Who favors a Contax II, III, IIa, IIIa over a Leica M?

<p>I am more at ease with a Leica than with a Contax or Nikon RF camera. The M mount is easier for me to use than the rather strange Contax or Nikon mount.</p>

<p>I have a Contax III and a IIIa with several lenses, including a Sonnar 50/1.5, a Biogon 35/2.8, and an "occupation special" Nikkor 85/2. These are wonderful lenses, particularly the first two, and the cameras are well-built and easy to use, especially when compared to the Leica IIIf, which was their true competitor in the early- to mid-1950s.<br>

What you need to know about the Contax: As other commenters have noted, it is oddly engineered and has all sorts of peculiarities that you have to get used to. Its shutter is finicky and will need adjustment from time to time. It is sturdy but not as sturdy as any of the Leicas. Its wide-stance rangefinder is sharper and more accurate than that of the M3 and is superior in all respects to those of the IIIf and earlier Leicas. It is kind of ugly, uglier still when its leatherette develops the almost-inevitable "Zeiss bumps." It loads and rewinds easily. The focussing metrics of its lens mount differ from that of the Nikon S and rule out use of any but the widest-angle Nikkor rangefinder lenses, except for the Nikkor "C" lenses made for Contax. For that matter, the Contax cannot accommodate any modern lenses at all without an adapter that, to my knowlege, has yet to be invented.<br>

So why buy one? For the magical Sonnar 50/1.5 and Biogon 35/2.8. Neither lens is as sharp or contrasty as a modern Leica or Zeiss descendant, and neither would win an Erwin Puts science quiz. Used properly, however, they produce pictures that are, well, ineffably alive and breathing. Outfitted with either of these lenses, a Contax III or IIIa is sort of a miniature Linhof. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>I am regretting not to have bought a Biogon 35/2.8 for $400 or less. I forgot how much I was asked for it.Now, I see myself developing a special liking for such lenses which have special performances regardless of the slow max aperture.</p>

<p>I am regretting not to have bought a Biogon 35/2.8 for $400 or less. I forgot how much I was asked for it.Now, I see myself developing a special liking for such lenses which have special performances regardless of the slow max aperture.</p>

<p>I don't favour one over the other, I see them as complementary. As others have said, the Contax (I have a IIa) is a beautifully engineered camera, and superior to the Barnack cameras, although I sense it is a little delicate compared to my solid Leica M2. I love the look of images with the Sonnar lens, and I alsoe enjoy using the Biogon 21mm lens. I must say though, that the Contax feels like a delightful antique, whereas my Leica M still feels like a modern day camera. It has the feel of a robust working camera, and one that I could imagine using day in and day out for years, without problems. I like using the Contax IIa, but I tend to prefer the Leica M because I can use it with flash (OK, with 50sec synch), and because it has a better viewfinder. Oh, and I much prefer the Summicron 35mm lens to the Biogon.</p>

<p>Raid, if you make it back to the thread, what have you seen the 35/2,8 selling for?</p>

<p>Thanks for the porn shot, Gus. </p>

<p>I never use a flash or filter with RF cameras. I also feel as if the Contax is a classic camera. I use the M6 often these days.</p>

<p>I have not checked prices for a while, but I sometimes see on RFF such a lens being offered</p>

<p>Pretty inactive thread, but allow me to go Contax on this one. I have a Contax II and a IIa and I use both of them actively. I think they're great and offer a number of distinct advantages over Barnack Leicas and even my M3:<br>

- The Opton Sonnar 50 f1.5 is better than the Summicron 50 f2 DR (which is massively overpriced).<br>

- The Opton Biogon 35 f2.8 is the best 35mm lens I've ever used.<br>

- The rangefinders are more accurate and no less useful in low light. Also, they're combined with the viewfinder, which is an advantage over a Barnack Leica.<br>

- The IIa is very light and handy, much more so than my Leica IIIf was and vastly more so than my M3. There is no comparison in that regard, it's just a nimbler camera.<br>

- The film advance on the IIa is every bit as buttery smooth as the Leica M3's and the shutter release is not Leica smooth, but it is very smooth.<br>

- As far as reliability is concerned, most repair technicians I've spoken with say that the Contaxes are better made. More hardened parts, etc. They are the Mercedes to the Leica's Cadillac (very nice on the outside, but not so fantastic under the hood).<br>

- Loading is vastly faster and easier with the removable Contax back than it is with that pain-in-the-ass bottom-loading Leica BS. Neither compares to my Canon P for ease of loading though.<br>

There is no way I would trade my IIa for any Barnack Leica, and for a day of street work I'd rather have the IIa around my neck than the M3. Call me crazy. Get a nice IIa, the Opton Biogon and the Opton Sonnar 50mm f1.5. Your pictures will be just as good and you'll be substantially less poor.</p>

<p>The Contax I was an elegant camera, the II was a fine piece of design for the 1930's, and in my opinion, the most beautiful. Well heeled American's loved them, including Rudee Vallee the crooner, who had a II with all the reflex accessories & fast lenses.<br>

The post war Contaxes, IIa, IIIa might technically be better cameras with better lenses, but they look wrong, like the III with the meter on top.<br>

They were great cameras, but clearly hard work to keep in good working order for any extended time if not regularly used. Where are the next generation of Contax technicians to come from?</p>

<p>I am looking forward to using my contax IIIa for a first time. I'd bought it over 3 years ago, and it was stiff to focus. So, I put myself on Henry's waitlist. <br>

He's finishing working on it today. It was an expensive but I'm sure well worthy process. He fixed 2 lenses, and did the full refurb process on the camera to make sure it was all working correctly. After an $885 fix-it fee, this is the most I've spent on a single classic camera. I'm hoping that she'll be a joy to shoot. <br>

I also have an M2, and I don't think there's a comparison when it comes to holding them. And if it were? - I'm thinking that the contax would win. But, cameras are supposed to be judged on the quality of images - and not just the feel in the hand - so I'm looking forward to seeing what the first images will decide. <br>

I guess I'll keep you posted.</p>

<p><em><strong>Rose D. and C Barey</strong></em>,<br>

Do remember my admonition from page one:<br>

"if I need to shoot something <strong>important</strong>, I don't take the Contax units"<br>

<br>

Plus, my complete story and experience with Henry and my Contax II & IIa: <br>

<a href="/neighbor/view-one?subcategory=1&neighbor_to_neighbor_id=346240"><strong>Beware</strong></a> <em><<< Click</em></p>

<p>I have an M6 and Contax lla, both are fine picture making tools better then my abilities. It is my view that my photographic technique, good as it is, cannot exploit fully the mechanical and optical performance of my Nikon, Leica and Zeiss cameras. Every other preference is cosmetic or ergonomic - just that. "Love the one you're with" seems good counsel.</p>

<p>For occasional use, I would opt for a Zeiss Contax or even a Voigtlander Prominent over a Leica. More 'bang for the buck,' probably by a factor of ten or more. However, as a main camera … but what do I know; I prefer a Leicaflex over Nikons, by a wide margin, and all the 'experts' on the internet say that's 'wrong,' so I'm probably wrong here too.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I have now owned and used the following rangefinders over the last 20 years -- Leica M6, M6ttl, MP (0.58 & 0.72), M7, M4 and M5; Nikon S2; Kiev II, 2A and 3A, and Zeiss Ikon Contax II. I've also 'fiddled' with the later Zeiss IIa and IIIa, and Voigtlander Prominent, but have not put film through these latter cameras. </p>

<p>After shooting all these cameras, my favorite are the Contax II and Kiev II. They fit my big hands, and I've always liked the high contrast viewfinders. I don't find looking through them squinty or difficult to use; in fact very ergonomic. What a tour de force they must've been back in the late 1930's. And the fact that they are the least expensive of all is just an added bonus. The old Jupiter and Zeiss lenses hold up pretty well to modern standards, and I prefer the older lenses for B&W.<br>

The least favorite camera was the Nikon. Yuk!</p>