Zeiss Ikon Contax iia vs. Canon L1

[ryeryeguyguy]

That's all very understandable - and I think you are making the right call.

However, have you considered getting one of the cheapies first? For example a fixed lens Rangefinder? The Olympus cameras especially are very good - the head bartender wrote about them at length.

I (re)started with an Olympus ECR - simply because that was gifted to me by my partners father. I then shot with an Olympus SP for a good while.

Also what Rick states above is very true and actually extends to Canon RF lenses too.
The assembly/parts are very well organized and put together in an extremely simple and logical fashion.

An Olympus 35 SP is a nice camera. Shot with a friend's for a month and liked it. I'd love one that I can switch lenses out on. Spent years hoping to luck into one, but I figure it's now time to get one for myself because I'm not getting any younger and photography is what makes life bearable.

 

[TenEleven]

Just a word of caution, I do not know the situation overseas - but my impression is that the cameras (and lenses) you can buy have gotten quite a bit worse over the last 6 years especially.

Even when I check stuff very carefully nowadays my batting average has gone down for sure and a lot of stuff I do not even bother to look at.

So make sure that whatever you buy can be returned or inspected very closely to ensure it works properly. Especially so since you are on a budget, and it would suck to start your RF journey with a big disappointment.

 

[Coldkennels]

Okay, here's a curve ball: try a Kiev.

A Kiev in good condition will get you 95% of the Contax experience at 30-40% of the price. Early Jupiter lenses use Zeiss glass; later Jupiter lenses use Soviet glass but keep the Zeiss designs and heritage. Fedka has a bunch of options at different price points, and if you have any problems with them, you can always send them back. As a "bonus", all the Kievs are based on the pre-war Contax II and III, not the post-war Contax IIa and IIIa, which means they have the longer and more accurate viewfinder and can mount the much cheaper and more available 35mm Jupiter 12.

Controversially, I have had a lot more fun, reliability, and enjoyment from a mid-80s Kiev 4AM than I ever did either my Contax II or Contax IIa (both of which need a service). There's a lot of bang-for-the-buck in those things.

 

[ryeryeguyguy]

Just a word of caution, I do not know the situation overseas - but my impression is that the cameras (and lenses) you can buy have gotten quite a bit worse over the last 6 years especially.

Even when I check stuff very carefully nowadays my batting average has gone down for sure and a lot of stuff I do not even bother to look at.

So make sure that whatever you buy can be returned or inspected very closely to ensure it works properly. Especially so since you are on a budget, and it would suck to start your RF journey with a big disappointment.

Thank you for the reply and words of caution!

 

[ryeryeguyguy]

Okay, here's a curve ball: try a Kiev.

A Kiev in good condition will get you 95% of the Contax experience at 30-40% of the price. Early Jupiter lenses use Zeiss glass; later Jupiter lenses use Soviet glass but keep the Zeiss designs and heritage. Fedka has a bunch of options at different price points, and if you have any problems with them, you can always send them back. As a "bonus", all the Kievs are based on the pre-war Contax II and III, not the post-war Contax IIa and IIIa, which means they have the longer and more accurate viewfinder and can mount the much cheaper and more available 35mm Jupiter 12.

Controversially, I have had a lot more fun, reliability, and enjoyment from a mid-80s Kiev 4AM than I ever did either my Contax II or Contax IIa (both of which need a service). There's a lot of bang-for-the-buck in those things.

Yeah I have actually looked into the Kievs! Thank you for this advice. I will give them a deeper look. Appreciate it.

 

[rick oleson]

Okay, here's a curve ball: try a Kiev.

A Kiev in good condition will get you 95% of the Contax experience at 30-40% of the price. Early Jupiter lenses use Zeiss glass; later Jupiter lenses use Soviet glass but keep the Zeiss designs and heritage. Fedka has a bunch of options at different price points, and if you have any problems with them, you can always send them back. As a "bonus", all the Kievs are based on the pre-war Contax II and III, not the post-war Contax IIa and IIIa, which means they have the longer and more accurate viewfinder and can mount the much cheaper and more available 35mm Jupiter 12.

Controversially, I have had a lot more fun, reliability, and enjoyment from a mid-80s Kiev 4AM than I ever did either my Contax II or Contax IIa (both of which need a service). There's a lot of bang-for-the-buck in those things.

A case can be made (I’ve made it myself) that the best Contax is a good Kiev - it’s based on the design of the Contax II, with a shutter that cannot fade and a rangefinder that cannot go out of vertical alignment (both issues with the IIa), and newer than both. It’s larger and heavier than a IIa, and it was assembled under Soviet quality control …. but it will accept every lens that can be used on the IIa and some (the prewar 35/2.8 Biogon and its Russian Jupiter-12 copy) that cannot. The main repair issue with the design is breaking shutter ribbons, which are bad in many IIs, but most are OK in Kievs so far.

 

[Coldkennels]

I think the most wild of takes is that the 4AM, production quality aside, is the best "user" in the Contax system.

You get a hotshoe, a proper film rewind crank (rewinding on a Contax II is miserable, and only slightly better on a IIa - run them both as a cassette-to-cassette system with dedicated Zeiss cassettes if you can), a fixed take-up "spool" that actually holds the film (film transport issues and bad take-up spools are why my Contax II is on a shelf), and a shutter speed dial that is considerably easier to see and set than either of the Contaxes. It's also got a different film rewind unlock mechanism - you turn one of the bottom "keys" a small amount and it stays there, so you don't have to keep holding down a small button on the baseplate. And as a special bonus, they often come with the Helios-103, which arguably is the best rangefinder lens the Soviets ever produced.

Honestly, it's not as pretty or as refined as a Contax IIa, but if you've got one that works, using a Kiev 4AM is a much, much better experience than most people realise.

 

[rick oleson]

I think the most wild of takes is that the 4AM, production quality aside, is the best "user" in the Contax system.

You get a hotshoe, a proper film rewind crank (rewinding on a Contax II is miserable, and only slightly better on a IIa - run them both as a cassette-to-cassette system with dedicated Zeiss cassettes if you can), a fixed take-up "spool" that actually holds the film (film transport issues and bad take-up spools are why my Contax II is on a shelf), and a shutter speed dial that is considerably easier to see and set than either of the Contaxes. It's also got a different film rewind unlock mechanism - you turn one of the bottom "keys" a small amount and it stays there, so you don't have to keep holding down a small button on the baseplate. And as a special bonus, they often come with the Helios-103, which arguably is the best rangefinder lens the Soviets ever produced.

Honestly, it's not as pretty or as refined as a Contax IIa, but if you've got one that works, using a Kiev 4AM is a much, much better experience than most people realise.

I swapped a Pentax rewind knob onto mine 🙂=

 

[Coldkennels]

That's genius, Rick. The original 4AM rewind knob is the most plastic-y thing I've ever seen on a "real" camera, so that's a huge upgrade.

I have a "parts" Spotmatic somewhere. I'll have to dig it out and do some surgery!

 

[rick oleson]

That's genius, Rick. The original 4AM rewind knob is the most plastic-y thing I've ever seen on a "real" camera, so that's a huge upgrade.

I have a "parts" Spotmatic somewhere. I'll have to dig it out and do some surgery!

The Kiev shaft and the Pentax knob are both an M3 thread, but they’re both female. So you need to cut the head off of an M3 screw to make a stud to put them together.

 

[stephen_lumsden]

Okay, here's a curve ball: try a Kiev.

A Kiev in good condition will get you 95% of the Contax experience at 30-40% of the price. Early Jupiter lenses use Zeiss glass; later Jupiter lenses use Soviet glass but keep the Zeiss designs and heritage. Fedka has a bunch of options at different price points, and if you have any problems with them, you can always send them back. As a "bonus", all the Kievs are based on the pre-war Contax II and III, not the post-war Contax IIa and IIIa, which means they have the longer and more accurate viewfinder and can mount the much cheaper and more available 35mm Jupiter 12.

Controversially, I have had a lot more fun, reliability, and enjoyment from a mid-80s Kiev 4AM than I ever did either my Contax II or Contax IIa (both of which need a service). There's a lot of bang-for-the-buck in those things.

Yep. If you're in the States, fedka.com is the best option and Yuri is good to deal with

 

[p.giannakis]

Just a word of caution, I do not know the situation overseas - but my impression is that the cameras (and lenses) you can buy have gotten quite a bit worse over the last 6 years especially.

That's all across the board unfortunately. Long gone are old cameras in pristine condition. I blame the internet for that; every other camera or lens that I come across in charity shops have signs of someone being in there before. Unfortunately most of them have no experience, tools or skills....

 

[davidswiss]

I've never tried the Canon but have had in the past 3 Kiev 4AM's and a leica IIIc all intermittently good and all ultimately failing to live up to the promise. My current rangefinder and one which has served me well for a number of years is a Contax IIa and I am a fan. The lenses as previously stated are excellent and there are cheaper and very good Russian/Ukranian lenses which fit. I have a Helios 103 (53mm) on it now, it's very good. If you can find someone locally who can service it for a reasonable price (or maybe it already is serviced), it will keep going for a good few years and it is quite easy to use. I am sure that you already know that in it's day the Contax was thought very highly of so you would not be getting a camera that's inferior to the screw mount Leicas that were being sold in the 1940's and early '50's.

 

[aw614]

I think the most wild of takes is that the 4AM, production quality aside, is the best "user" in the Contax system.

You get a hotshoe, a proper film rewind crank (rewinding on a Contax II is miserable, and only slightly better on a IIa - run them both as a cassette-to-cassette system with dedicated Zeiss cassettes if you can), a fixed take-up "spool" that actually holds the film (film transport issues and bad take-up spools are why my Contax II is on a shelf), and a shutter speed dial that is considerably easier to see and set than either of the Contaxes. It's also got a different film rewind unlock mechanism - you turn one of the bottom "keys" a small amount and it stays there, so you don't have to keep holding down a small button on the baseplate. And as a special bonus, they often come with the Helios-103, which arguably is the best rangefinder lens the Soviets ever produced.

Honestly, it's not as pretty or as refined as a Contax IIa, but if you've got one that works, using a Kiev 4AM is a much, much better experience than most people realise.

The spool on my Contax II seems different from the one I had on a broken IIIA and III I have, Those feel like they will rip the film when rewinding where as the one on the II seems ok to rewind. I'll have to get pictures of it later on

 

[Ljós]

I'm a pretty poor guy. I'm a social worker that protects abused, abandoned and neglected children. I get paid extremely little, but I can sleep at night. But it means I have to be super careful on purchases. Photography is my therapy from the PTSD and extreme anxiety caused by the horrors of the job. All of my cameras were inherited, so this would be the first camera I've ever purchased. None of the ones I own are in great working order, sadly, except my Nikon FM2n that I've used since 1990. This would be my first rangefinder that (hopefully) works right.

What does my heart want? My heart wants working Contax iia that works great with a Sonnar lens. But my brain is worried about being able to get one in that condition and not needing repairs. But I'm almost 50. I'm not getting younger. And my life is super tough. I've been lusting after Leicas for decades. I'll never have "Leica Money," so I have been trying to find a nice rangefinder I can change lenses on.

Sorry for the long story.

I hear you, and as someone who had two Leica M2 years ago and had to sell them and is currently priced out of the market for Leica M bodies I can tell you that a Canon L1 (or L2 or L3!) is a *very* nice way to scratch that Leica itch. (I had a chance to handle a Contax IIa with the Opton Sonnar, and as nice and capable as it may be, the Canon L2 etc. has it beat when it comes to ergonomics. Plus you'll have way more lens choices, now as well as further down the road.)

 

[1936ContaxII]

Okay, here's a curve ball: try a Kiev.

A Kiev in good condition will get you 95% of the Contax experience at 30-40% of the price. Early Jupiter lenses use Zeiss glass; later Jupiter lenses use Soviet glass but keep the Zeiss designs and heritage.

I think the Kiev could actually be a good alternative. I myself have been using a Contax II, a IIa and a IIIa for several years and would never want to swap them for a Kiev; but here in Europe we have Oleg Khaliavin, who is very good at repairing Contax cameras (as well as the Kiev).

When it comes to lenses, however, I would definitely prefer the original Zeiss lenses. They are hardly any more expensive than the Soviet copies.
As for the lenses themselves, the late Henry Scherer wrote that the quality of Soviet lenses varied greatly: one might come across some very good lenses, but also absolute rubbish. It is possible that the assembly process, particularly for the Sonnar lenses, was so complex that it was only mastered to a sufficiently high standard in Jena and Oberkochen.

I, too, have often found the Sonnars to display their charming imaging characteristics. I find the uncoated Zeiss Jena pre-war lenses particularly appealing.

 

[steveyork]

I think the Kiev could actually be a good alternative. I myself have been using a Contax II, a IIa and a IIIa for several years and would never want to swap them for a Kiev; but here in Europe we have Oleg Khaliavin, who is very good at repairing Contax cameras (as well as the Kiev).

When it comes to lenses, however, I would definitely prefer the original Zeiss lenses. They are hardly any more expensive than the Soviet copies.
As for the lenses themselves, the late Henry Scherer wrote that the quality of Soviet lenses varied greatly: one might come across some very good lenses, but also absolute rubbish. It is possible that the assembly process, particularly for the Sonnar lenses, was so complex that it was only mastered to a sufficiently high standard in Jena and Oberkochen.

I, too, have often found the Sonnars to display their charming imaging characteristics. I find the uncoated Zeiss Jena pre-war lenses particularly appealing.

Safe to say the Kievs from the early 50's virtually identical to the pre-war Contax. I once had a couple pre-war Contax II as well as early 1950's Kievs and the mechanical quality seemed equal, with the edge of the cosmetics to the pre-war. But what an incredible history from the pre-war Contax II/III to the no name after the war black market ones, to the Russian made Kiev II/III, and all the iconic photographs taken with them, including Robert Capa's famous D-Day pictures. Holding a pre-war Contax and you think, if this camera could talk .... I think every photographer should hear the slow shutter speeds of of these just once -- so different, unique, and cool sounding.

 

[Coldkennels]

Henry Scherer wrote that the quality of Soviet lenses varied greatly: one might come across some very good lenses, but also absolute rubbish. It is possible that the assembly process, particularly for the Sonnar lenses, was so complex that it was only mastered to a sufficiently high standard in Jena and Oberkochen.

I've not been inside as many Soviet lenses as Brian Sweeney, but I have tinkered with enough to make me think three factors lead to this assessment:

1) some Soviet factories and some Soviet eras were definitely worse than others. Brian said that Valdai-made Jupiter 3s were noticeably worse than KMZ-made ones; I'd be inclined to agree. As with any product made in multiple locations, even today, not every assembly line was made equal. This is less of an issue with Contax mount ones than the FED/Zorki mount ones, but it's still something to consider.

2) Soviet lenses have often been mistreated. Lots of them have been tinkered with by people who really don't know what they're doing (which is related to @TenEleven's post above), as they're cheap and considered not worth sending out to professionals. There's also a lot that have been cobbled together out of parts. This leads to inconsistent "quality", but doesn't necessarily reflect how the lenses left the factory originally.

3) Good ol' McCarthyism. Henry was very good at repairing Contaxes, but his website had some... unusual sections if you did some digging. It wouldn't surprise me if he was one of the many, many Americans who had internalised the Cold War anti-Soviet propaganda enough to immediately discard everything Soviet-made as low quality... just as we see other Americans of similar age deride the lenses coming out of China today. I've had more problems with German- and Japanese-made lenses than I have Soviet ones, but I think for a lot of folks, it's easier to give those a "pass" than it is things out of the former Soviet Union, and that's more to do with politics and ideology than anything else.

For context, based on my small collection of Contax-mount lenses, the only lens I've ever had a real problem with was a post-war (West German) Sonnar which is so far out of spec it's impossible to get accurate focus, but I've never had a Soviet-made Contax lens of any design that didn't work and produce good images straight out of the gate. As a special bonus, because the Contax mount is so comparatively obscure, they tend to be butchered a lot less than the FED and Zorki equivalents, which have often been tinkered with to "fix" them for use on a Leica. And they're often cheaper, too!

As a result, I stopped recommending FEDs and Zorkis to rangefinder beginners years ago. The Kiev system is a much better deal - and via Amedeo adapters, you can actually use the lenses on other bodies further down the line, if you see fit to do so.

 

[Cascadilla]

My experience with Soviet lenses in Contax mount is limited but they have all been decent optically while lacking some of the mechanical finesse of the Zeiss equivalents. The focusing mounts aren't as smooth, but they work. And these are all lenses that are 60+ years old and have probably passed through many hands before they came to me. For someone on a budget like the OP a Kiev and these lenses would be a relatively inexpensive way to try an interchangeable lens RF and see if it suits their needs. While there are certainly more lenses in Leica screw mount, there is also the question of what is actually needed which only the OP can answer for himself. Many of us don't need f/1.2 wide angle lenses for the work that we do, so if they don't exist for our particular camera it doesn't matter.

 

[steveyork]

My experience with Soviet lenses in Contax mount is limited but they have all been decent optically while lacking some of the mechanical finesse of the Zeiss equivalents. The focusing mounts aren't as smooth, but they work. And these are all lenses that are 60+ years old and have probably passed through many hands before they came to me. For someone on a budget like the OP a Kiev and these lenses would be a relatively inexpensive way to try an interchangeable lens RF and see if it suits their needs. While there are certainly more lenses in Leica screw mount, there is also the question of what is actually needed which only the OP can answer for himself. Many of us don't need f/1.2 wide angle lenses for the work that we do, so if they don't exist for our particular camera it doesn't matter.

The lens availability in the Contax mount -- the post war 21mm, 35/2.8 Biogon, 50/2 and 50/1.5 Sonnar, 85/2 Sonnar, ect -- are all top notch, even by today's standard. Certainly sharp enough, with tons of character, at least for a film user. The optics of those pre-war, uncoated lenses always surprised me, in a good way. And over the years in photography, I've gravitated to -- as long a s a certain level of quality is satisfied -- less choice actually being better. You chase pictures, and composition and light, instead of chasing your next bit of equipment. I'm really a big fan of the single or uncoated lenses for B&W -- true tone monsters in B&W.