Kievs versus Contax?

JoeFriday

JoeFriday

Agent Provacateur
Local time
9:28 AM
Joined
Jan 10, 2005
Messages
2,590
View My Gallery
I've recently become interested in the wonderful world of FSU cameras. And while I can see the advantage of FED and Zorki using LTM lenses, the Kievs have some sort of magnetic attraction that I can't resist. But as I look at them online (it's not likely I'll ever find one locally to check out), I wonder how they compare to the original.. the Contax, which I also find very interesting.

Does anyone have experience with a direct comparison between the Contax IIa and the corresponding non-metered Kiev (or metered, for that matter)? Is the build quality for a post-war body going to be comparable between the two? How about the viewfinders?

And what's the going rate for either, with a 50mm lens?
 
Rough, rough, rough -- but because they are a lot newer, not as nerve-wracking. If you do break the shutter tapes it doesn't feel as bad. I've owned several Kievs and a couple of Contaxes, and borrowed others, and the best Kievs are not usually as good as the worst Contaxes -- at least, if the Contax is not a complete wreck.

Cheers,

Roger
 
The Kiev IIs from the early '50s and the 4As from the early '60s seem to be comparable in finish to a real Contax. Once you get up into the '70s I think the quality and cosmetics started to suffer and it's more of a roll of the die when you get one. I've had two of the last models -- the 4 am (rewind crank instead of knob and hotshoe). One worked fine although the finish didn't compare to earlier cameras. The other was like new but a piece of junk--apparently built near the end by some very unmotivated workers.
 
I've read many websites (and re-read Stephen Gandy's.. thanks for the link, Bill).. it's a fascinating history

in a way, I kind of like the crapshoot situation.. or should I say Russian roulette? that is, I don't mind as long as I'm not spending a lot.. it's sort of like getting a Holga.. you never know what will arrive in the mail.. LOL
 
I have both Contax and Kiev. I think a fair analogy would be to compare a cubic zirconia ring to a real diamond ring. Care to guess which one is equal to a Kiev?

The Contax finish is just jewel like, not that that makes it take better pictures. You can buy a lot of film with the money difference between the two. If money is not an object I would get a Contax IIa any day over a Kiev or a hump backed Contax IIIa. I have both the IIa and the IIIa and I just like the IIa better, not that that makes me right of course.

Although there is something about how good a camera feels in your hands that may make you take better pictures and then maybe not!

Wayne
 
First of all, the Kiev's correspond to contax II and III cameras, no IIa and IIIa ones. The "a" means a completely new inner design produced post-war. No shutter ribbons to break, slightly shorter rangefinder baseline, very good finish, very smooth operation, as long as it operates. But very complicated shutter and if it breaks it takes awhile to figure out what's the problem. My IIIa had a simple stuck-by-old-grease sliding metal parts that prevented shutter release, but it was in the inner bottom of the shutter and really had to dismantle the camera body. Replacing the Kiev shutter ribbon was piece of cake compared to the contax IIIa problem.

I don't have or had a pre-war contax to compare - and have experience only with one kiev (kiev4, 1960). All I can say, my Kiev is not bad but it's sloppier made than the contax iiia i had. The fits are not tight, the things wobble here and there, the shutter is noisier, the winding/cocking is harder and a bit rattling. The rangefinder/viewfinder i find to be the same quality. The finish is okay but less than the contax was (but that could be the difference in wear).
Still waiting for the photos to see the result, that's the most important for me - and there, the lens and alignment should matter more. However in the same time i have a bid on a contax iia and a sonnar 50/1.5.

Unless you buy extra expensive CLA'd or rebuilt, there's no guarantee that a contax will work better than a kiev when you receive it. The price difference is guaranteed however.
 
I think that is indeed the one Pherdinand is bidding on. I am going to make a guess that any thing under $425.00 would be a good deal.

Wayne

P.S. He said he was not going to look at it until the auction was over, are you trying to jinx him? I hope he gets it for a lot less than my guess.
 
I must have missed the thread where he mentioned bidding on that.. but that's the auction that piqued my interest in the Contax.. the Sonnar lens is especially alluring!
 
yep that's the one, but i recognize it from the link already😛 it's the "tuiteka" seller that gave it away
I went there already, but still lotsa time, and i just checked. But i will not go there on the last day, that's sure. And will not bit "ok just a bit more".
$425 is above my budget. Lately the prices seem to be all over the place so i can't say how much it will reach... They used to stop around 270$, when combined with the 50/1.5 sonnar, but not anymore. I have seen plain bodies goin for 200+ alreaady.

This, alas, looks a bit too clean so might go for more than I am prepared to pay. If it does, i stay with the kiev.

Wayne: thanks for the support😀
 
JoeFriday said:
I've recently become interested in the wonderful world of FSU cameras. And while I can see the advantage of FED and Zorki using LTM lenses, the Kievs have some sort of magnetic attraction that I can't resist. But as I look at them online (it's not likely I'll ever find one locally to check out), I wonder how they compare to the original.. the Contax, which I also find very interesting.

Does anyone have experience with a direct comparison between the Contax IIa and the corresponding non-metered Kiev (or metered, for that matter)? Is the build quality for a post-war body going to be comparable between the two? How about the viewfinders?

And what's the going rate for either, with a 50mm lens?
Click to expand...

I may not be qualified to give an answer because I don't own any contax. At one point, I was thinking of going to bid a contax with sonnar 50mm/1.5. In the end, I decided against it since the kieves provide a good service after a bit tweak.

If you are handy, it's a joy to own kiev rangefinders. I have 20+ kieves. I have one camera that only requires extra high tension to get to the slowest speed and B. The others have a very smooth winding/cocking process. I can't image contax will be better.

Cosmetically, old kieves (50's) tend to be rough after 50 year usage in FSU. The precision/finish is high. However, it's very high likely to get a camera with problems. Try Oleg to get kiev 3a he still have.

Kiev 4 (early 60s) still comparable to kiev made in the 50's

Kiev (70-80's): It's rough exteriorly but the interior mechanism is still smooth. The mount flange to the film plane may vary (within the tolerance). Helios 103 and jupiter 8m are collimated to the body in the possibility of over 95%. Old jupiter 8 on old bodies is lower because most of the old lenses were opened before.

New kieves need adjustment of rangefinder (at least 40%, however it still gives accurate reading even if the infinity is not on without adjustment)) and it's easy operation (check kiev survival site).


pangkievrange
 
JoeFriday,

If you are handy and enjoy tinkering, you can pick-up a KIEV for about $50 to $60 US including shipping. I got my 4a a little over a year ago and it spent a bit of time on my work bench, in pieces, while I performed some "exploratory surgery". After it was re-assembled, I took it for a trial and found it to be a good shooter. The pictures were sharp and pleasing.

There is no question that the finish on most FSU cameras is not on par with even modestly priced Japanese or German cameras. For the money, they are great cameras.

Best regards,

Bill K.
 
I have a 1937 Contax II with the 1.5 lens that was cla'd by Henry Scherer. It is much smoother operating that the Kievs and has a better finish. Picture-wise there isn't a lot of difference, however.

I have great admiration for the folks who tear into their Kievs to make repairs. I'm fairly comfortable replacing shutters and adjusting FEDs and Zorkis but their inner workings are like a 1967 VW beetle whereas the Kiev would be a Ford V-8 from the same period --more parts and less margin for error. Unless you are comfortable working with small, rather intricate assemblies I would advise to just figure on buying Kievs until you get one that works right when it comes out of the box. Of course, maybe I'm just "chicken."
 
kiev4a, i thought of the same, however i decided to do the ribbon replacement. Why? My kiev worked out-of-the box...for a day. You never know what's the inner status of a fourty years old camera is, unless you took a look inside😉 I know now that the ribbons are okay for some more years, and if not, i can repair them again.

(It was not that difficult in fact. Only the film back casting needed to be removed, five screws. And then some sewing job. The pain was to re-tension the shutter after the ribbon was replaced - that was annoying, needed lotsa tries, but not a complicated operation.)
 
yeah, that's my problem.. I'm only moderately mechanically inclined.. there's a very good chance that any camera I take apart will end up worse than it started.. at best, it would probably work the same.. I'm really good at figuring out how something works... just not how to make it actually do what it's supposed to (sort of like women)
 
JoeFriday said:
I've recently become interested in the wonderful world of FSU cameras. And while I can see the advantage of FED and Zorki using LTM lenses, the Kievs have some sort of magnetic attraction that I can't resist. But as I look at them online (it's not likely I'll ever find one locally to check out), I wonder how they compare to the original.. the Contax, which I also find very interesting.

Does anyone have experience with a direct comparison between the Contax IIa and the corresponding non-metered Kiev (or metered, for that matter)? Is the build quality for a post-war body going to be comparable between the two? How about the viewfinders?

And what's the going rate for either, with a 50mm lens?
Click to expand...


The biggest difference only becomes apparent when you drop one!
 
JoeFriday said:
yeah, that's my problem.. I'm only moderately mechanically inclined.. there's a very good chance that any camera I take apart will end up worse than it started.. at best, it would probably work the same.. I'm really good at figuring out how something works... just not how to make it actually do what it's supposed to (sort of like women)
Click to expand...

Three years ago I hadn't ever successfully worked on anything mechanical that required tools smaller than a 3/8 drive socket. Putting new curtains in a Zorki was a long but very satisfying experience. I discovered the main thing a person needs is patience. That being said, now that I've done it a few times it's very tempting to let Oleg do that sort of work, particularly during the summer when there are a lot of other things I need to be doing in my spare time
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
Contax I Repair Options
2
Replies
23
Views
4K
armadsen
A
CameraQuest
Amedeo's explanation of Nikon rangefinder mount vs Contax rangefinder mount
Replies
11
Views
2K
mdarnton
M
Ken Ford
Insert for a Domke F-5XB?
Replies
4
Views
659
Ken Ford
Ken Ford
LeicaFoReVer
Departing with my Contax G2
Replies
1
Views
431
Godfrey
Godfrey
simonOWO
How to disassemble post war ZO Sonnar 85/2 in Contax rf mount?
Replies
7
Views
602
simonOWO
simonOWO
Back
Top Bottom