Kiev II vs Contax II

stephen_lumsden

stephen_lumsden

Well-known
Local time
3:08 AM
Joined
Mar 15, 2005
Messages
221
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) ?How, in general do the results compare? BTW I would like to stick with the Contax 11/Kiev as I have the J-12. Anyone in a simialr boat?

regards

Stephen
 
I'm not a in a similar boat, but after the Kiev II came the Kiev 2a. The build quality is probably as good as it gets from the FSU and except for the flash synch its the same prewar design.

I've had a Kiev 4 and the 2a seems to have the edge on build quality.

Also, a Contax is a Contax. While Kiev is always going to be a FSU photo apparatus.
 
Henry isn't cheap, but he does excellent work. I'd get in the que if I were you.

WW Umbach also works on Contaxes if you want it faster (he overhauled a Contflex for me about 2 years ago).
 
Yeah, get in line.. I was thinking about it towards the end of last year, but thought I'd wait, and here I am now, really wanting a nice C IIa :) I have a feeling it may take longer than 10 months, but we'll see.

As far as the FSU cameras, I have no experience with them at all, but aren't those prices you quote a bit high? Perhaps you could get one of those (or a cheaper version) to tie you over until the actual contax is done *shrug*
 
That sounds like a rather high price for a Kiev. I have a Kiev 4 m which I like and use frequently. I don't remember what I paid for it but I'm certain it was less than $100.

Dick
 
I had the chance to purchase last year in june my fully-working (and in pretty great shape) Kiev-2A from 1956 with its matching Jupiter-8 for 68$ here in Prague. However, since the beginning of the year, I noticed prices went fairly up.

I too would adore to get a Contax... but they are expensive. It's one of my aims, though so far my Kiev-2A has been a brick-solid, faithful and reliable comrade.
 
IMHO,between a Kiev II and Contax II it is usually the individual camera rather than the brand that matters. A good Kiev II is better than a bad Contax II or the other way around. I heard from old Chinese professionals that Kiev has a better chrome job, while Contax II's paint seems more durable. Both can be very reliable cameras.

Optics? A mint Jupiter-8M is better than a well used ZK or a Zeiss Sonnar with scratches. The later two have more collectors value.
 
zhang xk said:
IMHO,between a Kiev II and Contax II it is usually the individual camera rather than the brand that matters. A good Kiev II is better than a bad Contax II or the other way around. I heard from old Chinese professionals that Kiev has a better chrome job, while Contax II's paint seems more durable. Both can be very reliable cameras.

Optics? A mint Jupiter-8M is better than a well used ZK or a Zeiss Sonnar with scratches. The later two have more collectors value.
Click to expand...

Could not agree more, I just got a Kiev IIIa cheap that I was going to use for parts I was shocked at how much better built and how much easier to handle than any of
my other Kievs. Needless to say I have no intention of using this camera for parts. It has become my favorite FSU shooter.
 
If you're willing to spend the extra money, get the Contax. The Kiev II may be the best built FSU RF, but it's still an FSU RF. It won't be as well built as an Zeiss made camera.

On the flipside, Fedka has a great reputation for providing quality merchandise and it's doubtful you'd need to send the Kiev to anyone else for a CLA. That will most likely have been done in-house; hence the higher price. Never bought from them myself, but never heard anything bad either.

If I were in your position already have a Kiev 4 (I have a 4am, in fact), I'd go for the Contax.
 
I cannot say about a Kiev II (never shoot with any), but the few I had in my hands seemed to be exactly like the Contax II, same feeling, same noise....
I´ve a K 4 and a Contax II and both perform equally well, but I have to agree that the Contax feels a little bit better than the Kiev.
Regarding of how do they perform, I have to say that the Kiev is and was a perfect shooter, and of course the Contax is too.

Ernesto
 
captainslack said:
If you're willing to spend the extra money, get the Contax. The Kiev II may be the best built FSU RF, but it's still an FSU RF. It won't be as well built as an Zeiss made camera.
Click to expand...
OK, now as I have both I would like to chime in.

I finally got that Contax II by the weekend, delivered from Bulgaria. The camera had seen some use: the serrated film advance limb is almost polished down.

Judging by serial number it was made between 1940-1942.

Naturally, first thing I've done is to dismantle top and back castings for inspection. My first discovery was that top crhome plate was cut less precisely than of any of my Kievs, half-coverning the top casting retaining screw. Shutter mechanism looked fine, shutter/advance opearates noticeably smoother than on my 4A, but I've handled an early Kiev just about as smooth. Focusing helical on 4A is actually smoother, but this I assume just a lubricant issue.

To my surprise shutter ribbons were in very good condition in contrast to overall workhorse look of the camera, and I assume they were replaced at least once. Whoever did the repair job has cut ribbons 1-2mm short, so that the shutter can't be now set into into B position. But, given my very infrequent use of bulb mode (actually, I can't remember if I used it on Kievs at all), am not prepared to change the ribbons while they still work :)

There was a problem with lower curtain opening when you changed speeds on wound shutter, easily fixed. Slow speeds as far as I can tell are correct, and fast speeds don't feel wrong when compared to a reference Kiev (which is known to be fairly precise all the way to 1/1000).

I am certain this is a genuine Contax: shutter casting lacks the stamped 4-digit Arsenal mark, serial number on shoe and the back matches and makes sense, some parts (e.g. retaining lever cam, screws) are made from different materials. The chrome is fairly thin and still has a distinctive glow/shine not typically found on Kievs. The leather is not original though. The camera also has highly unusual flash synch modification, a kind of I never seen before.

In operation the camera is smooth. On high speed the curtain lands with less of a slam, and on slow speeds fires much more smoothly than on my 4A. The camera must be a seriously good lowlight shooter, at least I noticed the difference when handholding.

So my unscientific conclusion (based on the single Contax sample I ever took apart): an old Kiev (say 2A) can be as good as Contax II. The statement that there might me more sample-to-sample variation than Kiev vs Contax variation really makes sense.
 

Attachments

  • ContaxII2-1b.jpg
    ContaxII2-1b.jpg
    129.4 KB · Views: 2
Going the Scherer way is long and expensive. It's only worth it if you are sure you want a good contax for a long time to use. Yo just try it out, a kiev would do it - or a less perfect contax.
 
Without wishing to divert the thread from it's main topic,I have often wondered what happened to the Contax Technicians who were drafted to FSU in 1945 with their equipment ,as part of German/FSU war reparations,and began to produce the Kiev versions.
Did they stay in USSR,or were they eventually repatriated?Presumably they were non-military people,it must have been a very difficult experience.

I would be interested if there is any info' amongst us.

Brian.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top