Dez
Bodger Extraordinaire
This is a copy of a post I put in a string on Kievs in the FSU page. I am copying it here to stir the pot a bit.
This will be heresy for Contax collectors, but I am of the opinion that the early Kievs are as good, and in at least one way better than the prewar Contaxes from which they were derived. FSU camera fans do a lot of rationalizing about the quality control of Ukrainian/Russian cameras, which is generally pretty miserable, but no excuses are needed for the older Kievs.
I have a few really early Kievs, 1949 and 1954 Kiev 2's and a 1955 Kiev 3 (with a meter that is still accurate). The build quality is every bit as good as the Contax 2 and 3, and the chrome plating is far better than I have ever seen in any Contax RF, pre- or post-war. The tricky shutter is a true copy of the dubious original Zeiss design, and as far as I can see there is no difference between them. The 1949 Kiev 2 still has a number of war booty Contax parts, but the 1955 model is all local. While some parts are noticeably different, there really is no difference in finish. And the chrome is superb.
After 1955, the quality seems to have been on a long, gradual decline. I have examined a number of sync-equipped 2A and 3A models, and while they are nice cameras, they are not quite in the same league. And the later still 4/4A models are a different and sadder story altogether. I never really believed the story that towards the end of the production run of these cameras the factory would build their assigned quota and ship them directly to the dump, but there is usually a reason for legends like that to be created.
Interestingly, the last Kiev model, the scarce Kiev 5, seems to be a return to high quality construction. While its excessive clunkiness manages to make an earlier Kiev look sleek and sexy by comparison, you could probably run over this thing with a Stalin tank without seriously damaging it.
In my opinion, the early Kievs are head and shoulders above the other Ukrainian/Russian cameras in terms of quality, but it needs to be an early one. They are not hard to find. There are several good ebay vendors from Russia or Ukraine that seem to always have some, and a really good one can be had for about $125 with a decent Jupiter 8 lens.
Cheers,
Dez
This will be heresy for Contax collectors, but I am of the opinion that the early Kievs are as good, and in at least one way better than the prewar Contaxes from which they were derived. FSU camera fans do a lot of rationalizing about the quality control of Ukrainian/Russian cameras, which is generally pretty miserable, but no excuses are needed for the older Kievs.
I have a few really early Kievs, 1949 and 1954 Kiev 2's and a 1955 Kiev 3 (with a meter that is still accurate). The build quality is every bit as good as the Contax 2 and 3, and the chrome plating is far better than I have ever seen in any Contax RF, pre- or post-war. The tricky shutter is a true copy of the dubious original Zeiss design, and as far as I can see there is no difference between them. The 1949 Kiev 2 still has a number of war booty Contax parts, but the 1955 model is all local. While some parts are noticeably different, there really is no difference in finish. And the chrome is superb.
After 1955, the quality seems to have been on a long, gradual decline. I have examined a number of sync-equipped 2A and 3A models, and while they are nice cameras, they are not quite in the same league. And the later still 4/4A models are a different and sadder story altogether. I never really believed the story that towards the end of the production run of these cameras the factory would build their assigned quota and ship them directly to the dump, but there is usually a reason for legends like that to be created.
Interestingly, the last Kiev model, the scarce Kiev 5, seems to be a return to high quality construction. While its excessive clunkiness manages to make an earlier Kiev look sleek and sexy by comparison, you could probably run over this thing with a Stalin tank without seriously damaging it.
In my opinion, the early Kievs are head and shoulders above the other Ukrainian/Russian cameras in terms of quality, but it needs to be an early one. They are not hard to find. There are several good ebay vendors from Russia or Ukraine that seem to always have some, and a really good one can be had for about $125 with a decent Jupiter 8 lens.
Cheers,
Dez
W
wlewisiii
Guest
I owned a 5. I loved it - especially when I also owned a SC mount 35/2.5 Color Skopar for it. Selling it was the probably the biggest mistake I made. Heavily brassed when I got it, you could tell when looking at it that it was a camera people had been using since the day after it left the factory in 1972. This wasn't a pristine looking POS that had never worked - this was a camera that actually worked & took several of my best images.
My current IIIf comes close in some ways, is better in others and is worse in still others. But it's never going to be the same. My Kiev 5 with a collapsible pre-war uncoated 50/2 Sonnar was the best camera I've sold. That sale was the biggest mistake of my photographic life. Full stop.
Take this as you will.
William
My current IIIf comes close in some ways, is better in others and is worse in still others. But it's never going to be the same. My Kiev 5 with a collapsible pre-war uncoated 50/2 Sonnar was the best camera I've sold. That sale was the biggest mistake of my photographic life. Full stop.
Take this as you will.
William
DC1030
DC1030
i own a kiev 5, how did you manage to mount a pre-war sonnar to it as it has a different bayonet?
kind regards
andreas
kind regards
andreas
W
wlewisiii
Guest
Feh, I'm sorry. I was thinking of three different cameras. The 50/2 was with a early Kiev 4. The 35/2.5 was with the 5 as it worked great. I am sorry for that error.
Elmar Lang
Well-known
Hello,
as said in the other room, I agree that the (early) Kievs are excellent cameras, with some details even better finished than pre-1945 Contaxes.
Let's not forget that the Jena-Contax vas a completely new project, since almost all the Zeiss machinery was destroyed under bombing with only semi-finished parts still stored. The production line set up at the USSR-controlled german plants were then moved to Kiev, where the Soviet workers had to be trained by German specialists and technicians.
My 1947 Kiev, surely made with german components, besides its strong signs of use (until 1990 it was at the commanding office of a small unit near Leningrad), still works properly, the rangefinder is bright, etc.
I agree that the Kiev5 is a wonderful tank-oriented camera. My one is perfectly working and finished. The aesthetical aspect surely wasn't in the mind of designers at the Arsenal plant though... but it's a distinctive aspect of it.
The big problem with Kievs (and other ex-USSR cameras) is the unconstant level of quality control. I think that quite often, the cameras left out as unfit at the quality control,were sold the same, but "privately".
A well-mounted and thoroughly controlled, early rangefinder Kiev, is in my opinion a very fine camera, more or less at the same level of a pre-1945 Contax.
Best wishes,
Elmar Lang
as said in the other room, I agree that the (early) Kievs are excellent cameras, with some details even better finished than pre-1945 Contaxes.
Let's not forget that the Jena-Contax vas a completely new project, since almost all the Zeiss machinery was destroyed under bombing with only semi-finished parts still stored. The production line set up at the USSR-controlled german plants were then moved to Kiev, where the Soviet workers had to be trained by German specialists and technicians.
My 1947 Kiev, surely made with german components, besides its strong signs of use (until 1990 it was at the commanding office of a small unit near Leningrad), still works properly, the rangefinder is bright, etc.
I agree that the Kiev5 is a wonderful tank-oriented camera. My one is perfectly working and finished. The aesthetical aspect surely wasn't in the mind of designers at the Arsenal plant though... but it's a distinctive aspect of it.
The big problem with Kievs (and other ex-USSR cameras) is the unconstant level of quality control. I think that quite often, the cameras left out as unfit at the quality control,were sold the same, but "privately".
A well-mounted and thoroughly controlled, early rangefinder Kiev, is in my opinion a very fine camera, more or less at the same level of a pre-1945 Contax.
Best wishes,
Elmar Lang
dee
Well-known
Thanks , Dez - I have just looked through your posts and found this - it confirms my thoughts precisely - my 1951 / 1952 Kiev II's are beautifully finished and work exquisitely .
Even the 1955 seems equally well made , and I guess I am biased toward my 1956 Kiev IIa because it is just about mint - .
Even the 1955 seems equally well made , and I guess I am biased toward my 1956 Kiev IIa because it is just about mint - .