Kiev II vs Contax II

[stephen_lumsden]

Hi

 

I enquired about getting a Contax II from Henry Scherer and its basiclly going to take 10 months and

about $600-700 for a Contax II with a post war Sonnar (coated). I am looking at Fedka.com who have

slightly newer Kiev IIs, $235 which I can forward to a technician who can do an ok overhaul for about

$100, fairly quickly.

 

I know the quality of the Contax is better, but just how much in comparison to the earlier Kievs (I have a

4 btw) ? BTW I would like to stick with the Contax 11/Kiev as I have the J-12. Anyone in a simialr boat?

 

regards

 

Stephen

[gene m]

Go here and find "Kiev II" for some shots.

 

<a href-"http://westfordcomp.com/updated/alphalist.htm"> Kiev II photos.<a>

[michaelging]

I was in the same place you are around 2 yrs ago. I knew the quality of the Russian cameras "could" be close to the Contax ,for much less , and thought that I would give it a try. I bought a Kiev, and a 35 mm lens. I have shot with a Contax before and was happy with the quality of the camera. This camera and lens were badly machined,and put together.The lens was not as sharp as the contax lens I had used before. I then went out and Bought on Ebay a Contax IIIa ,waited for 10 months for Henry to rebuild the camera and a Sonnar lens ,and received what looked and worked like a brand new 50 yr old camera. The feel , fit and finish was the highest quality. That is what I was looking for all along,but did not find in the Russian .

 

I will use a car analogy, If you just need a car for transportation to get to and from work every day,a $10,000 Honda Civic is just what you are looking for. If you paid $50,000 for a BMV and just drove it back and forth to work,its would not be the right car for the price. A Henry Scherer Contax,is a BMW of Cameras.

 

In any case,The cameras are not the easiest to use for any photographer. You can not shoot quickly, because of the knob wind and small viewfinder, and very small rewind knob.If you are looking for a more user friendly camera,you might try a Nikon S2. I have one and can use my Wide angle Contax lenses on it.

 

I guess my final comment is ,if you have the four Kiev's and you are not happy with what you have, why do you think one more will fill your needs. I hope you find what you are looking for. Your gallery has many photos from places I have been , thanks for posting them.

[michaelging]

Gene can get great photos out of of any camera,even toy cameras.Gene you did not put a linc to your page. Here are some photos I took of my Dog for lenses test,Stephen good luck.

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00EyEf

[gene m]

<a href="http://westfordcomp.com/updated/alphalist.htm"> Duh.....<a>

[kerkko_kehravuo]

Stephen,

 

You must be joking with us. Aren't you?

 

There are plenty of examples like Contax vs. Kiev. What about Hasselblad 1600 vs. Kiev 88? Opel Olympia vs. Moskvitsh (car)? Leica vs. Zorki (or what ever). Voigtländer Brilliant vs. Ljubitel? Etc. and etc, clearly more examples unfortunately exist than we can ever guess. All more or less stolen designs or even whole compete plants and all still just poor attraps (copys). If you want Contax, buy one.

 

Kerkko K.

[richard_oleson]

If you want to get an idea of the Contax experience by getting a Kiev, it seems to me that you can do it for a heck of a lot less than $335. Does a $235 Kiev II from Fedka really need an immediate overhaul? It looks like you're trying to compare the most expensive possible way to get a Contax against the most expensive possible way to get a Kiev.... if that was my mindset, I think I'd rather pay $700 for the world's best Contax II than $335 for the world's best Kiev II.

[vivek iyer]

I bought a beat up Kiev (something) for about $40. Works great, looks ugly. If you want a Contax, buy a Contax. If you want to "try" it, buy a beater/user Kiev.

 

Avoid the good looking ones. I also bought a "mint" Kiev (something.. I don't know which number and I don't care either. They are functionally the same) and it is an useless camera, despite having a shutter speed dial at 1/1250s. Would make a good show piece though.

[vincenzo_maielli]

Hi, dear friend. In the past, i own and use two Kiev, the 4a and 4am model, corresponding to Zeiss Ikon Contax II and III, respectively.

I also own two lenses, the Jupiter-12 35 mm f/ 2.8 and Mir 53 mm f/ 1.8, both great lenses, very sharp. The cameras, on the contrary, was very prone to internal reflections, due by lack of the black painting of the single elements of both their shutters. This it's the typical fault of the Kiev rangefinder cameras, but it's also simply remediable. The body are sturdy, but the building materials are not too good.

The Zeiss Ikon Contax II and III (pre war) and IIa and IIIa (post war) was more sturdy and realiable. The building materals are better than Kievs. The german post war models employ the improved shutters than the pre war models.

Ciao.

[don_mckeith]

throwing in my $0.02-

 

I understand going the economy route.I have way too many hobies and not enough money, and I'm not willing to give any of them up.

 

One of the things I've found works for me,is buying Soviet Iron from Cupog----http://stores.ebay.com/Cupog-Collectible-Cameras_W0QQcolZ2QQdirZQ2d1QQfsubZ0QQftidZ2QQtZkm

 

he doesn't buy or sell junk, cameras needing repairs are repaired before listing, and he stands behind what he sells. He doesn't have any Contax's listed now, but he usually does a@ about $180-200- and he usually has a number of Kiev's listed.I've heard Fedka is good also, but I've never done biz with him.

 

So, back to the car analogy---the Honda and the Beemer will both get you there, it's just a matter of how much pressure your wallet can stand.

 

BTW- I'm not above using a 'Brick" or a "Signet 35"-- I kind of like the challenge- and the fact that they're $5.00 cameras doesn't hurt either.

[don_mckeith]

HEH-

 

 

Gene has both "brick" and "Signet 35" pics in his link--

 

http://westfordcomp.com/updated/alphalist.htm--

 

can't argue with that, although Gene's quite a magician,

 

 

btw,Gene-

 

my apologies-

 

I was PWI

[rustys pics]

I just got a Kiev 4a from a guy on EBAY named "grizzlybear" for $45. Surprisingly, it works flawlessly. I got a "Helios" 53mm lens with it, and I think that's supposed to be the best one.

 

I'll scan and post some Fujicohrome slides I just got back. I've used the Fed Leica clone, and that seems to be a dog. For what it's worth, the Soviets got the whole kit & kaboodle contax factory in Dresden after the war. Not that there was much left.... I have a student who worked in a Photo Studio in the USSR. She said all of the Russian cameras were crappy except the 35mm Kiev series. They were considered quite good.

[kymtman]

Stephen; drag u a Kiev4 off the ebay from the Grizzly Bear for a few bucks, and watch for the serial # to get a late model with a Helios lens and I think you will not be sorry. Take a look at my post at the Kiev4 folder and you will find the Helios is a fine shooter lens. I highly recomend the Grizzle Bear as a seller. Bought several item from him.

http://www.photo.net/photos/Kymtman

[david_m]

I bet if someone posted scans of photos taken with Contax and Kiev, you would not be able to tell which was taken by what camera!

[michael_p2]

A good Kiev 2 is better than a beat up Contax II, of which there are many being sold. I had a well cared for Kiev 2 (1952 model) which took great pictures and was virtually indistinguishable from the Contax original. It had a very good feel to it in terms of build quality and the pictures form the Jupiter lens were hard to tell from those taken with a Sonnar. I also still have a Kiev 4 which is much poorer quality in build, but still functions well - at $30 I think of it as a disposable camera that I can take anywhere without worrying about loss or damage, and the Helios lens performs very well.

[michael schub]

First let me say that for those who can afford the money and the wait a HS rebuild is wonderful - he did a Contax IIa and Contax IIIa (and a bunch of lenses) for me back in the days when the wait was weeks not years. I only regret that I didn't send more cameras to him at the time.

 

Nevertheless, I have also bought three fully functional pre war Contax cameras on eBay for no more than $100 (less than some Kiev 2 cameras). One camera had numbers engraved on the body and painted on the leather (some sort of institution) that was purchased "not wokring" but I could see that the shutter release button was in locked position and for $75 what the heck - works perfectly and is a fine camera. Another was an almost mint Contax II with an added flash sync (that works) and the third a cluncky Contax III with dead meter but otherwise fine. The point is that none needed a rebuild and all were priced in the Kiev 2 range.

 

I have three Kiev 2s from the 1950s that are fine cameras and the Soviet lenses can stand on their own. Are they an exact reproduction of the Contax experience, no but they can still be fine cameras. I look at it as sort of the Nikon F/Nikkormat combination. If you are using Contaxes it is nice to have the same type camera to grab for rough use or backup. I have a Kiev 4a type2 and a set of lenses that I bought new in the box 20 years ago. The wind on feels like a coffee grinder and the finish is crude; I use it at the beach. Never failed and takes wonderful pictures.

 

My advice would be to start simple and inexpensive and take pictures - you can get fancier equipment anytime if you like the system. I good condition Kiev 2 or 4 from a good dealer for $50-75 or a Contax IIa that works well for $200 (even if the speeds need lube that is a simple reapir on the Contax IIa) would get you going.

[rustys pics]

Here's a Kiev 4a Helios shot. The lens is coated, and the camera's build quality seems nice. Can't compare if to a Contax since I've never owned one. Film was Fujichrome Velvia 100<div></div>

[rustys pics]

One more pic. I like the color on the old Soviet lenses.

It's kind of like an old magazine repro.<div></div>

[bacsa]

David M, that's probably true, but using a classic it's not only the image that matters. I have both a kiev and a contax iia, and i prefer using the contax. I just like it better.

 

As to the results, if i do everything properly, the cheap and simple minolta hi-matic 9 with its fixed rokkor gives technically better images than the contax or the kiev with sonnars.

[stephen_lumsden]

I actually got a contax ii from HS in 2008, did not really use it till 2022 and now really like it. Thinking about this again, but for a backup body. There seems to be a lot of honest vendors like okvintagecamera.com and sovietcamerastore.com with some also on eBay.

Deciding between a 1954 Kiev ii for about 190 USD or a 1953 Kiev ii for 249, both serviced (have to have the Cyrillic modes). Which one to go for?

[chuck_foreman1]

They both sound nice... What does the 53 have ..besides a lower serial number and closer to the nascent Contax crossover? I have a much later Kiev 4AM. I use primarily the very nice Jupiter 12 35mm Biotar.  The build quality is well .."soviet" .. there's a few maladies like the failing of the curtain to clip when winding, which will fog a frame beyond use. But it happens so seldom....when moving from a slow speed like 25 to a 250..if at all. (masking the lens with a hand or cover with every wind is one sure way not to regret..not covering it :)..  Lately, unable to wind on ... a few taps on the shutter release button will then allow the film advance to proceed. There is also an intermittent light leak ... it usually is on the edge, but when I see one of pics.. I know which camera it was b/c of the light leak . The Contax winds much nicer.. less than the coffee-grinder of the later Kiev. My pre-war Contax is a bit shabby but works well. No issues to complain about. 
I think they are of course very similar in the handling. I am currently trying to "cull the herd". Considering selling the Kiev as the Contax is overall more desirable.  I have used the Kiev quite a lot over the last 10-12 years and always pleased with the handling and the results. If a low model year like early fifties were around, I might be  seduced into having another. The Kiev 5 is a poorly executed impreovement. The only thing I can say positive is the finder has a frame line. The lever advance is awkward as the "improved" top super structure makes the camera extremely top heavy. The side location of the rewind  and its weirdness.. does function.

[arthur_mcculloch2]

10 hours ago, chuck_foreman1 said:

They both sound nice... What does the 53 have ..besides a lower serial number and closer to the nascent Contax crossover? I have a much later Kiev 4AM. I use primarily the very nice Jupiter 12 35mm Biotar.  The build quality is well .."soviet" .. there's a few maladies like the failing of the curtain to clip when winding, which will fog a frame beyond use. But it happens so seldom....when moving from a slow speed like 25 to a 250..if at all. (masking the lens with a hand or cover with every wind is one sure way not to regret..not covering it :)..  Lately, unable to wind on ... a few taps on the shutter release button will then allow the film advance to proceed. There is also an intermittent light leak ... it usually is on the edge, but when I see one of pics.. I know which camera it was b/c of the light leak . The Contax winds much nicer.. less than the coffee-grinder of the later Kiev. My pre-war Contax is a bit shabby but works well. No issues to complain about. 
I think they are of course very similar in the handling. I am currently trying to "cull the herd". Considering selling the Kiev as the Contax is overall more desirable.  I have used the Kiev quite a lot over the last 10-12 years and always pleased with the handling and the results. If a low model year like early fifties were around, I might be  seduced into having another. The Kiev 5 is a poorly executed impreovement. The only thing I can say positive is the finder has a frame line. The lever advance is awkward as the "improved" top super structure makes the camera extremely top heavy. The side location of the rewind  and its weirdness.. does function.

Chuck_foreman1, I thought the J12 was a copy of the Biogon? Am I wrong? I like the J12, good centre sharpness (if nowhere else), but a bit lacking in contrast, and that character building aperture ring!. Regards, Arthur (apiarist1).

[bruce_z._li2]

In my limited experience with 2 Kiev 4 and 2 Contax IIIa, I can tell which ones are the coffee grinder. 

On the other hand, the Kiev lenses are quite good optically albeit a bit rougher mechanically.

[chuck_foreman1]

Biotar..Biogon.. Bio-logy!  Of course Biogon!! Slip of the Bio there.. mea culpa !! 🙂

 

[stephen_lumsden]

I ended up putting a bid in for a Contax ii which had a CLA 4 year back on ebay but had not been used. I ended up winning it for £93 and its in really good condition. I still am curious for a Kiev ii or iii though. That will have to wait.