Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Contaflex 126 System
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Equipment Gallery
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sun May 18, 2008 10:37 pm    Post subject: Contaflex 126 System Reply with quote
I'm fooling around with the old 126 cassette film on the Contaflex 126, which was made strictly for the 126 format (28x28mm).

The Zeiss lens group specifically made for this camera has lenses that are the 32 Distagon, the 45 Color-Pantar, the 45 Tessar, the 85 Sonnar, and the 135 Tele-Tessar.

I am out testing the lenses, shooting alongside the K110D.

The negs scan well with the V700. They fit into the 35mm holder, since the width of the 126 film with the sprocket holes is the same as 35mm.











Zeiss Contaflex 126
Zeiss Sonnar 85/2.8
+3 closeup filter


PostPosted: Sun May 18, 2008 11:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Very,very nice ! Thank you for sharing!


PostPosted: Sun May 18, 2008 11:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Attila wrote:
Very,very nice ! Thank you for sharing!


You like it because there is a nice light, correct? Laughing

Anyway, this systems shows promise as a fun system to use occasionally. The lenses are really well made, very HEAVY. Shocked I have to assume they are as good as their 35mm brothers...


PostPosted: Sun May 18, 2008 11:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
SURE Smile


PostPosted: Mon May 19, 2008 5:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Check out KEH vintage store for Contaflex lens... that 2.8/45 is there at $9.00 usd. Its rated A++ Amazing! Others there too!


PostPosted: Mon May 19, 2008 9:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Larry, that is one sweet outfit, and great closeup of the grass blades! I
found one outfit that still sells 126 film:

http://www.frugalphotographer.com/cat126.htm

Perhaps it's also available on ebay, haven't checked. I have a Contaflex IV
with the Pro Tessar 50/2.8 lens, but rummaging around in the leather case
it came in, I found a Proxar close-up lens, 0,3 size (+3?). Anyhoo, will be
taking it for a test run very soon.

Thanks for sharing these pictures!

Bill


PostPosted: Mon May 19, 2008 3:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Great equipment, and super picture. The sonnar 2,8 of the 126 was the base of the sonnar 85 mm 2,8 for the rolleiflex SL 35 series (first produced in germany by zeiss, and after by rollei in singapur with voigtlander name), but not the rolleinar 85 F/2,8 that was a mamiya design. Good luck and pictures.


PostPosted: Mon May 19, 2008 11:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Bruce, Bill, and estudleon: THANKS for stopping in! I am gratified with the clarity of the Tessar, and hoping the others show as much promise. I rather like this 28x28 square format, as it reminds me of the medium format square format.

Laurence


PostPosted: Thu May 22, 2008 1:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Larry
My friends Dad just sent him this exact kit Shocked The lenses feel incredibly solid and filled with goodness. Where did you purchase film from? Do you know is there a re-loadable film cartridge?


PostPosted: Thu May 22, 2008 4:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
F16SUNSHINE wrote:
Larry
My friends Dad just sent him this exact kit Shocked The lenses feel incredibly solid and filled with goodness. Where did you purchase film from? Do you know is there a re-loadable film cartridge?


Wow! Talk about coincidental... Shocked The lenses ARE incredibly solid, heavy, and I'm rather amazed as though the lenses are WAY better than the 126 system was actually made for. I mean, originally the 126 systems such as the Instamatics were made to help the masses of snapshooters out there with a sublimely simply system. All I can say is....Zeiss quality.

I purchased 12 rolls of Ferrania 200 print film (not all that bad - has a bluish cast that is easy to get rid of in Photoshop or even on my scanner settings) from FrugalPhotographer.com and 6 rolls of expired Verichrome Pan (ASA 125) from that big auction site. And, the Verichrome is just fine even at almost 20 years old, I hope you can see my recent post showing the results. Maybe a slight loss of contrast, not sure.

The cartridges CAN be taken apart carefully and reloaded with 35mm film Shocked Shocked Shocked . I have a set of instructions on how to do that from Photo.net. There is only one sprocket hole per frame on the 126 film, so the hook grabs that sprocket hole and pulls the film the full length for the next frame with 1 1/2 strokes of the advance lever. So, with 35mm film, there are lots of sprocket holes, and since the hook will engage the first hole it comes to, then the film only advances about 1/4 inch at a time. To solve that, just leave the cap on and shoot about 4 frames "black" and then you'll be at the next frame. No big deal for me, actually.

I am going to try to reload a sacrificial roll of 35mm film tomorrow (in the daylight) until I get used to it, so that I can then reload "the real thing" in a light-tight room. If that actually works (and "they" say it DOES work), then I feel I'll have an advantageous system with the 32 Distagon, 45 Tessar, 85 Sonnar, and 135 Tele-Tessar! Wow, nothing like having a multitude of the top lens designs from Zeiss in one set!

The camera itself is also beautifully made, with fine chrome and all metal cast body. Seems so.....solid.


PostPosted: Thu May 22, 2008 7:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
So beautiful lenses, both aesthetically and performancewise.

The Tessar 2.8/45, Sonnar 2.8/85 and Distagon 2.8/35 are the early incarnations of what will become the Contax lenses. They came from the Contarex system. The Sonnar and Distagon also migrated to the Rollei SL system. The Tele-Tessar 4/135 made it only to the Rollei SL and was dumped for the Contax, but the quality is very good, it must have been a marketing decision as the Sonnar 2.8/135 was available for nearly the same price.


PostPosted: Thu May 22, 2008 3:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Fascinating gear!
Actually, I wouldn't know if our local shops develop this type of film. They sometimes even make a fuss about medium format. It's just one shop left around here that does MF films. Sad


PostPosted: Thu May 22, 2008 4:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
So beautiful lenses, both aesthetically and performancewise.

The Tessar 2.8/45, Sonnar 2.8/85 and Distagon 2.8/35 are the early incarnations of what will become the Contax lenses. They came from the Contarex system. The Sonnar and Distagon also migrated to the Rollei SL system. The Tele-Tessar 4/135 made it only to the Rollei SL and was dumped for the Contax, but the quality is very good, it must have been a marketing decision as the Sonnar 2.8/135 was available for nearly the same price.


I'm still trying to determine, performance wise Orio, but so far seems to be good quality. Aesthetically, they are beautiful lenses, with very little excess chrome rings and scalloping and such stuff.

Pretty much plain barrels with a smooth semi-gloss patina. What chrome is there, is beautifully milled and exquisitely plated.

The lenses have a pretty deep intrusion into the camera, and the mirror of the camera is set quite deeply for clearance.

VERY interesting historical information! So, it sounds like these lens developments were sort of "new" developments at the time?

The surprising thing to me is the weight of the lenses...very heavy for their size. Also, I'm surprised at the diminutive size of the Sonnar 85.

An interesting thing to me, is that the Sonnar 85 seems like I'm lookng through a 50mm lens equivalent on a 35mm camera system.

And the 45mm Tessar seems almost more wide angle than I would have expected. Yet, when I compare the Tele-Tessar 135 to a Takumar 135, the field looks about the same.

The Tele-Tessar does not let you get in very close, the minimum distance is about 4 meters. But the Sonnar 85 lets me get in VERY close, about .8 meter, and with a diopter closeup filter, I can really get into the deep macro range (perhaps 2:1 or so).

Orio, then you are saying these are offshoots (or possibly clones) from the "normal" 35mm Contarex system? I wonder if they made any glass diameter or other changes to the lens structure when later providing for Contax...

I'll take some images of these lenses individually today, so you can see the structure. Rather interesting and ....different.

I need to still try out the Distagon 32mm and the Color-Pantar 45mm...I think the Color-Pantar was their 3-element economy lens, though I'm not exactly sure of this. I'd never heard of a "Color Pantar" before.

Fun stuff! I remember the "crap" images from my old plastic instamatic! This system is way beyond that of course...but I wonder WHY would Zeiss put possibly quite a lot of money into this 126 system that is supposedly a "quick snapshot system" for the masses? I wonder how many they sold?


PostPosted: Thu May 22, 2008 4:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
LucisPictor wrote:
Fascinating gear!
Actually, I wouldn't know if our local shops develop this type of film. They sometimes even make a fuss about medium format. It's just one shop left around here that does MF films. Sad


Hi Carsten! Actually, my lab was hesitant until I showed him an article from Photo.net showing that it will develop easily in the lab 35mm equipment.

He had no problem, but he figured he couldn't print, as he didn't have the correct masks in his equipment. Of course, all I wanted was the negative for scanning, so no problem.

There is not as much "real estate" in this 28x28 format, but if you do the math, it is only 10% less total area than 24x36 film.


PostPosted: Thu May 22, 2008 4:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Laurence wrote:

Orio, then you are saying these are offshoots (or possibly clones) from the "normal" 35mm Contarex system? I wonder if they made any glass diameter or other changes to the lens structure when later providing for Contax...


The answer to both question is most likely "yes".
For sure the design of the lenses is one - we know it for sure for some lenses, e.g. the Distagon 25mm is the oldest of all Zeiss lens design to be still currently available commercially.
The most expensive part of making lenses is the design. Especially in the precomputer era, designing a lens often meant years of calculations.
Of course computer aided a lot the speed but still it means to employ some of the best technicians in the world for very long period of times.
So you can be sure that when a lens is designed - e.g. the Sonnar 2.8/85 - the scheme is used for as much products as possible, to reduce the impact of the costs.
In the specific case I mention, the Sonnar 2.8/85 design was used to make lenses for:

- Contarex system
- Contaflex system
- Icarex system
- Rollei SL system
- Contax/Yashica system
- Contax G system (the Sonnar 90 is in fact the Sonnar 85 adjusted for rangefinder use, and the MTF values as published by Zeiss are identical.

Of course, this does not mean that during the lifespan of 30+ years, a lens is not updated. You can bet that Zeiss did update the Sonnar 85 and the other models as well. Differently from other companies, Zeiss does not label new lens versions differently, and not even make press releases or communicate the serial number at which the new version starts. So this makes it more difficult for the historician or collector. But you can be sure that all Zeiss lenses went trhough a continuing optimization process. You can see with the new releases, the Distagon 25 and 28/2 ("Hollywood") designs were updated with either small or radical changes, like the addiction of one element to the Hollywood scheme. In many cases optimizations were more subtle, like for instance the Distagon 2.8/28 that was improved in the corners in the passage from the AE to the MM version.

Laurence wrote:
I wonder WHY would Zeiss put possibly quite a lot of money into this 126 system that is supposedly a "quick snapshot system" for the masses? I wonder how many they sold?


Zeiss Ikon (the company that produced the cameras and was based in Stuttgart) went through a real phase of confusion during the '60s, when they were releasing no less than three (!) different reflex camera systems (the Contarex, Contaflex, and Icarex). The competition of the Japanese cameras was strong and probably at Zeiss Ikon the lack of a good company management lead to such contradictory choices. In fact the company broke down in 1971 and was never revived. Zeiss Oberkochen bought the company and since they were not interested in producing cameras (Zeiss Oberkochen remained faithful to the original company mission to produce only lenses) they licensed the Contax name to Kyocera... and the rest is history.
Only very recently Zeiss Oberkochen broke with the more than centennial tradition and build a camera, the so called ZI rangefinder. It is the first camera to have been ever produced by "Zeiss Zeiss".
-


PostPosted: Thu May 22, 2008 4:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Laurence if my answer does not address all your questions please let me know.


PostPosted: Thu May 22, 2008 7:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
Laurence if my answer does not address all your questions please let me know.


Absolutely FASCINATING, Orio. Thank you so much for relating this history to me; I would have certainly researched it, but you make it much easier of course with your wealth of knowledge and interest.

Yes, Orio, I have two more questions if I may be so bold as to ask more from you: Confused

1. Regarding the Distagon 32mm here in the 126 format - I assume that "Distagon" means it is basically the same lens structure as any other permutation of a Distagon? Or, did Zeiss sometimes change a lens structure on Distagons, similar to what you mentioned about the Hollywood lens - yet still call it a Distagon?

2. Why would the 45mm Tessar "seem" to be wider than a "normal" 45 mm lens? I suppose it could have something to do with the smaller 28x28 format? Did there need to be a "focal" change in order to accommodate the unusual format? It wouldn't seem logical to me, because in actuality the 28mm side of the frame is so close in length to the 24mm side of the frame in 35mm systems. Of course, the "other" side is 8mm less than the frame in 35mm systems.

By the way, I get my "seems to be wider" impression when I compare to my Industar 50. The smaller dimension 45 Distagon, compared to the 50mm dimensions on the Industar, is markedly "wider", even taking into account the 5mm difference in focal length of the lenses. I would guess that the 45 on the Contaflex 126 is closer to what I would see with a 40mm lens in the 35mm system. So...maybe I'm just seeing things. Very Happy And, I guess that I need to go look at the 32mm Distagon and see how it differs from my 35mm Takumar in scope.

Hope this makes sense, and THANK YOU AGAIN.

I have googled the 126, and see a bit of history, similar to what you've already related to the Contaflex and Distagon; but there really isn't a whole lot out there.

It's certainly a lot of fun to work with this unusual system. I can see me carrying this system with me in the rain forest on shorter hikes. And I'm hoping that, in the long run, these lenses are every bit as good as their 35mm counterparts. And, of course, the Zeiss Distagons in the medium format range are superb lenses as well.


PostPosted: Thu May 22, 2008 7:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Laurence wrote:

Yes, Orio, I have two more questions if I may be so bold as to ask more from you: Confused


Laughing no problem, I'm happy to share what I know (very little)

Quote:
1. Regarding the Distagon 32mm here in the 126 format - I assume that "Distagon" means it is basically the same lens structure as any other permutation of a Distagon? Or, did Zeiss sometimes change a lens structure on Distagons, similar to what you mentioned about the Hollywood lens - yet still call it a Distagon?


OK, Distagon is registered name for Zeiss retrofocus lens design. The retrofocus structure is what allows wide angle lenses to be used on reflex cameras. It is basically an inverted telephoto lens optical structure that is placed at the bottom of the lens. This allows to focus the lens using this retro-placed structure (hence the name), which allows enough space from the film plane for the mirror course to be clear.
Without this trick, wide angle lenses would need to have the rear element very close to the film plane. This is what happens with rangefinder wide angle lenses such as the Biogons. Although lately Zeiss started to produce Distagons for rangefinder cameras also.

Quote:
2. Why would the 45mm Tessar "seem" to be wider than a "normal" 45 mm lens? I suppose it could have something to do with the smaller 28x28 format?


Usually, the larger the film, the shorter the lenses become. Example: a 50mm lens in the 135 format is a standard lens, in the 6x6 format it becomes a moderate wide angle. I am not a technician enough to explain the reason why, but I suspect that this might happen because of the much longer register distance that is required for the lens' light cone to fill a larger image frame. But I am not sure about this.
About your specific perception, I don't know if the small difference (only 4mm in the height) is enough to explain what you describe. I would leave this answer to more technically versed people than I am - Veijo for instance I am sure will be able to give you an answer.


PostPosted: Thu May 22, 2008 10:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thank you as always Orio! Cool

Here are some closer shots of the lenses, just for anyone wanting to see:

Tele-Tessar 135/4 (has a sliding lens hood)




Sonnar 85/2.8





Tessar 45/



PostPosted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 3:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Laurence wrote:
. . .Fun stuff! I remember the "crap" images from my old plastic instamatic! This system is way beyond that of course...but I wonder WHY would Zeiss put possibly quite a lot of money into this 126 system that is supposedly a "quick snapshot system" for the masses? I wonder how many they sold?


In this format my Mom had a Zeiss Ikomatic 126 Rangefinder from the 60's with a simple adjustable lens - with a twist you went from closeup to landscape. The results of those pictures were always good.

Jim


PostPosted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 7:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
beautiful lens Shocked
now how to use them on crop canon Very Happy
please find some links


PostPosted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 7:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
It's always a pleasure for me to look at Zeiss lenses. Thanks for the show.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Equipment Gallery
Page 1 of 1