>>3284682>Has anyone used the Contax II or III rangefinders?Yeah, they're really nice.
Remember though they were competing with pre-M Leicas, like the II and II, IIf, etc.
So their viewfinders are much better than screwmount Leicas, but worse than M Leicas.
Build quality and feel is very good. The IIa feels more solid and dense than the II, mostly because it's smaller and better finished.
Either II or IIa are fine, each has its own small compromises.
In usability, the biggest difference is that the IIa has a much better shutter speed dial and film rewind dial.You can change shutter speed one handed while gripping the camera. On the negative side, the rf is not immune to misalignment anymore. On the plus side, the shutter is more immune compared to the one in the II model (assuming you're not CLA'ing it).
Also, the II can mount the Jupiter-12, which is a Russian *clone* of the pre-war Biogon. The IIa can't, it can only mount the post war Biogons, which are better lenses but quite more expensive. Both can mount the C-Voigtlander wides, that were released around 2000 in "Nikon/Contax mount".
Also, a Kiev 4 is a clone of the Contax II (not a reverse engineered copy, but a clone built using original Zeiss blueprints). The leatherette is not real leather of course and it might feel a bit rougher around the edges, but the vf/rf is the same and the general operation the same. I'm mentioning this, if you wanna try the waters without spending Contax money.
But that said, Contaxes are really a steal compared to Leicas, both bodies and lenses, especially considering that in that era they were the upmarket choice.
