Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1996/09/20
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 06:22 AM 9/20/96 -0600, Chris Fortunko wrote: >I have always liked Zeiss glass. Unfortunately, their cameras were not >very ergonomic. Is it true that they were actually more expensive than >Leicas? Chris First, "Zeiss" never really made cameras. There is the Carl Zeiss Foundation, an educational trust, which owns a variety of optical concerns. One of these is the Zeiss lensworks, another is Gauthier (Prontor and Compur shutters), a third is the Schott glass company, and so forth. From 1926 until 1990, one of their other properties was the Zeiss Ikon company which, from 1926 until 1972, made cameras. Thus, "Zeiss" didn't make cameras: a related, but distinct company, Zeiss Ikon, did. Second, your blanket statement about ergonomics is simply untrue on its face. Why would you say this? Third, I have no Prewar Leitz catalogues to examine, but I do have a slew of Zeiss and Zeiss Ikon literature and a lot of Postwar Leitz catalogues on hand. Here are some prices: Camera date price Contarex Super w/2/50 B-Planar 1968 634.00 Contaflex Super BC 1968 229.50 Icarex 35S w/1.8/50 Ultron 1968 279.95 Leica M3 w/2/50 Summicron NF 1965 507.00 Leicaflex w/2/50 Summicron 1965 585.00 Contarex w/2/50 Planar 1961 499.00 Contaflex Super 1961 219.00 Leica M3 w/2/50 Summicron NF 1960 438.00 Leica IIIg w/2/50 Summicron 1960 292.50 So, the prices aren't that far off from each other. Plus, please remember that Zeiss Ikon was a full-range camera company, producing during its life such epic milestones as the Super Ikonta MF folder, the Ikoflex TLR's, and a range of what we would now regard as "point & shoot" cameras. Marc msmall@roanoke.infi.net FAX: +540/343-7315 Cha robh bas fir gun ghras fir!