lrochfort
Well-known
Hello all,
A wonderfully subjective question for you!
I used to have a Kiev 4A and I miss it, so am going to buy another. However, I was unlucky with my last one and had a particularly poor example; far worse than my other FSUs.
I'm considering the Kiev 2A this time. Do people think they're generally built better? I'm looking at 50s 2As and 60s to early 70s 4As. Would there be much difference as a rule, or is the individual camera more a factor?
Thanks all.
A wonderfully subjective question for you!
I used to have a Kiev 4A and I miss it, so am going to buy another. However, I was unlucky with my last one and had a particularly poor example; far worse than my other FSUs.
I'm considering the Kiev 2A this time. Do people think they're generally built better? I'm looking at 50s 2As and 60s to early 70s 4As. Would there be much difference as a rule, or is the individual camera more a factor?
Thanks all.
Drago
Established
Well some say that the early Kiev 2 are Contax 2 with Russian plate. The general rule with Kiev is that those up to the early 70's are built better, so better get some from the 60's
agfa100
Well-known
I have 4 Kiev's and by far my Kiev 2 from 1955 is the best one of the bunch. But remember we are talking about FSU cameras!!
wbill
wbill
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Most of Kiev2 are exact copy of Contax, they say, not original with different plate. "A" has flash sync socket.
Good luck to find working one.
Good luck to find working one.
Pfreddee
Well-known
Try Yuri Bogoslavsky at www.fedka.com.
I think he can help you out here.
With best regards,
Pfreddee(Stephen)
I think he can help you out here.
With best regards,
Pfreddee(Stephen)
lrochfort
Well-known
So, is the message I'm getting that the Kiev 2 really is generally a bit better built?
Any real world differences in use that are worth mentioning?
Any real world differences in use that are worth mentioning?
agfa100
Well-known
The early Kiev's are a "lot better" built, not a little..... if you compare to 4's
Plus pick up the sleeper lens for the Kiev's the "Helios-103, 53/1.8" Fedka has them for 38.50, they don't look as nice as a nice Jupiter but they are sharper. Just my .02......
wbill
Plus pick up the sleeper lens for the Kiev's the "Helios-103, 53/1.8" Fedka has them for 38.50, they don't look as nice as a nice Jupiter but they are sharper. Just my .02......
wbill
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
Trouble is, the age of the camera means that original build quality is of minor importance compared to the usage and abuse, perhaps, that's taken place over the years.
I doubt if you'll find one from the 40's but the 50's ones are now 60 years old and may well be showing their age, even if they look good on the surface. They are a complex piece of machinery, when all's said and done.
So I'll wish you luck with the search. BTW, I have had both 2's and 4's and saw no real difference between the ones I chose. BTW 2, the little foot on the 2 is very useful...
Regards, David
Trouble is, the age of the camera means that original build quality is of minor importance compared to the usage and abuse, perhaps, that's taken place over the years.
I doubt if you'll find one from the 40's but the 50's ones are now 60 years old and may well be showing their age, even if they look good on the surface. They are a complex piece of machinery, when all's said and done.
So I'll wish you luck with the search. BTW, I have had both 2's and 4's and saw no real difference between the ones I chose. BTW 2, the little foot on the 2 is very useful...
Regards, David
Cheap working ones are still out there. A Kiev 4 with 53mm Jupiter f/2 turned up in the shop at a local dump for $10 a few weeks ago. I bought it as soon as I saw it. It needed a replacement back but otherwise seemed to work well at all speeds. A friend gave me a replacement back from a parts camera. I'm loving it. Developed a roll of Delta 400 from it just a few days ago. The film looks good. Best $10 I ever spent. Also worst $10, because I definitely want a Contax II now, and here in Australia they don't turn up at the local tip.
nhchen
Nathan
The little foot is indeed very useful. It is the only reason I have 3 Kiev 2s and no 4's. It stops the camera tipping forward with long heavy lenses like the Jupiter 9.
Regards
Nathan
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
CLA by really knowledgeable person will make real difference.
Good luck to find one.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Yup! And it stops them falling over when you put them down. I've very elderly cameras that go on display whilst I wait for the money for a complete check up for them to appear. Open the cabinet doors too quickly and they fall over.
Regards, David
nhchen
Nathan
My solution to the camera tipping over situation is to put little cubes of styrofoam underneath the lenses so they have something to rest on, it stops them wobbling.
I wonder why manufacturers removed the feet on many cameras as time went on, contax I, contax II/Kiev II have them, and zorki 3's and Zenit's had them early in production too. But the later versions of these cameras all lost this useful feature.
Regards,
Nathan
Elmar Lang
Well-known
Hello,
actually, Kiev-II cameras aren't Kiev-named Contax-IIs; they were built in Kiev, under the control of Zeiss Jena/Saalfeld technicians, volunteering in the USSR.
Earliest Kievs, i.e. those from 1947 and 1948, were partially made in Saalfeld, thanks to the new production lines (those for the so-called Jena-Contax): that's why the Kiev-47's front plate shows the "negative" Contax logo on the inner surface.
The Kiev-II, especially the very old ones, are very fine cameras; well-built and finished (although the Zeissianern working at the Arsenal plant, often complainted for the request of higher production levels: for them, the quality control needed a slower production process).
The problem with early Kiev-IIs is that such cameras, very expensive in the USSR, have been strongly used so, most pieces coming in our hands have a past life of hard photographic work in any environmental condition, and repair work, not always done in the best way, despite a possibly fine external appearance.
I have many Kievs, from the 1947 onwards: I can say that late ones were poorly made, although some of them are correctly working.
My favourite Kiev is a 1968-made 4A camera: it's incredibly well finished and I have it since 1975. After decades of use it flawlessly works. Ca. 9 years ago it was cleaned and lubricated by a skilled repairman, who had many prejudices against USSR cameras, but remained highly surprised by the fine quality of the camera went under his care.
Best wishes,
Enzo (E.L.)
actually, Kiev-II cameras aren't Kiev-named Contax-IIs; they were built in Kiev, under the control of Zeiss Jena/Saalfeld technicians, volunteering in the USSR.
Earliest Kievs, i.e. those from 1947 and 1948, were partially made in Saalfeld, thanks to the new production lines (those for the so-called Jena-Contax): that's why the Kiev-47's front plate shows the "negative" Contax logo on the inner surface.
The Kiev-II, especially the very old ones, are very fine cameras; well-built and finished (although the Zeissianern working at the Arsenal plant, often complainted for the request of higher production levels: for them, the quality control needed a slower production process).
The problem with early Kiev-IIs is that such cameras, very expensive in the USSR, have been strongly used so, most pieces coming in our hands have a past life of hard photographic work in any environmental condition, and repair work, not always done in the best way, despite a possibly fine external appearance.
I have many Kievs, from the 1947 onwards: I can say that late ones were poorly made, although some of them are correctly working.
My favourite Kiev is a 1968-made 4A camera: it's incredibly well finished and I have it since 1975. After decades of use it flawlessly works. Ca. 9 years ago it was cleaned and lubricated by a skilled repairman, who had many prejudices against USSR cameras, but remained highly surprised by the fine quality of the camera went under his care.
Best wishes,
Enzo (E.L.)
locheeboy
locheeboy
Have a '73 Kiev+J8m. Cost me 5 GBP. Sent it tae Oleg for CLA, he returned it saying that it was one of the best built and easiest tae work on Kievs that he'd handled. So, in my experience (from other FSUs as well) well built or badly built cameras are not date-specific; as said above, it's usually how they've been treated. This Kiev's CLA cost me $40(inc. p+p) for a beautifully operating camera - it purrs when ye press the shutter button. And yes, ah know the stories of the ignominy of the end of the Kiev but this was endemic in Russian industry at all levels, not just in cameras.
FSU cameras? One person's disaster is another's good fortune. There are no "standards", no date, age, types which are "better"; there's only the personal experience/wishes/prejudices of owners, who want their cameras to be different, special, better. In the end, there's only good and bad cameras and "bad" cameras can be saved by good techs.
FSU cameras? One person's disaster is another's good fortune. There are no "standards", no date, age, types which are "better"; there's only the personal experience/wishes/prejudices of owners, who want their cameras to be different, special, better. In the end, there's only good and bad cameras and "bad" cameras can be saved by good techs.
newspaperguy
Well-known
Among my "keepers" are a Kiev I I and an early 4a. Both work fine, and have for 15+ years, but the K II is far smoother.
Here's the 1956 KII:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffgallery/showphoto.php?photoid=137417
Here's the 1956 KII:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffgallery/showphoto.php?photoid=137417
Fotohuis
Well-known
I just added to my FSU collection from Z-4, 4K, Z-6 (2x) a second FED-3 and a Kiev 4A with stereo adapter. The FED-3 and Kiev 4A are underway now. The FED-3 has been completely refurbished and the Kiev is relativ new. I will share my experiences soon.
Dez
Bodger Extraordinaire
While I have to agree that in most cases it is the history of the individual camera more than the original build quality which determines how well an antique FSU camera will perform, it remains true that the original build quality of the earliest Kievs was much better than that of the later ones.
Here is a Kiev II from 1949, at which point the camera was in actual production, using almost entirely locally-made parts.
Here it is side by side with a late 30's Contax II
The cameras are obviously very similar, and in fact most of the internals of these two are indistinguishable, but there are some differences.
The stabilizing foot and rewind button are the same as the ones used in the postwar Jena Contaxes; different from both those of the earlier Contaxes and the later Kievs.
The edges of the folded sheet metal parts are a bit softer than in the Contax, giving a slightly rounded effect. Possibly different tools, or maybe the original tools were refurbished and polished, softening the edges.
One very noticeable difference is that the early Kiev's chrome is better than that of the Contax, and much better than that of the later Kievs. It's not easy to see in the pictures, but the Kiev chrome has a more matte appearance, while the actual surface granularity is actually finer than that of the Contax. This is probably the best chrome finish I have seen on any camera, something that is really counter-intuitive.
.
The differences between the Contax Sonnar and the very scarce collapsible Zorkii ZK f2 lenses are quite noticeable. The Kiev's aperture control ring is very similar to the Contax's, but is obviously a different part, not as well finished. The collapsible barrel of the ZK lens is not polished.
This old Kiev is one of my great favourites of my far-too-many cameras. Everything is working near perfectly.
Cheers,
Dez
Here is a Kiev II from 1949, at which point the camera was in actual production, using almost entirely locally-made parts.
Here it is side by side with a late 30's Contax II
The cameras are obviously very similar, and in fact most of the internals of these two are indistinguishable, but there are some differences.
The stabilizing foot and rewind button are the same as the ones used in the postwar Jena Contaxes; different from both those of the earlier Contaxes and the later Kievs.
The edges of the folded sheet metal parts are a bit softer than in the Contax, giving a slightly rounded effect. Possibly different tools, or maybe the original tools were refurbished and polished, softening the edges.
One very noticeable difference is that the early Kiev's chrome is better than that of the Contax, and much better than that of the later Kievs. It's not easy to see in the pictures, but the Kiev chrome has a more matte appearance, while the actual surface granularity is actually finer than that of the Contax. This is probably the best chrome finish I have seen on any camera, something that is really counter-intuitive.
.The differences between the Contax Sonnar and the very scarce collapsible Zorkii ZK f2 lenses are quite noticeable. The Kiev's aperture control ring is very similar to the Contax's, but is obviously a different part, not as well finished. The collapsible barrel of the ZK lens is not polished.
This old Kiev is one of my great favourites of my far-too-many cameras. Everything is working near perfectly.
Cheers,
Dez
Last edited:
David Hughes
David Hughes
Have a '73 Kiev+J8m. Cost me 5 GBP. Sent it tae Oleg for CLA, he returned it saying that it was one of the best built and easiest tae work on Kievs that he'd handled. So, in my experience (from other FSUs as well) well built or badly built cameras are not date-specific; as said above, it's usually how they've been treated. This Kiev's CLA cost me $40(inc. p+p) for a beautifully operating camera - it purrs when ye press the shutter button. And yes, ah know the stories of the ignominy of the end of the Kiev but this was endemic in Russian industry at all levels, not just in cameras.
FSU cameras? One person's disaster is another's good fortune. There are no "standards", no date, age, types which are "better"; there's only the personal experience/wishes/prejudices of owners, who want their cameras to be different, special, better. In the end, there's only good and bad cameras and "bad" cameras can be saved by good techs.
Exactly, I've a 1936 Contax that failed; both tapes snapped. It cost a lot and was carefully chosen; no screw damage etc. The innards were in a dreadful state and, luckily, a Kiev shutter crate was available and used to repair it as the technician said they were identical.
As I see it, it's like having a Japanese made camera that is then produced in China and later repaired. So Chinese parts go into the Japanese body. It's legit but few see it with the Contax/Kiev. I find it strange that people will accept one but not the other.
Regards, David