So what about the Zeiss Icarex?

[tunalegs]

I've been (not very seriously) after an Icarex for a long time because I thought it would compliment my Exaktas and Edixas - but usually have bothered not to bid when they show up on ebay.

For the heck of it I put in a bid for $10 on one on ebay, and was promptly outbid. I forgot about it until tonight when I checked my ebay account and saw that I had mysteriously won something. I was surprised to see that the Icarex was in my won items, for all of $2.25 😀

I guess somebody thought their $11 bid was just too much and retracted.

Normally I would be worried about a seller backing out of a deal like this, but I noted that the Ultron 1.8/50 sold in a separate auction for over $300, so I hope they can stomach letting the Icarex go for a song.

Which brings me to the point: I've never actually seen an Icarex in real life. Has anybody used one? Does anybody here have one? With all of the Contaflex love on this forum, I'd hope somebody has tried the Icarex.

 

[Sarcophilus Harrisii]

I'd certainly like to try one, I am a fan of the Contaflex. My choice would be a screwmount type with the interchangeable viewfinders, I do watch a few from time to time but their number hasn't come up yet. Stephen says some very positive things about them in his classic camera articles. I prefer screwmount as I have some M42 lenses already. I suspect the bayonet mount type is more collectible if not as usable and maybe lenses are cheaper? Which type did you get? Early ones have no marking. When the screwmount was offered each type was tagged "BM" or "TM" on the front to denote the mount. Later ones dispensed with the removable finder. Looking forward to hearing your own impressions of it, for $2.25 you can't go wrong.
Regards,
Brett

 

[tunalegs]

It is a TM one, luckily I have several M42 lenses.

 

[tunalegs]

It showed up today - very dirty, but I can live with that for the price.

It is really quite large. Bigger than an Edixa, bigger even than a Praktica. It's about the same size as a Nikon F, perhaps even a bit taller than one.

The fit and finish are excellent and the camera feels really solid. Better quality than a Pentax? I personally would not say so. Even though the camera looks great and feels great and everything fits together and feels precise, and even the shutter button has a feel that let's you know that what's going on inside when you push it is important and beautiful... It's obvious that Zeiss were pinching pennies here and there when you look at the details. The rewind crank for instance is just a piece of plastic, and quite fragile feeling - it looks like it was taken from one of the 1980s plastic fake SLR give away cameras. The battery cover is also plastic and the tabs that hold it onto the body (against spring pressure!) are razor thin. Mixed feelings about the quality then.

The advance lever also has about 240 degrees of travel, not quite as bad as Exakta's, but close.

And yet everything that doesn't suck is excellent. There is a prism that reflects the f-stops on the aperture ring into the viewfinder, the meter is illuminated (through another prism) so that when you stop down the lens to meter you can still see the needle. There is a a built in viewfinder shield to cut out light (although how useful this is I'm not sure).

There doesn't seem to be a mirror bumper... I don't see any trace of one either (glue/crumbly bits) - does anybody know if they ever had one?

 

[farlymac]

Looks interesting. Did it come with that lens?

PF

 

[tunalegs]

Looks interesting. Did it come with that lens?

PF

No, I just put that on to test it out. Meter works ok, although it is pretty sluggish. The original Ultron lens sold in a different auction for something like $350.

 

[Sarcophilus Harrisii]

Well, for an investment of $2.25, I'm jealous. I'll give you five bucks for it!
Looking forward to hearing more about it in due course.
Cheers
Brett

 

[tunalegs]

So far it has been interesting. The long stroke of the advance lever has actually felt quite natural. I've used the viewfinder cap a lot because the external meter needle reacts faster than the one in the viewfinder, and the meter seems very sensitive to stray light entering through the viewfinder. The only awkward part of the camera is really the tall top plate which makes pushing the shutter button awkward.

 

[tunalegs]

Finished the test roll. Tried to stick to what the meter was telling me to see how accurate it is. Interestingly the film counter also counts backwards as you rewind the film, as well as it is impossible to rewind the film back into the canister because you have to unhook it from the tooth on the take up spool.

 

[Sarcophilus Harrisii]

Finished the test roll. Tried to stick to what the meter was telling me to see how accurate it is. Interestingly the film counter also counts backwards as you rewind the film, as well as it is impossible to rewind the film back into the canister because you have to unhook it from the tooth on the take up spool.

I would regard that as a plus. The leader can always be wound in by hand if its desired, and leaving it out makes home processing just a little quicker and easier. You haven't written anything so far that is discouraging me from trying to find one. Looking forward to seeing some images.
Cheers
Brett

 

[Sarcophilus Harrisii]

I am an Icarex owner too, now. Although I paid a little more for mine than the one pictured above. But compared to prices frequently asked online not too bad. I had to get it because the price was fair, and it is both M42 and a CS model, meaning it may be fitted with alternative waist level finder if desired, which is an appealing feature. It comes with the standard M42 50mm Tessar, too. It's in the post so, fingers crossed.
Cheers
Brett