The Zeiss Orthometar

[David Murphy]

I finally got around to developing and scanning some shots taken with my Zeiss Orthometar. As published results attributed to being taken with this lens are fairly rare, I thought I'd contribute the results of my informal test shots.The Orthometar is a fairly rare Contax rangefinder lens from the late 1930's. It is said to be uncoated. Like other Zeiss Contax lenses from that era, the build quality is exceptional and I'm sure the optical engineering was cutting edge for the time. The film used for the test was SamSung ISO 200 C41. I think the performance is reasonably good for an uncoated lens. The shots seem to have that sort of "dreamy quality" common to uncoated lenses. As well, bright objects or bright sub portions of the images seem to almost over exposed. The latter effect is even more pronounced on the Zeiss 2.8cm F8.

 

[dexdog]

David, thanks for posting these pics. A couple of mine, aperture was at f 8 on these pics, using a Contax IIA.

 

[sevo]

Strangely enough this one seems to have quite a bit of barrel distortion. The general Orthometar reputation was that it was worse than a Biogon in every aspect except for distortion. It might be that this one is misaligned...

Sevo

 

[David Murphy]

dexdog those are pretty shots. I was not in the market for an Orthometar, but one came along at a very reasonable price and unlike most of the Biogons around it will fit my Contax IIa. I still want to acquire a Biogon Opton at some point, I have little doubt it's a superior lens. Does anyone have experience with the Planar 35mm F3.5 or Biometar 35mm F2.8? These also seem to be rare or at least uncommon (and very expensive when available).

 

[dexdog]

I have a Planar and Biometar, and think that both perform in a similar fashion, although in my samples the Biometer has somewhat better resolution than the Planar. Also, I think that Tom A has used the Planar quite a bit, and may be able to post some pics with it. Unfortunately, I do not always attach tags to my pics, so do not have any pics that I could reliably say were made with either lens, except for a few really dull shots taken from my front yard.

 

[dexdog]

Here are a few of the Biometar and 35/1.8 Nikkor, shot at f 2.8 as a comparison, and one of the Planar at f3.5. The full size tiffs show that the Biometar has somewhat better resolution than the Nikkor, but Nikkor has a bit more contrast and less darkening in the corners (at least at f2.8). The Planar is pretty similar to the Biometar, but with perhaps a bit more contrast. Yeah, images are full of dust and scratches from a lousy 1 hour lab. These photos were taken using a tripod-mounted Contax IIA, and it may be possible that the Nikkor would have performed better had I used my Nikon SP for the test. In fact, I should try this out some time. Film is Kodak Gold 200.

Of course, at this scale, kinda hard to tell any difference between the shots

 

[David Murphy]

Hmm... interesting comparison. I would have thought the Nikkor would have done a little better, but of course it can go a good deal faster which is its real virtue. I just bought a used Skopar-SC 35mm F2.5 (from Igor Camera) for Nikon rangefinder mount. I'll pit this against Orthometar - a totally unfair comparison of course, but it will be interesting to see the differences. The CV Nikon mount lenses seem to be really accelerating in price now that they are out-of-production (a very predictable event!).

 

[furcafe]

CZJ Orthometar:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/furcafe/tags/carlzeissjena35cm45orthometarc1937/

CZ Planar:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/furcafe/tags/carlzeiss3535planarc195461/

CZJ Biometar:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/furcafe/tags/carlzeissjena3528biometarc195051/

Zeiss-Opton Biogon:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/furcafe/tags/zeissopton3528biogonc1954/

3.5cm/1.8 W-Nikkor (vintage):

http://www.flickr.com/photos/furcafe/tags/nipponkogaku35cm18wnikkorc195658/

3.5cm/2.5 Nikkor:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/furcafe/tags/nipponkogaku35cm25wnikkorblackc195658/

. . . I still want to acquire a Biogon Opton at some point, I have little doubt it's a superior lens. Does anyone have experience with the Planar 35mm F3.5 or Biometar 35mm F2.8? These also seem to be rare or at least uncommon (and very expensive when available).

 

[David Murphy]

Chris this is wonderful work. You combine the use of great classics with artful composition. I love your work. I'll spend some time studying these. I'm really getting inspired by Contax and Zeiss again and the artistic potentialities. "Urban Landscapes" are one of my favorite themes as well -- this is really the great domain of the rangefinder film camera.

 

[furcafe]

Thanks, glad you like it.

I don't claim to be a great photographer (know way too many people for whom that description fits better), but I do use the gear that I buy/collect as it was meant to be used. Regardless of what you're using, I think that's easily 75% of getting shots that you're happy with--just getting out there & shooting as much stuff that interests you as possible.

Chris this is wonderful work. You combine the use of great classics with artful composition. I love your work. I'll spend some time studying these. I'm really getting inspired by Contax and Zeiss again and the artistic potentialities. "Urban Landscapes" are one of my favorite themes as well -- this is really the great domain of the rangefinder film camera.

 

[David Murphy]

A few more recent results with my Orthometar 3.5cm/4.5. Contax IIa, Ektachrome 100VS, Hong Kong in April 2010.

 

[Wouter]

Hmm, seems to be a pretty good lens David 🙂. For those of you who are interested, there's one for sale on the brazilian ebay right now, for the equivalent of 200 dollars (no finder, excellent condition, no relation to the seller) as well as a T coated Tessar 3.5/50 for a bit more than 100 dollars. I can intermediate, should someone be interested.

 

[S.H.]

I'm unearthing this thread to add some feedback on this rare lens.

I just took some quick shots with mine on my M8 and an Amedeo adapter. It works, but at close range the back of the lens moves and catches the RF arm, and this fools the RF. So it is scale focusing under 8 feet.

My sample is an early one with a Biogon barrel, in feet with DOF scales up to 2.8. A bit worn on the outside. Beware of backlit situations and blown highlights, but this can give interesting effects. Wide open (@ 4.5 🙄) it is usable with a "vintage" soft look. At 8 it is very sharp, I was quite impressed. I think it has more resolving power than the chip on my M8. Does not seem to have much distortion on the shot below:


Nice home

Conclusion : a rare collector's piece, but very much usable. Just watch the light sources, as with any uncoated wide I suppose.

 

[furcafe]

Not sure I understand the mechanics of this problem, as I've never experienced it w/my Orthometar + Amedeo adapter on an M8 or M9. At close range(s), the rear of the lens should be moving away from the camera, correct?

It works, but at close range the back of the lens moves and catches the RF arm, and this fools the RF. So it is scale focusing under 8 feet.

 

[S.H.]

Yes, but the rear of the lens "stays behind" as the cam of the adapter moves away... bummer.