Pre-war or Post war Contax ?

[dee]

I ''need '' a Contax to complement my Kievs [ or should that be 'tother way around ]
Should I buy a pre-war , or post war camera - and are lenses compatible ?
Anyone in Uk got one to sell ?

dee

 

[furcafe]

(1) It's a personal preference as to which is "best." The pre-WWII Contax will be more similar to your Kiev, which shouldn't surprise you given the Kiev's origins, & has the advantage of the more accurate, & durable, RF. The post-WWII Contax will be smaller, newer, etc. Both versions often suffer from shutter problems (but they will be different shutter problems).

FWIW, here's Contax repairman Henry Scherer's take:

http://www.zeisscamera.com/articles_best.shtml

(2) All lenses will be interchangeable except for the pre-WWIII 35/2.8 Biogon (+ Jupiter equivalent) w/the big rear element--those will only fit the pre-WWII Contax (& Kievs . . . & Nikon RFs).

 

[Meleica]

here's my contax rf lens information and price guide

http://members.aol.com/dcolucci/zc.htm

Dan

 

[dee]

Thanks everyone ...

I shall probably go for the familiar - prewar - as I love my Kievs !

 

[raid]

I have a IIa and a IIIa. Both are great cameras.

 

[micromontenegro]

Love them both, have them both. Not an easy choice. My take at it, representing only my humble opinion:

-When seen from afar, the II/IIIa looks tidier, more pruposeful. IMO, prettier. But up close, the details of the II/III shine, and every little curve becomes an Art Deco masterpiece. Finish is outsatnding on both, equal or better than any other camera. Again, like them both.

-I do think the II/III has an edge in reliablility: by design, the RF is almost imposible to get out of whack, and the shutter can't fade. You need good ribbons, thou. ITOH, my IIIa (bought new by my father in 1953) has been my most reliable camera, bar none.

-As others said, the prewar Biogon does not fit the II/IIIa. Plus, the II/III's RF has a longer base- so focussing can be a bit more accurate.

-The II/IIIa operation is much smoother. That is, of course, a personal observation, and your mileage may vary, but I find that the new winding/coking mechanism has a lower effort, not to mention that the II/III shutter requires that you actually tension a spring as you rotate the dial to change shutter speeds towards "high gear". But you already know that from your Kievs ;-)

My conclusion: I find the IIIa is a little faster, so I use it with wideangles for travel/street. I prefer the focussing of the II, and the deliberateness it inspires (in me), so I use it with the Sonnars as a portait and normal lens machine.

 

[Nikon Bob]

If you want to compliment your Kiev experience then the pre war Contax II and III would be the way to go. They are what was used to copy to make the Kiev and the post war Contax was basically a redesign/different camera from the pre war one but with a great family resemblance. I only have a Contax II so can't compare the IIa to it directly. I do have some Kievs and for the most part the using experience is the same. I do use Kiev mount FSU lenses on my Contax II with good results. Call me cheap.

Bob

 

[Highway 61]

Prewar or postwar ? II or IIa ? IIIa or III ?

Depends on where you use to put your beard when you're sleeping. Over or under the blankets ?

That's the question.

 

[Paul C. Perkins MD]

Pre-War Contax II has a cleaner design, longer rangefinder base, more history.

Paul

 

[wlewisiii]

I'd say pre-war as well. I find them more interesting & the RF is significantly better in many ways (length, durability, etc.) The shutter designs are a wash - there are strengths and weaknesses to both designs. The redesign had nothing whatsoever to do with color film but rather was due to the devistating firebombing of Dresden. The shutter blades are slightly thicker which is the only reason that the Biogon was redesigned.

As for the page linked above, take anything you read on that web site with a pound of salt.

William

 

[Highway 61]

The redesign had nothing whatsoever to do with color film but rather was due to the devastating firebombing of Dresden.

The redesign had been in the Hubert Nerwin team cards from 1941 or so. There are many evidences of a Contax IIa prototype released at Dresden in 1945. There is nothing left of the prototype but for the camera back which can be seen at the Zeiss Historica. The prototype camera back is very close to the final IIa/IIIa back but for the missing tripod bush hole so that the Zeiss Historica experts are quite certain that the prototype had the external look of the actual IIa.

The shutter blades are slightly thicker which is the only reason that the Biogon was redesigned.

Although this is a solid myth, the slightly thicker shutter blades of the postwar camera (because they are aluminum and not brass any longer) are not the culprit for the prewar Biogon 35/2.8 not to mount on the redesigned camera.

What blocks the rear element of the prewar Biogon from going fully in the film chamber is the upper step of the film chamber casting, under which the second shutter curtain rolls up : the postwar camera being more compact than its prewar brother, the shutter box is less high as well, hence less space free left by the shutter rollers inside the film chamber.

 

[wlewisiii]

What blocks the rear element of the prewar Biogon from going fully in the film chamber is the upper step of the film chamber casting, under which the second shutter curtain rolls up : the postwar camera being more compact than its prewar brother, the shutter box is less high as well, hence less space free left by the shutter rollers inside the film chamber.

Thank you for the correction. I've only used Kievs & my Contax II so I had nothing but the usual suspect web materials to go on. If I do ever get a Contax IIa, I'll have to get out my Biogon & see how things really do line up.

William

 

[Santafecino]

Dee--
It's quite obvious that you need good examples of both prewar and postwar cameras to fill out your equipment. And the postwar IIIa has a good meter that should be on one of your bodies. Make sure you acquire a 50mm f:1.5 too.
--Lindsay

 

[ZeissFan]

I agree that it's a personal preference. Some like the brighter display of the Contax II, while others like the smaller body of the Contax IIa.

The Contax II is a very nice camera, although the one thing that I never liked is that stud by the self-timer. It always seems to jab me in the finger.

My preference is for the smaller body of the Contax IIa with a three-lens kit: 35-50-135.

 

[Alain 91]

Hi,

I have one Kiev4a (copy of the Contax II) and one Contaxt IIa. The Contax IIa is smaller and the quality of manufacturing is very hight.

A+

 

[john341]

I would go for the pre-war. I have a IIIa and my Jupiter 12 will not fit it

 

[gohaj]

I am a little concern about the viewfinder. which one is brighter?

Hi,

I have one Kiev4a (copy of the Contax II) and one Contaxt IIa. The Contax IIa is smaller and the quality of manufacturing is very hight.

A+

 

[Paul T.]

I would like to know about the comparative VF, too. Recent results with my 1952 Jupiter 3 look so good, I'm thinking about uprating the machine I attach it to.

If you intend to keep your Kiev, bear in mind the focusing wheel on the IIa and IIIa turns in the opposite direction; this could be very confusing if you're regularly using both cameras.

Oh, and well done on the correct spelling of 'complement', it's a rarity in these parts, like that forgotten word, 'discreet'!!!

 

[dexdog]

I agree with Zeiss Fan that the finder on the II is brighter than the IIa, although I find the finders in both to be quite usable.

 

[kl122002]

I have a Kiev 4 and a Contax II. Kiev 4 is basically similar to Contax III, but I like Kiev 4 more due to the wheel of exposure meter is more friendly to use. The one in Contax III looks like a tower.

I feel much better when I was holding a Contax II. It is heavy but I feel stable when I holding it. The VF/RF of Kiev and Contax II looks similar but I prefer Kiev.