Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Rangefinder Forum > Optics Theory -

Optics Theory - This forum is aimed towards the TECHNICAL side of photographic OPTICS THEORY. There will be some overlap by camera/manufacturer, but this forum is for the heavy duty tech discussions. This is NOT the place to discuss a specific lens or lens line, do that in the appropriate forum. This is the forum to discuss optics or lenses in general, to learn about the tech behind the lenses and images. IF you have a question about a specific lens, post it in the forum about that type of camera, NOT HERE.

Thread Tools Display Modes

Old 11-30-2009   #26
shooter of stuff
tbarker13's Avatar
tbarker13 is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: St. Louis
Posts: 1,669
This is a topic that has been fascinating to me since first stumbling upon this forum. I've really been enjoying using some of the older lenses that might be considered, at least technically, inferior to modern glass. (an example being a 35 pre-asph lux I bought last year)

I've been venturing into portraiture a lot lately. I started with a 50 pre-asph lux, but I am starting to lean toward a combination of a 1953 J3 and a newer model 50 elmar. These, I shoot along with a Nikon D300 armed with an 85/1.4 that I absolutely love.

I guess a lot of it just depends on what you want to accomplish with your photos. If I were shooting landscapes, I don't think the J3 would be my first choice. But for portraits...
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-30-2009   #27
Lord of Broken Toys
bmattock's Avatar
bmattock is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Detroit Area
Posts: 10,027
Originally Posted by Brian Sweeney View Post
Personal cheap favorites, excluding the Jupiters...

$10 50/1.9 Schneider Xenon for the Retina IIIS and $25 90/4 Tele-Arton for the Reflex-S. Kodak Retina outfits offer some bargains.
Really? Interesting - I happen to have the Xenon you mention, but have never used it - always wanted to get a Retina to fit it to but have never done so. Let me ask you this - there is a fellow selling an adapter to fit the compur-mount lenses to M42. Thoughts?
Immanentizing the eschaton since 1987.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-01-2009   #28
Brian Sweeney
Registered User
Brian Sweeney's Avatar
Brian Sweeney is offline
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 14,970
Thoughts.... and deeds...

The Retina to M-42 adapter is expensive compared with the price of the lens and camera that it would fit. You can pick up a Retina IIIS for ~$100. The Rangefinder body is much simpler than the SLR. The top comes off easily and the viewfinder is easy to clean. The Compur shutter is easy to flood clean, just take off the lens.

The SLR's: The Retina Reflex-S, either the shutter goes bad or the prism goes bad. Find one with a working shutter and bad prism: buy a parts Minolta XG-1, XG-7, or XG-9. The prism is a perfect fit, and easy to replace. My Reflex-S was $50, the parts Minolta was ~$5.

Retina lenses are cheap as so many SLR's have died. The 35/2.8 Curtagon, 50/1.9 Xenon, 85/4 Tele-Arton, and 135/4 Xenar were ~$100 total. Cheap German Glass. Lots of Character.
  Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 21:08.

vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.