Zeiss Ikonta vs 35mm RF

P

Peter_S

Peter_S
Local time
8:59 AM
Joined
Jan 24, 2010
Messages
852
Location
Trondheim (Norway); Tbilisi (Georgia)
View My Gallery
Hello!
I am curious:
Does anybody here have practical experience how Zeiss Ikontas and Super Ikontas (w/ coating) compare in photo quality (color rendering, sharpeness, etc) to 35mm RFs like Contax G2, Leica M6, etc?
Do they, with all limitations of old folders (limited rigidity, single coated lenses, lens aberration, etc), hold any of the theoretical advantages of MF over modern 35mm RFs?
I am thinking about getting an Ikonta/Super Ikonta for occassional (too occassional to warrant a Mamiya or Bessa III) black/white landscape shooting, but not sure if it makes really sense when owing a good 35mm RF already.

Cheers,
Peter
 
From what I can see, the old folders if properly aligned can have really superb lenses. Combined with the reduced enlargement required from the larger film format, and the smoother tonal changes, 35mm just cannot compete.

The lens quality does vary from camera to camera, so you may have to try a few to find a really exceptional one. I've tried some pre-war uncoated Tessars that were fantastic, others that were so-so. The post-war coated ones tend to be more consistently good. The only area where the 4 element lens formula may be weaker is wide open and up close. Even then, there is more than adequate rendition. Stopped down a couple of stops, the aberrations are largely nullified.
 
They do not compare too awfully well with modern lenses, in particular if you are after resolution - even perfectly preserved Tessars and Heliars on Super Ikontas or Bessas generally turn out to have a resolution well below 50lp/mm centrally at their best aperture. At which the added film area won't quite make up for the lens losses compared to recent 35mm lenses.

The Apo Lanthar on a few odd Bessa II's is about the only lens on a old folder which is almost up to modern standards, and might deliver better results at equal magnification than a current high grade 35mm lens - but it costs a fortune, and still does absolutely pale against the Makina 67 and Mamiya 7 lenses or just about any recentish lens for a pro medium format SLR.
 
Thanks Robert & Sevo!
The next step up would be a Rolleiflex w/ 3.5 Tessar. Would they be a serious improvement over my G2?
Not that anything is wrong with the G2, but MF seems a real change in terms of quality, DOF, etc....

Best,
Peter
 
Last edited:
The advantage of MF negs is easy to see if you make wet prints. When scanning, the advantage is less clear - unless you have access to a good scanner.

But in any case I would buy the Rolleiflex and a Zeiss Ikonta too because they don't cost an arm and a leg and are great fun to use.
 
I agree re: resolution & contrast, particularly in comparison to modern glass, but I think the lenses on the high end folders, like the Zeiss Ikon Super Ikontas & Agfa Super Isolettes (both of which I have own & use), are good enough for you to see the improved tonality typical of medium format (v. 35mm).

sevo said:
They do not compare too awfully well with modern lenses, in particular if you are after resolution - even perfectly preserved Tessars and Heliars on Super Ikontas or Bessas generally turn out to have a resolution well below 50lp/mm centrally at their best aperture. At which the added film area won't quite make up for the lens losses compared to recent 35mm lenses.

The Apo Lanthar on a few odd Bessa II's is about the only lens on a old folder which is almost up to modern standards, and might deliver better results at equal magnification than a current high grade 35mm lens - but it costs a fortune, and still does absolutely pale against the Makina 67 and Mamiya 7 lenses or just about any recentish lens for a pro medium format SLR.
Click to expand...
 
Peter_S said:
Thanks Robert & Sevo!
The next step up would be a Rolleiflex w/ 3.5 Tessar. Would they be a serious improvement over my G2?
Click to expand...

Well, a Tessar Rolleiflex is not really that different a beast compared to a Tessar Super Ikonta...

But it really depends on what you are looking for in a medium format camera. Size positively matters - larger film formats have unique properties apart from resolution, and in terms of tonality and micro-contrast a good 50's vintage Tessar on 6x6 will beat the G2, even if it is softer, has more edge loss, may be more subject to flare, and is short on the resolving power of the (arguably marvellous) Contax G 45mm. But any of the higher end Rolleiflex lenses (Xenotar/Biometar/Planar/Sonnar) would put the Rolleiflex ahead in every aspect, and by a fair margin at that (and lesser lenses than that G Planar on a 35mm camera would skew the comparison even further).
 
Last edited:
I find myself very much in sympathy with chippy's views 🙂 .

I like a 35mm rangefinder for more fast-action shots or where a larger number of frames per film is convenient.

But for 'static' e.g. landscape type use, I love to have a vintage folder that gives 6x9 or 6x6 yet can slip into a jacket pocket. Modern fast film allows me to use whatever is the highest speed offered by the shutter to mitigate hand-held camera shake, whilst still having the lens fairly well stopped down.

For the film flatness issue, I use the usual trick - giving the final tensioning using the winder after deploying the bellows and just before taking the shot.

If there is a bit of free play in the lens standard, I have found that the directional pull placed on it by the bellows tends to keep it in a consistent position, so I re-trim the focus to suit that position.

Under these conditions, I find that triplets (e.g. Anaston, Ensar, Novar ...) as well as Tessar-class lenses can give very pleasant results for 'domestic grade' photography, and examination of the negatives often shows that the resolution of the prints and digital scans is limited by that of 'consumer grade' enlargers and scanners, rather than by the camera lens. In other words, if I had the need to get 'bespoke', exhibition-class, enlargements, a good vintage folder could be perfectly capable.
 
Last edited:
Hello

I love using old folders, especially the IV and III Super Ikontas.

Here is a comparison of a shot from a Super Ikonta IV Tessar
and [sorry, digital] a Lumix GF1 with Penf25mm lens.

I should have a 35mm film Bessa RF image to compare
somewhere, but can't find it at the mo.

Depressingly there is not too much difference, the Ikonta has
more distortion, and some lens flare [sorry].
I guess you would notice more difference on portraits, where
the 25mm lens would make peoples faces look strange.

But as mentioned by someone else, the dynamic range and colour
space of the 120 film is much greater [obviously hard to tell from this small web image].
The highlights of the whites are easily blown out on digital.


Zeiss Super Ikonta Tessar 75mm
83925513b3fa53606b051173b52bee6772a2aaf56932879ca7efed1bf80a6ebdcc2737cc.jpg



GF1 25mm
88020210d82ac48bf60941631f01c8197c308441e701363604771be31ce3b10609825d9b.jpg


The tip about film winding just before picture taking is essential
for good film flatness, as the bellows tend to "suck" the film a bit
when you open the camera.
Also put a couple of turns of masking tape on the take-up spool
for better frame spacing.

Cheers

-tc
 
I don't have the experience in general, much less in consciously comparing the two formats. But having used good 35mm lenses and old folders, I still think the better photos for tonality and enlarging come from MF. That isn't to say I haven't gotten good photos in 35mm; I have. And I have made some good enlargements from them, especially when taking a photo on tripod with Kodachrome. But I still think the old folders are worth having. I have a Kiev kit and a Yashica kit handy at all times; the camera and four lenses each. I also have a Welta or Zeiss Ikon (non-RF) in each one for what I know MF can give that 35mm can't.
 
tonyc said:
Depressingly there is not too much difference, the Ikonta has
more distortion, and some lens flare [sorry].
Click to expand...

Worse, it has a light leak! But that can be repaired, and might improve the general contrast as well.

In small colour prints or on a monitor, the differences generally are in favour of digital, even a P&S, as the higher macro contrast and one step less losses in the colour separation are most obvious there - things begin to look different on big prints, where micro contrast and sub-pixel/grain resolution are visible.

Sevo
 
Last edited:
I would definitely recommend that you try a medium format camera, even a budget folder, to try out. The look is significantly different from 35mm.

I once had an Ikonta BX 6x6 folder with the Tessar lens. Great results but the camera was too heavy for what I was looking for in a folder. I wanted a medium format folder that I could slip into a front pocket of my camera bag, or into the pocket of my coat, and not be constantly aware that I was carrying it. Now I have a Bessa 6x9 folder and a Ziess Nettar 6x6 folder which suit my needs better as far as folders go.

Have fun with it!
 
Last edited:
I don't think we need to get too modern to hit cameras with lenses which out-resolve 35mm film. I have a suspicion that my Retina is there given good lighting conditions.

I haven't tried too many folders; no Ikontas, etc. I will say that the Zenobia really impressed me. Many of the rolls I used with it have been 30+ years expired and not very representative of what it can do. I think this is probably a good one for showing the potential:

4811885509_05f8c41440_z.jpg


Larger version here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/cannelbrae/4811885509/sizes/o/in/set-72157624508300963/

This is from a camera with a not entirely pristine lens and without any CLA/verification that it is in good condition, etc.

The film was actually Fomapan 400, which I've since avoided due to scratching in most cameras I've used it with. A shame as I really like the look of the film.
 
@ ZeissFan

Very impressive pictures. And thanks for the link to Zoomify- looks very interesting - must check it out.

Forgetting to re-focus? to reset aperture? to reset shutter speed? which film is loaded? wound on twice? not wound-on? Been there, done that, worn the T-shirt 😱 . Ah, those senior moments 🙄...
 
citizen99 said:
...

For the film flatness issue, I use the usual trick - giving the final tensioning using the winder after deploying the bellows and just before taking the shot.
...
Click to expand...

I must try that some time. I haven't noticed a problem winding after a shot, so it is ready. I found early on that worked best for me rather than in the excitement/concentration on getting the shot metered and composed, forgetting to wind the film on with the resultant double exposure.

Maybe the only reason I haven't noticed is I haven't tested for it. But it hasn't been obvious even when using a camera that has sat for a while or when exposing multiple shots at one sitting. So I would say in my experience it hasn't been a real problem.
 
Hello

One more thought . . .

Another great advantage of 120 format is that you
can shoot SQUARE !

Which is definitely a very different and nice way of
shooting, compared to 35mm.

-tc
 
tonyc said:
Hello

One more thought . . .

Another great advantage of 120 format is that you
can shoot SQUARE !

Which is definitely a very different and nice way of
shooting, compared to 35mm.

-tc
Click to expand...

It's different alright. As a personal thing, I don't prefer 6x6. I prefer 6x7 or 6x9. I like the old folders so much, I am willing to put up with square to carry and use them. However, unless you are specifically wanting a square photo, you end up with more like a 645 usage of the negative after cropping. I don't have a 6x7 folder, but they exist. I do have a 6x9 non-RF (Zeiss Ikon) folder that like very much. I don't think it weighs more than my Welta 6x6 folders, maybe less. It gives great photos.

And in the case of the OP, his stated desire to use his 120 camera for landscapes really argues against 6x6 in my opinion. That is seldom a good format for landscapes IMHO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom