开云体育

Friends, Romans, countrymen:

I am working with a fellow who would be a good member
of the ZICG and I'm trying to persuade him to join. I
think his reluctance is based on the fact that most of
what he has been collecting in non-Zeiss equipment,
largely Voigtlnder and Agfa. Please see below for description
of a lens and shutter assembly he has. He would like to
identify the camera from which it was removed. If any of
you have the twin of this assembly, please let me know
its identity.
---------------------------------------------------------
Bill - here are the URLs to the pictures of
my coated Tessar -





Information:

Carl Zeiss Jena Nr. 3083688
Tessar 1 : 3.5 f = 10.5cm T

Compur Rapid Nr. 7069114
Speeds to 400, sync, self timer.
No provision for cable release.
The lens has front cell focusing.

------------------------------------
Thanks, and kind regards to all.

Bill Lurie

I just tore apart a very early Contax IIa BD with a frozen shutter. Looks
like the problem was originally caused by a disk coming loose from the top
of the rangefinder prism and jamming the speed escapement. Looks like
camera than sat unused for years - escapement was totally frozen (soaking
in shot glass of Liquid Wrench for an hour fixed that). This is the second
time I have found a camera jammed by this; the last was a circa 1949 Super
Ikonta B in which the loose disk jammed the advance mechanism.

Question is, what is the function of the disk? It is 12mm in diameter and
was originally glued to the top of the viewfinder block on the prism.
There is also one on the bottom. I don't have a lot of experience with the
post war cameras, but I do not recall seeing this part in a Contax before.

I just acquired one of these, and am wondering if there is any kind of rollfilm back that will fit the 3 1/4 x 4 1/4 groundglass/plateholder back? i remember some mention of Suydam rollfilm backs - does anybody know if a Suydam rollfilm back for a Graphic camera will fit the Maximar? Thanks.

Richard H. Coutant
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at

Richard-
Thanks for the new number. Looks like the run of "no-Name Contax/Kiev's" might have extended later than I had previously thought. Looking at my list again, I have 19 No-name's with numbers from 63057xx through 63082xx - maybe 2500 to 3000 cameras in all. (I don't know where the 631xxxx numbers went, but imagine I was writing without checking before.)
Given the way the Soviets produced cameras, I imagine that there are many Kiev's with 1963 serial numbers beyond this range, and that whoever was importing them placed a second order with Arsenal which was filled in early 1964. Now we need to find another 64 camera to back up the theory.
Most of the other cameras reported have late Carl Zeiss (Oberkochen) lenses. My assertions are always based on observations, mine or someone else's, so new evidence, even contradictory, is always welcome.
I wonder if the presence of a Jupiter on yours might not indicate (if original to that camera) that it was originally sold into a different market than the USA. Certainly, a Carl Zeiss lens went a long way to selling a camera marked "made in USSR occupied Germany" in the USA in 1964, whereas a Soviet lens, even one copied from the original German ancestor, would have been a negative in this market at that time.
Thnaks again.
Charlie

Back in January Charlie Barringer, in commenting on the no-name Contax, remarked that they all had serial numbers beginning in 630xxxx or 631xxxx, and that they were equipped with West German Sonnars. I have just acquired a no-name, serial no. 6401376. It has a Jupiter 8M, no. 6335066. Is this a later lens swap? Is this rom the same sries as the other no-names? Any information will be gratefully appreciated.

Richard H. Coutant
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at

Gene Johnson wrote:
(snip)

Was it you who suggested
that the awkward shutter release placement might be the problem? Maybe
it was Tom Green, not sure, but someone was saying that they use the
neck strap to push against when they release the shutter on their
Ikoflex.

(snip)

No, it wasn't me, I don't have an Ikoflex. That is a good technique
however. I have used the neck strap as a bracing device with other cameras.

-Tom Green

I glossed over a couple of obvious points requiring unstated assumptions in my earlier statement.
1) Gary has a Distar, not a proxar. No camera not having a long extension bellows (or other focusing device) will be able to get an infinity (let alone closer) image with a negative diopter lens, because the lens cannot be extended from the film plane to its "new" infinity position. Practically speaking, the best way to check this is by viewing the virtual image at the film plane.
2) Proxars were used prewar on many Zeiss Ikon camera systems to allow closeup use on cameras with limited focusing racks or helicoids. Their use as close-up lenses became obvious only when the manufacturers incorporated rangefinder systems into their cameras, thereby limiting the focusing range from infinity to some fixed minimum (imposed by the rangefinding device) and allowing them to dispense with the tedious, if simple, method of groundglass viewing and focusing.
At the end of the day, all cameras using accessory lenses need to be focused on a groundglass (or with a clever device like the Contameter) and should be used with the camera immobilised on a tripod or other support.
As Bill Lurie pointed out to me, Rudolph Kingslake's early book, "Lenses in Photography" (1951) gives formulae and charts on this topic.
Sorry for the gaping inconsistencies.
Charlie

Gary-
Before the second World War Zeiss Ikon and Carl Zeiss offered Distar and Proxar diopter lenses for the express purpose of extending the utility of their ground-glass focusing plate cameras. The Proxars effectively shortened the focal length, giving a wider field of view; The Distars, the opposite. The effect was modest, but real; it required ground glass confirmation with the camera on a tripod.
More recently, Distars have ceased to have much use (with one specific exception back in the '50's and '60's, too technical to get into here) while Proxars have taken on a new lease on life as closeup lenses on reflex cameras whose lenses have limited close focusing ability. (Prewar the close focusing job was taken care of by double or triple extension bellows.)
I wouldn't want to discourage your experiments with a Distar on a S Ik IV, but I would suggest that in the absence of any printed material, you will have to methodically develop your own charts. Simply use some frosted Scotch tape at the film plane, jam the shutter open (a rubber band holding the lever in the B position will do the trick, and, with the camera on a tripod, examine the image with a loupe, Ansel Adams style. Try different focus settings, f-stops, etc. I doubt you'll be able to extend the lens enough to be able to focus an infinity image, but this is a possiblity. Whatever else you might discover about using the Distar, you will gain an understanding of the image-making process and what affects it in what way. Enjoy yourself. You will also gain an appreciation of the practical advantage of a reflex camera in situations calling for close-up work.
Zeiss Historica has reprints of several historic booklets which might be of interest. Their website is in gestation but in the meantime contact the Secretary at 300 Waxwing Drive, Monroe Twp, NJ 08831.

Regards
Charlie Barringer
President of Zeiss Historica (among other things)

In a message dated Thu, 25 May 2000 2:40:12 PM Eastern Daylight Time, garcap@... writes:

<< I will be using this lens on a Zeiss Ikon Super Ikonta IV with the
75mm 3.5f Tessar. I would be interested in light transmission loss
information, min./max focusing distances and/or depth of field charts
for this lens, and etc. or any information on where to find.
Thanks for the help,
Gary

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Old school buds here:

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unsubscribe: ZICG-unsubscribe@...
Problems: mjm159@...

Charlie, I wouldn't ever dispute your authority on matters with which I
myself was not personally involved, but your narration above has to be expanded
somewhat based on my own personal experience.

I myself bought Zeiss Proxar lenses 1x42 and 2x42 to use with my Contax-II,
back in 1938-1939. You'll recall that the f2 and f1.5 Sonnars used 42mm
slip-on auxiliary lenses and filters, as well as 40.5 mm screw-in filters.
The Contax-II with 5 cm lenses focussed down to 0.9 meters, as I
recall. It may have been 1.0 meter. With a 1x42 Proxar (i.e. 1 diopter, focal
length 1.0 meter), the camera, when set at infinity, focussed at 1.0 meter.
This extended the focussing distance DOWN from 1 meter, variable as the focussing
ring of the camera turned. The 2x42 Proxar extended it in still closer.

You may recall the Zeiss Depth of Field booklets which I owned for over 50
years and donated to your archives. Their primary purpose was to tell the
depth of field, for two different circles of confusion, for the Contax with all of
the lenses available for it. It is my recollection that those same booklets also
showed the focussing distance for Contax 5 cm lenses, with Proxars. I really
can't swear to that, as I haven't looked inside those booklets in 40 years or
more. If you have them handy, please give them a look.

And now finally: the mathematical relationships between lens setting distance and actual
focussing distance with Proxar added, are extremely simple. It isn't simple arithmetic
like add/subtract/multiply, but it ALMOST is. Any high school kid in elementary
algebra can handle it, and I think I saw it recently in one of the books I've been
reading. Possibly it was one of Kinglake's. If it were complicated I'd offer to generate
a whole bunch of tables, but it really isn't.

Best regards to all.....

Bill Lurie



------------------------------------------------------------------------
Old school buds here:

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unsubscribe: ZICG-unsubscribe@...
Problems: mjm159@...

>>

Good point. I am a little puzzled why this particular camera seems to
have this problem more than others I have. Was it you who suggested
that the awkward shutter release placement might be the problem? Maybe
it was Tom Green, not sure, but someone was saying that they use the
neck strap to push against when they release the shutter on their
Ikoflex. I think I'll try it.

Gene

JJMcF@... wrote:

Kingslake, Rudolf..."Lenses in Photography"
Page 167, in the chapter on Lens Attachments....
A complete table of object distances with supplementary lenses,
versus camera focussing scale set at............for "proxar"
lenses of various strengths. He also discussed "Distar" lenses,
and
gives a graph, but it is more qualitative than quantitative.

In the same book is a whole chapter on depth of field, and
depth of focus, including the formulas.

William B. Lurie

I've recently acquired a Contax II that should be restored, the chrome is
in exceptionally bad shape. Top and front plates are no problem, I can find
new parts. Problem is going to be the bottom plate, as I have to retain the
original back for the serial number. Has anyone ever replaced the bottom
plate on one of these? I have a good donar, but have no idea how to swap
the parts.

charzou@... wrote:

Gary-
Before the second World War Zeiss Ikon and Carl Zeiss offered Distar and Proxar diopter lenses for the express purpose of extending the utility of their ground-glass focusing plate cameras. The Proxars effectively shortened the focal length, giving a wider field of view; The Distars, the opposite. The effect was modest, but real; it required ground glass confirmation with the camera on a tripod.
More recently, Distars have ceased to have much use (with one specific exception back in the '50's and '60's, too technical to get into here) while Proxars have taken on a new lease on life as closeup lenses on reflex cameras whose lenses have limited close focusing ability. (Prewar the close focusing job was taken care of by double or triple extension bellows.)
I wouldn't want to discourage your experiments with a Distar on a S Ik IV, but I would suggest that in the absence of any printed material, you will have to methodically develop your own charts. Simply use some frosted Scotch tape at the film plane, jam the shutter open (a rubber band holding the lever in the B position will do the trick, and, with the camera on a tripod, examine the image with a loupe, Ansel Adams style. Try different focus settings, f-stops, etc. I doubt you'll be able to extend the lens enough to be able to focus an infinity image, but this is a possiblity. Whatever else you might discover about using the Distar, you will gain an understanding of the image-making process and what affects it in what way. Enjoy yourself. You will also gain an appreciation of the practical advantage of a reflex camera in situations calling for close-up work.
Zeiss Historica has reprints of several historic booklets which might be of interest. Their website is in gestation but in the meantime contact the Secretary at 300 Waxwing Drive, Monroe Twp, NJ 08831.

Regards
Charlie Barringer
President of Zeiss Historica (among other things)

In a message dated Thu, 25 May 2000 2:40:12 PM Eastern Daylight Time, garcap@... writes:

<< I will be using this lens on a Zeiss Ikon Super Ikonta IV with the
75mm 3.5f Tessar. I would be interested in light transmission loss
information, min./max focusing distances and/or depth of field charts
for this lens, and etc. or any information on where to find.
Thanks for the help,
Gary

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Old school buds here:

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unsubscribe: ZICG-unsubscribe@...
Problems: mjm159@...

Charlie, I wouldn't ever dispute your authority on matters with which I
myself was not personally involved, but your narration above has to be expanded
somewhat based on my own personal experience.

I myself bought Zeiss Proxar lenses 1x42 and 2x42 to use with my Contax-II,
back in 1938-1939. You'll recall that the f2 and f1.5 Sonnars used 42mm
slip-on auxiliary lenses and filters, as well as 40.5 mm screw-in filters.
The Contax-II with 5 cm lenses focussed down to 0.9 meters, as I
recall. It may have been 1.0 meter. With a 1x42 Proxar (i.e. 1 diopter, focal
length 1.0 meter), the camera, when set at infinity, focussed at 1.0 meter.
This extended the focussing distance DOWN from 1 meter, variable as the focussing
ring of the camera turned. The 2x42 Proxar extended it in still closer.

You may recall the Zeiss Depth of Field booklets which I owned for over 50
years and donated to your archives. Their primary purpose was to tell the
depth of field, for two different circles of confusion, for the Contax with all of
the lenses available for it. It is my recollection that those same booklets also
showed the focussing distance for Contax 5 cm lenses, with Proxars. I really
can't swear to that, as I haven't looked inside those booklets in 40 years or
more. If you have them handy, please give them a look.

And now finally: the mathematical relationships between lens setting distance and actual
focussing distance with Proxar added, are extremely simple. It isn't simple arithmetic
like add/subtract/multiply, but it ALMOST is. Any high school kid in elementary
algebra can handle it, and I think I saw it recently in one of the books I've been
reading. Possibly it was one of Kinglake's. If it were complicated I'd offer to generate
a whole bunch of tables, but it really isn't.

Best regards to all.....

Bill Lurie

I will be using this lens on a Zeiss Ikon Super Ikonta IV with the
75mm 3.5f Tessar. I would be interested in light transmission loss
information, min./max focusing distances and/or depth of field charts
for this lens, and etc. or any information on where to find.
Thanks for the help,
Gary

Gary-
Before the second World War Zeiss Ikon and Carl Zeiss offered Distar and Proxar diopter lenses for the express purpose of extending the utility of their ground-glass focusing plate cameras. The Proxars effectively shortened the focal length, giving a wider field of view; The Distars, the opposite. The effect was modest, but real; it required ground glass confirmation with the camera on a tripod.
More recently, Distars have ceased to have much use (with one specific exception back in the '50's and '60's, too technical to get into here) while Proxars have taken on a new lease on life as closeup lenses on reflex cameras whose lenses have limited close focusing ability. (Prewar the close focusing job was taken care of by double or triple extension bellows.)
I wouldn't want to discourage your experiments with a Distar on a S Ik IV, but I would suggest that in the absence of any printed material, you will have to methodically develop your own charts. Simply use some frosted Scotch tape at the film plane, jam the shutter open (a rubber band holding the lever in the B position will do the trick, and, with the camera on a tripod, examine the image with a loupe, Ansel Adams style. Try different focus settings, f-stops, etc. I doubt you'll be able to extend the lens enough to be able to focus an infinity image, but this is a possiblity. Whatever else you might discover about using the Distar, you will gain an understanding of the image-making process and what affects it in what way. Enjoy yourself. You will also gain an appreciation of the practical advantage of a reflex camera in situations calling for close-up work.
Zeiss Historica has reprints of several historic booklets which might be of interest. Their website is in gestation but in the meantime contact the Secretary at 300 Waxwing Drive, Monroe Twp, NJ 08831.

Regards
Charlie Barringer
President of Zeiss Historica (among other things)

Hey Hey

Well I can't remember who put their finger on it first but I think we
have it. I looked at all of the negatives and found one that was
perfect. A bunch of sheep grazing. Anyway I remembered that I took that
one with the camera sitting on the top rail of the low fence. I braced
the camera! All the pictures I took "offhand" were soft. Moral: use a
tripod, faster film,wider aperture, higher shutter speed,better breath
control, whatever. I bet the next roll wil look great. Thanks for all
the advice.

Gene

Yes, original color negatives are theoretically as good as transparencies,
but I've always found testing, evaluation and comparison much more
difficult with them. The negative colors (cyan, magenta and yellow)
combined with the orange mask (because the negative dyes are not perfectly
cyan, magenta and yellow) have never been easy for me to cope with and know
what I'm looking at. Resolution is not as much a problem as evaluating
contrast subjectively through the mask. This is probably much easier with
traditional B&W negative (no orange mask).

As for projection, I do have a Rollei dual format projector . . . but would
not suggest anyone go out and buy one just for looking at test shots! They
are too expensive for that use alone. Much more common and easier to find
(borrow) is an overhead projector . . . the type used for office
presentations . . . and they work fairly well with MF transparencies. You
may have to mess with focusing a bit, but most are pretty acceptable for
subjective image evaluation (not for giving a slide show) and for me it's
easier than a light table and loupe.

-- John

Actually, Gene has the ideal tool for evaluation, in the form of the original negatives. I agree that first generation media should be used, i.e. negative or slide, but the practical difficulties in projecting 120 slides tend to make negatives an easier way to test camera lenses.
General softness could indicate sloppy design (unlikely in this case) or, more likely, either sloppy reconstruction after a repair/cleaning or gunk on the surfaces. Polishing marks are also a frequent culprit, as well - look at the front element through a 8x loupe (or look backwards through an interchangeable slr lens (one of the great, unsung uses for old 50mm lenses, btw) at the front surface to see what I mean. Under scrutiny those micro-scratches show up as the contrast-killers they really are. In any case, slight edge separation would have no effect whatsoever at anything other than the maximum opening.
And then there's inaccurate focusing, caused either by inaccurate placement or alignment of the viewing mechanism (mirror/GG in this case) or poor collimation/positioning of the lens in the camera body after a teardown.
Good luck, anyway. Let's keep 120 film in the catalogue by continuing to prove to Kodak et al, that there a market for it.
regards
Charlie Barringer

Hi everyone,

I just got a roll of film back from the camera shop. Not one of the
finer camera shops as it turns out. Just the same, I am somewhat
disappointed with the pictures. Not too bad at first glance, but just
not as sharp as they should be. As a check I got out some pictures I
took recently with an Anaston lensed Kodak Tourist. The anaston is a
coated 3 element Cooke style triplet, I think, but no question, the
kodak images were cleaner and sharper. The Opton Tessar in question is
on an Ikoflex IIa, and has a small area of seperation on the edge of the
taking lens. Now the question. Would a general lack of definition be a
symptom of the separation? And about that Kodak, or rather triplets in
general, I was really pleasantly surprised at how nice those images
looked. Very nice sharpness all the way out to the edges. Very nice
color balance. I shoot almost all of my pictures at f16, maybe that is a
factor, but I confess to being a bit bugged that this very cheap camera
could shoot so well. Would value your opinions as always.

Gene Johnson

Gene,
The first clue is "not one of the finer camera shops." From your
description it sounds like you shot negatives and are basing your judgement
on prints from them. The only _real_ test is transparency (slides) and to
project them with a known excellent projector on a good screen . . . or to
examine them backlit at high magnification.

With prints you are at the mercy of the enlarger and whatever decisions
about focus, exposure and color balancing the printer makes (usually a
computer controlled machine), and how well it is serviced and maintained.
Whatever experiments you conduct using prints from negative (or
transparency) for comparison are confounded by the enlarger and print
developing. A print is a photograph of the film and an enlarger is just a
huge fancy camera.

Examining transparencies looks at the film that was in the camera itself.
Trasparency developing (E-6 or K-14) is defined and tightly controlled. If
the developer blows the job (very rare), they usually blow it big and you
have little doubt about what happened.

-- John

Hi everyone,

My first message to the new list. I just gave one of my favorite
cameras away to my teenage daughter. It was an Agfa memar. Absolutely
nothing fancy; no rangefinder, no meter, no flopping mirror, no
interchangeable lenses. Just a rock solid small 35mm. I need a
replacement. Since this is the Zicg (capital Z), my question is,did
Zeiss Ikon make such a camera?

Gene Johnson

If I reply to a ZICG post, is that response directed
only to the sender? The list doesn't see the message
and the membership has no chance to join in?

If you hit "reply" on your email programme, the message will go directly to
the original sender, NOT the list. To send a message to the list, you must
always specify the list in the "To" field.

Hope this clears up this point. For more info, please check
. To get the full benefit of ZICG through
eGroups, register yourself with eGroups and you gain access to ZICG archives.

Cheers,
Michael.