What does this Tessar fit, anybody know?

Ranchu said:
Thanks for the details and congratulations on the Flektogon! I suspect I will have to open it up and clean it properly, eventually, now that I know what it looks like in there. I can get to the threaded part of the mount with the gas, the part that compensates for the main helical to keep the lens straight, but the main helical is inside. I'll try the gas first, though.
Click to expand...
Good luck with the Tessar, it should be a beauty when it is sorted.
Cheers,
Brett
 
I have started a new thread about my Tessar.

Tessar%20BW-3-XL.jpg



http://rangefinderforum.com/modules.php?name=Jig
 
So, I got the adapter. The lens hits the mirror of my Canon Ti, which has a 90% finder coverage and a 'pentamirror', so it looks like only the real thing will do. I'm going to have to find a decent mid 50's east german M42 slr to even take some pictures.

:cool:
 
Ranchu said:
So, I got the adapter. The lens hits the mirror of my Canon Ti, which has a 90% finder coverage and a 'pentamirror', so it looks like only the real thing will do. I'm going to have to find a decent mid 50's east german M42 slr to even take some pictures.

:cool:
Click to expand...
Well, the FX/FX2 series are very affordable and enjoyable to use. As I recall (someone correct me if I'm wrong) they were actually a KW design (pre Praktica-Pentacon period). Some people consider the FX-IV period as representing the peak of Praktica build quality and reliablity (although their later metal shutter does have its good points as well). With the FX/2 you also get the interesting experience of a waist level viewfinder on 35mm. This can be more useful for street imaging than one would expect initially. You get some of the benefits of using a TLR for candid imaging. For portrait orientated shots it is a non starter of course (although there is a direct vision frame for a standard lens). I sourced the optional Carl Zeiss Jena accessory prism because (A) it makes these possible (it does work, it's not fantastic, but it is usable) and, (B) because with an aluminium Biotar and that prism attached the whole thing looks so damn good.

Points against the earlier Prakticas include that curtains can sometimes be stiff and faster speeds can be out. On the other hand, as I mentioned in another discussion recently, they have also got to be just about the easiest focal plane shutter design ever made to CLA. Whilst some examples have stiff curtains, there are still plenty out there that have serviceable curtains that are good to go, and any capping problems are usually only curtain spindles that need a good clean with lighter fluid and a dash of oil. Because the film rail is a plate that simply unscrews from the main casting (note presence and location of shims, if any, if you remove it), and the slow speed escapement and other mechanism parts live under the easily-removed bottom cover, accessibility is as good as it gets.

The Praktica IV and its derivatives feature an integral pentaprism as well as the unusual option of using a top knob wind or bottom lever wind. I was given a box of photographic detritis years ago that included a IV. I serviced it myself, mostly as described above, and it is now possibly the smoothest winding 35mm camera I own.

Lest I run the risk of seeming like a Praktica fanboy, it should be noted after a few Japanese cameras I acquired a Voigtlander or three, and then a battalion of Zeiss Ikons. I absolutely looked with disdain on the former East German brand. But after beign given one or two I discovered that whilst they never had a standard of chrome and finish that approached some of their West German competitors, and are simple, basic, cameras, they do have their good points, too. Personally, I think there is much to be said for a plain ground glass focus screen, and there's not much to go wrong. Grudging respect became affection and whilst they will never replace my Contaflexes or Voigtlanders they have a place in my heart.

The other option is to look towards a Contax D or one of its derivatives. These also have their good and bad points. I actually have a quite early D myself, with just the classic "Contax" script and small "D" for Dresden that is in excellent condition (one of the tidiest I have ever seen). They have a reputation for having viewfinders that are not very bright. I would say two things about this. (1) these things are relative, I don't think it's too bad at all. (2) It has the most superb ground glass I have ever used. Subjects fall into focus with a snap that has to be experienced to be appreciated.

Points against the Contax (by the way, you do know, that the so-called Pentax/Praktica M42 screwmount, is in fact the Contax screwmount, right?) include that it is a more expensive option than the Prakticas; it's not so easy to find really nice examples without brassing; and its mechanism wasn't the most robust ever made (although working ones are still out there). I haven't actually used my own Contax yet, but I am planning to do something about that very soon. Anyway there's a couple of options to think about.

Cheers,
Brett
 
I appreciate it, I'm leaning towards the Praktica IV series. The guy who wrote that SLR book didn't seem to like the Novas much, and even though the FX's are among the coolest looking slrs ever(edit: oops, I'm thinking of the praktina), I'm just too worried about the curtains. Kind of a shot in the dark on ebay, which is how I'd get it.

It's cool, I've got plenty of time it being the middle of winter, and plenty of cameras. The adapter sets the lenses focus marks straight up too (for other lenses), so it's not a waste. Many thanks for sharing your wisdom.

:)
 
Apart from their period appearance the Novas don't have a lot going for them. You may be thinking of Ivor Matanle's book about classic SLRs, I have a copy of that. He prefers the IV himself. I must actually use mine one of these days. He doesn't think much of the Novas. Neither do I, but it hasn't stopped me buying two of them in the last fortnight. I'm not sure why. When you find them actually working, with good meter cells, for $5 each, perhaps it's just too hard not to buy them.

I have three FXs here and acquired an FX2 for a friend a while back. Only one of the cameras had defective curtains, the others are still serviceable, I reckon. They are a different material to those used in Eg. Exaktas when, if from the late Fifties, it is almost a formality that they will need replacing. I'm not convinced the older FX series would be any better or worse than the IV family which, although a little younger, looks to use the same fabric. The integral pentaprism of the IV is definitely a more practical arrangement for general photography, of course, and it has auto stopdown (which, interestingly, can be turned on or off via a little button switch on the stop down lever). This is something the first FX lacks, and it is strictly a manual stop down camera, although the the FX2 which followed it was equipped with auto stop down.

This site isn't a bad reference source for basic details of the various earlier types of Prakticas. Here is a page with a photo of the same rig I have (FX, 58mm alu Biotar f/2, CZJ piggyback prism). He also covers the various Contax S/D/Pentacon M42 series as well. The example I own looks like the one in the photos here. For all their foibles, they're pretty looking things.
Cheers,
Brett
 
Excellent information. It was Matanle's book I was thinking of, great book, mine fell apart I read it so much, it's in a box somewhere.. Your Contax and Praktica are beautiful machines, thanks for the link. I have been there a couple times, I like the early IV with the unpainted bakelite prism housing - kw - I will peruse my options, something will jump out at me eventually. It'll be nice to use the lens, lmao. I'll be able to use the camera like my avatar.

:D
 
I think the Praktica FX3 is probably the best bet for a Praktica. It has the advantage over the earlier FX cameras in that it has a plunger and thus can be used with automatic lenses. Since it doesn't have a prism you also don't have to worry about dust trapped in the viewfinder or the prism silvering degrading - and a WLF can be a lot of fun.

I have three novas and none of them work 100%. Even the best of the lot still has a broken frame counter. The Nova I and onward have a completely new mechanism inside - but they lack the ability to disable the aperture plunger and won't work with these old zeiss lenses.

My personal experience is that the Edixa cameras are better users than the Prakticas and can generally be found cheaply online from sellers who've taken the OEM lenses off and don't want the body (Edixas were supplied with all manner of exotic glass, but the cameras themselves don't have a big following).

There are also a few Japanese options like the first Petri Penta (only the first one has an M42 mount) or the Pentax cameras made before the plunger was added.
 
Thank you, tunalegs. I'm not opposed to the FX's, they suit the lens for sure. I'm not entirely comfortable with waist lavel viewing, I have a rolleicord that doesn't see a lot of use because the opposite direction movements get on my nerves. Probably something that would pass, given enough use, but that hasn't happened. I wouldn't be opposed to using the direct view finder and scale focusing, I like it actually. I looked at a picture of your prismaflex last night, and looked around ebay for them. I'll see what i can find. Thanks for the update on the Nova's, my impression was that they had the plunger on/off switch. This is how it goes looking for a camera. I'm a bit surprised I've wandered into such specialized waters.

:p
 
Ranchu said:
Thanks for the update on the Nova's, my impression was that they had the plunger on/off switch. This is how it goes looking for a camera. I'm a bit surprised I've wandered into such specialized waters.

:p
Click to expand...

They do and they don't. Confusingly the "Nova I" is the first of the second series of Nova SLRs. The easiest way to spot the first series Novas is that they have the lift and set rotating shutter dial. The second series has a conventional dial.

I will say in defense of the Novas, that they do have a very bright focus screen, much brighter than many SLRs of the era - but they tend to be the least reliable of the Prakticas.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom