DLox
Member
Do you mean a Leica G with a Leica IIIa?
Or a Leica F with a Leica III?
Come to think of it: all 5 of my Barnack Leicas, Black Leica III, Two Leica IIIa, Leica IIIc, and Leica IIIf cost me under $100 for all 5. making them much less cost than the Contax.
Or a Leica F with a Leica III?
Come to think of it: all 5 of my Barnack Leicas, Black Leica III, Two Leica IIIa, Leica IIIc, and Leica IIIf cost me under $100 for all 5. making them much less cost than the Contax.
Erik van Straten
Mentor
Prices of the screw-mount Leicas have increased, above all the black III is now around EUR 900. Maybe cheaper without lens. I found one for EUR 90 a few years back, but it needed lots of repair. Luckily I could do it myself.
Recently I bought a black II for less than EUR 300 and a IIIa including a Summar for around EUR 500 if I remember well. This camera needed repair and a new two-way mirror. I could get the mirror from Nobbysparrow, but the original two-way mirrors are better. The camera looks however like new and is fully usable.
Erik.
Prices have rebounded. I bought my first Leica IIIF with coated Elmar for $50, from the same camera shop that I spent $12,400 for my 1.6MPixel Kodak DCS200ir. That was almost 30 years ago, ~1993. The Leica is worth much more now to most people. The Kodak still works.
Dralowid
Michael
Indeed, I recently sold a black III conversion for over £400 which made me smile.
As to what the converted Anastigmat lens made I dare not say, the most diligent researcher will find the answer in Westlicht's auction results from a few years ago.
I have also recently sold a black/nickel Contax 1.5 Sonnar to Korea. It was missing its locating tab but still made a substantial sum.
The money is there for gear that is currently fashionable, if it isn't fashionable things go downhill. My old Leicaflex SL MOT with motor etc didn't make much and Contax Is can be surprisingly inexpensive though whether they work is another matter altogether.
I have been clearing my cupboards for a couple of years now. Surprising how 'collecting' becomes of less interest as you get older.
As to what the converted Anastigmat lens made I dare not say, the most diligent researcher will find the answer in Westlicht's auction results from a few years ago.
I have also recently sold a black/nickel Contax 1.5 Sonnar to Korea. It was missing its locating tab but still made a substantial sum.
The money is there for gear that is currently fashionable, if it isn't fashionable things go downhill. My old Leicaflex SL MOT with motor etc didn't make much and Contax Is can be surprisingly inexpensive though whether they work is another matter altogether.
I have been clearing my cupboards for a couple of years now. Surprising how 'collecting' becomes of less interest as you get older.
Prices on lenses have shot up.
This Summitar was $60 at a camera show, glass is not perfect.
Signal Hill, Summitar by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr
Classic lenses used on digital cameras is responsible for the price increase.
Signal Hill by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr
I use this one on the M Monochrom. Far from a Leica IIIa, but still the same lens.
My 1934 5cm F1.5 Sonnar, black and nickel, "Made in Germany" was $67. Looked like Wax paper when received, cleaned up perfectly. Those days are over.
Wax Paper.
I believe this lens had never been worked on, no marks at all left when opening a lens.
I needed Big Bertha the Optical Spanner for this one.
Gets most use on the M9 now, but has been on the IIIa.
Off track. The Zeiss lenses of the 1930s were amazing. The Summar and Xenon were not as good as the 5cm F2 and 5cm F1.5 Sonnars. I've seen several Sonnars that were custom converted to Leica mount back when they were new. The biggest advantage of the Zeiss Contax were the Fast Sonnar lenses available for them. Barnack Leica bodies are smaller, but the Contax II is not too big. I use a Leica M3 ever-ready case for my Contax II. Works fine after a couple of mods.
No doubt that the Leica case is better than the original. The Helios-103 and Menopta are quite good Planar formula lenses, inexpensive. Even better if you blacken the aperture blades.
This Summitar was $60 at a camera show, glass is not perfect.
Signal Hill, Summitar by fiftyonepointsix, on FlickrClassic lenses used on digital cameras is responsible for the price increase.
Signal Hill by fiftyonepointsix, on FlickrI use this one on the M Monochrom. Far from a Leica IIIa, but still the same lens.
My 1934 5cm F1.5 Sonnar, black and nickel, "Made in Germany" was $67. Looked like Wax paper when received, cleaned up perfectly. Those days are over.
Wax Paper.
I believe this lens had never been worked on, no marks at all left when opening a lens.
I needed Big Bertha the Optical Spanner for this one.
Gets most use on the M9 now, but has been on the IIIa.
Off track. The Zeiss lenses of the 1930s were amazing. The Summar and Xenon were not as good as the 5cm F2 and 5cm F1.5 Sonnars. I've seen several Sonnars that were custom converted to Leica mount back when they were new. The biggest advantage of the Zeiss Contax were the Fast Sonnar lenses available for them. Barnack Leica bodies are smaller, but the Contax II is not too big. I use a Leica M3 ever-ready case for my Contax II. Works fine after a couple of mods.
No doubt that the Leica case is better than the original. The Helios-103 and Menopta are quite good Planar formula lenses, inexpensive. Even better if you blacken the aperture blades.
Erik van Straten
Mentor
Brian, I have the same Sonnar 50mm f/1.5, serial number 1628901. I think it has never been opened. It is a very nice lens, I use it often on my Nikon S2. No haze at all and no scratches too. I'm very happy with this lens. It outperforms the RF Nikkors 50mm f/1.4, above all the bokeh is nicer.
gelatin silver print (sonnar 5 cm f/1.5 black/nickel) nikon s2. (full aperture)
Erik.
gelatin silver print (sonnar 5 cm f/1.5 black/nickel) nikon s2. (full aperture)
Erik.
ZivcoPhoto
Well-known
The first Sonnar that I converted to Leica mount, on a Leica IIIa.
This lens is much smaller than the Xenon, more suitable for the smaller body camera.
This lens is much smaller than the Xenon, more suitable for the smaller body camera.
DLox
Member
Ohhh shukkins. I made an error in my original post #134. I said 'Elmax' where it, obviously, should have been 'Berek'. My apologies ,Max.
D.Lox
D.Lox
I would very much prefer having the Elmax!
I converted a Xenar 5cm F2.8 to LTM, wartime lens, fully coated. It was the 5 element design, a modified Tessar. Very good performer. Would be interesting to compare with the Elmax.
I converted a Xenar 5cm F2.8 to LTM, wartime lens, fully coated. It was the 5 element design, a modified Tessar. Very good performer. Would be interesting to compare with the Elmax.
Erik van Straten
Mentor
Ed, what is "sota"? Forgive me my ignorance.
Erik.
Erik.
"SOTA"= State Of The Art.
I prefer "Bleeding Edge of Technology"...
I prefer "Bleeding Edge of Technology"...
I recently shared a link to Adrian Gee who has been uploading some wonderful images made decades ago with a Zeiss Contax by his late father.
https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=174785
Here is a direct link to his Flickr images.
Cheers
Brett
https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=174785
Here is a direct link to his Flickr images.
Cheers
Brett
MG T series at the 2016 Club Motori Italia Hobart Domain hillclimb.
1936 ("B" serial number) Zeiss Ikon Contax II; Carl Zeiss (Oberkochen) 50mm Sonnar f/1.5; Ilford Delta 100; ID-11 1 + 3 20C/20m.
1936 ("B" serial number) Zeiss Ikon Contax II; Carl Zeiss (Oberkochen) 50mm Sonnar f/1.5; Ilford Delta 100; ID-11 1 + 3 20C/20m.
I basically agree, Stephen. But I started with Contax & Zeiss. It's been instructive in recent years to actually use some screw mount Leicas. Yes, I think the Contax II/III are superior, the combined viewfinder and scintillating rangefinder are conclusive in themselves. I have less experience with pre-war Leitz lenses. But a good screw mount is still a delightful camera to image with. It seems I have a foot in both camps now. I loved the Reid III I repaired and tested for its owner before selling it for them. I've since worked on two IIIfs, and I have another IIIf and a IIIc here now as well. I'm also very partial to the idea of a wartime IIIc. Right now I'm in the process of repairing a Contax III with working meter for a dear friend living on borrowed time.
I think someone mentioned this has been a discussion that dates back to the 1930s and that's absolutely true. Of course it does not matter which make of rangefinder one prefers. But like you I am always less interested in the hype of Leica, (or Zeiss, are the Contaxes hyped up?) than I am in the experience of actually using either make. Personally, I think that having a passion for one's image workflow with vintage cameras is wonderful. But neither maker's products were perfect, either, and emotional investments in one's equipment should never preclude clear-eyed understanding of both their virtues and their vices, should it?
I was given an M3 and several Leitz items a couple of years ago. Apart from the M3 most pieces were for screw mount Leica. A 52 Summarit, hood, 1939 3.5cm Elmar, 1950s 9cm Elmar, SBOOI, VIOOH and so on.
Compared to my 1936 Sonnar f/2 collapsible initial impressions from the Summarit were underwhelming. It had quite a bit of haze, though. One of my first images from it with a IIIg on Delta 100.
This one from earlier in 2021, FP4 Plus this time.
A few people liked that last one, it was in "Explore" but by this point I'd decided the Summarit really should be cleaned internally. So I stripped it right down, cleaned the glass and cleaned and lubricated the focus threads.
This is wide open after cleaning. When I walked into the blood bank one day with my IIIf over my shoulder after I'd been imaging around the Hobart waterfront, Indy swooped on the Leica. She loved it. Not so much light indoors for FP4 Plus, wide open.
The view up Salamanca Place towards the mountain on Saturday 8th May 2021. From memory @ f/5.6.
Hmm. This looks a lot nicer. Perhaps the Summarit is not as bad as I was told?
This was at the Port Arthur World Heritage site on the Tasman Peninsula in June. Kodak TMX this time, in ID-11 of course.
The Summarit is growing on me. No, it's not a Sonnar. I am however happy to have both.
Compared to my 1936 Sonnar f/2 collapsible initial impressions from the Summarit were underwhelming. It had quite a bit of haze, though. One of my first images from it with a IIIg on Delta 100.
This one from earlier in 2021, FP4 Plus this time.
A few people liked that last one, it was in "Explore" but by this point I'd decided the Summarit really should be cleaned internally. So I stripped it right down, cleaned the glass and cleaned and lubricated the focus threads.
This is wide open after cleaning. When I walked into the blood bank one day with my IIIf over my shoulder after I'd been imaging around the Hobart waterfront, Indy swooped on the Leica. She loved it. Not so much light indoors for FP4 Plus, wide open.
The view up Salamanca Place towards the mountain on Saturday 8th May 2021. From memory @ f/5.6.
Hmm. This looks a lot nicer. Perhaps the Summarit is not as bad as I was told?
This was at the Port Arthur World Heritage site on the Tasman Peninsula in June. Kodak TMX this time, in ID-11 of course.
The Summarit is growing on me. No, it's not a Sonnar. I am however happy to have both.
Erik van Straten
Mentor
The Summarit is the successor of the Xenon and the predecessor of the Summilux v1. Why would this lens have a bad name? It's a great lens, see Junku Nishimura's masterpieces.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/junku-newcleus
Erik.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/junku-newcleus
Erik.
Mr_Flibble
In Tabulas Argenteas Refero
I've come across topics on various boards concerning dislike for the Xenon and Summarit. I think this 'hate' is mainly due to the haze build-up in these lenses after all these years. The other is they don't particularly like stray light.
Cleaning them helps a lot!
Xenon (at f/9)
Summarit (cleaning marks)
Summarit (spotless)
Cleaning them helps a lot!
Xenon (at f/9)
Summarit (cleaning marks)
Summarit (spotless)
Erik, I really don't know very much about Leitz/Leica, have only been using them a couple of years. As Rick said however there is some negative discussion about them online and I have also read a few disparaging remarks.
A friend in Australia has tracked down a Xenon from the first production batch, going cheaply, it has the Taylor Hobson name on it. I have told him to grab it no matter what.
My before/after cleaning results support your observations, Rick. I always use a Leitz XOONS hood with my Summarit.