Is this a desireable camera?

<p><img src="http://www.grandpaonline.usagate.net/Mar2011/Contax/2.jpg" alt="" width="450" height="338" /></p>

<p>It is, if you want it. They are good cameras.</p>

<p>Desire is rather subjective. Do you want it?</p>

It looks to me like something very funky is going on with the clouding in the glass of the lens...

<p>Bob-<br>

For as old as it is, it sure looks to be in good condition. Did you listen to all the shutter speeds? I can't recall if these were focal plane or between-the-lens shutters. But they were nipping at the heels of Leica, as far as quality.<br>

The person whom I would ask would be the man who runs <em>Photogtraphy on Bald Mountain.</em> He specializes in old relics of bygone eras and can make it work like new. The question is: How much $$$?</p>

<p>Bob, the selenium exposure meter of your IIIa may not be fully operational, but as a Zeiss product it is acknowledged as a very fine rangefinder camera. You may have trouble finding for it other lenses and their viewfinders, although up 'till recently Cosina made some nice Contax mount modern lenses at reasonable prices, but not sure that these are optimised for Nikon or Zeiss RF cameras, or both. You might try Cameraquest.com, click on classic cameras section.</p>

<p>I have owned three of these in the past. They are fine cameras if properly serviced but not everyone is qualified to service them. Most who were have retired or passed on, but I know there are a few still out there. As previously stated, there is obviously some serious element separation in the lens which could potentially be resolved by Focal Point but the question is the cost.</p>

<p>The 50mm (5cm) Zeiss f1.5 & f2.0 are Sonnar designed lenses with a very different signature of other lenses. If you interested you might look up the optics & reviews for Sonnar lenses, if that camera has a Sonnar lens. It looks to be in very nice condition and certainly worth photographing with even if the meter is inoperable.</p>

<p>It looks--almost--as if the front element of the lens is broken/missing.</p>

 

<p>I wondered if it was separation in the front group. </p>

<p>It's a Contax IIIa. The lens needs help. Additonal lenses may be expensive. A CLA may be expensive. I've owned (3) prewar and (1) postwar. All eventually ended up with broken shutter tapes, I was especially disappointed in the mint IIa that failed after one marvelous roll of stunning pictures. Because of these comments, I prefer the similar rangefinder classic vintage cameras from Leica and Nikon.</p>

<p>I'm with <strong><em>Paul </em></strong>on this one.</p>

<p>The lens may have <strong>either</strong> edge separation or oil migration. I've seen both colorful flaws, and it's almost indistinguishable which one it is until you actually do the tear-down. Absent the flaw, these are fantastic lenses. Bodies nicely finished, but full of weaknesses.</p>

<p>In fact, these Contax III or IIIa cameras, <strong>even when it's sent </strong>to one of the most "expensive" ($400 plus) and "longest wait" (2 years plus) technicians out there, it's still <strong>a film waste'r</strong>.</p>

<p>Read about my personal battle with one of these touted Contax <a href="../neighbor/view-one?subcategory=1&neighbor_to_neighbor_id=346240">techs</a>. <<< click<br>

BTW: This tech's response to my complaint is troubling to say the least...</p>

<p>I occasionally use a Russian built "no name" Kiev version of the Contax along with the described Sonnar lens. My shutter release is clunky and focusing is awkard through a squinty viewfinder. That said, it takes really nice photos and the focusing is accurate. I mounted a Nikon 50 1.4 which I think is a Sonnar clone and like the results even better. With its two piece back it is much easier to load than the Leica LTMs. Being at least 45 years old, I'm lucky mine has worked so well with no problems and no CLA. In their day they were used professionally in preference to the Leica LTM cameras. When the Leica M3 was introduced, it replaced the Contax. I wouldn't want a Contax II as my only 35MM rangefinder.</p>

<p>Other way around: I have a Kiev 4A which is only more or less mechanically reliable, but the Jupiter-8 50mm and Jupiter-12 35mm lenses are just fine. These are available for low prices with a little looking, and should work OK on a Contax.</p>

<p>Bob, we need details. Who is selling it? How much? Can you return it? When was the last time it was serviced (and if so by whom)? Have you tested it in some way? Do you plan to use it as your primary camera? How badly do you want a Contax? </p>

<p>The lens looks dreadful. This may be indicative of the state of the body. If you want a Contax badly you might want to shop around.</p>

<p>It is on E-Bay (can't post link because of photo.net rules) and there are other photo's there.<br>

I guess if you do a search it will appear, but after readind the replies- I'll save my money for a Zeiss Ikon and a Sonnar 50mm to start.</p>

<p>Bob, avoid it. The bad lens is a telltale sign that this thing is a dog. You might get something that does not even work. </p>

<p>How badly do you want a Contax? Really. If this is not a burning desire that haunts your waking hours and overwhelms your dreams as you sleep, take your time and shop around. Check out Photo.net's Classifieds. Try a reputable dealer like Tamarkin, Photovillage, Camerquest, Adorama, and others whose names escape me at this moment. </p>

<p>I bought my Contax IIIa from Cameraquest. It has held up nicely over the years. That said, it is not my principle camera. It is a fun camera. Among RFs, Leicas are the most viable user classics, followed by Nikon RFs. Leicas have lots of spare parts and lots of techs who can repair them.</p>

<p>If you want a really interesting Contax mount Camera, get a Bessa R-C. Cameraquest and other sources might have a few left. That is just a thought. </p>

<p>I am not sure what you want. Tell us.</p>

<p>My father bought a second hand Contax IIIa in 1958 from a mail order camera store in New York, and he used it until 1969 when he bought his Nikon F FTn. It had the pre-war Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar 5cm f2 Collapsible lens, and he also had a 13.5cm Nikkor f3.5 telephoto lens for it with a Tanack finder. Also had the eveready case, the owners manual, and a brochure and a book on Contax photography. I used this camera for a bit in 1988-89 while shooting black and white. It took superb quality photos, of course. The light meter worked but wasn't accurate, so I used my Nikon FE2 for a meter. Unfortunately I sold it in 1995 when I needed to fund the purchase of a Bronica ETRS medium format SLR.</p>

<p>look at Henry Scherer's website http://www.zeisscamera.com/ henry has a through discussion of Contax problems and solutions--including the lens issues. There are alternatives to Henry as a source of repairs with his long backlog on work. </p>

<p><em>I'll save my money for a Zeiss Ikon and a Sonnar 50mm to start.</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

If your motive is to shoot with a rangefinder Sonnar, there are other alternatives. One which nobody has mentioned here is the Canon 50/1.5 in LTM. It was made for a short period around 1954 so it can be hard to find. It is said to be a close copy of the Zeiss Sonnar. For photographing people, especially women, it has a really nice optical signature at wide apertures. </p>

<p>The other is the Kiev version of the Zeiss Sonnar in LTM. I have no experience of this lens, but I think I've read good things about them. Many of them are sold as counterfeit Zeiss LTM Sonnars. (If you search for 'Zeiss LTM Sonnar' on ebay, most or all of what you find will be converted Russian lenses.) </p>

<p>My dad gave me a Contax IIIa in the sixties and I've shoot a lot of images with it. I started with the CSJ 50 F1.5, 28 F8, and 135 F4. I have recently added the 85 F2 and 180 F6.8. The rotating lens turret covers all these lenses. I use to operate it very easily, but after shooting digital for the last 10 years, I've become very spoiled. I tried to show my adult daughter how to operate the camera a couple months ago, and believe me, it's a lot of work. Is it a desirable camera? I sure think so. I may not shoot with it any more but its a relatively an inexpensive way to collect a high precision instrument. It's fun to pet.</p>

<p>$50 should be your max offer for such junk.</p>

<p>i like the old contaxes very much, although my own strong personal preference is for the II series which lack the largely useless meter. cameraquest imports a number of modern lenses in the shared nikon RF/contax R mount. the wides are interchangeable, while the longer lenses need to be ordered in either C or N form to assure accurate focus. any bumps in the leather on the back?</p>