Jason Schneider
the Camera Collector
Leica vs. Contax: Prewar Battle of the Titans
Which was the best choice for a hypothetical photojournalist in 1938? Here are the facts. The one you picked depended on your priorities.
By Jason Schneider
The Leica camera, in particular the Leica II Model D of 1932 (the first interchangeable lens Leica with a built-in coupled rangefinder) is widely hailed as the camera that, almost singlehandedly, helped to define modern photojournalism. The Ermanox of 1924, an ingenious 4.5 x 6 cm-format predecessor with fast f/2 and f/1.8 Ernostar lenses, was a worthy contender in the early years, but compared to the Leica it was huge, heavy, inconvenient, and slow. By the 1930s the Leica was in its ascendency, the choice of such legendary photojournalists as Henri Cartier-Bresson, Alfred Eisenstaedt, and countess other luminaries. By comparison, the Contax I of 1932, despite its superb line of bayonet mount Zeiss lenses, a removable back for easier loading, and a longer-base rangefinder, was consigned to marginal status due to its notoriously unreliable vertical metal blind shutter. Zeiss-Ikon made numerous attempts to fix the problem, but none was completely successful.
Ideal Leica Photojournalist Outfit of 1938: Leica IIIb with uncoated 50mm f/1.5 Leitz Xenon and SCNOO Rapid Winder, predecessor of the Leicavit.
The Leica vs. Contax battle for supremacy took a completely new turn in 1936 when Zeiss released the vastly improved Contax II. It had a much more reliable vertical roller-blind shutter, a combined 0.8x rangefinder and viewfinder with an actual base length of 90mm and an effective base length of 73mm (the first of its kind in an interchangeable lens 35), a single top-mounted non-rotating shutter speed dial with speeds of ½-1/1250 sec plus B, a modern built-in lever-set mechanical self-timer, and a host of internal upgrades. By comparison Leica’s top model of 1936 was the Leica IIIa (Model G) that was introduced in 1935, essentially a Leica III of 1933 with the addition of a 1/1000 sec top shutter speed. And the Leica III itself was basically little more than a Leica II of 1932 with a separate front-mounted slow shutter speed dial added. The little Leica IIIa was still able to compete with the mighty Contax II because it was far smaller, slimmer, and lighter, and its rounded-end form factor was more ergonomic and appealed to
photographers on the go. But Zeiss was assuredlyin the lead when it came to lenses, especially the high-speed normal lenses then favored by photojournalists. Lens speed was important since Kodak Super XX, the world’s fastest high-speed black-and-white film, just announced in 1938, was equivalent to ISO 200 in today’s film values. It became the standard 35mm film of WW II photojournalists.
The Zeiss Optical Edge
As the premier German lens maker going back to the 19[SUP]th[/SUP] century, Zeiss had a well-deserved reputation for optical excellence, and they certainly used it to their advantage in marketing the Contax. The most renowned lenses for the Contax II were the 50mm f/2 Zeiss Sonnar and the 50mm f/1,5 Sonnar, both devised by the great Zeiss optical designer Ludwig Bertele. The first Zeiss production Sonnar was a 50 mm f/2 with six elements in three groups created for the Contax I in 1932. But a year earlier in 1931, it had already been reformulated with seven elements in three groups, allowing a maximum aperture of f/1.5, a phenomenal speed unsurpassed in its day. According to most optical experts the
50mm f/2 Sonnar of the ‘30s was superior the 50mm f/2 Leitz Summar, especially at wide apertures and in the corners of the field at apertures wider than about f/5.6. As for the 50mm f/1.5 Sonnar, it was in a class by itself, handily surpassing even the 50mm f/2 Sonnar, and widely regarded as the finest ultra-high-speed normal lens of its day. It wasn’t really surpassed by Leitz until the first 50mm f/1.4 Summilux of 1961.
Ideal Contax Photojournalist Rig of 1938: Contax II with 50mm f/1.5 Sonnar. Note: Lens shown in postwar T coated version of the "50s.
Zeiss Contax II in the hands with correct uncoated prewar 50mm f/1.5 Sonnar : It proves that the camera was compact and handy enough for photojournalists.
A prewar 50mm f/1.5 “Leitz” lens for photojournalists? Yes!
If our hypothetical photojournalist of 1938 was a Leica fan, her or she could have theoretically acquired a 50mm f/1.5 Zeiss Sonnar in Leica screw mount because a small number of these exceedingly rare lenses were produced on order from the German government. However, they were reserved for the military, the Propaganda Ministry (PK), and other high mucky-mucks and were never released to the public. The other fascinating alternative would be snagging a 50mm f/1.5 Leitz Xenon (Leitz code name XEMOO) a design originally patented by H.W Lee of Taylor, Taylor, and Hobson, Ltd. in Britain in 1932, licensed to Schneider, and listed in the 1936 Leica catalog as a Leitz Xenon starting in 1936 and ending in 1950, when it was replaced by the 50mm f/1.5 Leitz Summarit. A 7-element, 5-group double Gauss design with a split rear element, the Xenon is uncoated (except for a handful of rare examples coated during the war), stops down to f/9 (!), is rangefinder coupled down to 1 meter, and weighs 10.6 ounces. Most hands-on reviewers say this lens is soft—softer than a typical Leica lens—and lacks contrast, particularly at its widest apertures, but evidently a few “hand-picked” examples used by well-connected German photographers performed on a par with the 50mm f/1.5 Sonnar.
Verdict: For our hard-pressed 1938 photojournalist, the 50mm f/1.5 Xenon was expensive, hard to obtain and not a viable alternative in terms of performance. The upside: elements of its design (no pun intended) were incorporated into the successful, and creditable 50mm f/1.5 Leitz Summarit and the excellent 50mm f/1.4 Summilux.
1936 Zeiss Contax flyer shows ill-fated Contax I, Contax II, and Contax III, essentially a Contax II with built-in selenium meter.
It’s tempting to think that our intrepid World War II photojournalist could haveacquired a Leica IIIc, which had a diecast chassis and top plate, providing superior structural rigidity and inherently better lens-to-film-plane alignment. However, the 1/8-inch wider IIIc wasn’t officially released until 1940 when the war was in full swing, and few if any were exported, except for a small batch sent to Italy, an Axis partner of the Reich. The same holds true for the 50mm f/2 Summitar, a better lens than the Summar, which was announced in 1939 but not widely distributed until after the war. Indeed, Leitz started coating Summitars as far back as 1941, but they were consigned to government and military use. Bottom line: The best Leica our 1938 photojournalist could have acquired was a Leica IIIb, the brief successor to the IIIa that had its viewfinder and rangefinder eyepieces placed closer together in a dual-window bezel like all subsequent screw-mount Leicas, and added a dioptric correction lever concentric with the rewind knob, and a 4-screw, spring-mounted accessory shoe
The Great Faceoff: The Leica IIIb vs. the Contax II in practical use
Leica IIIb Plus Points:
Fastest film of 1938: Kodak High Speed Super XX, equivalent to about ISO 200. It was the photojournalist's go to film during WWII.
So, what would have been the best choice for our hypothetical photojournalist back in 1938? It depends. I happen own a Leica IIIa(functionally almost the same as a Leica IIIb) with a postwar 50mm f/1.5 Summarit, and a Contax II with uncoated 50mm f/1,5 Sonnar, and I’ve shot extensively with both. Based on overall ergonomics and reliability if I were back in 1938 and had to pick one camera I’d lean toward the Leica, which fits my (smallish) hands better and has proven to be somewhat more reliable than the average Contax II. On the other hand, if I were a street shooter rather than a combat photojournalist, I’d gravitate toward the Contax II and its magnificent ultra-precise range/viewfinder and unsurpassed lenses. Most of the poor bastards shooting in war zones back then didn’t have a choice, but those who did generally favored Zeiss glass and Leica ergonomics, and if they couldn’t get both, they chose one or the other. Oh yeah, by the way, these are two truly great cameras even by today’s standards, so shoot one or try both if you possibly can.
Yet, our long gone 35mm ancestors may be sending us a message from beyond the darkroom. Its rather easy to find a virtually unused near mint Leica IIIa or IIIb, while its almost impossible to find a near mint Contax II. Why? Because many Leicas were sold over the counter for their beauty, to photo enthusiasts and casual shooters, and sat forgotten in the closet as objects of heavenly equipment fetishes while Zeiss owners, mostly pros, where shooting the Zeiss out their Contaxes with the best set of low light set of lenses available at the time in 35mm photography. Come to think of it, that reminds me of…….well that story will have wait for another time.
Which was the best choice for a hypothetical photojournalist in 1938? Here are the facts. The one you picked depended on your priorities.
By Jason Schneider
The Leica camera, in particular the Leica II Model D of 1932 (the first interchangeable lens Leica with a built-in coupled rangefinder) is widely hailed as the camera that, almost singlehandedly, helped to define modern photojournalism. The Ermanox of 1924, an ingenious 4.5 x 6 cm-format predecessor with fast f/2 and f/1.8 Ernostar lenses, was a worthy contender in the early years, but compared to the Leica it was huge, heavy, inconvenient, and slow. By the 1930s the Leica was in its ascendency, the choice of such legendary photojournalists as Henri Cartier-Bresson, Alfred Eisenstaedt, and countess other luminaries. By comparison, the Contax I of 1932, despite its superb line of bayonet mount Zeiss lenses, a removable back for easier loading, and a longer-base rangefinder, was consigned to marginal status due to its notoriously unreliable vertical metal blind shutter. Zeiss-Ikon made numerous attempts to fix the problem, but none was completely successful.
Ideal Leica Photojournalist Outfit of 1938: Leica IIIb with uncoated 50mm f/1.5 Leitz Xenon and SCNOO Rapid Winder, predecessor of the Leicavit.
The Leica vs. Contax battle for supremacy took a completely new turn in 1936 when Zeiss released the vastly improved Contax II. It had a much more reliable vertical roller-blind shutter, a combined 0.8x rangefinder and viewfinder with an actual base length of 90mm and an effective base length of 73mm (the first of its kind in an interchangeable lens 35), a single top-mounted non-rotating shutter speed dial with speeds of ½-1/1250 sec plus B, a modern built-in lever-set mechanical self-timer, and a host of internal upgrades. By comparison Leica’s top model of 1936 was the Leica IIIa (Model G) that was introduced in 1935, essentially a Leica III of 1933 with the addition of a 1/1000 sec top shutter speed. And the Leica III itself was basically little more than a Leica II of 1932 with a separate front-mounted slow shutter speed dial added. The little Leica IIIa was still able to compete with the mighty Contax II because it was far smaller, slimmer, and lighter, and its rounded-end form factor was more ergonomic and appealed to
photographers on the go. But Zeiss was assuredlyin the lead when it came to lenses, especially the high-speed normal lenses then favored by photojournalists. Lens speed was important since Kodak Super XX, the world’s fastest high-speed black-and-white film, just announced in 1938, was equivalent to ISO 200 in today’s film values. It became the standard 35mm film of WW II photojournalists.
The Zeiss Optical Edge
As the premier German lens maker going back to the 19[SUP]th[/SUP] century, Zeiss had a well-deserved reputation for optical excellence, and they certainly used it to their advantage in marketing the Contax. The most renowned lenses for the Contax II were the 50mm f/2 Zeiss Sonnar and the 50mm f/1,5 Sonnar, both devised by the great Zeiss optical designer Ludwig Bertele. The first Zeiss production Sonnar was a 50 mm f/2 with six elements in three groups created for the Contax I in 1932. But a year earlier in 1931, it had already been reformulated with seven elements in three groups, allowing a maximum aperture of f/1.5, a phenomenal speed unsurpassed in its day. According to most optical experts the
50mm f/2 Sonnar of the ‘30s was superior the 50mm f/2 Leitz Summar, especially at wide apertures and in the corners of the field at apertures wider than about f/5.6. As for the 50mm f/1.5 Sonnar, it was in a class by itself, handily surpassing even the 50mm f/2 Sonnar, and widely regarded as the finest ultra-high-speed normal lens of its day. It wasn’t really surpassed by Leitz until the first 50mm f/1.4 Summilux of 1961.
Ideal Contax Photojournalist Rig of 1938: Contax II with 50mm f/1.5 Sonnar. Note: Lens shown in postwar T coated version of the "50s.
Zeiss Contax II in the hands with correct uncoated prewar 50mm f/1.5 Sonnar : It proves that the camera was compact and handy enough for photojournalists.
A prewar 50mm f/1.5 “Leitz” lens for photojournalists? Yes!
If our hypothetical photojournalist of 1938 was a Leica fan, her or she could have theoretically acquired a 50mm f/1.5 Zeiss Sonnar in Leica screw mount because a small number of these exceedingly rare lenses were produced on order from the German government. However, they were reserved for the military, the Propaganda Ministry (PK), and other high mucky-mucks and were never released to the public. The other fascinating alternative would be snagging a 50mm f/1.5 Leitz Xenon (Leitz code name XEMOO) a design originally patented by H.W Lee of Taylor, Taylor, and Hobson, Ltd. in Britain in 1932, licensed to Schneider, and listed in the 1936 Leica catalog as a Leitz Xenon starting in 1936 and ending in 1950, when it was replaced by the 50mm f/1.5 Leitz Summarit. A 7-element, 5-group double Gauss design with a split rear element, the Xenon is uncoated (except for a handful of rare examples coated during the war), stops down to f/9 (!), is rangefinder coupled down to 1 meter, and weighs 10.6 ounces. Most hands-on reviewers say this lens is soft—softer than a typical Leica lens—and lacks contrast, particularly at its widest apertures, but evidently a few “hand-picked” examples used by well-connected German photographers performed on a par with the 50mm f/1.5 Sonnar.
Verdict: For our hard-pressed 1938 photojournalist, the 50mm f/1.5 Xenon was expensive, hard to obtain and not a viable alternative in terms of performance. The upside: elements of its design (no pun intended) were incorporated into the successful, and creditable 50mm f/1.5 Leitz Summarit and the excellent 50mm f/1.4 Summilux.
1936 Zeiss Contax flyer shows ill-fated Contax I, Contax II, and Contax III, essentially a Contax II with built-in selenium meter.
It’s tempting to think that our intrepid World War II photojournalist could haveacquired a Leica IIIc, which had a diecast chassis and top plate, providing superior structural rigidity and inherently better lens-to-film-plane alignment. However, the 1/8-inch wider IIIc wasn’t officially released until 1940 when the war was in full swing, and few if any were exported, except for a small batch sent to Italy, an Axis partner of the Reich. The same holds true for the 50mm f/2 Summitar, a better lens than the Summar, which was announced in 1939 but not widely distributed until after the war. Indeed, Leitz started coating Summitars as far back as 1941, but they were consigned to government and military use. Bottom line: The best Leica our 1938 photojournalist could have acquired was a Leica IIIb, the brief successor to the IIIa that had its viewfinder and rangefinder eyepieces placed closer together in a dual-window bezel like all subsequent screw-mount Leicas, and added a dioptric correction lever concentric with the rewind knob, and a 4-screw, spring-mounted accessory shoe
The Great Faceoff: The Leica IIIb vs. the Contax II in practical use
Leica IIIb Plus Points:
- The Leica IIIb is substantially smaller and lighter than the Contax II, measuring 5.24 x 1.54 x 2.60 inches (L x W x H) and weighing in at approximately 15.2 ounces, body only. Its rounded ends nestle comfortably and securely in your hands.
- The Leica’s classic film-wind knoband focusing lever on each lens provide a good user interface and an efficient shooting experience, letting you shoot quite rapidly even without a Leica Rapid Winder.
- All controls operate with a silky precision.
- The Leica horizontal rubberized cloth focal plane shutter is quiet and very reliable.
- Transcending camera function, prewar Leica black bodies have a jewel-like beauty of mechanical precision much like the finest mechanical watches. If Barnack had worked in the culinary field, today we might be collecting precision mechanical pepper grinders that inexplicably look much like a Leica IIIb!
- The Leica’s bottom loading system requires some experience and finesse to master and is inherently less convenient and often slower than loading a camera with a hinged or removable back.
- The Leica’s vintage screw mount lens system makes it slower to switch lenses than a bayonet mount system.
- The Leica’s rotating fast speed dial is slower and less convenient to set than a non-rotating shutter speed dial, and you can mess up the exposure if you catch it with an errant finger while the shutter is firing.
- The Leica’s separate rangefinder and viewfinder windows are less convenient than a combined range/viewfinder, and it takes a bit of extra time to focus and compose the shot if precise composition is required. Also, both windows are small, and the viewfinder only provides 0.5x magnification.
- The Leica rangefinder has an actual base length of only 38mm, and an effective base length (E.B.L.) of 57mm due to its 1.5x magnification eyepiece. This is sufficient to focus a 50mm f/1.5 lens with good precision, but a longer E.B.L. would be better.
- The Leica’s tripod socket is at the right-hand end of the baseplate, which is less convenient than a central location.
- The Contax II’s combined range/viewfinder was spectacular in 1936, and it’s remarkably good even by modern standards. It has a very well-defined focusing patch and its huge 90mm base length and 0.8x magnification result in an impressive E.B.L of 73mm, sufficient for very precise focusing of the 50mm f/1.5 Sonnar and even the fastest telephoto lenses. The orange tinted focusing patch contrasts with the slightly greenish outer area to make focusing easier and the view is very clear. This rangefinder can show the difference between a focusing distance if 100 feet and infinity—try that on your III-series Leica!
- The Contax II’s bayonet lens mounting system makes it easier and quicker to change lenses, However, since the helical is integral with the cameras you must set the lens at infinity first, a minor inconvenience.
- The Contax II’s removable back makes it much easier to load film compared to the Leica but the vintage removable take-up spool is fiddly and the double locks on the bottom of the back are not the last word in convenience.
- The Contax II is solid, well balanced. nicely contoured, and its angled ends fit the hands quite well.
- The Contax’s single lift-and-set shutter speed dial covers all speeds from ½-1/250 sec, plus B, which is a lot handier than having 2 dials, one if which turns during exposure. However, unlike modern shutter dials, you do have to wind it to cock the shutter before you set it.
- The Contax II’s improved vertical roller blind shutter is quiet, and much more reliable than the ContaxI’s shutter.
- The Contax II’s shutter could not be burned through by the sun like the cloth shutter Leica curtains.
- Contax lenses were faster and generally much sharper than Leica lenses of the time, especially the 35/2.8 Biogon vs. Leitz Elmar 35/3.5, 40/2 Biotar vs no comparable Leitz lens, 50/1.5 Sonnar vs the stop slower and not as sharp 50/2 Summitar of 1939, 85/2 Sonnar vs the Leitz fastest portrait lens the 90mm f/4 Elmar (the 85mm f/1.5 Summarex didn’a arrive until 1943), and 180/2.8 Sonnar vs the Leitz 135mm F/4 Hektor. Did lens speed matter in the late 1930s? Only if you wanted to take pictures indoors!
- The Contax II body is substantially larger and heavier than the Leica IIIb, measuring 5-1/2 x 1-11/16 x 3-3/8 inches (L x W x H) and weighing in at 1 pound 5 ounces. It’s roughly the size of a modern SLR and heavier than most, a negative factor for a photojournalist shlepping a camera around in a war zone.
- The Contax IIs index finger wheel focusing system is precise but it’s slower than using that finger on a focusing tab on the lens, Also, the fact that the lens must turn nearly 360 degrees to go from infinity to minimum focusing distance slows down the process even more. By comparison, a typical 50mm Leica lens oovers the full focusing range in about a 160-degree turn.
- You must hold a Contax II carefully to avoid placing an errant finger over the front rangefinder window, which makes focusing while keeping a firm grip on the right side a bit challenging. You get used to it, but it’s annoying.
- While the Contax II shutter is far more dependable than the one in the Contax I it’s not as reliable as Leica’s classic horizontal cloth focal plane, or the simplified vertical metal slat shutter in the later Contax IIa. It’s hellaciously complex and a bear to repair if something goes wrong.
Fastest film of 1938: Kodak High Speed Super XX, equivalent to about ISO 200. It was the photojournalist's go to film during WWII.
So, what would have been the best choice for our hypothetical photojournalist back in 1938? It depends. I happen own a Leica IIIa(functionally almost the same as a Leica IIIb) with a postwar 50mm f/1.5 Summarit, and a Contax II with uncoated 50mm f/1,5 Sonnar, and I’ve shot extensively with both. Based on overall ergonomics and reliability if I were back in 1938 and had to pick one camera I’d lean toward the Leica, which fits my (smallish) hands better and has proven to be somewhat more reliable than the average Contax II. On the other hand, if I were a street shooter rather than a combat photojournalist, I’d gravitate toward the Contax II and its magnificent ultra-precise range/viewfinder and unsurpassed lenses. Most of the poor bastards shooting in war zones back then didn’t have a choice, but those who did generally favored Zeiss glass and Leica ergonomics, and if they couldn’t get both, they chose one or the other. Oh yeah, by the way, these are two truly great cameras even by today’s standards, so shoot one or try both if you possibly can.
Yet, our long gone 35mm ancestors may be sending us a message from beyond the darkroom. Its rather easy to find a virtually unused near mint Leica IIIa or IIIb, while its almost impossible to find a near mint Contax II. Why? Because many Leicas were sold over the counter for their beauty, to photo enthusiasts and casual shooters, and sat forgotten in the closet as objects of heavenly equipment fetishes while Zeiss owners, mostly pros, where shooting the Zeiss out their Contaxes with the best set of low light set of lenses available at the time in 35mm photography. Come to think of it, that reminds me of…….well that story will have wait for another time.
Jason, Thankyou for this thread. Reminds me of some of the Modern and Pop Photo articles I read in the 1970s, on the "classics". What's amazing on both of these cameras: They keep going, and the optics are highly sought after.
I'd go with the Leica, and get a Sonnar converted to it...
The Zeiss optics of the 1930s are phenomenal. I've seen custom conversions of Zeiss Sonnars to Leica mount, done when the lenses were new. So there were some that wanted the compact size of the Leica, coupled with the superior optics and compact size of the Sonnar. The ones that I've seen had a lot of use, done in Brass.
This is one of my conversions, the first one. On a Leica IIIa.
I'd go with the Leica, and get a Sonnar converted to it...
The Zeiss optics of the 1930s are phenomenal. I've seen custom conversions of Zeiss Sonnars to Leica mount, done when the lenses were new. So there were some that wanted the compact size of the Leica, coupled with the superior optics and compact size of the Sonnar. The ones that I've seen had a lot of use, done in Brass.
This is one of my conversions, the first one. On a Leica IIIa.
p.giannakis
Pan Giannakis
I always enjoy your posts, thank you.
Erik van Straten
Mentor
The Contax II was later made in the Soviet Union: the Russians had moved the Contax factory to Kiev as spoils of war. The early Kiev's are almost exact copies of the Contax II. A number of Kiev's must therefore be added to the number of Contax II cameras that have been made.
Erik.
Erik.
Jason Schneider
the Camera Collector
Jason, Thankyou for this thread. Reminds me of some of the Modern and Pop Photo articles I read in the 1970s, on the "classics". What's amazing on both of these cameras: They keep going, and the optics are highly sought after.
I'd go with the Leica, and get a Sonnar converted to it...
The Zeiss optics of the 1930s are phenomenal. I've seen custom conversions of Zeiss Sonnars to Leica mount, done when the lenses were new. So there were some that wanted the compact size of the Leica, coupled with the superior optics and compact size of the Sonnar. The ones that I've seen had a lot of use, done in Brass.
This is one of my conversions, the first one. On a Leica IIIa.
Thanks for your kind words. I’ve never been able to find a vintage screw mount 50mm f/1.5 Sonnar at a reasonable enough price for my slim wallet, so I shoot with the lovely coated bayonet mount version on my Contax IIa and the uncoated version that came with my Contax II. Good shooting!
Mackinaw
Think Different
I always enjoy reading what you post on RFF. Nice writeup on two great 35mm camera systems.
Jim B.
Jim B.
raid
Dad Photographer
Thank you for this thread, Jason.
I managed to find a Zeiss Jena 5cm 2.0 in Leica mount, and Brian was so kind to create for me several Zeiss lenses in ltm from Contax mount. This includes a Zeiss 5cm 1.5 that I use a lot these days with digital Leica cameras. Zeiss and Leica are indeed two giants.
The original Zeiss LTM focus mount is fragile, and many suffer coating damage that looks like impurities in the material during time of war. The alloys used did not stand up to hard use. I have one that required making a sleeve for the inner mechanism to pass through the mount to steady it up, there was so much play in the helical that the RF was unreliable as the lens "wobbled" through the focus range. My good wartime Sonnar- the middle triplet was loose in the mount, maybe explaining the good condition of the glass and mechanism- it got little use. The earlier KMZ J-3's, built up through 1952, have Zeiss elements and inner fixtures. The performance matches my "perfect glass" wartime Zeiss.
Dralowid
Michael
Plenty of sweeping generalisations herewith...drifting away from the original post...
Putting the technical aspect to one side for a moment it seems to me that you see far more pictures of the rich and famous in the '30s sporting a Leica than you do a Contax. Dare I suggest that the Leica became a fashion accessory almost from the outset? The Contax on the other hand was carried by those poor folk who had to earn a crust with their photography.
Contemporary sales literature for Leitz looks more 'lifestyle' than Zeiss.
It would be interesting to compare production numbers by year but although we have the Leitz records I suspect we do not have the same from Zeiss.
Putting the technical aspect to one side for a moment it seems to me that you see far more pictures of the rich and famous in the '30s sporting a Leica than you do a Contax. Dare I suggest that the Leica became a fashion accessory almost from the outset? The Contax on the other hand was carried by those poor folk who had to earn a crust with their photography.
Contemporary sales literature for Leitz looks more 'lifestyle' than Zeiss.
It would be interesting to compare production numbers by year but although we have the Leitz records I suspect we do not have the same from Zeiss.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Titans were mythical beings who ruled until overthrown by the gods from Olympus...
Regards, David
Regards, David
Dralowid
Michael
Nowt wrong with the occasional olympian view cast upon an ancient topic.
Erik van Straten
Mentor
A Contax was much more expensive than a Leica. It was meant to be a professional camera. R. Capa preferred a Contax.
Erik.
Erik.
julio1fer
Well-known
Very interesting thread. I remember my late father and his friends musing on the Leica versus Contax debate.
I have used a Leica IIIa and a Contax III (and also Kievs). When reading technical literature of the 30s, what pops out is the preoccupation with grain in 35mm film, more than camera types or lenses. Picture quality in 35mm was not so easy to achieve.
Leicas were first, and established 35mm as a format that could be used seriously with proper care. Zeiss came later to the 35mm market and had to work around Leitz patents, therefore their complex shutter. The early literature insists on the “Contax grip”. Back then, people were readier to adapt to machines.
I agree that the Contax II improved upon the Barnack types, especially for pros, and it showed in their choices. Capa got a Contax as soon as he could afford it. The difference in lenses is there, but hard to appreciate for us grown on coated lenses and computed designs. For my own use I vastly prefer Leicas because of the better ergonomics, and a significant number of pros made the same decision. It was a battle because both sides were numerous and both systems were worthy.
Post-WW2, with German patents dead, Nikon and Canon took over and evolved the designs, and later on started a brand war of their own (after prevailing over Leitz and what was left of Zeiss). That would be for another thread!
I have used a Leica IIIa and a Contax III (and also Kievs). When reading technical literature of the 30s, what pops out is the preoccupation with grain in 35mm film, more than camera types or lenses. Picture quality in 35mm was not so easy to achieve.
Leicas were first, and established 35mm as a format that could be used seriously with proper care. Zeiss came later to the 35mm market and had to work around Leitz patents, therefore their complex shutter. The early literature insists on the “Contax grip”. Back then, people were readier to adapt to machines.
I agree that the Contax II improved upon the Barnack types, especially for pros, and it showed in their choices. Capa got a Contax as soon as he could afford it. The difference in lenses is there, but hard to appreciate for us grown on coated lenses and computed designs. For my own use I vastly prefer Leicas because of the better ergonomics, and a significant number of pros made the same decision. It was a battle because both sides were numerous and both systems were worthy.
Post-WW2, with German patents dead, Nikon and Canon took over and evolved the designs, and later on started a brand war of their own (after prevailing over Leitz and what was left of Zeiss). That would be for another thread!
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
When you could afford to.. why not use both cameras. George did start with the Leica though.*
https://kateoleary.net/george-rodger-bibliography
https://www.facebook.com/internation...5341002858622/
* and so did Capa.
https://kateoleary.net/george-rodger-bibliography
https://www.facebook.com/internation...5341002858622/
* and so did Capa.
Erik van Straten
Mentor
The Contax I is generally not seen as a reliable camera. I'm very happy because I have a good working Contax I (v3). The looks of the camera are marvelous.
gelatin silver print (s skopar 50mm f2.5) contax I v3 (albada-finder)
Erik.
gelatin silver print (s skopar 50mm f2.5) contax I v3 (albada-finder)
Erik.
chipgreenberg
Well-known
My Contax lla was my Dad's prized procession. He went through the Leica/Contax decision and opted for the Contax after seeing a friend's Leica develop a whole in the shutter. Mine has the 50mm f:2 Sonnar which is a stellar lens.
Dralowid
Michael
The point about grain is well made. The 'small format' ( or did they call it miniature?) 35mm format was not exactly popular with the picture editors, 120 or bigger is what they wanted. As an side when I first started in food photography we were expected to use 5x4 and on occasion (rarely) 10x8.
When it comes to fast lenses, no contest. The Xenon/Summarit is not in the same league as the Sonnar at full aperture. As for the Summar.... but then again a price comparison might clarify things a bit.
It is interesting to listen to David Attenborough talking about his early days. 16mm movies were considered unacceptable by the BBC even though everything looked a bit rough when transmitted in them there far off black and white days.
When it comes to fast lenses, no contest. The Xenon/Summarit is not in the same league as the Sonnar at full aperture. As for the Summar.... but then again a price comparison might clarify things a bit.
It is interesting to listen to David Attenborough talking about his early days. 16mm movies were considered unacceptable by the BBC even though everything looked a bit rough when transmitted in them there far off black and white days.
ranger9
Well-known
Hurray, it's great to have a Jason Schneider article to read on a dreary afternoon! Thank you!
Following along with the topic of "What the discerning, cost-no-object photojournalist would have used in the 1930s", I think lenses are a bit underplayed as a decision factor in the original article. I realize interchangeable lenses weren't as big a deal then as they are today, and the vast majority of published photographs would have been made with a "normal" lens... but a lot of photojournalists also would have been expected to deliver photos of indoor sports events, stage shows, cabaret acts, political rallies, etc., and here the selection of longer lenses would have tilted the scale even more in favor of Contax.
Specifically, Zeiss's 85mm f/2 Sonnar had every bit as big a margin of superiority over its Leitz contemporaries (I notice Schneider didn't mention the 73mm f/1.9 Hektor of 1932, but perhaps the less said about that turkey the better!) as the 50/1.5 Sonnar did over its lackluster Wetzlar competitors. Plus, the Contax's combined range/viewfinder made possible follow-focusing -- a breakthrough that allowed action photos of moving subjects, a feat that previously had relied mostly on anticipation, guesswork, and luck. I don't know how effective Zeiss's finder-mask framing attachments for the 85mm and 135mm lenses were, but they had to be better than nothing, which is what Leica had on offer for the same task.
I owned a good-working Contax II and a couple of lenses decades ago, and a lot of the photos I shot with them still look pretty good by today's standards. Its one quirk I never forgave was that infuriating little pin next to the self-timer lever, which gouged a painful dent in my pinky finger that I can still feel in my imagination today! Still and all, the postwar Contax IIa camera was a much more user-friendly camera despite its theoretically inferior specs... if Zeiss had ever gotten its act together to add such advanced features as a multi-frame viewfinder and (ahem) lever advance and crank rewind, I suspect the Leica M3 might have gotten a lot less traction than it did...
Following along with the topic of "What the discerning, cost-no-object photojournalist would have used in the 1930s", I think lenses are a bit underplayed as a decision factor in the original article. I realize interchangeable lenses weren't as big a deal then as they are today, and the vast majority of published photographs would have been made with a "normal" lens... but a lot of photojournalists also would have been expected to deliver photos of indoor sports events, stage shows, cabaret acts, political rallies, etc., and here the selection of longer lenses would have tilted the scale even more in favor of Contax.
Specifically, Zeiss's 85mm f/2 Sonnar had every bit as big a margin of superiority over its Leitz contemporaries (I notice Schneider didn't mention the 73mm f/1.9 Hektor of 1932, but perhaps the less said about that turkey the better!) as the 50/1.5 Sonnar did over its lackluster Wetzlar competitors. Plus, the Contax's combined range/viewfinder made possible follow-focusing -- a breakthrough that allowed action photos of moving subjects, a feat that previously had relied mostly on anticipation, guesswork, and luck. I don't know how effective Zeiss's finder-mask framing attachments for the 85mm and 135mm lenses were, but they had to be better than nothing, which is what Leica had on offer for the same task.
I owned a good-working Contax II and a couple of lenses decades ago, and a lot of the photos I shot with them still look pretty good by today's standards. Its one quirk I never forgave was that infuriating little pin next to the self-timer lever, which gouged a painful dent in my pinky finger that I can still feel in my imagination today! Still and all, the postwar Contax IIa camera was a much more user-friendly camera despite its theoretically inferior specs... if Zeiss had ever gotten its act together to add such advanced features as a multi-frame viewfinder and (ahem) lever advance and crank rewind, I suspect the Leica M3 might have gotten a lot less traction than it did...
I have the one original LTM 5cm F1.5 Sonnar "T" in really good shape, picked up over 15 years ago. Sent to me for repair, took me days to figure out why the RF calibration did not hold- and it was the middle triplet was loose. Fixed that, and asked for $50 for the repair or to buy the lens- after letting the person know it was repaired. The second one- basket case, but nothing like this third one:
https://www.rangefinderforum.com/node/4763908
The Sonnar design is compact, sharp, and flexible. The "basket case" has lens groups from 3 different lenses in it, and is fitted to a 1951 J-3 mount. The focal length, sharpness, and flatness of field is remarkably close to the all-original lens. I made one Sonnar formula lens from the front section of a Canon 50/1.5 fitted with the rear triplet from a Nikkor 5cm F1.4.
I ended up learning how to convert CZJ Sonnars to Leica mount using Jupiter focus mounts, did fifty or so 5cm F1.5 lenses and 20 or so 5cm F2 lenses. Ended up with 10 Contax bodies, II, III, IIa, and IIa, usually needing work- all but one are working now. The meter is good on this one-
The 5cm F3.5 Tessar is from the first batch of lenses made for the Contax mount. I picked up a Contax I case. I need to stumble across a Contax I.
Also the extremely rare (Okay, I made one) 35/2 in Contax mount...
TenEleven
Well-known
As a regular user of both the Contax II with its 85/2 and that mask I can add some real-world experience here. The mask works very well for what it is a big component to its success is the Contax II relatively high finder magnification of ~0.8x - from my view using a similar mask on the IIa is a rather poor experience. Also Zeiss dimensioned the mask so that the "fuzzy" part is where you will get parallax beyond 2-3meters (10 feet).
I agree with the IIa being more... I guess I'd say "fluid" to use. However I've gotten good grab shots with the II and even with the I. With these old cameras discipline and knowing your gear is everything. Nowadays I don't think anyone (besides maniacs like me) uses the Contax II/IIa enough that they get to a point where all these motions that precede taking a shot are entirely automatic and I do not need to think about it. I just look at the thing or person I want to take a shot of and my hands do the rest.
Modern cameras, for better or worse, simply allow me to be much more sloppy and less disciplined in my technique