Reliable repairman for Contax rangefinder in the US?

Dali · Apr 12, 2016

Hi There,

I am looking for a reliable repairman for my Contax IIa. This camera is in very good condition but the shutter is noisy when cocking and slower than it used to be.

I am listed in Zeisscamera but the backlog seems endless... I wonder if Henry Scherer is still active! So I am looking for a more practical solution in the US.

Please share your first-hand experience you had for this kind of camera. I don't need the internet hearsay...

Thanks!

btaylor · Apr 12, 2016

I feel your pain. I had to have my IIa serviced because of shutter speed problems. So I know it is really tough to find someone who you feel is going to do good work on these complex cameras, especially after reading Scherer's horror stories which are probably all true. But Scherer is out, the wait time is measured in years. The other two I found that seem knowledgeable and still active are Mark Hansen and Gus Lazzari. I flipped a coin and chose Gus. Camera got to him and estimate was approved mid January, he estimated a 5 week turn-around. Well, it has now been 16 weeks and his website shows me to be in the 93rd spot awaiting work to begin (I started at 127th). I hope he gets to mine before he retires! He has an excellent reputation on his completed work however. I am hoping to get it back sometime before the year is out. Good luck!

E. von Hoegh · Apr 12, 2016

Dali said:
Hi There,

I am looking for a reliable repairman for my Contax IIa. This camera is in very good condition but the shutter is noisy when cocking and slower than it used to be.

I am listed in Zeisscamera but the backlog seems endless... I wonder if Henry Scherer is still active! So I am looking for a more practical solution in the US.

Please share your first-hand experience you had for this kind of camera. I don't need the internet hearsay...

Thanks!

OK.

The Contax IIa has the most complex shutter of any 35mm camera I have ever seen, the prewar II has the second most complex. It likely needs cleaning and lubrication. Modern lubricants are far better and longer lasting than what was used originally.

As for Herr Scherer, he's mostly full of crap and he is very obviously and plainly wrong about many things.
See my thread about a 1936 Contax II overhaul. (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

btaylor · Apr 13, 2016

Well, it was published on the interweb so it must be true!

Your repair adventure with the II is impressive. I do not have those types of skills and must rely on others for repairs. It is hard to know who knows what they are doing with these things. I don't know why I am so fond of them, but I enjoy their quirks.

E. von Hoegh · Apr 13, 2016

APUGuser19 said:
I would ask EvH to repair it. I followed his thread on the Contax. It was good work and I'd trust him on it. And it takes a lot to gain my own trust in a technician.I can't speak to his work on other mechanical devices, but it is most likely similar to my own level or better. So, I know it's good work. Good enough for me anyway. Besides, a man has to have something to do when he's snowed in under 20 feet for a month, and freezing to death.

Thanks, but I wasn't soliciting work. My work area is good enough for my stuff, where I can wrap it up and put it away if I hit a situation I'm not currently set up for; but taking in someone else's property would at this point be irresponsible.
As for Henry, a lot of people seem very well satisfied with his work - but - he's wrong about the Biogon, he contradicts himself in more than a few spots, and basically I don't like the vibe I get from his website.
Neither the pre- nor post-war Contaxen are very difficult to work on, contrary to internet legend. I prefer the prewar, which is a marvelously well integrated design and a pleasure to work on IF you a) do the work in proper order, b) take your time, and c) understand how and why it works the way it does. You'll also need some special skills - for instance there are several small taper pins in the shutter mechanism, a guaranteed problem for the un-initiated. The postwar version is in some respects easier, most of the troublesome bits being accessible by removing the top covers. Both cameras are fairly modular in design and construction.
One thing I firmly agree with Henry about is the necessity of removing all of the old lubricants; in my case 79 years old and in some spots like shellac, in another spot (the aperture sleeve on the lens - there's a outline of the slot etched onto the sleeve where the lens sat set to f8~ for several decades) actively corrosive.

E. von Hoegh · Apr 13, 2016

btaylor said:
Well, it was published on the interweb so it must be true!

Your repair adventure with the II is impressive. I do not have those types of skills and must rely on others for repairs. It is hard to know who knows what they are doing with these things. I don't know why I am so fond of them, but I enjoy their quirks.

Me too! The prewar Contax really was a milestone in camera design, it was a good 15 or 20 years ahead of it's time. As with many German things, you have to adapt to the camera. The Contax grip initially feels very awkward, but with a little practice and patience becomes second nature.
They're also a relic of a vanished world.

Dali · Apr 13, 2016

And would you have the feeling about the Kiev cameras?

E. von Hoegh · Apr 13, 2016

Dali said:
And would you have the feeling about the Kiev cameras?

Yes, emphatically. A good early Kiev is interchangeable with a Contax, and has more durable chrome to boot. I have two, a '59 K4a and a '69 K4.
The '59 has the misfortune to have the modified back (as does the '69), but is otherwise excellent. The '69 is metered, and the meter works accurately and consistently when there is enough light. Both needed some minor servicing due to age, but believe it or not they both give a true 1/1250th after some minor adjusting. The '69 K4 has been my more-or-less daily carry camera for about a year and a half. Recently it's been wearing the '36 Sonnar from my Contax. The J-8 behaves very much like like a coated Sonnar; the really nice one is the 85/2 J-9, and I like the 35/2.8 J-12 as well. Lenses for the Kiev seem to be more reliable than the screwmount versions.

A bad Kiev - one that has been serviced at the kitchen table as per some web info, must be a nightmare. But so would be a Contax if treated that way.

Dali · Apr 13, 2016

So apart from a butchered one at the kitchen table, manufacturing tolerances should not prevent a Kiev camera to work as it should?

btaylor · Apr 14, 2016

Oh, there is much to read about the history of Kiev manufacturing tolerances and assembly. IIRC, the very early ones (late 40's- early 50's) were essentially identical to the pre-war Contax, as the Soviets picked up the factory, parts and people and moved them to Ukraine. From what I read, the later the year the worse they became. Today of course, they are decades old-- just like everything else and may need work.

I have a Kiev from the '50's but I prefer the lighter and smaller Contax IIa, though I enjoy shooting with both of them. The Jupiter lenses I have for the Kiev are simply outstanding, and very inexpensive. Unfortunately one can't use the excellent Jupiter 12 (35mm f2.8) on a Contax IIa or IIIa, the rear element won't clear. I finally used my Helios 103 50mm f1.8 on the Contax last December. Wow, it was amazingly sharp. I bought it new from Fedka for something like $40. Fedka can arrange Kiev repairs as well.

EvH, I had a Contax IIa when I was in high school and adopted the "Contax grip." It feels entirely natural after a little practice and came back quickly after many decades.

Dali · Apr 15, 2016

I know the Kiev cameras history. I was wondering if tighter tolerance than for instance a Barnack Leica and its FED & Zorki clones were required to get a reliable camera. Barnack Leica were simpler and very little could prevent the shutter and/or the rangefinder to work. Contax and Kiev cameras are more complex and tighter tolerances might be required which goes against USSR mass production processes...

Before the Contax IIa I own now, I had a 1957 Kiev 2a. Finish was a little crude but this camera worked flawlessly.

E. von Hoegh · Apr 15, 2016

Dali said:
I know the Kiev cameras history. I was wondering if tighter tolerance than for instance a Barnack Leica and its FED & Zorki clones were required to get a reliable camera. Barnack Leica were simpler and very little could prevent the shutter and/or the rangefinder to work. Contax and Kiev cameras are more complex and tighter tolerances might be required which goes against USSR mass production processes...

Before the Contax IIa I own now, I had a 1957 Kiev 2a. Finish was a little crude but this camera worked flawlessly.

In a word, yes. There are also more parts in a Contax type shutter. For instance, there are not one but two escapement governors, and one of them can run at two different speeds! Then there is the care that goes (or doesn't) into final assembly and adjustment.
The external finish of my '69 is a bit crude, but the '59 is quite as good as my Contax, and the chrome is better. The '59 is also notably smooth - a bit smoother than my Contax in fact, but then it's (Kiev) seen a good deal of use
From what I've seen - and disregarding for now the age of these things - QC was good through the '50s and into the '60s. In the Kruschev era stress was placed on the quality of manufactured goods, and the Kiev was considered as a prestige camera. Morale was pretty good, too. As time went on, the tooling aged and wore and was replaced, the original Zeiss trained employees likewise; so entropy played a bigger and bigger role. I've handled but not used some later Kievs, and there is more and more sample variation. I don't think I want one of the "M" variants, for instance.

E. von Hoegh · Apr 15, 2016

btaylor said:
Oh, there is much to read about the history of Kiev manufacturing tolerances and assembly. IIRC, the very early ones (late 40's- early 50's) were essentially identical to the pre-war Contax, as the Soviets picked up the factory, parts and people and moved them to Ukraine. From what I read, the later the year the worse they became. Today of course, they are decades old-- just like everything else and may need work.

I have a Kiev from the '50's but I prefer the lighter and smaller Contax IIa, though I enjoy shooting with both of them. The Jupiter lenses I have for the Kiev are simply outstanding, and very inexpensive. Unfortunately one can't use the excellent Jupiter 12 (35mm f2.8) on a Contax IIa or IIIa, the rear element won't clear. I finally used my Helios 103 50mm f1.8 on the Contax last December. Wow, it was amazingly sharp. I bought it new from Fedka for something like $40. Fedka can arrange Kiev repairs as well.

EvH, I had a Contax IIa when I was in high school and adopted the "Contax grip." It feels entirely natural after a little practice and came back quickly after many decades.

I agree with you about the lenses. I have the 35, a J-8 and a H-103, and the J-9 and I'm happy with all of them. After reading around the web, I came to the conclusion that quite a few of those who use these lenses have unreasonable expectations. Except for the H-103, they aren't "modern" lenses and don't behave as such. They're all designs from 1930 - 1937~ , albeit tweeked for Soviet glass types. If I compare the Jupiter 12 to my 35mm Nikkor, it doesn't look so great wide open. If I just use the J-12, it starts to look pretty darn good. It's also a third the size of the Nikkor, and at f:5.6 - f:11 it's hard to tell them apart. At f:16 diffraction makes it more or less impossible. Keeping in mind that it's a prewar Sonnar type - although it has one more element than the 6 element prewar Jena version, the 85/2 J-9 is perhaps my favorite, although I use the 35 & 50 more. At large apertures mine has a more even performance than the 50, which makes sense due to the smaller angular field it covers. Mine is a 1970 Lytkarino version.
My H-103 behaves like any good double Gauss type, very sharp and with a shade very contrasty.

My Contax II came with a very efficient shade, it fits on the external bayonet mount and has three telescoping sections with a rectangular mask on the front. Like a mini compendium; it's the most efficient shade for a 35mm camera that I have ever seen. Use it with the 1936 Jena Sonnar and you'd swear the lens was coated.

zmario · May 31, 2016

Hello All,

The website for Mark Hansen, Dead Link Removed, has been down since at least Sunday, May 29, 2016. Has anyone had any contact with Mark? Any feedback would be appreciated.

Reliable repairman for Contax rangefinder in the US?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency