Contax Zeiss Ikon 1932

[Raffay]

Hi,

I just got my wife's grandfathers camera. I think it needs major repair and refurbishment. Logically it does not make sense to repair such an old camera but I want to find out if it is possible as I am already into using old cameras, I have a pentax me super and a Mamiya rz. Attached are some pictures, I would appreciate if any member can refer a good name in repairing such cameras in the USA.

The shutter doesn't work, the lens seems fogged.

Cheers
Raffay




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[trythis]

Can't help but nice camera!

 

[Newt_on_Swings]

Its a contax I and it is a very pretty camera. Here's some more info: https://www.cameraquest.com/zconrf1.htm

The ii and iii models were more popular and I think were nice improvements on the camera. Great focusing accuracy with huge ebl, but you had to make sure your hand didn't cover the rf window on the right side when you held the camera.

CV did make a few modern lenses a little while back, that actually mounted on these older contax models. (The also made a modern bessa that could take the older contax lenses) but now these are very expensive compared to the ltm models.

I can't think of any contax specialized repairmen, but maybe rangefinder forum may offer some suggestions too.

 

[Xmas]

They were never reliable...

http://www.zeisscamera.com/about.shtml

long waiting list

 

[Raffay]

Thank you all for the information. @Xmas: have sent him an email, wait is not an issue. I am in no hurry to use this camera just want it restored.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[summicron1]

reading that guy's web site makes one wary of those cameras at all, especially the Russian copies -- gad, the twists and turns Contax had to go through to get past the Leica patents.

Having said that, they did make one heck of a machine -- I have a pre-war Contax II that could have gone ashore o D-Day, certainly looks it, and it's still ticking along, although I don't stress it.

 

[Xmas]

reading that guy's web site makes one wary of those cameras at all, especially the Russian copies -- gad, the twists and turns Contax had to go through to get past the Leica patents.

Having said that, they did make one heck of a machine -- I have a pre-war Contax II that could have gone ashore o D-Day, certainly looks it, and it's still ticking along, although I don't stress it.

Zeiss still did not copy Leitz when the patents were compromised. From the Contax I to Contarex they demonstrated that the camel was a horse designed by committee.

But a ContaxII or its FSU clone - Kiev(Kneb) will still take photos.

 

[summicron1]

Zeiss still did not copy Leitz when the patents were compromised. From the Contax I to Contarex they demonstrated that the camel was a horse designed by committee.

But a ContaxII or its FSU clone - Kiev(Kneb) will still take photos.

I've had nothing but bad experiences with Kiev cameras -- on the other hand, Mr. Scherer is his own worst enemy -- his site makes it sound like a freaking miracle that Contax cameras ever managed to take pictures because they are so complex that it is impossible to keep them in tune -- he says at one point that just tossing one onto the seat of your car can knock it out of adjustment, which is possibly true, but really?


Robert Capa went ashore with the allies on D-Day and slogged through Italy and France shooting with a couple of Contax cameras, and I'm going to guess they didn't get babied.

But still, his bigger point is that Contax cameras are very complex and, at this late date, require a lot of work to be put into working condition again. The simplicity of the Leica shutter makes old models of that camera a lot more reliable and easier to service at this late date...I just had Youxin Ye do my I (C) and there was no problem at all, simple job, completely routine.

As to the original poster here -- if I were him I'd clean up grandpa's camera as much as possible on the outside -- shoe polish does wonders -- and set it on the shelf along side some pics of his grandpa and some family pictures the camera took. It will be more valuable as a family heirloom than it ever will as a camera, even to a collector.

 

[Lee Rust]

I've had a Contax IIIA (black dial) since I was in high school and it still works fine after only one CLA around the time I inherited it in 1969. That being said, it's about time for a tune up and I've been on zeisscamera's list for two years so far, but it seems like it will take at least ten more for my turn to come. Meanwhile, the camera is still in use with a fully functional meter and is only slightly slow on the low speeds. I would suggest that fairly regular exercise of the shutter over the decades has been the factor most responsible for the longevity of this camera. Sitting around in a closet would have gummed it up long ago.

 

[summicron1]

I've had a Contax IIIA (black dial) since I was in high school and it still works fine after only one CLA around the time I inherited it in 1969. That being said, it's about time for a tune up and I've been on zeisscamera's list for two years so far, but it seems like it will take at least ten more for my turn to come. Meanwhile, the camera is still in use with a fully functional meter and is only slightly slow on the low speeds. I would suggest that fairly regular exercise of the shutter over the decades has been the factor most responsible for the longevity of this camera. Sitting around in a closet would have gummed it up long ago.

two year waiting list?

ouch.

then again, you read his procedures, he's taking as much as a week to assemble a camera, I can see it.

Sounds like a service more for a museum restoration than for a user. I sure hope he's training an apprentice.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

Way more than 2 years. I've been on the waiting list for 3+ now...

 

[Dismayed]

Skip the Contaxes and get a nice Nikon S2 if you're on a budget. Far more reliable than the Contaxes.

 

[Pioneer]

Henry Scherer has worked on some of my cameras and he is very, very good. If I have a camera that needs work where time is not a factor I have no problem getting myself on the list and waiting.

But, that is not always possible. I have also had Mark Hansen work on a couple of my Contax cameras and been very happy with the results. His website is here. http://www.zeissikonrolleirepair.com/about.html

And, Contax cameras suffer more from parts availability than complexity. I am certainly not a camera repair tech and I have opened up a Contax once or twice to fix small issues. I do like Henry's work but I think it is to his advantage to scare people into believing the camera is next to impossible to work on.

 

[Xmas]

This is a contax I more variants than a girl...

Buy a Kiev while you wait by the time you reach the head you will be able to fix the contax or will have a ziplock bag.

 

[puderse]

Contax

Mark Hansen has done well by me.

 

[Hatchetman]

I was just going to suggest Mark Hansen. He has advised me on some other camera "issues." Seems like a nice guy.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

reading that guy's web site makes one wary of those cameras at all, especially the Russian copies -- gad, the twists and turns Contax had to go through to get past the Leica patents.

Having said that, they did make one heck of a machine -- I have a pre-war Contax II that could have gone ashore o D-Day, certainly looks it, and it's still ticking along, although I don't stress it.

Soviet, not Russian. Kiev is and was in the Ukrain.
I have two of the Kievs and four Soviet lenses. The 50/2 J-8 behaves just like a coated version of the Zeiss original. The 35/2.8 J-12 ditto. I've never used the prewar 85/2 Sonnar for Contax, but my 85/2 J-9 is a lovely lens. The Helios 103 is a pretty generic double Gauss, sharp and with good contrast after I painted the aperture blades. The two bodies have accurate shutters, wonderful rangefinders, and great build quality. I owned and used a Contax II for years, replacing the shutter ribbons myself before the internet, so I think my evaluation of the potential goodness of a Kiev has some weight.
Henry Scherer spouts a lot of BS and he's dead wrong about a few things.

 

[Xmas]

Soviet, not Russian. Kiev is and was in the Ukrain.
I have two of the Kievs and four Soviet lenses. The 50/2 J-8 behaves just like a coated version of the Zeiss original. The 35/2.8 J-12 ditto. I've never used the prewar 85/2 Sonnar for Contax, but my 85/2 J-9 is a lovely lens. The Helios 103 is a pretty generic double Gauss, sharp and with good contrast after I painted the aperture blades. The two bodies have accurate shutters, wonderful rangefinders, and great build quality. I owned and used a Contax II for years, replacing the shutter ribbons myself before the internet, so I think my evaluation of the potential goodness of a Kiev has some weight.
Henry Scherer spouts a lot of BS and he's dead wrong about a few things.

confirmed and as well the 28mm and 135mm are also good

 

[Pioneer]

I think what everybody overlooks is the amazing resiliency of the original Contax II design. The Kiev cameras work quite well and when you understand the admittedly low quality of assembly and the many changes done to simplify and cheapen assembly, I have to believe the Contax design is actually very good. Again, I kind of suspect the Leica publicity machine when the claims are made of all the twists and turns that were required by Zeiss Ikon in order to avoid the Leica patents and to build another quality 35mm camera. I think the truth of the matter is that there are many ways to achieve the same goal, and the first one out the gate does not necessarily patent all the correct ones.

The Contax design is not all that tough to understand. It works and it works very well whether it was built in Germany or in Ukraine. The Contax had many advanced and successful features that Leica worked hard to match with their M3 camera. Zeiss Ikon went out of business in the West for many reasons that had nothing to do with the strength of their designs and the quality build of their cameras.

Of course all of this applies to the Contax. Somehow I'm not all that sure that the Contarex was that reliable, though it was an amazing camera with great glass.

 

[randy6]

I have a number of contax cameras And I have a contax camera model 1 that I use with out problems for over a year. I shoot maybe 3 or 4 rolls a month through it I cant remember what sub version c or D not the last one. Anyhow it took $200 and six months to fix. I have a number of iia and iiia very reliable much cheaper then a nikon. I do have have nikkor glass for the contax I like them.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I think what everybody overlooks is the amazing resiliency of the original Contax II design. The Kiev cameras work quite well and when you understand the admittedly low quality of assembly and the many changes done to simplify and cheapen assembly, I have to believe the Contax design is actually very good. Again, I kind of suspect the Leica publicity machine when the claims are made of all the twists and turns that were required by Zeiss Ikon in order to avoid the Leica patents and to build another quality 35mm camera. I think the truth of the matter is that there are many ways to achieve the same goal, and the first one out the gate does not necessarily patent all the correct ones.

The Contax design is not all that tough to understand. It works and it works very well whether it was built in Germany or in Ukraine. The Contax had many advanced and successful features that Leica worked hard to match with their M3 camera. Zeiss Ikon went out of business in the West for many reasons that had nothing to do with the strength of their designs and the quality build of their cameras.

Of course all of this applies to the Contax. Somehow I'm not all that sure that the Contarex was that reliable, though it was an amazing camera with great glass.

Zeiss' goal was to make the best camera in the world, avoiding patent infringement was a necessary facet of that. Virtually every feature of the Contax II was intended to be better than the Leica.
As for the "admittedly low quality of assembly", I haven't noticed it in my two Kievs. Gears are nicely cut, friction points are polished, screws fit their tapped holes nicely, the light baffles Zeiss employed are present, etc. etc. If you get a good Kiev - and QC did take a nosedive starting in the mid 70s or thereabouts - and treat it like a Contax, it will as far as I can see be as reliable as a Contax. My 59 4a which has been overhauled with modern lubricants has been with me most days since I got it last January. It works in the cold, too. My '69 4 has never been worked on, it doesn't work at all much below 45-50f. 45 year old lubricants will do that - however the built in meter works accurately, and at room temperature it runs like a champ.

 

[Pioneer]

Zeiss' goal was to make the best camera in the world, avoiding patent infringement was a necessary facet of that. Virtually every feature of the Contax II was intended to be better than the Leica.
As for the "admittedly low quality of assembly", I haven't noticed it in my two Kievs. Gears are nicely cut, friction points are polished, screws fit their tapped holes nicely, the light baffles Zeiss employed are present, etc. etc. If you get a good Kiev - and QC did take a nosedive starting in the mid 70s or thereabouts - and treat it like a Contax, it will as far as I can see be as reliable as a Contax. My 59 4a which has been overhauled with modern lubricants has been with me most days since I got it last January. It works in the cold, too. My '69 4 has never been worked on, it doesn't work at all much below 45-50f. 45 year old lubricants will do that - however the built in meter works accurately, and at room temperature it runs like a champ.

I should probably have been a bit clearer. The early Kiev was certainly considered a quality camera. Mine was built in 72 and I don't think I have heard anyone say the quality improved as production went on. That being said however, mine is actually working very good and does not appear to have been serviced recently. Based on my present experience you seem more correct regarding quality of construction then am I.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I should probably have been a bit clearer. The early Kiev was certainly considered a quality camera. Mine was built in 72 and I don't think I have heard anyone say the quality improved as production went on. That being said however, mine is actually working very good and does not appear to have been serviced recently. Based on my present experience you seem more correct regarding quality of construction then am I.

Pioneer, I'm working from a sample size of two Kievs and one Contax II. There are differences in the finish of the internal parts, the Zeiss product was comprised of parts that were nicely finished on all surfaces. The Soviet cameras are nicely finished where they need to be and adequately finished elsewhere. I've never seen the internals of the later 4M and 4aM; I'm told that a good one is still a good camera, but the changes they made result in a camera that holds no appeal for me. Modernising it was a mistake IMO, I also think adopting the postwar Contax style back - which both of mine have - was not a step forward. As for the yak hair light seal on the back, I took it out and refit the latches so the back is fully seated as Zeiss intended. No lightleaks around the back. Why did they change it? Who knows, but adjusting the latches so the back seats tightly is a fiddly job and that may be it.
Anyhow, for less than the cost of a clean user Contax II body I have two Kievs and four good lenses; I can't remember the last time I've enjoyed new equipment so much. The lenses (except the Helios 103) are not modern types and don't behave like modern designs, they date from the early 30s and must have stood the photographic world on it's ear when first introduced. And, they're great fun to use, kind of like getting in a time capsule and going back 80 years.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I think what everybody overlooks is the amazing resiliency of the original Contax II design. The Kiev cameras work quite well and when you understand the admittedly low quality of assembly and the many changes done to simplify and cheapen assembly, I have to believe the Contax design is actually very good. Again, I kind of suspect the Leica publicity machine when the claims are made of all the twists and turns that were required by Zeiss Ikon in order to avoid the Leica patents and to build another quality 35mm camera. I think the truth of the matter is that there are many ways to achieve the same goal, and the first one out the gate does not necessarily patent all the correct ones.

The Contax design is not all that tough to understand. It works and it works very well whether it was built in Germany or in Ukraine. The Contax had many advanced and successful features that Leica worked hard to match with their M3 camera. Zeiss Ikon went out of business in the West for many reasons that had nothing to do with the strength of their designs and the quality build of their cameras.

Of course all of this applies to the Contax. Somehow I'm not all that sure that the Contarex was that reliable, though it was an amazing camera with great glass.

I agree. When I got my Contax II in the 80s, there were still some older gentlemen servicing them, I bought some shutter ribbon from one in Brooklyn.
He told me that the ribbons were about all that ever broke on them and that it was sometimes a sign that the latches on the lower shutter blind were maladjusted and dragging on the ribbon where it's attached to the upper blind. Other than that, keep it clean and properly lubricated and they'd last indefinitely. My Kiev 4a has the chrome worn off the advance knob and quite a bit of wear on the pressure plate, notwhithstanding this I don't think I'll live to see it worn out.

 

[Pioneer]

I agree. When I got my Contax II in the 80s, there were still some older gentlemen servicing them, I bought some shutter ribbon from one in Brooklyn.
He told me that the ribbons were about all that ever broke on them and that it was sometimes a sign that the latches on the lower shutter blind were maladjusted and dragging on the ribbon where it's attached to the upper blind. Other than that, keep it clean and properly lubricated and they'd last indefinitely. My Kiev 4a has the chrome worn off the advance knob and quite a bit of wear on the pressure plate, notwhithstanding this I don't think I'll live to see it worn out.

I can certainly agree with this. My Kiev is relatively new to me but I have been shooting steadily with my Contax II (5 to 10 rolls per month) for over 4 years (last year being an exception) and it has not stuttered once. In fact, it feels just as tight today as the day it came home from Henry. At this rate I may not even wear out a set of shutter ribbons.