My new 1956 Rolls Royce....(colordial IIIa)

[uhoh7]

I've been craving an old 50 sonnar f/1.5, and thought hey, this body looks not bad.....
http://www.ebay.com/itm/230683345245?ssPageName=STRK:MEWNX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1439.l2649
But I did not expect to win, hehe.

Turns out its a 56ish colordial IIIa with a 1937 CZJ 50/1.5

Looks like both may even be genuine!

I know the IIa is the "one" but I had no idea this was basically the M9 of the 50s, and cost the same as a chevy sedan

we'll see what shape it's in next week.

[scsambrook]

You did very well there - I guess the vendor put the less-knowledgeable off by listing it as a III rather than a IIIa. Looking at the lens in the pictures, it I wonder if it might be an earlier one than the body. I can't remember for certain if the post-war West German ones lacked the little "ears" on the aperture ring. You'll soon know -

[Orio]

[Attila]

I have same camera everything works except lightmeter, if lens has red T mark you bought on half price.

[Mos6502]

[uhoh7]

[Orio]

[Mos6502]

I was thinking about the IIa/IIIa's greater eye relief. Also the slightly smaller rangefinder base helps keep fingers out of way. As for reliability, that's just what I heard, that the postwar shutter was stronger. It may or may not be the case, but I've heard this expressed a few times.

[uhoh7]

Great Comments

I think it's a 50% chance at best this copy could be a troublefree shooter, but you guys remind me of the super bargin kiev. Ironic the once outlandishly expensive III can be had for 20 euros---and wonderful!

I read the IIIa has some cost cutting somewhere around the viewfinder which makes it prone to misalignment. How will I know it's out of alignment?

When buying a kiev, how old do you want to be? Late 60's maybe? Can you tell easily the age?

That crazy contax specialist in the U.S. has a fantastic site, and is very opinionated, but he really has alot of great pics and info all about the Contax 2 & 3s. He implies the contax design is complex and the russians were dirty---yet the kiev 4 is considered reliable?
http://www.zeisscamera.com/services_buying.shtml

Somewhere in there he goes into great details about the evolution and variations of the 50/1.5. I guess early coated models had very soft inner coatings which you can ruin with tissue paper.

Many great personal sites dedicated to the Contax and Kiev cameras
How many ruples did those kievs cost in the 60s?

[Attila]

I have two kiev4 and with light meter one without that, both more reliable than my contax IIIa speeds are more accurate .
in Kiev light meter works and accurate in contax light meter is dead.
Leica , Contax owners like to spreed their cameras , lenses are better than Russian clones which is bullshit. I did try collapsible elmar and collapsible industar-22 , Industar-22 did produce way better images. I had Leica III body which was dead none of the speeds did work without cla. I bought many Russian clone bodies none of them was dead, most of them has non accurate speeds , but wasn't dead etc etc.

[Orio]

Kiev IV can break, but Contax also can break.
(of course, Kiev IV can break your 20 Euros, Contax II or III your 200 Euros...)
With these old cameras, it's always a gamble. You don't know where they come from,
you don't know who used them and how.
There is nobody that can tell for sure that this Contax model is more reliable than the other,
or that the Kiev will break while the Contax will not, because most depends on the single copy, how it was used.
Those who buy these old cameras must accept that basically they shoot their money in the dark.
They may be lucky or not.
If someone is concerned, I always suggest to buy from a local shop, where you can
face people and where the sellers (the serious ones) check and CLA their used cameras
before putting them for sale. You pay for that, of course. But that might be better than saving
100 Euros in buying a camera from mr. Nobody from Kamchatcka who you will never reach anymore.
(no offense meant to Kamchatcka, I just mention a very faraway place from here).

[Attila]

If looks everything work when you check it out by your self, three things are still remain unchecked

1) film transport
2) speeds are works , but how slow they are ?
3) light leaks

first two can be solvable with a film roll+ an LCD speed tester from Florin

[scsambrook]

Uhoh7 wrote "It is a fantastic lens, BUT only for close work, say out to about 5m. At infinity the lens is unusable due to softness."

Is that only at really wide apertures? Granted these lenses were almost certainly optimised for distances between 1.5 meters and 15 meters, but your lens should give good clear images at infinity when stopped down to -say - f5.6.

[Orio]

[uhoh7]

[Sevo]

[quote="Mos6502"]

[uhoh7]

Arrived today, and while the body really does seem good (test roll loaded).



But on inspection the lens has some real issues. The blades are wet with oil--more than I've seen on any of my 40 odd lenses--but that by itself might be par for the course. However, take a look at this:





It's on the element just under the rear element, and does not appear to be like any seperation I've seen. It's symetrical--a half moon only effecting one side of the element, as if the element has been removed and improperly re-installed.

The lens shows signs of oily elements, but I can't really see the effects of the issue above









shots on APS-C so maybe I'm missing the edges anyway.

thoughts?

[scsambrook]

Well, it could be a whole lot worse . . . oily blades are easy to rectify (for a good technician, I mean) and the problem with the rear element/component is probably balsam deterioration, which once again isn't usually a big difficulty for a skilled man (or woman). Regretably, it means you'll have to spend some money but if the lens is free from scratches on the exterior surfaces then it should be a worthwhile exercise. No doubt you'll be able to get an estimate of cost or, even better, a firm quotation for the work needed.

I'm no great Contax expert, but it looks like the lens is older than the body. Is it coated? Your quick test results look pretty good on my small screen here, even with the lens in its present condition.

[Orio]

The lens is definitely older than the camera.
The serial number shows that the lens was released on December 13th, 1937.
The camera is post-war, so likely around 1950.
The lens certainly deserves a CLA, even if it costs something.

[uhoh7]

TY for replies,

Anyone have suggestions for CLA in CONUS?

[uhoh7]

Better pics








obviously I'm turning the lens about for light and detail

[Orio]

it looks like an element is displaced and what you see along the edge might be dried glue

[uhoh7]

[martinsmith99]

It looks sharp enough to me. I think it's more of a lack of contrast issue. Try a hood and some PP.

[uhoh7]

Test roll with kodak ektachrome 400

First film I've shot since the 80s. Just scans of 4x6s





below...shutter sticking (@1200)?





and for comparision, here is the same lens on nex-5: