The best years for Kievs?

[micromoogman]

I have a Kiev from 1959 which feels great. I had another one from 1970´s that felt more "cheap" and without the tight mechanics and quality feel. So is the earlier the better or was it just a bad example?

 

[dexdog]

The consensus view seems to be that the quality of the 1950s and 1960s Kiev cameras is a lot better than the later versions.

 

[murpograph]

The earlier the better. As the contax tools were transferred after WW II to the soviet-union (along with some staff) they started production with the original moulds and personnel and produced kiev-labelled Contaxes. Later the produced tolerances became bigger and quality-control more relaxed. That's what you feel in your hands.

regards

Udo

 

[sevo]

Going by mine, the Kiev 4 was made to reliable standards up until 1969 - after that there is a gap of about three years where I have seen few and never owned an example, and the ones from 72 and later all had very poor production quality and significant defects right out of factory.

The 2/3/2a/3a are a bit more of a mixed bag - the best ones are better built than any 4, but there is quite a variety in them, whether through age or inconsistent production.

 

[Valkir1987]

The Kiev experts may tell. My experience is that the early versions are better built. The prewar Contax design was in my opninion not suitable for fast mass production. But the design is nicely complicated, elegant, impressive. That makes the kind of attraction hidden beneath the crome and leather. A Cathedral of gears, with a lens as a stained glass window. 🙂

 

[SushiSteve]

It looks like the factory was expected to churn out a lot more cameras than they were able to make previously by the seventies. The original tech was so good there were very few improvements they could make (the 4 am model has a easier to read shutter speed dial and an integrated take up spool) but having taken one apart it is a very complex machine-it makes the innards leica copies look simplistic by comparison.

 

[stevebrot]

I originally bought a 1980s production Kiev 4AM and sent it back because operation of film wind and shutter were unbelievably rough. It was replaced with a 1961 Kiev 4A that is very smooth and much better in all ways mechanically. My understanding is that the quality began to seriously go down hill about the time when the leather covered "bump" on the front of the camera below the focus wheel went away. Not only did the bump disappear, but so did the leather and much of what remained of mechanical precision.


Steve

 

[kievman]

I have Kievs from 1957, 1966, 1972. 1974, 1978 The 57 66, and 74 are all well built nice finish etc...... The 72 and 78 are the not so well made, with the 78 having the worst finish and fit. But surprising the 78 has the brightest viewfinder and it is one of my favorites for that reason regardless of its poor finish and not so great fit. I recently cleaned the VF and replaced the light seals on the 78 and I like it even more. The 78 and 72 also are the ones with the most use and wear and tear on them, before I got them which adds to their overall condition. I have a theory that because kievs were made in such huge numbers, often 80-100,000 a year.compared with maybe 10,000 a year for the average Japanese camera producer, that the ones made early in the production year when the dies and casts were relatively new were the better ones regardless of the year. and if you want a good one get one with low numbers for that year and it seem that the ones from the 60's and 50's were of better quality but I would put my 1974 Kiev 4a up against any of them fit wise, it is a gem, and I like it's blue casted rangefinder -kievman

 

[David Hughes]

In the UK TOE claimed to check and adjust all the Kievs, FEDs and Zorkis they sold. I've no complaints about my Kiev etc.

There's something about them here:

http://cameras.alfredklomp.com/toe/

Regards, David

 

[Brian Legge]

I have a 1960 Kiev 4a. The slow speeds aren't reliable (ie 1/50th and less) but otherwise the camera is quite good. Very contrasty rangefinder, decent build quality.

I have a Contax II from 1938. Its build quality is noticeably better in subtle ways. It was given to mean to learn to repair the cameras. Unfortunately it was slightly more broken than I anticipated. I set it aside while I cleared out a bunch of simpler repair jobs. Positive side, I'm much more familiar with how the shutters work now. 😉

I may end up sending the Kiev to Oleg at some point just to have a tuned, reliable Kiev. I thought about sending the Contax if I can't get it working but that feels like I'd be abandoning the reason the camera was given to me. I managed to reset the shutter but I'm pretty sure a spring is shot in it. 🙁 I haven't given up on fixing it myself though.

 

[brachal]

I have a 2a that is a quality camera. I had a 4a from the 70's (later production with the 1/1000 top speed) that was awful. Much cruder to wind, light leaks, shutter ribbons broke after the 2nd or 3rd roll. I had a 4am that was even worse. Felt very crude and the shutter ribbons broke the first day I had it.

 

[oftheherd]

I got a 4am off ebay, made in 84 if I recall. It worked well from the day I got it and still does. But I haven't used it much. I have always heard pretty much what everyone has said above, but the idea of getting models from early in a year was new. Makes some sense though.

 

[micromoogman]

Thanks for your replies. It pretty much confirms what I thought, with a couple of exceptions with later good examples. I actually sold my 1938 Contax because I liked the Kiev better. Mostly because of the light meter on the Contax which made it clumsier.
I guess the earlier the better is also applicable for lenses? I have a J12 from 1957 and a J8 from 1959 (for that Kiev) that are great.

BTW, is there such thing as a steel version of the J8 for Leica M39?

 

[sevo]

Thanks for your replies. It pretty much confirms what I thought, with a couple of exceptions with later good examples. I actually sold my 1938 Contax because I liked the Kiev better.

I actually use the Kiev 4 over the Contax IIa most of the time - my Kievs never get knocked out of rangefinder alignment or shutter timing, which is more than I can say about my Contax.

I guess the earlier the better is also applicable for lenses? I have a J12 from 1957 and a J8 from 1959 (for that Kiev) that are great.

BTW, is there such thing as a steel version of the J8 for Leica M39?

They seem to have used barrels and lenses made by Zeiss or their Zeiss advisors up into the early fifties - in that timeframe the Jupiters were excellent, the spitting image of their Contax counterparts. Later on, the quality of the mounts gradually decreased, but the actual glass was still very good. Their lens making in general never got anywhere as bad as their body production. Indeed, the Helios-103, a (mostly) eighties made lens, is one of the best Kiev/Contax lenses ever, and usually quite well made.

I am not aware of any steel version of any Jupiter. and I doubt it exists. I haven't ever owned steel lenses except for those of the Robot - whose stainless steel construction is generally considered a odd curiosity.

 

[micromoogman]

I thought the J8 for my Kiev was made of steel!? Well, the Leica counterparts are not that heavy and tight in construction. Made with another alloy?

 

[kievman]

I think the mounts for the J-8's are steel but depending on which part, some were made with aluminum magnisum alloy to reduce weight. that is certainly the case for a j-8 for the m39 mount I own. I think the kiev J-8s were mostly steel as weight was not such a issue as they did not have a helicon on the lens -kievman

 

[darkkavenger]

I've owned several Kievs, the early models felt sturdier, more Contax-like in quality, material used and finish. Later models felt a bit cheap, however I distinctly recall Kiev-4A (either from '70 or '74, sold to a fellow member) that felt very nice and had a very bright and clearly seen RF patch. Although the camera wasn't to the cosmetic quality level of my 2A (leatherette felt cheaper, metal felt also lighter, cheaper), it was quite sturdy and focus was spot-on, so was the J8M that came with it. I had fixed a missing screw in the wind knob and went out to test it with a friend, lending her my Kiev-2A.

Some photos of the test roll here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/darkkavenger/tags/kiev4a/

 

[sevo]

I think the kiev J-8s were mostly steel

The aperture mechanism is the only steel part in any Jupiter-8 or f/2 Sonnar I have taken apart. They are aluminium alloy and/or chromed (or nickeled) brass - the mix varied over the course of time. Strangely enough, the earlier, better machined plain J-8 contains more aluminium parts than the J-8M, if weight and heat capacity are safe indicators.