P3D Re: Contaflex

[Eric Goldstein <egoldste@xxxxxx>]

> Who can compare the lenses on a Contaflex to a Realist or Kodak?  Anyone
> have experience with both?  I'm wondering about the quality of the Zeiss
> lenses of that era for clarity and contrast.

According to Zeiss scholar Marc Small, the Contaflex actually had
four different lenses during its two-decade life-span:  a 2.8/45 ZO or
CZ
Tessar, a 2.8/50 CZ Tessar, a 2.8/45 Pantar (made by Rodenstock), and a
recomputed 2.8/50 CZ Tessar on the Super New and later cameras.
(ZO = post war W. German Zeiss  CZ = post war E. German Zeiss)

I have a Contaflex w/the 2.8/50 CZ Tessar and it is a really a very fine
lens of medium contrast, similar in character to the the 37.5 mm f/3.5
CZ Tessar on the Belplasca.

Bobh comments that modern lens designs favour contrast over resolution
and that Tessars are high resolution optics. Modern Tessars, such as the
one available for the Contax SLR or the Yashica T4 Super (T5 in Europe)
are also apotized to favour contrast over resolution and wind up
striking a nice balance; just a point of clarification that these days
any decent formulation can be biased one way or the other or between.
Also, almost any formulation could be optimised for exceptional
performance not so much due to aspherics (which really do most of their
work at wide apertures we rarely use) but because of the exotic glasses
and extremely tight manufacturing tolerances now available. The trick is
to get lens manufacturers to actually *make* high performance lenses as
there is little market for them...

Eric G.


------------------------------