've never used it.

As for the camera, personally I enjoy using an Exa 1c + Bushnell 21mm lens. The benefit of the Exa 1c is that it has interchangeable viewfinders and screens, I often prefer a split image viewfinder, but these black out when using slow, wide lenses, so I keep a microprism screen in it. The only drawback of the Exa is the 1/175 top shutter speed...which isn't a drawback for me, shooting 100 ASA film. I could also recommend the Mamiya 500 or 1000TL, I've had three over the years, all three have worked fine, and the meter doesn't need mercury batteries to function. They are simple, cleanly styled cameras, and the stop-down/metering function is built into the film advance lever, making it more convenient and less fiddly to use than the types that have buttons or levers somewhere on the front of the camera. Lastly, I would suggest a Praktica L or L2. These have no light meter, so the viewfinder image is brighter, which is helpful when using ultrawide lenses. Avoid the LTL, etc. the meters are usually dead anyway, and the viewfinder is dimmer. Avoid the Praktica Novas, etc. they are terribly unreliable and the film counter has a distressing tendency to self-destruct.

 

[flavio81]

You can get the Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 4/25 and 4/20 in m42 mount. They are pricey these days, but there aren't a lot of ultra-wides for m42, and there are even fewer which are as well corrected for distortion as these ones are.

The 4/20 Flektogon isn't a really good lens, anyways. I had many 20mm lenses for diverse SLR systems: Canon FL, Nikon pre-Ai, AI, Pentax M, and the Flektogon. The Flektogon was the worst performer.

Your best bet is to buy a Nikkor wideangle. Nikkors are very reasonably priced nowadays. M42 extreme wideangles are scarce and this drives the price up.

The only thing that sucks about using such a lens on an SLR is that the small aperture and the superwide angle of view combine for a very dim viewfinder.

Only if you're using an old SLR and a very old lens.

 

[Mos6502]

We are on the topic of M42 cameras, in case anybody didn't notice.

 

[Coldkennels]

We are on the topic of M42 cameras, in case anybody didn't notice.

Yep, but stephen_lumsden hasn't bought into an SLR system yet, so I think looking at alternatives is fair.

Although personally, I'd just stick with the Contax... a 21mm or 25mm Voigtlander Skopar in Nikon/Contax mount would probably be a much better proposition than the wides for most of these '60 and '70s SLR systems. There's a bunch on eBay for £300 or so at the mo, while most of the M42 20mm Flektagons are at least that price, if not more.

 

[julio1fer]

Although this is the RF forum, I have to say that for value / performance, M42 is a much better option IMHO. There are tons of good undervalued M42 bodies, of course Pentax among them. Almost all Takumars are great, and a SLR is a natural platform for telephoto lenses, not only for wides.

In your situation I would however recommend going the Nikon way. A Nikkormat and a set of lenses, for instance. Not much more expensive than M42.

 

[Austintatious]

I know the OP asked about M42 gear. I agree with those suggesting Nikon. I would look carefully at a Nikkormat FT2 and a Nikkor UD Auto 20mm F3.5 combo.

 

[stephen_lumsden]

thx, will probably just get a Voightlander 25mm for the Contax. The M42 bodies do look good value though, so may get one, but may be for for the more reasonable lenses in 28/55/105 mm. Its good to have the different choices at those prices. Any higher, for an slr, I would be tempted to go for a small digital mft Olympus, but that is another story.

 

[Sarcophilus Harrisii]

You can get the Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 4/25 and 4/20 in m42 mount. They are pricey these days, but there aren't a lot of ultra-wides for m42, and there are even fewer which are as well corrected for distortion as these ones are. The only thing that sucks about using such a lens on an SLR is that the small aperture and the superwide angle of view combine for a very dim viewfinder. I'm not aware of any m42 wide angle lenses which require a mirror lock up, at least none that you could find today without spending a fortune for something that probably works even less well than the retrofocus type. Nikon famously made their non-retrofocus 4/21 for the Nikon F, but that's really an oddity. The Pentax 3.5/24 is another option, but personally, I've never used it.

As for the camera, personally I enjoy using an Exa 1c + Bushnell 21mm lens. The benefit of the Exa 1c is that it has interchangeable viewfinders and screens, I often prefer a split image viewfinder, but these black out when using slow, wide lenses, so I keep a microprism screen in it. The only drawback of the Exa is the 1/175 top shutter speed...which isn't a drawback for me, shooting 100 ASA film. I could also recommend the Mamiya 500 or 1000TL, I've had three over the years, all three have worked fine, and the meter doesn't need mercury batteries to function. They are simple, cleanly styled cameras, and the stop-down/metering function is built into the film advance lever, making it more convenient and less fiddly to use than the types that have buttons or levers somewhere on the front of the camera. Lastly, I would suggest a Praktica L or L2. These have no light meter, so the viewfinder image is brighter, which is helpful when using ultrawide lenses. Avoid the LTL, etc. the meters are usually dead anyway, and the viewfinder is dimmer. Avoid the Praktica Novas, etc. they are terribly unreliable and the film counter has a distressing tendency to self-destruct.

There were some. Eg the Yashinon-DX 21mm f/3.3. Designed for mirror up use and supplied with a dedicated finder. Here's the relevant page from Yashica's publication "YASHICA TL ELECTRO-X The Creative System of Photography".

 

[p.giannakis]

I have used a lot of the M42 system over the last few years. There are some cameras out there that if they are in good working order they will give you years of trouble-free service. There are cameras offered by Pentax, Fujica, Yashica, Praktica and other makers that they are good cameras.

However there are only two of them I keep coming back to - the Pentax Spotmatic and the Praktica LTL . Those two seem to be the cameras that didn't give me any trouble throughout the years. The Pre-Spotmatic line of cameras- like the Pentax SV are possibly some of the most beautiful looking cameras ever made but unfortunately they require very often service as their shutters and advanced mechanism becomes sluggish with time - everything that Pentax did with the Spotmatic has been an improvement in terms of reliability.

The Spotmatic II is probably the best built of all the Spotmatics, the advance mechanism was improved - cogs that carry heavier loads are made from beryllium copper, an alloy stronger than brass that is corrosion resistant. With the Spotmatic F they went back to brass cogs.

 

[hap]

There were some. Eg the Yashinon-DX 21mm f/3.3. Designed for mirror up use and supplied with a dedicated finder. Here's the relevant page from Yashica's publication "YASHICA TL ELECTRO-X The Creative System of Photography".

Does electro x work with the open aperture metering capability of late super multicoated takumars?

 

[Sarcophilus Harrisii]

Does electro x work with the open aperture metering capability of late super multicoated takumars?

The Electro- X is strictly manual exposure with stop down metering. I believe a harder to find AX model has an alternate feature set, but with less manual control has never appealed to me. The comments made by Iwamiya on the page I posted, I would ascribe to the poetic licence of the day. "Automatic" exposure setting, in the context that the camera features a built in TTL meter: as opposed to having to use a hand held meter to take a reading. Ie. Not "automatic", at all, as we would classify such a camera, today. (And not even available, with the 21mm fitted and the mirror lifted—but that's another matter!). Throughout the 1960s and early 70s much similar puffery was employed by many brands, to highlight new features included in models for ease of use, to try to differentiate these from their often purely meterless antecedents. Even when any automation involved needed to be applied entirely by the photographer, and not the camera, itself!