Small rangefinder with Zeiss/Leitz-alike lens

L

lrochfort

Well-known
Local time
3:03 PM
Joined
Feb 21, 2011
Messages
239
Hello all,

Over the past couple of years I've owned a Minolta 7SII and an Olympus XA2 in an effort to find a small camera. Unfortunately I don't like the images from those lenses, I find them too contrasty and and "harsh". I also realised I don't like zone focus cameras.

Could you please suggest small rangefinders with lenses that produce results similar to Zeiss and Leitz lenses? Ideally around 35mm focal length. A built-in meter and maybe some auto-exposure would be helpful, but not at all essential. Definitely rangefinders though, no zone focusing.

I suppose I'm looking for a Rollei 35 with a rangefinder and aperture priority auto-exposure!! And a partridge in a pear tree.

Thanks all!
 
I've not owned the Minolta but did own the Olympus. I certainly wouldn't call the Olympus lens contrasty. It's a simple lens with single coatings and imagine the Minta to be similar. For sure single coated.

Are you shooting B&W or color? My guess is it's more a function of film choice, processing, printing or scannng or a combination of these.

I'm not sure you'll find a less contrasty alternative in a modern coated lens.
 
A little larger, but Leica CL? Maybe too similar but the Olympus XA and lower contrast film?
 
I find images from my Rollei 35S contrasty as well, so what's a "Zeiss-and-Leitz-alike lens" remains subjective.

As far as some fixed lens rangefinders with automation are concerned, the tiny Zeiss Ikon Contessa S 312 (later rebadged as Voigtlander VF101), the last of the Zeiss Ikon, is as German as you could get; it shoots with a 40/2.8 Tessar in aperture priority. Whatever kind of result it gives it must be "Zeiss like".

You can also try the Agfa Optima Sensor 1535, which also has a Tessar type 40/2.8 lens. Program mode only though.
 
The Olympus 35RC is SMALL. Very small. High-quality 42mm lens, extremely sharp, but not contrasty. Easy to focus, small enough to fit in a jacket pocket. It also has built in metering and mechanical AUTO exposure and a self-timer. Takes a single 1.5V battery but it lasts forever. The battery only powers the AUTO metering, so the camera will still work without any current. If you're looking for a small fixed-lens rangefinder I highly recommend it.

Here's a photo of mine:

18769765520_c55acc94a6_c.jpg



And a sample photo taken a couple years ago. Kodak 400UC film.

6196235114_3f28f8f001_z.jpg
 
Zeiss Tenax II with 40mm Sonnar. Awesome square format camera.

STANDARD LENSES:[5]

Carl Zeiss Jena ... Tessar 1:2,8 f=4 cm
Carl Zeiss Jena ... Sonnar 1:2 f=4 cm
ACCESSORY LENSES requiring a separate top mounted Van Albada type finder:[6]

Carl Zeiss Jena ... Sonnar 1:4 f=7,5 cm <Dechert, Peter. "Tenax" Zeiss Historica,(spring 2006, Vol. 28, No.1>
Carl Zeiss Jena ... Orthometar 1:4,5 f=2,7 cm
 
If you are looking for that beautiful look that prints made in the '30s have, it is going to require use of lenses with a little more flare, simple coatings, and more importantly printing that highlights the lower contrast you want.

Low contrast papers, toning, etc are still available. But all "modern" lenses are going to be very similar in contrast due to coatings, sharpness of course will vary and does overlap what the eye sees as contrast.

I am always amazed about how the style of printing has changed, when I go to a museum like MoMA (NYC) where so many years of photo history are all in the same room.

If you cannot do it yourself, there are pro printers who can do beautiful work.
 
Thin layer of vaseline over lens will drop contrast and deliver moody look. It's reversible mod. And costs pennies.
 
jsrockit said:
A little larger, but Leica CL? Maybe too similar but the Olympus XA and lower contrast film?
Click to expand...

Actually what I had was the XA not the XA2. Still don't think they're what I'd call contrasty.

I currently own my second CL. The one I bought new in the 70's had meter problems and the one I bought last year has meter problems. The meters in the are very problematic so if you buy one be prepared to use an external meter. It's my understanding meter parts are no longer available.

You didn't give much information about what you're doing. Color negative film has gotten more and more contrasty over the years. For some reason people equate contrast with sharpness and manufactures have pushed up contrast and saturation to appeal to the masses. Color papers also have gotten more and more contrasty to the point I think they're unpleasant looking.

B&W film is another matter. Color is processed to a specific specification where as B&W processes can be altered dramatically to adjust for contrast. Different films and developers have different contrast characteristics. Kentmere films are very contrasty as per recommended development IMO and Ilford and Fuji are lower contrast. It all depends on your technique or the person processing, developer and scanning or printing.

If you're finding your images too contrasty it's most likely not your lens but rather film, development, printing or scanning. The cameras you mention are not known for contrasty lenses. I can't remember a vintage lens I would call particularly contrasty. Consumers keep crying for contrasty lenses now without understanding what they're asking for and the manufacturers respond sometimes. IMO some of the new Leica glass and CV glass have gotten to the point they look artificial and plastic. High contrast isn't always desirable. If you live in an area where it's overcast most of the time then contrast is fine but if you live in the south west then you won't like contrasty lenses. Be careful what you wish for.
 
Thanks for the suggestions all.

The Tenax now has me curious about something I didn't even know I wanted! I love the square format on my Hasselblad so I'm intrigued!

I'll definitely look at the two Tessar cameras.

I take the point that film and printing have a lot to do with it. However, my main 35mm camera is a FED-2 with a Jupiter 12 and when comparing that lens with these cameras using identical film, taken at the same time and processed at the same time, there was a marked difference.

Colour film and paper has definitely changed in the last 15 years. I used to work at a Kodak lab and mostly was dealing with Kodak Gold film and Kodak Royal paper optically printed. I think that modern laser printing onto optical paper may have a lot to do with it. I actually went out of my way to find somewhere that prints onto Kodak paper rather than Crystal Archive because I find the latter pretty horrendous looking.

The FED and J-12 is already a pretty small combination that I like, I just have a hankering for one of these fixed lens rangefinders.
 
You might consider a late model Kodak Retina. They'll be RFs with uncoupled meters and either Schneider or Rodenstock 50mm lenses lenses. They're not super small, but are folders so they store very compactly.

Alternately, a Leica CL (match needle metering) or Minolta CLE (aperture priority auto w/ manual) and an 35mm Summaron, M-mount or adapted LTM, or other '50s vintage lens.
 
Here is no cheap substitute if you are after Zeiss, Leica character in images.

I was never impressed with XA lens. Next to No-Name lens.
Rollei 35 simple Tessar single coated 40mm lens was more impressive and Minox 35, first version of its lens is amazing.
But if you can't deal with scale focusing even at 35mm, skip all "like" Leica-Zeiss, where is none and get what jsrockit recommended first.
CL with Leica or Zeiss will give it all to you.
 
Take a look down the page to the info on the XA2. The lens is basically a 4 element Tessar. Your Hasselblad lenses will be much more contrasty than the Tessar. There's something wrong with your processing, film or scanning / printing. Tessar lenses aren't known for contrast. I've used Tessar and Xenar's for fifty years and never seen one that was particularly contrasty.
 
Contax T2

Contax T2

I had one of these. The lens was stunning. Have more than 1 12x18 framed on the wall from this camera.

Yes it's not a 'rangefinder,' but has manual focus that never let me down
 
Yashica GX or CCN will be small, probably more punchy and contrasty than you seek, but they have great lenses, tiny body, true RF, and auto-exposure (aperture-prefered). GX is 40mm, CCN is 35mm, both f/1.8.

I like my GX very much.
 
I'm with x-ray on this one - the problem is most likely in another part (processing, scanning, printing) of the OP's process. The XA is perfectly capable of low-contrast results with a vintage flavor...

7259310304_b3e4d38a09_z_d.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom