The Unvarnished Truth About 2-1/4 x 2-14 TLRs, Part 1

markjwyatt said:
The Zeiss Contaflex gets very little attention in TLR discussions. Maybe because it is so rare and expensive, plus it is 35mm, and it has a different focal length viewing lens than the taking lens (with special accommodations). They also have lens interchangeability (use Contax RF lenses with a modification), but only change the taking lens.
Click to expand...

I used to own this set, and jeez it was a nice camera. For me it was almost a religious experience using it. It definitely wasn’t a ‘speed’ camera, but I thought its slow, ponderous manner was a feature rather than a hindrance.

When I first got the camera itself, I had to have it overhauled at a cost of $600, but it was worth it (even the meter still worked). All the other accessories were added over time. Unfortunately sold off about 8 years ago.


cont1 by Vince Lupo, on Flickr
 
Vince Lupo said:
I used to own this set, and jeez it was a nice camera. For me it was almost a religious experience using it. It definitely wasn’t a ‘speed’ camera, but I thought its slow, ponderous manner was a feature rather than a hindrance.

When I first got the camera itself, I had to have it overhauled at a cost of $600, but it was worth it (even the meter still worked). All the other accessories were added over time. Unfortunately sold off about 8 years ago.

cont1 by Vince Lupo, on Flickr
Click to expand...

Quite an amazing set. I have been reading about Zeiss Ikon, and found the Contaflex to be a really unusual and interesting camera.
 
No love for twin lens Contaflexes and Ikoflex lll's? Really?

No love for twin lens Contaflexes and Ikoflex lll's? Really?

Both the twin lens Contaflex and the Ikoflex III are exquisite and highly esteemed cameras and I don't believe they lack for love among serious camera collectors and connoisseurs of fine machinery. They also represent a bygone era when leading European manufacturers lavished an amazing amount of time, ingenuity, and hand work to produce flagship cameras that showcased their capabilities and were produced with a fine disregard for production economies or the bottom line. Both these cameras are extraordinarily complex in what by that time had become a Zeiss Ikon tradition. While I'm sure some enterprising collector could press them into service to take excellent pictures, I wouldn't recommend either as a practical user collectible, though the Ikoflex lll comes closer to the mark. You may rest assured I love them both very much, and so do many others of our ilk.
 
My first TLR was a 124G. Cosmetically not perfect -- the nameplate was bent so it doesn't lie flat on the camera. But it worked perfectly, including the meter. The shutter started acting up and I put it away; based largely on these two threads I pulled it out last night. Shutter totally dead. But using a rubber stopper I got the front lens group off, which gave access to the shutter blades. A little paper inserted between the shutter blades unstuck it (as often happens with leaf shutters) and it seems to be fine, though the shutter release is a little rough.

But in many ways the 124G is as good a TLR as you will find. Not the ultimate in build quality, at least compared to a Rolleiflex, Autocord or Kalloflex, but fine. (People complain about the sound of the film transport; I don't understand the problem.) The taking lens is excellent, as is the shutter. Very bright viewing lens and screen. A CdS meter that's pretty darn good. Bay I accessories, which are easy to come by. So while it's easy to sniff at its lack of cachet, as a photographic tool it's excellent.
 
Thanks for the write-up.

My first TLR was a "new" Made in Soviet Union Lubitel. It had a good lens, but each negative showed the outlines of a screw at the edge. I then got a Rolleiflex 2.8D, and I stayed with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top