ZEISS CONTAX IIIA (Your opinions)

[Paola Marinangeli]

Hello to all RangefinderForum friends, I have joined this community while ago and eventhough I am not posting messages I am used (time permitting) to visit the forum as I can learn a lot from your posts. I am a classic cameras collectors particularly fond of Leicas (both screwmount and ''M'' type) and Rolleflexes TLR's but I have in my collection, as well, classic seventies reflexes like Asahi Pentax and Yashicas, the mythical Hasselblad CM500 and a nice group of foldings. Now I have fallen in love with the Zeiss Contax IIIA, and thinking to add this camera to my collection, I have to say that I USE almost all the cameras I have and the idea to buy a Contax of this type is mainly to use it and use the fantastic Zeiss lenses (have hear that the Sonnar 50 mm 1.5 is particularly good), Now...and finally my questions, many of you are classic cameras collectors and users do you think that the Zeiss Contax IIIA is the fantastic and still usable cameras many Zeiss fans and lovers firmly believe and state? Which are the most important factors to check and consider when byuing this camera? Thanks a lot for the time spent reading this long post

Paola

 

[sevo]

The IIIa loses the a-series compactness to the bulging and somewhat useless (if not outright broken) meter. On the other hand, this makes it (ones with failed meters in particular) the cheapest a.

In spite of being a Contax guy, I must admit that the ergonomics are quirky - the focusing wheel may have been the most idiotic invention in camera history, and pretty much nixes the wide rangefinder base, as the fingers fall naturally over the rangefinder window.

Contaxes do not work any better than a clean (early) Kiev 4 (indeed the Kiev 4 has the shutter with the least tendency to capping/dragging) - so they have a nicely affordable entry point.

Lenses are great, better than Leica of equivalent age and length, but as their development ended rather early, Leitz later caught up or even beat them, so there is no absolute difference in quality between the systems. And the choice of lenses is shockingly limited when you come from the LTM world - at the core only four focal lengths and five lenses (usually in pre-war, post-war coated, Western and USSR varieties) to choose from. More exotic lengths are rare, expensive collectors items, and often rather unappealing for their user qualities.

Personally I'd recommend getting the lens you want (a good, genuine f/1,5 Sonnar can always be sold at no loss), a Kiev for it, and to wait with the upgrade to a collectors body until you know that that is a keeper combination for you - many people never get into its handling.

 

[Paola Marinangeli]

Thanks a lot, Sevo, for you inputs and wise suggestions, as a matter of fact having already the nicest rangefinders ever made, like a Leica IIIC, a Leica M3, a Leica M6 and a very nice Tower Nicca 5L, probably I would be disappointed in a way, with the Contax rangefinder if compared with Leica's. I will continue to consider and more thinking abt it.
Thanks a lot
Paola

 

[Pfreddee]

I 2nd the Kiev suggestion. I have a particularly nice Kiev 4am from Yuri, over at fedka.com. Give him a try.

With best regards,

Pfreddee(Stephen)

 

[oftheherd]

Second the idea of a Kiev 4a or 4am. I have never had a Contax and probably never will. I have the Kiev 4am with Jupiter 35mm, 50mm (f/1.8 and f/2), 85mm and 135mm. I like using it sometimes, but frankly prefer SLR in 35mm photography. But if you like RF, everything Sevo said about the Kiev is true.

 

[monochromejrnl]

My two main rangefinders are an M3 and a Contax IIA. Both are in excellent but used condition, however the Contax IIA is more compact, better finished, more refined and in my opinion the most beautiful of the classic rangefinders. Having said that, the M3 is a much more 'user friendly' camera, especially the viewfinder. It is much bigger, brighter and easier to compose and focus with.

If you're a collector and can afford to own a camera to admire and use occasionally, then you owe it to yourself to get a Contax IIa or IIIa (prefer the IIa because the meter make the camera bulkier and less 'pretty').

 

[Highway 61]

The Kievs are clones of the prewar Contax II and III which are larger and heavier than the IIa and IIIa so I don't get the point of advising somebody having interest towards a Contax IIIa to buy a Kiev : the postwar Contaxes and the Kievs don't share any part in common and their rangefinders and shutters are totally different, so what ? 😕

The only cameras the postwar Contaxes have to be compared with are cameras made at their time, i.e. the late screwmount Leica and Canon RF cameras, as well as the Nikon M and S.

The Contax IIIa is a beautiful camera and once properly serviced and fitted with a new selenium cell it's a compact 24x36 rangefinder with a very nice unique VF/RF finder and an accurate meter.

Prefer the "black dial" over the "color dial" because the latter are a bit more difficult to service.

As for the design, yes the IIa has a smarter design but the IIIa is no slouch either, the meter is small enough. And thanks to the meter crown the collapsable rewind button of the IIIa is more convenient than the one of the IIa.

All the Zeiss Sonnars for Contax, were they 50/2 or 50/1.5, are stellar lenses. Only issue is with the late 50/1.5 which are prone to cement separation.

 

[sevo]

I don't get the point of advising somebody having interest towards a Contax IIIa to buy a Kiev : the postwar Contaxes and the Kievs don't share any part in common and their rangefinders and shutters are totally different, so what ? 😕

Contax handling is something you either love or hate. And as there is no relevant difference in handling between pre- and post-war models, a Kiev is the most affordable option to test which camp you are in.

 

[marcr1230]

The Contax IIa is a beautiful camera, the lenses are excellent and most people can suffice with the 3 traditional RF focal lengths (35, 50, 85).
A wise person once told me, you buy Contax for the lenses, not the camera.
The wheel is ok by me, I've taken one handed pictures using it from time to time. the RF is great and precise - as long as you have a good instance of the camera. On some the vertical alignment can get slightly out of calibration. This is hard to fix and can be annoying. Basically it was a very competitive camera for that era, until it was surpassed by the M3 and the S2 IMHO, and survived for quite a while after due to lens quality and reputation

 

[furcafe]

There is a difference in the direction of the focus wheel between the II/III & IIa/IIIa, but that's obviously only a big deal if you habitually use the focus wheel.

To Paola: I think the quirkiness of the Contax cameras is overstated. They're certainly no quirkier than the "Barnack," screw-mount Leicas &, in many ways, actually more "modern" & easier to use (loading, combined RF/VF, etc.), being closer to the M3 in operation. Just ignore the focus wheel if you don't want to use it.

I started out using the Contax before getting into Leicas & other RFs (including Nikon & Canon) & have had no problem using any of them. Even the difference in focus direction is just a minor annoyance.

Contax handling is something you either love or hate. And as there is no relevant difference in handling between pre- and post-war models, a Kiev is the most affordable option to test which camp you are in.

 

[f16sunshine]

Mine is a IIIa and headed to Essex for a CLA (nice rymin ehe?).
Honestly I never got used to the focus wheel and simply turn the lens like any other camera 75% of the time. I do love the VF of the IIIa. It has a nostalgic sort of look through there and lens to compositions I might otherwise not make with a cleaner view. It's not a camera i use every day but, often.
In case anyone wonders. The CLA quote was $180 for lens and camera. Hopefully that does it for another 20 years or so.

 

[Paola Marinangeli]

Thanks to all of you for the time spent giving your opinion and useful inputs. The item I was looking and bidding on EBAY has been assigned to a price superior to my maximum bid average and very frankly, I have spent a lot recently to upgrade my collection and eventhough Contaxes in very good operative and aesthetical conditions might cost a lont, I wond to spend toooooo much for this lovely RF as I have other wonderful RF to use and enjoy. But I dont stop searching around until I will find something that suits my desire and my pocket!
Regarding the KIEVs I am taking the positive comments on them in a very good consideration and thinling about, the Contax attracts me also from the collectors point of view.
One more time, THANKS
Paola

http://www.flickr.com/photos/pmarinangeli/

 

[Highway 61]

I have a very nice Contax IIIa which I bought for $115 USD at Brooklyncamera. The shutter had to be cleaned up and the meter selenium cell was dead so I overhauled it myself, which costed me peanuts (FWIW the selenium cell of the contemporary white Zeiss Ikophot handheld meter is the same as the IIIa one and there are plenty of Ikophot around, selling for $5, average).

Actually the matter is the very same re. any RF system of that vintage (Leica screwmount included) : either you have the skills to service your gear yourself (which is not that difficult and the sketches are readily available from the Internet), and you can grab VGC cameras and lenses but in need of basic service (which is normal after all those decades), or you have not, and in this case you pay big dollar for already overhauled and 100% functional stuff, or you pass your way.

 

[Instantclassic]

The Contax IIIA differs. It makes you stand out among the endless conga line of me-too RF-users. A limited but very good set of Zeiss lenses can be sufficient.

 

[Brian Legge]

As someone who just recently used a Kiev 4a for the first time, I agree that the whole 'Contax hold' thing my be overstated for many. I haven't had any issues with it yet - and I have relatively small hands. A Contax IIIa ought to be even simpler a transition given the size.

I absolutely loved some of my shots with the 4a and Jupiter 8. Unfortunately, I was in a light rain shooting the next roll and the shutter stopped working so nicely; slow speeds hang. I'm still trying to sort this out but really miss the camera. That was a big surprise as I expected it to be too large for my tastes.

I'd definitely try to get your hands on one to see if it works for you.

No, wait, I mean they're all horrible and useless and the price should fall through the floor. 😉

 

[David Murphy]

Paola,

Your instincts are good. The Contax IIIa is a far superior camera to the Kiev's, comparable in quality to a Leica M2 or M3 (and yes I've owned and used all the cameras I am discussing here). If you get a good one, you will be very, very happy. I'm don't want to malign Kiev's, the early ones are really good deals and serious cameras, but they are not in the same class as Contax.

The Contax meter is not objectionable in its form factor, and the camera itself is rather compact, light, and easy to carry. The shutter is whisper quiet, the mechanisms are precise, smooth, and accurate in function. The fit and finish is inspiring. In short it is a jewel of a camera.

The main thing to look for is good mechanical condition: shutter firing right at all speeds, undamaged shutter curtains, aligned rangefinder mechanism, and smooth focus.

It is not too hard to find a good IIIa, although the meters are sometimes dead or inaccurate (many still work however!). The post-war Contax models have held up and were better made than the pre-war Contax models. Expect to pay about $150-$350 USD for a reasonably good one, depending on the condition.

 

[David Murphy]

Oh yes, as noted on a post above, they are not really quirky. They are easy and secure to load, lenses are easy to change. It is comfortable and reliable for serious and repeated use in the field. There is a reason they sold millions of these (not to mention the many Russian clones): It is a damn good camera to use to this very day!

 

[Paola Marinangeli]

Dear David,
thanks a lot for your inputs, I am more and more convinced to look for a Contax and as a matter of fact I have two cameras to examine at the moment and, for sure, one of the two will reach my collection shortly.
Thanks to all of you for suggestions, inputs, comments.
A nice week end
Paola

 

[richardhkirkando]

The older models (including Kiev) do have a couple of advantages - rangefinder base length is longer, and they can mount the pre-war Biogon 35 and Russian copies. Not to say that one (pre/post-war) is better, its hard to go wrong either way.

I actually like the handling and focus wheel. I use mine one-handed quite a bit, and there aren't too many rangefinder/fast lens combinations that allow you to do that.

 

[Vics]

I use an M3 for 50mm and 90 mm and a Contax IIIa for 35mm. Just home from a 5-week trip to France, I find I shot 12 rolls in the Leica and 12 in the IIIa. As the trip went along I found myself going for the Contax more and more. The last four rolls I shot were all Contax. Now it could be that it was the wide lens I was going for, but that said, I did like using the smaller, lighter Contax a lot. It was my first RF, and I'm very comfortable with it.