Steve Ruddy
Established
Larry, Thanks for the encouragement and lens info. I think getting a second opinion sounds like a great idea.
Livesteamer
Well-known
Could Oleg at OK cameras in Russia offer a cost effective and timely repair. I have vague memories that he does Contax repair but others would know more. Good Luck. Joe
RObert Budding
D'oh!
Why not try Stephen Gandy? This is from his web site (pricing and text may be dated, but I'd check with him):
"Zeiss Contax IIa & IIIa: CLA general cleaning, lubrication and adjustment of shutter, rangefinder $195, we are not able to repair IIIa meters due to lack of parts. We do not repair the earlier pre-war Contax. Please note the Contax IIa/IIIa were designed by the Zeiss factory NOT to have a vertical rangefinder image adjustment. Therefore no vertical RF image adjustment for the IIa/IIIa is offered. "
"Zeiss Contax IIa & IIIa: CLA general cleaning, lubrication and adjustment of shutter, rangefinder $195, we are not able to repair IIIa meters due to lack of parts. We do not repair the earlier pre-war Contax. Please note the Contax IIa/IIIa were designed by the Zeiss factory NOT to have a vertical rangefinder image adjustment. Therefore no vertical RF image adjustment for the IIa/IIIa is offered. "
raid
Dad Photographer
Congratulations on getting the two cameras and the lenses. I have a Contax IIa and IIIa. One of my all-time favorite lenses is the Zeiss 5cm/2 or 5cm/1.5. Both lenses are superb lenses overall. Sometimes, the "Zeiss" lenses in ltm are FSU fakes, and they are really J-3 or J-6 lenses in disguise as Zeiss lenses. The FSU copies are also excellent lenses overall. I have a Zeiss 5cm/2 ltm that someone crafted as a lens block inserted into an Elmar lens barrel. Suck old lenses can tell use stories as they can be surrounded by mysteries of their origin. My 5cm/2 "was made in a batch of lenses heading to Sweden in return for iron ore", I was told.
Steve Ruddy
Established
I ended up trying Ross Yerkes. He is close to me, and his quote was only $175 including fixing the bumps. I should have sent it to him first. I'll have it back in a week or two at the most. I'll post some pics then.
seany65
Well-known
Steve, have you found a slotted lens hood yet?
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
There's a slotted or vented lens hood in the top right of this picture. The slots are so you can use the RF.
It's best to get one with straight, not tapered, sides.
Regards, David
Steve Ruddy
Established
Not yet, I would like an original but will purchase a cheap one when I get my lens back. Actually I should order one now so I’m ready to shoot but I’m confused on what will fit. The Contax catalog with accessories doesn’t list the lens size. They list a screw on and push on shade for all 50mm lens options. Screw on is 40.5mm and slip on is 42mm. Maybe my lens will accept either or? If so I’m thinking a screw on maybe better.
farlymac
PF McFarland
Steve, the 40.5mm screw on will work just fine. When doing your search, keep an eye out for something like a Walz hood, as sometimes you can get those with their leather case that also holds a few filters. Mine says "For Sonnar" on the side, so I know it was designed for that particular lens. I've used it on many other lenses, and it's not caused any problems. Made of black enameled metal, it has held up very well over the years.
PF
PF
steveyork
Well-known
The classic solution is using foam corn plaster. Works surprisingly well.
markjwyatt
Well-known
I have used Ross a few times, and always good service, reasonable prices, and quick. He is also close to me.
In terms of the Sonnar 50mm f2 (Opton in my case; though not sure it matters), I love the rendering. I find myself using my Voigtlander SC Skopar 21mm f4 much more often, as it fits my shooting style better, and I am very happy with the results. In terms of priority, a 50mm f1.5 is low in priority (though would be nice). I suspect an 85mm (Sonnar or maybe Jupiter 9) may be ahead of it, as well as the 35mm Biogon.
Steve Ruddy
Established
Thanks I would find that very useful, as I always carry a few filters.l Now I’m thinking a push on maybe better for changing filters. Have any opinion about that?
Ha ha I had to look that up!
Thanks, for the info. I think I would use an 85mm a lot too. I have a 135mm that doesn’t seem to get much love. I really like my 200mm canon lens so I think I may like the 135. I have a few Leica lenses but I don’t know if there is a Contax to Leica adaptor.
Steve Ruddy
Established
Hi,
There's a slotted or vented lens hood in the top right of this picture. The slots are so you can use the RF.
It's best to get one with straight, not tapered, sides.
Regards, David
Oh, I was just to purchase a cheap one but it’s tapered. Thank for the photo. What’s the adapter in the middle for?
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
It's a Leica FISON, meaning a lens hood for the Elmar f/3.5 5cm lens. Made from 1933 onwards and incredibly expensive these days for what it is...
The large thing under it is a camera cradle for a Leica from, I think, R G Lewis in London.
Regards, David
Steve Ruddy
Established
I ended up buying an original Zeiss #1119 Lens hood. I made a paper copy before purchasing it and it will cover a bit of the lower corner of the rangfinder/veiwfinder. I only use that finder for focusing as I have a Leitz brightliner in my flash shoe for composing. I really like the originality and look of the vintage hood. If I find I don't like it during use I can always buy the $5 slotted aftermarket and keep the original for display. 
I just got the camera back and don't feel the service was top notch as excess oil was running out of the cover latches and I see flakes in the rangfinder that should have been removed. However I'm happy about the speedy turn around and cost! He said the meter was not tracking correctly, but he did an adjustment on it, and I should compare the readings to a know good meter. I put in a roll of FP4+ and during my testing the first few shots I used my iphone pocket meter app. I was outside, midday, no clouds so I decided to shoot the rest of the roll with just the camera meter. I ended up with about half of my exposures good. I did make a few mistakes like forgetting to change speed when changing aperture. My first impression is that the lens is not as sharp as I expected and the Bokeh not as creamy as I would have liked. I think the contrast is great. However the center to edge sharpness seems wonky. Sharper on the left than right.
Here is a phone shot of my negatives. See link below for my LR Gallery with processed images.
Here is a link to some processd. I have dslr scanned and processed in LR.
https://adobe.ly/2IqVg2E
I also see more grain clumping than I'm used to compared with the same film in my Rolleiflex, using same developer, so I'll start a new thread about that.
I just got the camera back and don't feel the service was top notch as excess oil was running out of the cover latches and I see flakes in the rangfinder that should have been removed. However I'm happy about the speedy turn around and cost! He said the meter was not tracking correctly, but he did an adjustment on it, and I should compare the readings to a know good meter. I put in a roll of FP4+ and during my testing the first few shots I used my iphone pocket meter app. I was outside, midday, no clouds so I decided to shoot the rest of the roll with just the camera meter. I ended up with about half of my exposures good. I did make a few mistakes like forgetting to change speed when changing aperture. My first impression is that the lens is not as sharp as I expected and the Bokeh not as creamy as I would have liked. I think the contrast is great. However the center to edge sharpness seems wonky. Sharper on the left than right.
Here is a phone shot of my negatives. See link below for my LR Gallery with processed images.
Here is a link to some processd. I have dslr scanned and processed in LR.
https://adobe.ly/2IqVg2E
I also see more grain clumping than I'm used to compared with the same film in my Rolleiflex, using same developer, so I'll start a new thread about that.
retinax
Well-known
Some of them look quite sharp, others not so much. Bokeh looks good to me in the cat photo. The sharpness gradient is really odd. Could that be a dslr-scanning issue? Not perfectly parallel? Although the grain looks consistent, that could be an artifact from sharpening. Or perhaps you shake the camera more on one side, maybe something to do with the unusual Contax grip? As the plane of sharpness looks even on that thin dof cat photo, it's probably no film flatness in camera issue.
If you haven't done that yet, you could try scanning one of the frames with a sharpness gradient again in higher resolution, without sharpening, then turn it around in the holder and scan again, to eliminate flatness or parallel-ness issues. Or try focusing on the side that seems unsharp, possibly move it so that edge of the frame is in the centre of the scan.
If that's not it, make test shots on a tripod and also with another lens. Take notes! At least me, I'm usually overly optimistic about remembering what was what.
Was the grain clumpier one the Rollei shots at the same magnification? In any case again, these shots are too low resolution to say anything about it, except that more grain is to be expected from 135 at the same image size and scanning resolution and sharpening play a huge role for the appearance of grain (actually grain aliasing as the grain is not resolved at the usual scanning resolutions).
If you haven't done that yet, you could try scanning one of the frames with a sharpness gradient again in higher resolution, without sharpening, then turn it around in the holder and scan again, to eliminate flatness or parallel-ness issues. Or try focusing on the side that seems unsharp, possibly move it so that edge of the frame is in the centre of the scan.
If that's not it, make test shots on a tripod and also with another lens. Take notes! At least me, I'm usually overly optimistic about remembering what was what.
Was the grain clumpier one the Rollei shots at the same magnification? In any case again, these shots are too low resolution to say anything about it, except that more grain is to be expected from 135 at the same image size and scanning resolution and sharpening play a huge role for the appearance of grain (actually grain aliasing as the grain is not resolved at the usual scanning resolutions).
Steve Bellayr
Mentor
I am interested in that red o-ring you have on viewfinder. Is it a diving storage o-ring? What size is it?
Steve Ruddy
Established
Good point on the scanning causing the uneven sharpness. I used a 6x6 rig because I haven't made one for 35mm yet. I definitely had flatness issues that I figured dof would cover. I will re scan a few especially the cat and water bubbler. If they still look softer on the right I'll set up a shot with tripod in my studio. I'll use some strobes and try shooting a target and a table top still life. I also noticed this shot is under exposed along the whole right side. I shoot raw and the only sharpening you see is input sharpening from the raw converter. No additional or post sharpening.
Here is the same shot but slightly different time of day. Does this look like the difference in format or maybe something in development? I haven't shot B&W 35mm film for about 7 or more years but I definitely had smoother results than this.
It very well could be as I'm a diver. I just found it in my misc o-ring drawer. I think it looks cool and feels much better when my glasses rest against it.
retinax
Well-known
The uneven exposure looks like shutter trouble, that was shot a a fast shutter speed, right? Maybe a trip back to the repair person is in order if it was supposed to be all good. I don't generally use the 1000th speed on old cameras because it just spells trouble, but if it was supposed to be fixed...
The difference in graininess could well be down to the format difference. If you really want to know, scan a section of the 120 shot so you have the same reproduction ratio as 135. That doesn't mean there isn't more to be had in 135, it's just that your scanning method is not getting it out right now. I agree that a 100 ISO film should look a little better, but it's not so easy to get great scans. But judging from what other people post here, using a digital camera is the way to go. I'd try turning off all sharpening, input or not. Try different demosaicing algorithms perhaps. The method for downsizing for posting online could also have an effect.
The difference in graininess could well be down to the format difference. If you really want to know, scan a section of the 120 shot so you have the same reproduction ratio as 135. That doesn't mean there isn't more to be had in 135, it's just that your scanning method is not getting it out right now. I agree that a 100 ISO film should look a little better, but it's not so easy to get great scans. But judging from what other people post here, using a digital camera is the way to go. I'd try turning off all sharpening, input or not. Try different demosaicing algorithms perhaps. The method for downsizing for posting online could also have an effect.
Steve Ruddy
Established
I use a DSLR to scan and the only difference would be that the 35mm wasn't laying perfectly flat as I was using my 6x6 holder for it. Sharpening isn't an issue as I don't apply sharpening during export. I pulled out some old 35mm Tri-X negs that are definitely smoother looking than these, so something is amiss. A few weeks ago I shot a roll of fp4+ using an Agfa Reflex and immediately noticed grittier grain than I'm used to as well. All my prevision 35mm negs look fine. I'm thinking it's most likely a developed issue but don't have a clue yet. This time of the year my cold water is about 65 degrees which is about 9 degrees colder than the rest of my chemicals. The only other thing is that a year ago I switched to HC110 from D76. But the HC110 has been giving me great results with my 120 negs.