Contax II or Contax IIIA ????

A

Alfred Rugel

Member
Local time
11:29 AM
Joined
Feb 28, 2007
Messages
16
I have an opportunity to purchase either a Contax II or a Contax IIA, both are in EX++ condition, both CLA'd, shutters updated and pretty equal. I would greatly appreciate a professional opinion as to which one I should go after. Or should I be looking for a Contax IIIA in similiar condition? Thanks!!! Al Rugel
 
I enjoy using my II, but apparently since the IIa's are newer, they may be more reliable. Also the body's are meant to be less chunky. I'd say go for the IIa.

I'd avoid the metered bodies such as IIIa.
 
IIa is a much younger and improved design camera. Both are very similar in form or function, but the IIa is smaller. If both are similar in price and condition, I would go for a IIa. The IIIa will be similar to a IIa, but with an uncoupled selenium meter on top of it. I prefer the look of the IIa better, but that is just me. Also, you have to consider if the 50 YO meter is still active.
 
If you think that you will ever use a flash, look for a IIa color dial as it has a normal pc flash connection. The black dial IIa uses a funky adapter cord (model 1361??, maybe) for using flash.

If you never use flash the IIa black dial will be a little less expensive than the IIa color dial.

Wayne
 
The IIa is a lot tighter package, otherwise it's like Brian Sweeney said.
You could always pick up a II later.
 
I have a IIIa that Henry Shearer put in a new selenium cell meter for me when he rebuilt my Contax. I find the meter to be accurate enough for B&W film, both inside and outside. In most cases though, I use the Sunny F16 method of exposure. I would get the IIa myself as the shutter in the camera is a little more reliable.I do also have a "No Name Contax", which is the same thing as a Russian Kiev 4A, which is the same as a Contax II , and Its also a very good camera. In mosts cases you are buying the Contax Lenses and It does not make that much difference which body they are on.
 
Last edited:
I'll go against the tide & recommend the Contax II. If the II was CLA'ed by a qualified tech, its shutter should be just as reliable as the IIa (& less liable to fade @ 1/1250) & it has a significantly more accurate & shock-resistant RF.
 
I will go with the II
the rf on the IIa and IIIa is inferior to the one on the II and III Contax.
 
I would get them both. You won't get another chance to buy on one occasion these two famous representatives of early 35mm photography in Ex++, CLA'd state!
 
IMHO:

Shutters: Both are very reliable if used frecuently. They strongly dislike to be letf unused for long periods of time. The one in the II/III is easier to repair.

RF: The one in the II/III is not only longer-based, but it is a completely different mechanism that is almost imposible to get unadjusted. The one in the IIIa is more pedestrian.

Size: The IIa is quite a bit smaller. A significant difference, again IMHO.

Lenses: As above, the pre war Biogon and its soviet copies do not fit the IIa/IIIa. Of course, there is always the magnificent post war Biogon, but at more $s. If the bodies you are contemplating come with their original lenses, the one in the IIa is probably coated and the one in the II is probably not.

And... Meter: I strongly favor having an inboard meter. If working right, the meter in the Contax IIIa is an useful tool, not a gimmick. I use mine in all but the lowest light levels, and it has never failed me. Of course, it adds nothing to the camera's aesthetics.

All that said, I do use a IIIa as my daily camera, and wouldn't trade it for anything. I like its size, its controls are second nature to me, and even although I had the luck to find a very cheap post war 35mm Biogon, I never use that focal lenght. Its RF is accurate enough to focus the 135mm wide open, which is all I ask form a rangefinder. Its 50/1.5 Sonnar and 21mm Biogon are hands down my favourite lenses. And I've been using it for over 30 years, which helps a little ;-)
 
Last edited:
Alfred
If you want a camera get a Kiev in similar state, the Contax are low volume shelve collectables.
The IIIa and IIa will cost more in servicing, and wont mount the Y12.
Noel
 
I'm with furcafe and xayraa here. I can attest to the RF reliability of the II - mine bounced down a stairs flight, still was in perfect alignment and the camera took pictures after a slap. Looks wise it (IMHO) is better, and you can have great 35mm lenses without paying through the nose too.

The IIa feels quite a bit smaller, it's main advantage I think. The viewfinder isn't any better than on prewar cameras, and with shutter reliability of decades old mechanical cameras it is never a straightforward choice.
 
Contax II or IIA

Contax II or IIA

I want to take this opportunity to thank each and everyone who responded to my inquiry! I very much appreciate your kindness and help. The only problem is that I now believe I will buy both of them! Thanks again! Alfred
 
I would vote for the II if you are only going to buy one. It is may favorite RF of all time. Yes, it is significantly bigger than the IIa, but the huge baseline on the rangefinder makes it especially useful for 85mm lenses used wide open (the Z-O or CZ 85/2 and Nikkor 85/2 are among my favorite lenses). I have a couple of Shearer-overhauled IIs, and they are very reliable, and the RF has never gone out of alignement, even given 5 years of regular use and the occasional bumping (I have yet to drop one, though).

If you plan to use a flash, get a IIa color dial, as mentioned by a previous poster.
Never touch the things, myself, at least with RFs.
 
As a complement to my previous post, I would be unable to choose. I started with a Kiev-2A, which is extremely reliable, and I also own a Contax-III which is on the waiting list to H. Scherer. I like them very much, and like dexdog and others said, the wide baseline is amazing to focus precisely,especially when using wide apertures ex. the 50/1.5 lens in low light conditions.

I also like my very new Contax-IIIa, despite having a smaller rf baseline it focuses perfectly and of course the mechanics and general build feels improved. But I wouldn't say one is more solid than the other. There's a weight and compactness that screams out "quality" in both designs.
 
Kiev is fine if you are on a budget, but Contax as Max says "screams out quality". The 'a' (post-war) models are smaller, quieter, and of course they are newer. The post-war model shutters are supposed to be better, but the rangefinders are harder to service so make sure at least that part is in good shape from the get-go and then you will be happy.

I now rate the IIIa at least as desirable as the IIa having recently owned a nice one (which is now in Max's hands). They are not like Kiev 4's, they are things of real beauty (forgive my near hysterical adoration of Zeiss Ikon).

Oh yes, if you get a good one of either model you are going to be happy -- maybe real happy -- so don't sweat the decision too much.
 
Last edited:
In addition to what David said, having owned several Kiev models before owning Contaxes (sorry for the pluralization), my two favourite Kievs were a model 2 (that I sold long ago to fellow member kmack) and my first Kiev ever, a Kiev 2A which I "worship" and care of as much as my contaxes. It has a quality in the finition that no Kiev-4/4A or later model can equal.

My friend Laurence has used it saturday afternoon to take photos with the original Jupiter-8 lens (camera & lens are from 1956). I was simply amazed at the quality of focusing, and it was the first time she used a rangefinder ever. You can see that at my project blog, on my signature.

I am glad to introduce her to the world of film photo and rangefinders, and she is very enthusiastic about it.

Back to the topic ... if you're really tight on the budget, go for an early Kiev at Fedka. I remember once I spotted an early Kiev-III which had a lightmeter giving measures in DIN scale (german standard) instead of GOST.

Cheers,
max
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom