Contax Rangefinder and my 'New' Contax IIa

[JDMvW]

<p>I have also found Rick Oleson's notes invaluable.<br>

It <em>is</em> a shame that the Jupiter 12 won't fit on the Contax IIa. It works fine on my Kievs, of course, and on the Nikon S2.<br>

<br />The longer Soviet lenses seem to work fine. My favorite is the Jupiter-9 85mm f/2, but the Jupiter-11 135mm f/4 is also very nice. Mine looks nearly identical at a glance to the Nikkor-Q 135mm f/3.5 I recently got, but is only about 3/4 the size of the Nikkor.</p>

<p>I am still looking for a Zeiss Sonnar 5cm f/1.5 or a f/2, but my most recent candidates may not be entirely what they seem, I worry.</p>

[bruce_jones5]

<p>Thanks for the post. Excellent as always. I've had great fortune with a Kiev 2 and Kiev 4-maybe best value for dollar in all of vintage 35mm. The Aires RF (like the IIIL) also bears a strong resemblance to the Nikons posted.<br>

<br /> That Ricoh 500 is an excellent camera. Not everyone feasting on the niche Ricoh digitals knows about the Ricoh 500 or Ricoh Diacord G, one of a few TLRs with as good a baffling system as the Rolleiflex.<br>

<br /> My favorite user-collectibles are the post-war, Japanese fixed-lens, pre-exposure meter 35mm RFs. The Japanese measurably improved on the viewfinder/RF patch/in some cases parallax and also there is variety in 35mm RF compared to SLRs or TLRs: Ricoh, Konica I, Konica II, Petri, Ricoh, Aires, etc.</p>

[Troll]

<p>Like the Contax II and III, the initial IIa and IIIa had a really awful pea-green viewfinder with a pink rangefinder spot, no doubt to increase the contrast and improve focusing. I don't know how anybody could shoot color with it.<br>

Fortunately, in the last batches the VF was plain, non-colored glass.</p>

[rick_drawbridge]

<p>Nice pics, <strong>JDM</strong>, and a fine potted history of the breeds. While, as Chuck noted, the Contax is usually the better built and smoother, a good copy of the Kiev is<em> just about</em> up to the same standards, and the images from the different lenses are virtually indistinguishable, to my eye. In fact, I think my copy of the later Helios 103 takes some beating in the quality stakes. Only recently did I discover that it's design is very similar to that of the esteemed Summicron...</p>

[tony_lockerbie]

<p>Great read JDM, thanks for that. My adventures with the various Kiev's has not been grand and I passed by a few copies before I found a working example. Like Chuck, the coffee grinder like wind sort of put me off, while my Contaxes (seem to have 3 now) all are as smooth as silk.<br>

Likewise with the Jupiter F2, my first example was er, interesting, and another much better, although not as good as the post war Sonnar in my humble opinion. I'm just trying a 50mm 1.5 Jupiter 3 on the Contax, let you know how that goes.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Yet another great write-up indeed. Congratulations!<br><br>One note though: care should be taken to attribute "intense similarities" too much to 'lineage'. Not all similarities arise because one manufacturer 'copies' what another manufacturer did before. There is a very strong influence of that "form follows function" thing.<br><br>A couple of silly for instances: the shutter release button appearing where it does - front right or right top, not lower left back or bottom - is a simple bit of ergonomics. The mirror housing and with it viewfinder being in the middle is the result of having to run film past the shutter, which has to be behind the mirror, so the feed part has to be on one side, the take up bit on the other. There are many more of such thingies, explaining why cameras of a particular type (rangefinder, slr, tlr) largely look the way they do.<br>The Nikon F resembles the Contax S. But does it really, as in: how much of it is because there is no other way to arrange things on a SLR? If you'd ask me: a lot. I don't see a real similarity, beyond the one from necessity, between the two cameras.<br>The same goes for how rangefinders had their controls and bits aranged (the finder moved to one side and not in the middle above the lens, for instance, is not the result of a free design decision, but necessary to make most use of the space in order to get a long enough base for the rangefinder) and how the slrs the builders of those rangefinders later also made have their bits and pieces distributed over the camera.<br>Form follows function.

[JDMvW]

<p>Q.C.,<br>

I agree in general on the "form follows function" argument; but, at the same time, Nikon themselves have acknowledged that the F is an S2 with a prism, as did Zeiss on the Contax with a prism status of the Contax S.<br>

Look at some early M39 Soviet SLRs, for another example, of RF Zorkis ("Leicas") converted into SLRs. In that case the Leica heritage is as clear as the Contax history in other SLRs.<br>

Round ends or 'octagonal' ends, how the film loads, and a lot of other continuities are features whose form is not dictated so directly by function.</p>

<p> </p>

[marc_bergman1]

<p>JDM,</p>

<p>This has been a fine series of posts. I like the way you have covered the various clones from various companies and from various countries. One could spend a lifetime searching through all the material.</p>

<p>I found an ad for the Contax I in the Nov. 1932 issue of American Photography.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[JDMvW]

<p>Marc,<br>

I love the "oh, I'm so refined" pinkie held out in the ad - as we here know, not to show status, but to keep from obscuring the rangefinder window.<br>

:)<br>

The long RF base was very nice, but Nikon's S2 moves it in to where you can hold the camera <strong><em>and</em></strong> still have a rangefinder.</p>

[rich815]

<p>Mark, thanks for posting that ad. Seems AF was around back in 1932, the rangefinder "automatically focusing" the lens.....ha!</p>

[marc_bergman1]

<p>I cannot find an ad for the Contax II but I did find an ad showing the various models available.</p>

<p>This is from the Mar. 1937 issue of American Photography.</p><div></div>

[JDMvW]

<p>Here is a May, 1951 ad for the Contax IIa from <em>Popular Photography</em></p><div></div>

[marc_bergman1]

<p>JDM,</p>

<p>Nice ad. I didn't realize the Contax IIa went back that far. I was thinking mid-fifties. Well that is what I get for thinking.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>For the record, here's an offering from the Columbus Photo Supply (NYC) in the October, 1950, <em>Modern Photography</em>.</p><div></div>