|
|
Post by conan on Nov 30, 2016 2:54:14 GMT -5
 $20 or about 14 euros - took a chance
This cannot be happening – I just got another pair of Contaflex’s. This was at a market auction and my inspection was limited to looking in the box from a distance. At least I could see the chrome wasn’t pitted and the black paint was well intact. 1 a Contaflex IV with a working meter in Chrome with a 50/2.8 Tessar. Cosmetic condition about 8.5. Meter is actually working and so are all the shutter speeds. Also came with a genuine ZI UV filter and genuine Lens Hood 2 a Contaflex Super BC in black with a Pro Tessar 35/3.2. Cosmetic condition about 9.5. Everything works including the TTL meter and all the speeds etc. Came with a ZI 60mm UV filter So at $10 a piece or 7 euros they were probably worth the trouble. These will not get film - they will take their place in year order against the other SLRs on display. I think Rachel make a post many moons ago as a previous Contaflex user but she had bagged them up and they were probably gathering dust. |
|
hansz
Lifetime Member
Hans
Posts: 697
|
Post by hansz on Nov 30, 2016 5:16:17 GMT -5
Conan, nice catch!
Can you provide me with the body and lens serial numbers?
Th Super BC (or rather an S) has its number stamped underneath and the IV you have to open the back to see it.
Thanks, Hans
|
|
|
|
Post by Rachel on Nov 30, 2016 6:08:07 GMT -5
Hi Conan, yes, I have a Contaflex Super with three lenses (Pro-Tessars) which was in working condition last time I looked at it. I'm afraid that I don't shoot much film at the moment. I keep meaning to but never get around to it. I should put some photos up of my kit because I have some interchangeable film magazines for this camera.
|
|
|
|
Post by conan on Dec 1, 2016 1:13:01 GMT -5
Hi Conan, yes, I have a Contaflex Super with three lenses (Pro-Tessars) which was in working condition last time I looked at it. I'm afraid that I don't shoot much film at the moment. I keep meaning to but never get around to it. I should put some photos up of my kit because I have some interchangeable film magazines for this camera. Rachel, like us when we get older they need some basic exercise - otherwise those shutters and diaphragms will gum up. I am sure Hansz will help – just send him the cameras and he will probably return them in 5 or 10 years. How did you get on with the interchangeable magazines? – I have never heard a good word about them being easy to change or without light leaks. |
|
|
|
Post by conan on Dec 1, 2016 1:14:41 GMT -5
Conan, nice catch! Can you provide me with the body and lens serial numbers? Th Super BC (or rather an S) has its number stamped underneath and the IV you have to open the back to see it. Thanks, Hans Hansz, I think you have become this sites dating genealogist for Zeiss lenses and cameras. I tend to date things according to Internet sources and McKeown’s which tends to list available dates rather than actual manufacturing dates. No problems with locating most serial numbers – Zeiss were not as bad as Nikon on some of their newer lenses and bodies. Where does Zeiss hide the serial numbers on their Contina models? I have a Contina IIa (527/24?) perhaps they used invisible ink on those. The Super BC (why is it an ‘S’?) is P48109 and the Pro Tessar lens 3820577 The IV is L44377 and the good old Tessar is 3792713 |
|
|
|
Post by Rachel on Dec 1, 2016 5:12:30 GMT -5
Hi Conan, yes, I have a Contaflex Super with three lenses (Pro-Tessars) which was in working condition last time I looked at it. I'm afraid that I don't shoot much film at the moment. I keep meaning to but never get around to it. I should put some photos up of my kit because I have some interchangeable film magazines for this camera. Rachel, like us when we get older they need some basic exercise - otherwise those shutters and diaphragms will gum up. I am sure Hansz will help – just send him the cameras and he will probably return them in 5 or 10 years. How did you get on with the interchangeable magazines? – I have never heard a good word about them being easy to change or without light leaks. The interchangeable magazines are an interesting idea. I did put one film through the magazine and it worked OK but they are clunky/awkward to use. Regarding light leaks, the dark slides should never be left in place for too long as they compress the light proofing plush and so you can then get leaks through the slot where the dark slide fits. I must take some photos of the things then you can see how it all fits together. |
|
|
|
Post by Rachel on Dec 1, 2016 5:16:55 GMT -5
|
|
hansz
Lifetime Member
Hans
Posts: 697
|
Post by hansz on Dec 1, 2016 11:44:58 GMT -5
Conan, nice catch! Can you provide me with the body and lens serial numbers? Th Super BC (or rather an S) has its number stamped underneath and the IV you have to open the back to see it. Thanks, Hans Hansz, I think you have become this sites dating genealogist for Zeiss lenses and cameras. I tend to date things according to Internet sources and McKeown’s which tends to list available dates rather than actual manufacturing dates. No problems with locating most serial numbers – Zeiss were not as bad as Nikon on some of their newer lenses and bodies. Where does Zeiss hide the serial numbers on their Contina models? I have a Contina IIa (527/24?) perhaps they used invisible ink on those. The Super BC (why is it an ‘S’?) is P48109 and the Pro Tessar lens 3820577 The IV is L44377 and the good old Tessar is 3792713 Conan, It is a Super BC, although a rare one, being black. The Contaflex S is in fact a Super BC (both have the same Bestellnummer - 10.1273) and are among the latest Contaflexes made. Black was fashionable then, and so most S's are black. But it should be noted on the body front. As you have a Pro-Tessar mounted I couldn't see it, but merely assumed:-) Within the Zeiss Historica Society there is a certain interest in the Tessar 2,8/50 of these cameras as we are looking for pinpointing a date for the Tessar to be recalculated (once more:-). It is assumed that it was contemporaneous with the Super BC to S switch. For more information visit holoceen.nl. (although the site still lacks a lot of function...) About the 527/24 Contina II: most postwar viewfinder models had their production number stamped in the leatherette on the back. You have to look closely to see it (and beware of the O vs Q possibility). As most cameras were sold with an everready case, this number can be obliterated by the push-marks of the closure. Hans |
|
|
|
Post by conan on Dec 1, 2016 21:05:17 GMT -5
Hansz, I think you have become this sites dating genealogist for Zeiss lenses and cameras. I tend to date things according to Internet sources and McKeown’s which tends to list available dates rather than actual manufacturing dates. No problems with locating most serial numbers – Zeiss were not as bad as Nikon on some of their newer lenses and bodies. Where does Zeiss hide the serial numbers on their Contina models? I have a Contina IIa (527/24?) perhaps they used invisible ink on those. The Super BC (why is it an ‘S’?) is P48109 and the Pro Tessar lens 3820577 The IV is L44377 and the good old Tessar is 3792713 Conan, It is a Super BC, although a rare one, being black. The Contaflex S is in fact a Super BC (both have the same Bestellnummer - 10.1273) and are among the latest Contaflexes made. Black was fashionable then, and so most S's are black. But it should be noted on the body front. As you have a Pro-Tessar mounted I couldn't see it, but merely assumed:-) Within the Zeiss Historica Society there is a certain interest in the Tessar 2,8/50 of these cameras as we are looking for pinpointing a date for the Tessar to be recalculated (once more:-). It is assumed that it was contemporaneous with the Super BC to S switch. For more information visit holoceen.nl. (although the site still lacks a lot of function...) About the 527/24 Contina II: most postwar viewfinder models had their production number stamped in the leatherette on the back. You have to look closely to see it (and beware of the O vs Q possibility). As most cameras were sold with an everready case, this number can be obliterated by the push-marks of the closure. Sorry no S on the front and no front lens -so cannot help with the Tessar. The Super B has a Tessar No 3432524 and probably very erroneously I believed this contained the revised Tessar formulation. Obviously feet and metre markings would have been for the intended market but can you tell me why some Contaflex models focus clockwise to infinity and other focus anti clockwise? The only Zeiss camera worthy of the name Super BS (Bullnutse) would be when they stuck the word ‘Pro’ on the black Icarex which was silly and a little insulting to potential buyers. Not much different from the Nikon name litigation when they decided German buyers couldn’t distinguish between the Zeiss Ikon logo and name Contarex on the camera front and Nikon using Nikon on the front, the ‘Nippon Kogaku’ badge on the camera top, ‘Made in Japan’ stamped in the bottom and ‘F’ on the prism. |
|
|
|
Post by conan on Dec 1, 2016 21:06:38 GMT -5
Rachel, thanks for the link but a friend actually let me read an original Zeiss instruction sheet. I was more interested hearing from someone that actually had any experience trying to use these backs. In general, they seem to have a poor user experience reputation. The guy with the Instructions sheet tells me he actually has a couple of backs and rather than “swear by them” he “swears at them” |
|
|
|
Post by Rachel on Dec 2, 2016 5:26:45 GMT -5
Yes Conan, they are more of interest as a curiosity rather than a practical accessory.
|
|
hansz
Lifetime Member
Hans
Posts: 697
|
Post by hansz on Dec 2, 2016 10:13:20 GMT -5
Conan wrote:
Obviously feet and metre markings would have been for the intended market but can you tell me why some Contaflex models focus clockwise to infinity and other focus anti clockwise?
Well, the Contaflex I and II focus to inf clockwise (by looking from the front:-) and all others focus anti-clockwise.
The I and II use front-cell focusing, while the others use focusing by total lens movement via a helical.
Both focusing types have advantages and disadvantages. Contemporaneous literature are filled with this controverse! Just find yourself a book of Optics and you will be bored soon!
Hans
|
|
|
|
Post by conan on Dec 2, 2016 15:35:13 GMT -5
Conan wrote: Obviously feet and metre markings would have been for the intended market but can you tell me why some Contaflex models focus clockwise to infinity and other focus anti clockwise? Well, the Contaflex I and II focus to inf clockwise (by looking from the front:-) and all others focus anti-clockwise. The I and II use front-cell focusing, while the others use focusing by total lens movement via a helical. Both focusing types have advantages and disadvantages. Contemporaneous literature are filled with this controverse! Just find yourself a book of Optics and you will be bored soon! Hans Hans, the B and Super B have total lens movement but focus in opposite directions- go figure. Tongue in Cheek - Perhaps these were intended for Australia on the assumption that things go in the opposite direction? Or another Zeiss joke – ‘Pro’ on a consumer camera and interchangeable backs that a magician couldn’t change properly. |
|
mickeyobe
Lifetime Member
Resident President
Posts: 7,280
|
Post by mickeyobe on Dec 3, 2016 6:53:51 GMT -5
Conan wrote: can you tell me why some Contaflex models focus clockwise to infinity and other focus anti clockwise? Hans Hans, were you never a child. One who enjoyed riding on a carousel until you staggered? Constantly turning the lens in the same direction makes it dizzy so that it couldn't know where to focus. Perhaps that is what has happened to your poor Nikon. Periodically reversing the direction eliminates that image destroying vertigo and results in extraordinary images. Highly strung pedigreed lenses were particularly sensitive to this malady. Lesser lenses of no or little ancestral pride may not be prone to this ailment. It is called Compass Envy Syndrome. The only cure, if its disease is not too far advanced, is to bring it to the other side of the equator where everything is reversed and equilibrium is normalized Sympathetically. Mickey |
|
|
|
Post by Rachel on Jan 27, 2017 8:48:23 GMT -5
Just found this photo of my Contaflex Super with the interchangeable film magazine back attached  |
|
