Another Russian

[denis_pleic]

I've posted a few negative scans from my first test roll from a (new

to me) Kiev 4 - with Jupiter 8 (50/2) and Jupiter 12 (35/2.8) lens.

Apart from a relatively poorly done scan, images are unmanipulated -

no USM, no saturation, etc...

</p>

Yes, the images are in my <a

href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder.tcl?folder_id=405830">Kiev4</a>

folder.

</p>

I must say that I was surprised at rather good quality of the results.

I must also say that I prefer the Jupiter bokeh to some of my Nikon

glass (which is consumer-grade, admittedly).

</p>

As for some background, I received this Kiev 4 with its two lenses as

non-working, with leatherette peeling, etc.

</p>

Anyway, I glued new leatherette, used some black electricians' tape as

light baffle, and the results are better then expected. The camera

was actually OK, but the previous owner did not know how to operate it :-)

</p>

I'm looking forward to some serious shooting with the Kiev. It's nice

and solidly built, and it looks like my sample is in quite good shape.

</p>

Denis

[peter_4711]

Hello Denis,

I like your pictures shooting with KIEV 4.

You are more surprise with the other soviet lenses special Jupiter 9

1:2/85mm or Jupiter 11 1:4/135mm too.

KIEV rangefinder are Zeiss Ikon Contax cameras are not copies but with a other label and that the reason all Zeiss rangefinder attachment and lenses work with KIEV rangefinder exellent.The soviet lenses from 28mm -135mm and with turred finder is an very good compled camera stuff.

With Zeiss lenses connected on KIEV 4 you have 21mm-180mm.

Fo beginning is a 50mm and 35mm enough, and you have a chance for more lenses and attachment so you will work.

A beauty of KIEV 4 is not the first. Very importend is to run perfect. The quality from KIEV rangefinder cameras is in degree from lausy to perfect. The russian producer from KIEV rangefinder ARSENAL in KIEV Ukraine can't hold the same quality.ARSENAL produced more KIEV like ZEIS-IKON CONTAX cameras.

However your camera run and concratualations.

[connealy]

The most astonishing cost/benefit ratio in the photo world, I think. I have the Kiev IIa with the same two lenses. Mine needed a shutter repair which I got for $25 from <a href="http://okvintagecamera.com/repair.html">Oleg Khalyavin</a>. I'm very sorry to see that he is no longer in the repair business. I think there are some other FSU repairmen, but I don't think any others have established themselves yet with Oleg's credibility.

[gene m]

So many cameras. So little time.

[dan flanders]

I think mine cost about twenty five bucks and it's amazing in spite of peeling leather (easy fix), but I don't trust slow speeds. Only problem is finger obscuring RF. Still prefer my Leica, but I never got a Leica for twenty five bucks.

[michael_p2]

I was pleasantly surprised by the stunning quality of the images I

got with a clunky Kiev 4 and Helios 103 lens that I picked up for

next to nothing on the bay. The crude workmanship on the

camera did not inspire confidence but I was taken aback by the

soft-but sharp quality of the pictures I took. Leica quality for the

price of a Leica lens cap!

[denis_pleic]

Peter,

 

I've already done some research on Kievs, and I know a bit about them.

Still, I didn't expect it to perform so well. You culdn't tell from the scans I've posted in my folder, but the quality is quite OK. As I said, I like the bokeh in some of the shots with both Jupiters.

Also, the handling/rewinding is much easier than the Zorki 4 I have - although Zorki 4 has a *much* better viewfinder!

 

I've also added a photo of the camera itself in the "Kiev" folder, and I must say that I'm quite pleased how my re-leathering turned out - since it was my first job of that kind.

The camera now has a much better grip/hold, since the leatherette I used is of a "thicker" kind - and I must say that it makes quite an improvement, compared to the old, peeling, dried-out "skin" it had.

 

My next acquisition will surely be the Russian "Universal" turret finder - it will make the shots with Jupiter 12 (35mm) much easier, since now I can only guess what will fit into the frame :-)

 

Denis

[steve salmons]

Denis,

I too was rather taken with these Russian Contaxes but also found the viewfinder difficult especially with spectacles.For me the solution is the use of separate 35mm and 50mm viewfinders mounted on the accessory shoe.Since I tend to use zone focusing with these cameras most of the time anyway (especially with the 35mm)it provides a simple,effective functionality.You do need to be aware of parallax issues for close focusing but I guess this is the same for the turret finder.The reason I did not go for the turret finder was because I wasnt sure it would be any easier to use with specs,it looked clumsier and I had no intention of using a 28mm or 135mm with the Kiev.I still prefer my SLRs for these focal lengths.

Enjoy

Steve S.

[william_vickers1]

I have a Kiev 4 and a Kiev 4am. I have seen people putting them down as "cheap Contax copies," but my experience has been that they are wonderful, charming cameras capable of excellent results. And they are super bargains ... more fun than anyone should expect for such low prices. If you are in to retro, it doesn't get any better than this.

[mskovacs]

I really enjoy the 50mm focal length but I am continually put-off by the harsh bokeh of my AI Nikkors for indoor available light type work.

 

Which of the Russian 50's do people think is best? Depending on Contax mount or LTM, this might determine the choice in (Russian) camera body to go with it. I like the classic Leitz/Zeiss look for this type of work.

[jonathan_stark]

Sample variation in Russian equipment make this tricky to answer. Based on personal experience, I'd say Jupiter 8 for LTM. A good Jupiter 8 is one of the great bargains in all of photography.

[connealy]

The shutter on my Kiev IIa is quite a bit less noisy than two Zorkis which I tried. Film loading is easier too than with the bottom-loading Leica copies, though it did take me a little while to figure out that I needed to crip the end of the film to keep it in the take-up spool. Not a scientific sample, however. Given the prices on Feds and Zorkis, you don't have much at risk in trying several until you find one you like.

[mskovacs]

Thanks I think I'm going to try a Zorki 4 with a Jupiter 8 in LTM. Looking at Rick Oleson's pages these are relatively simple cameras to tinker with anyway should there be any problems.

 

I guess the Zorki 4K has a lever wind which might be a little handier but the looks of its construction don't inspire much confidence in me.

[larry_mobbs]

I've been a fan of the Russian rangefinders for three years. I've had the range from the first Zorki and Fed models and up to the Zorki 4 and Fed 5s. I've both read and experienced that the early models are the better made though at some expense in size of the viewfinders. The Fed 1 and Zorki 1 are about the same size as the early Leicas. These were made from Leica plans following WW II. When Leica moved to the M series, the manufacturers had to upgrade both lines and the body became noticeably larger but with larger viewfinders.

 

I've read many accounts of the Zorki 4 being the best they made. My experience in owning three of them was that I didn't even want to use them. The FED 5 feels huge and not as smooth as it's I and II models. I really liked the tiny Zorki and Fed 1s. They could fit in your pocket especially with the small Industar 22 collapsible lens.

 

I have three Fed 2s and probably see them as my favorites of the entire Russian collection. They are bigger than the 1s but still not as high as the later models in both lines. The 2 had a good viewfinder and either a film advance lever or a knob. I don't sense one is really any better than the other. This is not a camera that does well when you are in a hurry.

 

When I purchased my first Voigtlander Bessa the Russians were the perfect companions. I particularly liked putting the 25mm Skopar on a Zorki 1 when I wanted to hide what I was doing. The click focusing of the Skopar can be managed while holding the Zorki in one hand and using your finger to move the focusing tab. With a lens that wide you can get by without a viewfinder. I wandered a nightime Museum exhibit opening with this combination and nobody knew I was carrying a camera as I would shoot from my hip.

[peter_4711]

Hello,

which 50mm russian lens the best?

Now all Jupiter 8 lenses KIEV or LTM are Zeiss Sonnar typs 6 lens in 3 groups.

All of this lenses are not the best. For tested I have a referenz lens CARL ZEISS JENA Sonnar 1:2/50mm, collabsibel,uncoatet and that from 1936 is the best lens. But the Jupiter 8 have a own bokeh, and sharper lens are Helios 103 KIEV mount.For LTM is an Canon 1:1,8/50mm an exellent lens, but have a other bokeh like Jupiter 8.

[william_vickers1]

Larry Mobbs wrote:

 

"... The Fed 1 and Zorki 1 are about the same size as the early Leicas. These were made from Leica plans following WW II ..."

 

The first production Fed 1's were made in January 1934. While they were Leica copies, they were not made from Leica plans. You can check out this history at:

 

http://fedka.com/Frames/Main_Frame.htm

[garrylewis747]

Well, I finally broke down and got a Kiev 4a off *bay, Now it is

wait,wait,wait for delivery. In the mean time, what are some good

groups/list for mining tips and information about this camera-

beside this one of course. I will be using, not collect, this model

so will appreciate any advice- TIA.

 

Russian film for a Russian camera- HUM. }:^)>

[ben_johnson3]

I've got a Kiev 4 (1960) and a Kiev 4AM (1982). The 4 is substantially better in terms of construction and works like a charm. If you're buying a Kiev, I would aim for the earliest model possible as quality goes downhill starting in the early 70s. I have a Jupiter 8 and a Jupiter 12, and I really like them both. The bokeh on the 8, as some have mentioned, is quite special.

 

My first Russian rangefinder was the Zorki-4K, which I wouldn't recommend other than as a way to get a Jupiter-8 lens. Mechanically, they're fine, but they have two bothersome flaws: the shutter speed numbers are painted on and tend to wear off, and there are no strap lugs.

[garrylewis747]

Yes I did a little research, and that's why I bid on a 1968 model-

thought the lens is a 1971. Have also some EFKE 100 film coming

to test it with. Now down to waiting.

[mskovacs]

I just bought a 1960 Kiev 4A + matching 1960 Jupiter 8M on Saturday and waiting on the Ukranian post.

 

I'm going to overhaul it as needed (perhaps a prelude to a real Contax II + Sonnar). This could be dangerous!

[zhang_xiaokang]

IMHO,Kiev 5 is the best Kiev-Contax rangefinder cameras. It has a 1:1,bright,contrasty view/rangefinder sometimes with additioanl 85mm frame lines and the whole viewfinder can be used for 35mm wideangle lens. So normally,you don't need to take additional view finders. It is also parallex corrected for close focusing.

And you don't need to practise the well known Contax hold to clear the rangefinder window.

You can use both the lever or the nob to advance the film.

Its Helios 94 1.8/50 normal lens is one of the sharpest Soviet 50mm normal lenses<div></div>