Thinking about real Contax...(kinda long post)

rbiemer

rbiemer

Unabashed Amateur
Local time
6:01 AM
Joined
Sep 17, 2004
Messages
5,091
Location
Cortland, NY
View My Gallery
Background and then some questions:
I am a big FSU camera fan. I own, umm, 7(and one more on the way) of 'em.
Last week I considered buying a fake black "contax" from the bay but several things about the auction--and some good advice from fellow RFF folks--helped me to resist.
BUT I foolishly spent some time at Henry Scherer's web site[BEWARE THE G.A.S.] and actually sent him an email asking if my budget was realistic for a meterless camera & lens. Nothing fancy but something functional.
Mr. Scherer responded that yes I could get one of his rehabbed cameras with lens for just about what I can spend. And he offered some choices.
I am not worried about any thing I buy from him not being as advertised.
And I want one seriously good camera in my life.
However, I know very little about these cameras. And there are too many variables right now.
I'm hoping some of you fine people can help me narrow the field abit.
My questions:
1st- Can anybody suggest a web site with some history and pictures of the different iterations of the Contax?
2nd-Is there any quality differences between the metered/non-metered cameras?
3rd-"red dial"--"black dial" Is this more than the color of the engraving? Are there operational differences?
4th-Is there a "best" user camera?
5th-Pre-war or Post-war? Does it matter? I'm not a collector so I mean in use.
Any thoughts and suggestions are welcome!
I sort of feel like this photo:
 
I have a Contax III with broken shutter ribbons and while this the bane of the Contax design, it's about the only thing that will cause you any problems. Mine is a 1937 model and it looks like it was built to last a thousand years. I'll be practicing on a few junked Kievs before I try to repair the Contax myself, but form what I've seen it's certainly doable. At some stage the ribbons will give up, so it might pay to familiarize yourself with the procedure, or find a good repairman that will out-live you.

Lots of good info on the pre-war models here and on the post-war models here.
 
I own a Contax IIIa that I bought through Henry's "program." He found the camera and I simply paid the purchase price and shipping plus his fee for servicing the camera. Had the camera been a dud, Henry would have kept it for parts and would he have found me another camera. I've been using this camera now for over a year, along with severa lenses that I purchased from Henry, and I'm really pleased. The camera is well built, and the lenses are superb (I have the 35mm biogon, 50/1.5 Sonnar, 85/2.0 Jena Sonnar, and the 135/4.0 Sonnar).

There are no differences between the metered and non-metered verions. My IIIa is really just a IIa with a non-coupled seleniu meter plopped on top.

My camera is a color dial, which means that I can se a modern flash without buying a special flash cable. I highly recommend that you buy a color dial if you think you will ever use flash.

Best user camera? Some folks prefer the IIa because it's a little bit smaller than the IIIa. Some also prefer the looks of the IIa. But I do use the selenium meter when shooting outdoors, and it's accurate enough even for slide film (Henry replaced the selenium cell and calibrated the meter). The pewar cameras are supposed to be nice, too, but I have not used one.

Pre-war or post-war? I'll let someone else offer an opinion on that.

I should also comment on Henry's work. My camera works perfectly. Shutter speeds are excellent an the camera always works. You might find someone to overhaul your camera for less money, but you won't find a better technician.

Robert
 
A lot of the information you want (aside from the answers excellently provided by the above post) can be found buried on Henry's website. For example, the 'color dial' versions have a standard PC fitting, while the 'black dial' versions have a special fitting that requires a special cable; however, the black-dial versions are MUCH less complicated internally because the sync circuitry is simpler, so it seems that H.S. prefers them unless a PC outlet is a really big priority for you. He also has some info on pre-war and post-war differences: to take the liberty of summarizing, I'd say he seems to feel that the build quality of both is equal, but the postwar cameras have a simplified design that made them easier to build but in some small ways makes them harder to service.

Don't forget that while they're beautifully made and take a nice line of lenses, NONE of them is anywhere near as convenient to operate as a modern RF camera such as a Bessa. They all operate rather slowly thanks to the wind/rewind via knobs (rather than lever/crank) and back requiring removal for loading; the rangefinder is contrasty but not especially bright and has a fuzzy-edged focusing patch and tiny, squinty eyepiece; and the viewfinder has no framelines, parallax compensation, or provision for lenses of other focal lengths. Oh, yeah, and the shutter release isn't nearly as smooth as a Leica's (or a Canon's or a Bessa's, IMHO) and the designs have weird little quirks such as the prewar cameras' damnable little screw-post positioned just above the self-timer in a perfect position to dig into the ball of your fourth finger.

But of course, if you've been using Kievs and other FSU cameras, you're used to all these "unmodern inconveniences"! -- so there's no reason not to live your dream and buy a Contax. I'd suggest a postwar IIa or IIIa simply because its design is a bit different from a Kiev's, so you can experience a later stage of evolution of the same camera. (To further your taxonomic experience, pick up a Kiev 5 to see a completely different and somewhat more drastic approach to "modernizing" the basic Contax II design.)

But sometime, you also owe it to yourself to experience a modern RF camera (by which I mean a post-1954 model incorporating such startling features as multiple projected framelines, lever advance, and crank rewind. Yeah, you'll find these on a Kiev 5, but their implementation is a little, uh, sub-optimal!)

Good luck, have fun, and be sure to post your experiences!
 
Really, unless you need SSS-LOWWW flash synch and 1 second speed, I don't really see the point of spending a whole lot of money on a postwar model. They are nice cameras and my collecting bug demands that I own them all, but if I could have just one, I love my Contax II.

I personally will take the fade and capping at high speeds proof shutter of the prewar Contaxes over the postwar model. Yes, the ribbons can break but I'll take that over some problem that frequently is found after exposing the trip of a lifetime on film to find one-sided and blank exposures. As you said, the Kievs are ideal candidates for "Contax medical school" and it won't take long for your skills to peak enough to try surgury on a prewar Contax.

The other issue with the postwar Contax is that it will not take the prewar, postwar East German, or Soviet 35mm Biogon lenses. Priced a West German postwar Biogon recently?
 
Hi

I have a Kiev (4a) also and am thinking about getting a Classic Contax. I have similar qustions re : II vs IIa. I have most of the Jupiter lenses , among which the Jupiter 12 will only fit on the Contax II. I think you would have to get a Zeiss Biogon or a Voighlander SC if you wanted a 35 mm lens on the IIa, which would push up cost a lot. Just a an additional consideration.

regards

Stephen
 
I've been shooting & collecting Contax stuff for almost 5 years now & currently have 2 II's & 4 IIa's, all in varying condition (some in need of serious repair), along w/lenses from 28mm to 180mm & many of the wonderfully weird accessories. I'm not a mechanic, but IME, the II/III & IIa/IIIa are about equally reliable & CLAs/repairs cost the same, whatever the mechanical differences between the 2 types (BTW, there are highly qualified repairmen other than Mr. Scherer who can fix a Contax). From this user's perspective, the main advantages of the II/III are the more accurate & durable RF & the slightly higher magnification & brighter VF. The II/III's are larger & heavier than the IIa/IIIa's, which can be an advantage or disadvantage depending on your personal preferences, which brings me to . . . The main advantages of the IIa/IIIa's is their smaller size & weight & moderately more ergonomic controls (shutter speed dial doesn't have to be pulled up to change speeds, etc.); the IIa/IIIa's focus wheel turns in the opposite direction of the II/III's, but that's another user preference thing. If you're leaning towards the IIa/IIIa, I would 2nd the recommendation for the black dials unless you actually want to use flash; not because of any mechanical issues, but because the black dials are cheaper. On a cosmetic note, the chrome on the IIa/IIIa's is considerably shinier than the II/III's; again, whether that's good or bad depends on your perspective.

Finally, FWIW, the 35/2.5 w-Nikkor's for the Nikon RFs (the same 1 eventually used on the Nikonos), have small rear elements & work fine on the Contax IIa/IIIa (35mm is wide enough that the differences between the 2 mounts are buried in DoF) & are considerably cheaper than the Carl Zeiss/Zeiss-Opton 35/2.8 Biogons; the chrome w-Nikkor's are less expensive than the black version. I have a Z-O 35/2.8 Biogon, & IMHO the Biogon's performance is not noticeably superior to the w-Nikkor (different, but not better), & even if it were, it's not worth paying the premium unless you're a collector like me.
 
Last edited:
i have two Kiev II's and one Kiev 4a but i also wanted the real thing. so i went on a trip to the 'bay and found one with a Sonnar 50/2, looked worn but not battered and the seller didn't seem to know much about it. got it for a bit more than the price of one of the Kiev II's but a lot less than the real good-looking "minty" Contax II's. it arrived ok but it turned out to have broken shutter ribbons, everything else seemed ok, the lens was clear with only some dust. the build is noticeably better than the Kiev's. the serial number suggests it was built in 1936-1937. i hope to have it fixed soon so i can compare it with the Kievs.

i'm happy with the Contax because it has stopped me from thinking about whether i should get one or not. 🙂 now i have to get rid of one of the Kiev II's.

btw, thanks for the info about the w-Nikkor, furcafe.
 
I have not yet paid more than $115 for a Contax II w/ Sonnar. My current one was actually in surprisingly good working order and all I really did was relube the internal mount, clean the optics and take care of usual Zeiss bumps. The first one needed a good 15-20 hours of time on my part due to extensive migration of the lubricants EVERYWHERE.

I've been trying for almost 2 years to get a Contax IIA for less than $200 with a lens on ebay with no luck. It would be a new camera to learn how to service but its not going to be worse than the Contaflex IV project.
 
I have a 1937 Contax II that was overhauled by Henry. Works just fine with the Jupiter 12 and the 1.5 normal lens produces great negs -- much sharper than any Jupiter 3 I have encountered. I've never cared for the metered models because of the increase in size and weight but that's just a personal preference.
 
Thanks, all! Much to consider. Another resource I just discovered: my local library which has bound copies of several photo magazines and annuals from the late 50's and early 60's.
Pretty cool. Except that someone(not the librarian) had checked out the USCamera annuals and cut out all the pages with nudes on them. Which is why the books are now not in the general stacks. Some of the people in my home town are idiots! But most of the articles are intact.
Rob
 
Here's another site to check out:

http://www.pacificrimcamera.com/pp/zeiss/contax/contax.htm

I have a Contax II as well as a IIa. I prefer, by a small margin, the IIa's smaller size and less awkward handling. My IIa is a black dial...bought it from a fellow at work eight or nine years ago along with a nice set of lenses (21, 35, 50, 85, 135mm), a finder for the 21mm and a Nikon Varifocal finder for the rest. I've since added other lenses including an 85mm f/4 Opton Triotar and a gorgeous but heavy-as-lead pre-WWII 85mm Sonnar. I actually use a late 50mm f/2 Jupiter a lot as it's less flare-prone than the Zeiss f/1.5 and seems to perform just as well.

I also have a Bessa R2C, which I must admit I use more often than the Contaxes nowadays. Those framelines in the viewfinder are a pleasure to use. Still for low-light shooting the IIa is fantastic...when the shutter trips I hardly notice except for the sound.

-Dave-
 
David Kieltyka said:
I also have a Bessa R2C, which I must admit I use more often than the Contaxes nowadays. Those framelines in the viewfinder are a pleasure to use. Still for low-light shooting the IIa is fantastic...when the shutter trips I hardly notice except for the sound.

-Dave-
Click to expand...

I'd like to hear more about your experiances with the R2C. I've been coveting :angel: one for awhile and I'd be interested in an informal review, if you would.

Thanks!

William
 
Well, the R2C is simply a Cosina Voigtländer Bessa R2 with a Contax RF mount and focusing wheel. It offers framelines in the viewfinder for 35, 50 & 85mm lenses. The RF baselength is short so focusing accuracy up close & wide open with an 85mm f/2 is iffy. This is one reason why I use the 85mm f/4 Triotar with this camera instead of the f/2 Sonnar or Jupiter equivalent. Focusing accuracy with a 50mm f/1.5 is fine.

The camera is well made, though not up to Zeiss Ikon's over-engineered Contax standards, and feels more robust than a standard R2 due to the extra mass required for the focusing wheel. The wheel works great, better than on any Contax or Kiev I've used. The mount is very well done too...Contax quality, I'd say. [I sure wish Cosina would market a Contax-to-LTM adapter. They certainly have the know-how to do it right.] The shutter is a bit quieter than on other Bessas, again due to the extra mass. It does jiggle the camera when it releases, though. I haven't seen any evidence that this results in softer photos, so the jiggle may happen post-exposure. At any rate my Contax IIa is superior in this respect...it's shutter doesn't vibrate the camera at all. The R2C's faster maximum shutter speed, 1/2000th sec., comes in handy with fast film in daylight.

Hope this helps.

-Dave-
 
I like the one I'm using at the time -- even if I'm using one of the early "I" models. I wouldn't suggest a "I" as a first Contax, but most of the people with opinions against them have never used them (this always amuses me). I have no preference between the II and the IIa -- I grab the camera that has the lens or the film I want to use and never give a second thought as to whether it's a II or a IIa. I don't own any III or IIIa cameras -- that meter strikes me as an aberration on an otherwise perfect form. Much has been said regarding the 35mm Biogon, and it is an excellent lens, but remember that Zeiss also offered the Orthometar, Biometar, and Planar in 35mm and they are all excellent lenses as well. Good luck deciding -- a IIa Black Dial would certainly treat you well 🙂.
 
Yep, gotta get a "one" as well 🙂 There are quite a few variants of them, not all offerering a full range of speeds. Did the later one's not sport some shutter improvements as well?

I'd love to dive into a restoration on one of these, or the UBER expensive Contaflex TLR.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Dogman
Contax/Kiev to Nikon Z (or others) FotodioX adapter
Replies
2
Views
530
monoburn
M
robertofollia
Zeiss factories in Dresden
Replies
6
Views
705
WoodallP
WoodallP
simonOWO
How to disassemble post war ZO Sonnar 85/2 in Contax rf mount?
Replies
7
Views
622
simonOWO
simonOWO
WoodallP
Bangkok camera browsing suggestions requested
Replies
3
Views
134
WoodallP
WoodallP
Bololoco
Voigtlander Vito 1 - Pre War version
Replies
1
Views
159
Muggins
Muggins
Back
Top Bottom