Kiev 4

Krzys · Aug 1, 2009

A friend of mine just bought me a recently CLA'd and good condition Kiev 4 (pictured below) and I was wondering if anyone could share their opinions on this camera, especially its focusing gear.

Anscojohn · Aug 1, 2009

I once owned and used a Contax III, which looks suspiciously like the Kiev 4 (grin).
The finger-focus gear is actually kind of convenient once one gets the hang of it. I came to prefer it to focusing the lens itself. I also, briefly, owned a Kiev clone of the Contax II which I really liked and which gave superbly sharp results. I needed money, however..................

Fotoguy20d · Aug 1, 2009

Contrary to John, I can't stand the finger focus wheel. I'm constantly sticking a finger in front of the RF window so I use the lens body. I have a 50mm f1.5 Sonar lens with mine, which is quite sharp, as you would expect. I also have a Russian 50mm f2 (Jupiter 8?) lens which isn't bad at all (quite good actually). Both my Kiev 4 bodies lack the light meter. One of them, the RF is out of whack - I've been told its easy to fix but haven't gotten around to it.

Dan

Krzys · Aug 1, 2009

Do you know if you can use the lens body to focus the Jupiter 8?

Erik Petersson · Aug 1, 2009

I own such a camera as well, which I like a lot. However, it has the quirk that after the 24th picture, the frames start to overlap.
The range finder is the best focus aid I have tried. And yes, you can focus with the lens as well, of course.

Fred De Van · Aug 2, 2009

I have four of them. Obviously I like them very much. They leave little to be desired especially with the excellent 35mm 2.8 Jupiter.

Once you get the hang of the Kiev grip which keeps your fingers out of the rangefinder window they are a joy to use and nearly silent. I carry one almost everywhere.

The late versions have a reputation for erratic build quality, but if you find a good one, you have a great straight forward, no nonsense, extremely sharp nearly invisible, very quiet tool. The lenses range from very good to remarkable, and are far more consistent than the late production bodies.

Rear lens caps are hard to find.

Krzys · Aug 2, 2009

The serial tells that the model was made in 1960. I cannot wait to use it!

I am wondering...will there be parallax error if you use a viewfinder or turret on top of the meter coldshoe?

tessar · Aug 2, 2009

Some viewfinders (like the Leica Imarect) have an adjustment for parallax according to focus distance. From what I gather at least some of the Soviet turret finders do too. If the subject is farther than 15 feet away you can ignore parallax.
I have a Kiev 4a, and when I photograph close in, I do what I do with all my old rangefinder cameras -- compose loosely. I think you'll like the camera. The wide rangefinder base is wonderful, and I find the focus wheel very convenient with a normal lens. Received wisdom says the wheel should not be used with wide-angle or tele lenses.

Fred De Van · Aug 2, 2009

1960 is I think a series II camera, from the salad days when they were made with the greatest care. Since it has had a CLA it should be fine. I intentionally went looking for new-old-stock units about 8 years ago (a few still exist). Even though I have an ex-factory repairman not too far away, I wanted a new camera and did not want to start with a CLA. Mine are from the mid 80's and one series III from 1978. There are some virtues to be found in the 80's cameras, such as a captive take up spool, and modern lubricants, and a rewind crank. I wanted day to day users and despite their reputation all my series IV cameras work as they should.

The Kiev 4 is not really a Contax copy (the lenses are clones and the early ones even used German Glass). It is a strange story but the Russians took the tooling from Zeiss Dresden and moved it to Kiev in the Ukraine. They imported the workers as well, to teach the Kiev factory how to build them. It really is a modified (mostly for the better) Contax built by Ukrainians. The fly in the ointment was the production quotas which were set by a committee which ignored most if not all sane criteria for building such a delicate machine. Most are great, some, not so much.

Your 1960 version should originally have been among the best. There are a few good web sites out there with tons of info. Here are two.. The Kiev Report and Nathan Dayton's Commie Camera site

Paul Sorensen · Aug 2, 2009

About those spools, I was inspired by this thread to look on eBay for these things, and I see that a number of them have no take up spool. Is this something that can be acquired without too much trouble, or would it be best to stay away from any that are lacking the spool? Also, do you know of any trustworthy sellers? These really look like fun cameras, I am finding myself very interested!

Krzys · Aug 2, 2009

I hear that you can easily make one from the spool inside a 35mm canister, or feed your film into a 2nd canister and use two.

Lruw · Aug 2, 2009

I enjoy my Kiev 4. It's fairly reliable and of good quality, especially for a $25 camera. I have a later model (1980), but it seems to have pretty good craftsmanship. The only quirk mine has is that I have to switch to a slow shutter speed before I can go to a speed faster than the initial setting. It seems to be a worn hook on the shutter rather than a mechanical problem, though.

Fred De Van · Aug 2, 2009

WARNING!!! --- If you wear glasses, especially ones with plastic lenses, it is a very good idea to remove the bezel around the eyepiece since it is sharply serrated and cover it with tape to protect your lenses. This is a very easy thing to do. It simply unscrews. Nothing falls out. I used black photographers masking tape and my single application has now lasted for 8 years. Takes just 5 mins. to do.

About those spools, I was inspired by this thread to look on eBay for these things, and I see that a number of them have no take up spool. Is this something that can be acquired without too much trouble, or would it be best to stay away from any that are lacking the spool? Also, do you know of any trustworthy sellers?

A useable take up spool I believe is simply the spool from the inside of any 35mm (permanent type) cassette, such as those sold by Leica, Zeiss, Nikon, Fed, Kiev from 1930-1960. They are all the same, and are the reason for the twist locks on all the rangefinder cameras and Nikon F's. The factory spool is not exactly the same.

I only have one Kiev 4 with a removable spool so I have little experience with them, but if you ask any of the reputable resellers or the Kiev specific repair community they should be easy to get. I did have a problem with a small part for a camera back once and a guy in Russia supplied not only the part, but an entire good back for $5. Fedka has the factory spool brand new for $9.50.

There are any number of reputable resellers but the supply of cheap Kiev 4 is sometimes spotty. The most reliable with the best quality is definitely an outfit called Fedka.com. Fedka is the most expensive and and most reliable, which can often make him the least expensive. We are taking Kiev here and expensive is relative. These things are very cheap. I.E. Fedka charges $102 for a NEW, black, Jupiter-8-1, 50/2. He is in the US and offers a 10 day inspection period on everything. Lower priced euro sites on the famous auction site are CUPOG and grizzly33bear. I have nothing but the best to say about both, especially CUPOG. I do not know if ARAX an amazing outfit in Kiev deals in the 35mm cameras. They are the best for new MF cameras. There are 2 actual brick and mortar shops in the EU (Holland and Germany) who are great too. There are others, even here in the US. Repairs are very inexpensive and easy.

Paul Sorensen · Aug 2, 2009

I might just have to do this! Oh well, I am leaving town for a few days, so that will be a good thing. Perhaps we should have some sort of mandatory cooling down period for GAS kinda like gun purchases.

So, Fred, do you have an opinion about the lenses, I see that both the Jupiter and Helios are about the same price, do you have a preference? Also, are any of the other lenses worth having? I see that Fedka has 35mm, 85mm and 135mm lenses.

Thanks for the info!

elekm · Aug 2, 2009

You can make your own film spool from a standard 35mm spool, although it will be slightly short. But I haven't had a problem with that.

In fact, one time I was on a trip and found out that I had forgotten to bring my film spool. I mere taped the film to a blank 35mm spool, and it worked just fine.

My instructions for making a film spool from a 35mm spool.

Fred De Van · Aug 2, 2009

Paul Sorensen said:
So, Fred, do you have an opinion about the lenses, I see that both the Jupiter and Helios are about the same price, do you have a preference? Also, are any of the other lenses worth having? I see that Fedka has 35mm, 85mm and 135mm lenses.

Thanks for the info!

The lenses are at least the equal of any others from the period from Leitz, Zeiss, Voightlander and superior to many others. All are quite sharp and have lovely image quality as one would expect from what are really clones or updates on mid century Zeiss designs. The Soviets left nothing on the table when it came to lens quality and they drew from the benefit they had of direct involvement with the great world leading glassmakers in Jena.

The Helios is a late update of the Sonnar and it seems to me that it has a tad more contrast. All of the Jupiters are excellent. The 35mm Jupiter 12 is my favorite and is an exceptional optic. The late versions of the 85mm Jupiter 9 are superb and the color images they deliver are deeply saturated and very sharp.

All my lenses are late versions so my impressions are limited to lenses made after about 1978 or newer. Production lasted at least into the 1990's and some into the very recent past. The MF lenses seem to be still in production. I have never been able to find a 28mm and the 135mm focal length does not interest me. I use the 35mm Jupiter 12 for at least 70% of anything I shoot with these cameras, and simply love it.

In short, the lenses are fine enough for Voightlander/Cosina to make a Bessa version specific to the Kiev 4/Contax lens mount. The LTM versions are identical and the 85mm 2.0 Jupiter 9 is also available in excellent M42 (and maybe other) versions as well.

Off topic: Two of the most remarkable current optics from the Kiev factory are the 300mm 2.8 Arsat which I have tested to be the equal of the similar Nikor and the MC Arsat 30mm f/3.5 fisheye for medium format, which is stunning, especially, for the price (I have one), that caught Michael's eye at Luminous Landscape. Kiev-Arsenal still produces analog cameras and lenses.

Fred

Bigpaul · Aug 3, 2009

I acquired a 1970 Kiev 4 a few months ago, as both my first rangefinder and first FSU camera. I love it! Having been a lifelong SLR guy, I'm finding the little Kiev is getting lots of action. I've got the J8 and J12 lens, both 1970 versions, and they really are superb..........much sharper than I was expecting, and with such a lovely "look". For the last few years, my SLR system has been Rolleiflex (various SL35 versions) and Zeiss glass, which has been my favourite SLR "system" of quite a few that I've tried over the years, but I can honestly say that the Kiev/Jupiter combination is now my go-to camera. The Kiev is very quiet, and I find the rf focus system excellent. I'm now looking for another body and possible a J9!!

Krzys · Aug 3, 2009

How low a shutter speed can I go hand held with the Kiev 4? Taking into account that I can get sharp pictures at 1/30 with a SLR.

Fred De Van · Aug 3, 2009

Using great care, and having the benefit of experience, if you cannot hand hold one of these at 1/8, 1/10, 1/15 (camera model dependent), with the 35mm or even the 50mm, it is not the fault of the camera. Not easy to do consistently, but it can be done.

Brac · Aug 4, 2009

The problem with Soviet era cameras was the poor quality control so performance varies between different examples. I bought a Kiev 4 in about 1976 and was rather disappointed. It had to be repaired under guarantee for overlapping frames and overall the finish was rather poor. I found the absence of a wind-on lever rather a pain (literally). The camera has been lying at the back of a cupboard somewhere, where it's been for almost 30 years. When I find it I'll probably sell it. I do agree that the lenses are excellent.

elekm · Aug 5, 2009

As explained by others, the Kiev lenses are copies of the Carl Zeiss Jena lenses. I'm not sure if the later lenses have multicoating. I would expect that they do, although I'm not certain of that.

As also explained by others, the quality of construction with these cameras ranges from very good to very poor. In an article a few years ago, classic camera author Ivor Mantanle wrote that production quotas were excessively high, and many cameras that would be rejected under Zeiss Ikon standards were allowed to be put onto the market.

The Contax II (on which the Kiev rangefinder is based) was and is a precision camera, and when produced by Zeiss Ikon had a high rejection rate, partly accounting for its high price.

Because of the Soviet government quotas, no camera was too poorly made to meet standards, so out the door it went.

I've also heard that most of the lenses are optically fine but some will need to be recollimated. As well, it's likely that some bodies and lenses have been subject to amateur repairs.

A well made Kiev is no different than a Contax, other than the nameplate. There are a few minor variations in the choice of materials -- none that matter, in my opinion.

Dali · Aug 5, 2009

Kiev rangefinder cameras are fine as long as they work. But is case of trouble, they are rather complex to repair (much more than the Leica design). Don't forget these are 25-60 year old cameras and they might need a CLA whatever how well they were assembled at the plant.

Regarding the lenses, beware of the Helios-103! Bayonet design and/or tolerance changed slightly along the years and it can be very difficult (understand almost impossible) to fit to an older camera. It is a matter of millimeter but it is enough to create a mess. So, recent camera = recent lens, older camera = older lens, to play it safe!

Regarding vendors, I second Fedka and Cupog recommendations.

Good luck and take care.

Krzys · Aug 6, 2009

Would any of the collapsible lenses I see on ebay mount to the Kiev?

Carlos Cruz · Aug 6, 2009

I think russians never copied collapsible german lenses, so you can get an original contax/ zeiss lens or stick with russian optics.

Xmas · Aug 8, 2009

Hi Karol
They did make a collapsible f/2 until '49 or so? collectors now.
Noel

Kiev 4

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency