First classic rangefinder

[janvanlaethem]

I'd like to purchase a classic rangefinder camera, but am unsure about what to

get. I only have a limited knowledge about rangefinders and no practical

experience with them. I'd like to get one body + 50mm f/1.5 lens + a wide angle

at a later stage. The Contax IIa is pretty close to what I'd like to have and

is relatively affordable for a first purchase. The Nikon S2 or S3 appeal to me

as well, although I would have to stretch my budget a little bit. I would like

to use the camera for occasional shots: I won't abuse it but I don't want to

put it on a shelf either. Street photography, architecture and some landscapes

are the subjects I would like to photograph.

 

My questions are: would the Contax IIa or Nikon S2/S3 be a good candidate for a

first time rangefinder buyer? If I decide to buy one, what should I look out

for? Any information on prices, places to buy from and general history about

the cameras are welcome. I'm open to suggestions as to other manufacturers

and/or camera models.

 

Thanks.

 

Jan

[johnnycake_.1]

I hope I can be helpful.

 

I have used the Contax IIa and the Nikon SP... but not the Nikon S2/S3. The SP is similar

to the S2/S3.

 

Both cameras share a similar inadequacy when contrasted with the Leica M-Series and the

modern Zeiss Ikon... a small RF window. Can you cope?

 

However, IMHO the "best bang for the buck!" belongs to the Contax... half the price...

find a good one and it will last, and last, and last...

 

The Zeiss WA lenses, including the nonpareil Biogon 21/4.5, will work, if not focus, on

both bodies... as will the Nikon WA lenses, including the nonpareil W-Nikkor 35/1.8...

 

'Normal' lenses and 'telephotos' are better as 'brandnames' with the corresponding

cameras.

 

Do you use flash? The Contax IIa 'black dial' requires a unique, and rare, accessory to

synchronize with electronic flash. The Contax IIa "red dial" is modern.

 

I hope this helps.

 

Johnnycake

[SolaresLarrave]

You don't say what you've done or what you're used to. If you want to find out about RF

cameras, buy first a small, inexpensive Japanese compact rangefinder, like a Canonet or a

Konica S2, and see if you like how they handle and the kinds of photographs you get.

Otherwise, you may sink a lot of money into something you may not like in the end.

 

Take care and have fun shopping!

[michael_a._shapiro]

If you want to buy one to waste money on before you buy the one you want, of course, that will cost you more money in the long run.

The one rangefinder against which all others are measured is the M6. It is built like a tank and will last you your entire film life.

 

Good luck

Michael

[john_shriver]

I think a more practical solution is a classic LTM camera. The Canon ones are really better than the Leica ones in many ways. Biggest upside is the single-eyepiece viewfinder, with variable mangification. The IIF, IIIA, and IV-SB are all good choices, common, reliable. Yeah, you may need the shutter curtains replaced, but that's easy to get done, where there's really only a very few people who do competent repairs to Contax cameras.

 

The Canon 50/1.8 lens is a pip, but if you want the Sonnar signature, there's the Canon 50/1.5 lens (which is getting more expensive).

 

KEH presently has two Canon IV-SB for $165 each. Heck, they have a Canon 7 (really wonderful finder, and a semi-useless selenium meter) for $149. They have a useable (BGN grade) 50/1.8 lens for $119.

 

I don't think you can get a working Contax IIa and 50/1.5 for that money. Not without risking getting a camera that's more Russian than German.

 

Also, the choice of lenses for LTM cameras is incredible. Not so for the Contax/Nikon RF mount, further compounded by the incompatability of the two mounts for longer focal lengths. Yes, there are some cheap Contax RF lenses -- but some key ones are crazy expensive (Biogons).

[jim_britt1]

I agree with John. My first rangefinder was a Canon IVs2 and it was great. It also led me to

buy an M3... this was in 1962 and led me into a profession of photography. The screw

mount lenses are fine and available.

[orvillerobertson]

I have an M6 and love it mostly except for the flaring viewfinder (it will flare with a light

bulb!). Mostly the viewfinder is awesome, and you can get it updated to the much

improved M7 viewfinder. I don't think it's the one rangefinder all others can be judged

against. I'm not sure why you feel you even need a rangefinder. They are specialized tools

and not that superior for much beyond quick candids. Certainly you can use a rangefinder

for any kind of photography, but would you really want to, is the question. For street

shooting they are also an acquired taste. Not everyone likes them over SLRs. If you want to

check out to see if you'd be adaptable to rangefinders the best soluion is to rent one from

a pro shop for a week. Most should have an M camera with lenses available. It's much

cheaper than committing to an expensive system you might sell later. Personally my

favorite rangefinder right now bar none is the Voigtlander R4M; solid, best viewfinder ever,

built for wide-angle shooters. Since you said you wanted to try a 50/f 1.4 then try the R3

or R2. The Leicas are more rugged, but unless you're driving nails with your camera,

what's the point of all that expense? The Voigtlanders take M lenses so can use either

Voigtlander or Leica or Zeiss Ikon. I also highly recommend the Zeiss Ikon cameras. I now

use mine on automatic and am totally in love with it. I still love my M6 but cannot agree

that it's the high water in rangefinder design. Actually a very strong case can be made for

the incredible Konica Hexar RF, which I also own but have not used in a while.

[johnnycake_.1]

Orville...

 

"They are specialized tools and not that superior for much beyond quick candids."

 

... I respectfully disagree.

 

_____

 

Jan had asked 'which' of two cameras would be better for him; he had already narrowed his

choices...

 

Leica glass, and M-Mount lenses, is IMHO better than Nikkor but I don't think that he was

asking a question.

 

[...I do like his photo.net portfolio]

 

Johnnycake

[Troll]

The contax IIa is probably the most beautiful camera ever built. Using it gives the photographer a sense of emotional empowerment that corresponds with driving a Mercedes sports car on the Autobahn. The 50 and 35mm lenses are both right up to modern standards.<P>My only warnings are 1)it's nearly impossible to use the viewfinder with eye glasses, and 2) the last of these is over 50 years old, and you'd better be prepared to shuck out another $200 for a "tune up" before using it.<P>Personally, I'd suggest that you first start with something a little more mundane, like a Kodak Retina IIa. Or that little '50s Zeiss jewel -- the Contessa.

[SolaresLarrave]

I read the first post rather hastily and now, after rereading it, I realize Johnnycake is right.

He's narrowed his choices already.

 

Leica, I'd say, but then, I've never even handled a Nikon or a Contax.

[paul_k5]

Hi Jan,

 

I have both a Nikon S2 and a Leica 111f. Before you go any further, go to www.cameraquest.com and read the articles there. There is a wealth of advice on choosing a camera and lenses. Also check out RangefinderForum.com. There is a guide to camera and lens prices at http://members.aol.com/dcolucci. The Nikon has a large, bright range/viewfinder, actually brighter than the Nikon SP. I found it easy to use with glasses. I selected the Nikon over the Contax simply because I prefer the lever wind and rewind crank. Other than that, both are excellent cameras. Hope this helps.

 

Paul

[orvillerobertson]

I know he's narrowed his choices already. I stand by my words. I've narrowed my choices

before and then changed my mind. I'm simply trying to understand his choices based on

inexperience with rangefinders. If he were knowlegeable about rangefinders I would have

spoken differently. Rangefinders are specialized tools and not meant for everyone to

maximize their full potential. I(t's not an indication of talent. It is how it is.

[orvillerobertson]

Oh yes, read Jan's last line over again. That explains my tack.

[vivek iyer]

Every camera is a specialized tool.

[peter]

I really liked the idea of Contaxes and Nikons as well, when I first got interested maybe 15 years back. I did own a prewar Contax but ended up selling it. It was a nice camera but the difficulty of finding lenses (in Australia - pre eBay) meant that effectively it was limited to 50mm. I never seriously considered a Nikon RF except to worship them from afar, as they tended to be too much collectors items and hence a bit too pricey in my view and until eBay's advent I also had a devil of a time finding lenses except perhaps for an occasional 135mm that could be found in a few camera stores who specialised. (Hmmmmm maybe I should begin to reconsider.....). If you do not go down the Leica route, the Canons come highly recommended. I have owned several (and quite a few lenses) and can recommend them personally. They are built at least as well as the contemporary Leicas and the lenses, in not a few cases are definitely better in optical performance than their contemporaries. The Canon lenses are also more readily available than Contax and Nikon RF lenses in many instances and often much cheaper. The only downside as others have pointed out is the squinty little viewfinder in earlier cameras. But then again the pre-M Leicas had the same problem. I think the IVSB2 Canon was the first to have a slightly brighter and larger finder and then the later ones such as the P and the 7 series had bigger finders again from memory. Prett well all Canons also had built in multiple finders at the flick of a switch and were in this respect better than Leica. So if money is an issue (and for most of us it is even if only to justify it to the wife) look carefully at Canons as an option. The 35mm lenses, 50mm lenses, 100mm lenses and 135mm lenses are readily available for comparatively little money. The 85mms are a bit harder to find but can be found too.) Wider lenses (eg 28mm) are available if you later decide to go down that route and to top it all off all off, like a cherry on the cake, these lenses are all in Leica Thread Mount so it you ever decide to go down the Leica route, all can be used on Leica screw mount cameras immediately or even on a Leica M with a cheap and readily available adapter. Hope this helps

[john_shriver]

The Contax is the more amazingly well built camera. Although some weren't built at that well, there were quality control issues. See Henry Scherer's site (http://www.zeisscamera.com). Proper repairs are hard to get, Henry is superb, but a long backlog, and what do you do when he retires?

 

The Nikon has a much more straightforward Leica-style cloth shutter. Not as precise, but much more practical and maintainable. If you decide you really love the Nikon, you can use the same lenses (including the telephotos) on the SP, which has the best finder of all the Contax and Nikon rangefinders.

[orvillerobertson]

I don't agree. Not every camera is a specialized tool. A camera set up just to shoot dental

images is a specialized tool. Rangefinders, while being more general than that, are not for

all types of photography or photographers. Most consumer SLRs are flexible enough to

handle most types of photography well. I can street shoot very well with a Canon Rebel. I

just choose not to because of personal preference. I in fact used to street shoot with a

Canon AE1 and an F1 years ago before buying my first rangefinder. Anyway, we're losing

focus here. I'm trying to help Jan rather than debate a personal issue. My advice for him is

to rent an M6 and see if he even likes or can excel with a rangefinder. If your photography

does not improve, as it greatly did with me, then the rangefinder choice might have to be

reversed, which gets expensive. On the other hand, if the rangefinder fills some deeper

need than the desire to simply improve your work then by all means go for it. I don't think

much of old Contax or Nikon rangefinders. Old Canons are cheaper and more dependable

overall (including the vital shutter mechanism) and take a huge variety of excellent and

relatively cheap screw mount lenses. For a modern camera go with a Voigtlander R2/3/4

series.

[vivek iyer]

Orville, I did not post earlier just to be in disagreement with you.

 

Jan has been using a camera for a while and certainly knows how to use it well as well.

 

Although I started my photography with a cheap RF cam, I have gone through many SLRs of various brands before coming to a Leica SL2 and then a Nikon F2 based system in small format. Nikon F offered a true system outfit with interchangeable screens and finders for various specialized forms of photography. Going from this to RF outfits (Contax, Leica, etc) was not difficult at all.

 

Bottom line is the framing and light. Nowadays the choices (in trems of film cameras- new or used) are immense and within the price range of pretty much everyone.

 

I am partial to the M mount since the choices there are more compared to a Contax mount.

[vincenzo_maielli]

The old Contax IIa/IIIa and Nikon S2/S3 are very awesome to change the lens. I prefer mutch more the Leica M2 or M3, more modern than Contax or Nikon, with better rangefinder and more brilliant viewfinder.

Ciao.

[janvanlaethem]

Thanks for the views and opinions expressed so far. As I said before, I am open to any suggestions and would consider other brands as an alternative. To answer Francisco's question, I use Nikon cameras (F3 and FM3a), Noblex 135 for panoramics and a Bronica SQ-A. I am used to different tools and don't consider switching from one camera to another or switching film formats to be a problem, quite the contrary. I think every camera requires a different approach, which at least in theory should benefit one's photography.

 

A rangefinder appeals to me for a number of reasons: quiet shutter, generally smaller wide angle lenses (most of my shots are taken with wide angles or normal 50mm, very few telelenses), and I like the idea of actually seeing more in the viewfinder than what will be recorded on film. The Nikon rangefinders have always been on my wishlist since I first got interested in photography as a kid, I guess it would be more an emotional purchase than anything else. The Contax, from what I've read so far, seems like an interesting second option to me. But, as I have no experience whatsoever with these cameras, I understand that my shortlist may not be the most practical purchase.

 

As Johnnycake mentionned, the small RF window may be a problem. Actually, how bad is it? One of the reasons I'd go for a 50mm f/1.5 is low light photography. I also understand the Nikon and Contax have fewer lens options, but I'd be happy with a two lens set-up. Flash is not really an issue, as I hardly ever use flash, I much prefer natural light. Thanks for directing me to the Cameraquest website, there is a lot of information to be found, which will surely help me with my decision.

[sw12dz]

If you do not need a metered camera, then you cannot go wrong with a Leica M2 for 35mm & 50mm lenses. The viewfinder/rangefinder is excellent for both of these lenses. If you just want to experience what using a rangefinder is all about, without shelling out a lot of money, then a Kiev/Contax clone with a Jupiter 8 lens would be my choice.

[JDMvW]

The Kiev solution is certainly cheap enough, but even those of us who love them have to acknowledge that quality control in production was haphazard, and that over the years, the quality of materials was not up to the Contax standard. There are lovely black "Contaxes" by the way that are just rebadged Kievs, and the problem that John refers to above is that there has been a tendency for less than top-rate vendors to repair old Contaxes with Soviet Ukrainian parts. Don't buy a Leica or Contax in gold, or with military markings, all of these outside museums are most likely reworked FEDs, Zorkiis, and Kievs. I would love to collect these counterfeits, but demand has driven prices rather high (though not in the real Leica range).

[sitemistic]

I've had a couple of Contax and Kiev cameras, but they were not comfortable for me. The

"Contax grip" just cramped my hands. But, there is no question that there are excellent

lenses for these cameras.

<p>You might look at the Bessa R as an inexpensive but modern rangefinder. While not built

as well as my M2, for example, it has a built in meter and mine has never given me a

problem. It also uses LTM lenses, and there is a huge variety out there.

[mike_gillespie]

Contax II lenses are hard to find, except the 50mm sonnar, they are very good though super sharp, sharper than contemporary leica lenses, its actually smarter to buy a kiev russian contax copy as they accept all contax lenses, their own jupiter 50mm is just as sharp, i have both contax and kiev cameras and i cant tell the difference, and my contax is a post war one, IIIA which sell at a premium. But rather than either of these, a Leica m3 is far better as the lenses are easy to find and the quality is superb.

[JDMvW]

I'll second that the Soviet lenses are

1) pretty close to identical to their German originals, and sometimes, even improved in design

2) BUT, the same problem as to quality control applies.

 

Apparently one common problem is imperfect lens centering and there is information on the Kiev Survival Site somewhere about a DIY way to correct this.