Collector v User thought - is it ever ' worth ' buying a pre-war Contax

[dee]

Hmmm - having perused several posts confirming that the quality of engineering of pre-1955 Kiev II [ Kiev III = masochists only ? ] , with thicker and tougher chrome , I wonder , in comparison , at the validity of a user Contax II , which is round a decade + older as a camera to use ?

I know that I wanted a clunker or two to mess with , but this had nothing to do with enjoying the Contax experience with film , frankly , my Oleged Kiev 4m performs that role , albeit without the grace of my CLA 1951 KNeB ii .

Wanting a camera with older body and Kiev 4 convenience , I ensured that I had a much younger , 1956 Kiev IIIa body for one collusion / collision , as well as the 1935 Contax version because it seems more reassuring as my proposed principle user .

 

[Pherdinand]

as a camera to use, i'd say a postwar contax beats them both (the kievs and the pre-war contaxes).

 

[Dez]

as a camera to use, i'd say a postwar contax beats them both (the kievs and the pre-war contaxes).

For sure I have to agree, the postwar ones are much better designs, with a reasonable but still complex mechanism operating the curtains. But if you DO have to replace the tapes, it is a much bigger job to get at them.

But the prewar ones are so cool (and cheaper). They seem to have mechanism for mechanism's sake. They have at least twice the number of parts as a contemporary Leica, and sometimes I think they were a vehicle for demonstrating how very clever the Zeiss mechanical designers were.

Cheers,
Dez

 

[dee]

I have no argument with the post war Contax being a better camera , but as what is a reasonably inexpensive entry into the Contax experience , a clean Kiev II / IIa must be more cost effective than a tired Contax II for a similar outlay .
[ I admit that for the outlay on my Kiev collection I could have several post war Contax - including full CLA , but the pre war cameras work for me ]

 

[bobby_novatron]

I own a smattering of Contax-related RF's, including:

1. a post-war Contax IIa
2. a Kiev IIa
3. a Kiev 4a from 1966
4. a Kiev 4a from 1981

I list them in that particular order by what I would consider over-all quality and 'pleasure-of-use'.

For entry into the Contax RF world, I think a good-quality Kiev II or Kiev 4 from a reputable dealer is a reasonable way to dip one's toe.

That being said, the Zeiss 50/1.5 Sonnar is in a completely different league than the competent but proletarian Jupiter-8.

 

[raid]

From an "investment perspective", buying Contax cameras is less promising than buying Leica cameras, which keep on increasing in value. Same applies to lenses. I have two post war Contax cameras, and a few lenses. They are great cameras, but less useful than more modern cameras. The Contax I looks super cool, but repair can be very costly or no parts are available for it.

 

[KoNickon]

I would avoid a Contax I. I think they're significantly less reliable than the II/III. But I don't think there's anything wrong with the II or III, and in fact they're better than the IIa/IIIa in some respects, namely the rangefinder. You may need to get a prewar Contax CLA'd, but the same applies to the postwar Contaxes as well. I realize I'm stepping into sensitive territory here, but the similarity between the II/III and the Kievs means an experienced Kiev repairer can fix up a Contax. I have a III that had been overhauled by Oleg before I got it; works fine. My sense is that the postwar Contaxes are a little more finicky.

 

[Dez]

I agree with Nick about the Contax 1. These cameras are funky and beautiful, but have to be considered as prototypes for the Contax II, which is more reliable. And they are a swine to service.

The Contax IIa/IIIa have a simpler, and probably more reliable design, but more disassembly is required than in the case of the prewar equivalents for common service problems.

All Contaxes are a challenge for repair: this should be left to the experienced or the foolhardy.

Cheers,
Dez

 

[gdmcclintock]

I have a beat-up II and a very nice IIa. I like the II better and will eventually sell the IIa.

 

[SpikeT]

I have a 1950 Kiev II and it works beautifully, and I love telling people the story of how it came to be made; much more exciting than the Contax!

 

[Dez]

The very early Kievs are extremely fine cameras. They are in my opinion the equal of the prewar Contaxes, and with better chrome.

By the way, there are a few early 50's Contax 3's on ebay at the moment, from reputable Russian or Ukrainian vendors, and with working meters. They look funny, but work great. Even though I already have one, I am tempted.

Cheers,
Dez

 

[Frontman]

I bought a junk prewar Contax and sent it to Oleg to be refurbished. He cleaned it up, adjusted it, and installed new ribbons and such. The cost of the camera and refurbishing was low, so I ended up with a good working camera for a great price.

An easier to repair option for a similar price would be a Nikon S. The Nikon operates much in the same way as a Kiev or Contax, but with a simplified and more reliable shutter system.