Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Classic Film RangeFinders & Other Classics > Kodak Retina RF

Kodak Retina RF This forum is for the 35mm Kodak Retinas, known for their German engineering, relatively modest price and superb lenses.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Actual examples of usingi the wide and tele in the IIIc?
Old 06-14-2015   #1
julio1fer
Registered User
 
julio1fer's Avatar
 
julio1fer is offline
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Uruguay
Posts: 430
Actual examples of usingi the wide and tele in the IIIc?

Sorry for the typo in the title, it should read "using".

I just got locally a IIIc with Xenon and with the Schneider Curtagon and Longar, as well as the auxiliary finder and incident light cover for the meter (although the meter is dead). The top of the body has lots of chrome loss, but the lenses are pristine and the operation is smooth. I hope to post pictures after the camera comes back from the standard CLA with my technician.

Besides this one I have a IIIc with Heligon, but only the nornal (excellent) lens. I know that I cannot use the Schneider auxiliary wide and tele lenses with my other IIIc.

When trying the camera operation, I was surprised at the complexity of it all. The RF is not synchronized with the auxiliary lenses, and the scale distances in the auxiliary lenses are at the bottom, quite inconvenient and awfully slow shooting. The good point is the tiny size of the 35mm Curtagon. The Longar makes for a very impressive display. The viewfinder is so-so but works. Of course you must keep the camera open when using the wide or tele.

This is probably the most cumbersome RF camera system ever made. I wonder if people really used the auxiliary lenses. Do you know of any pro that did?

And more important, how good are the Curtagon and Longar in the Schneider version? I plan to test them myself soon, but in the meantime, do you have examples of their good use?

Thanks for any comment.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-15-2015   #2
JPD
J. Patric DahlÚn
 
JPD's Avatar
 
JPD is offline
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Northern Sweden
Age: 46
Posts: 391
I have two IIc with both lenses in 2,8, and the Heligon is sharper than the Xenon, but it could be due to sample variation. And the difference between the Curtar/Longar and Heligon-C 35/80 is the same, the Heligons are sharper. I suspect that the rear cell of the Xenon isn't the best on my camera. Maybe yours is better.

Stop down a stop or two, and I think you will find that the Curtar and Longar will perform about the same as the 50mm. The 35mm will vingette a little in the corners, but it's not that bad.

I haven't used them for "real" photography yet, but I have some quick test shots on my flickr page. But remember that your Xenon may be better than mine: http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-15-2015   #3
Rob-F
It's Only a Hobby
 
Rob-F's Avatar
 
Rob-F is online now
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: The Show Me state
Posts: 4,994
Quote:
Originally Posted by julio1fer View Post
This is probably the most cumbersome RF camera system ever made. I wonder if people really used the auxiliary lenses. Do you know of any pro that did?
Thanks for any comment.
I guess the IIIc when used together with the lenses you mention is not really much of a "system." If it were me, I would get rid of the funny lenses that don't work well with the IIIc, and get maybe a 90mm f/4 Elmar for the long lens. For the wide end, I use a 35mm/2.5 CV, and a 28/3.5 CV. Both are rangefinder coupled. For a legacy wide angle, you could try a 35mm Elmar or Summaron. The IIIc is great. Your frustration comes form using lenses that are not part of the Leica system.
__________________
May the light be with you.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-15-2015   #4
julio1fer
Registered User
 
julio1fer's Avatar
 
julio1fer is offline
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Uruguay
Posts: 430
Thanks for the comparison of lenses. JPD. Nice exercise and very decent results! I'll try something like this when I get the camera and lenses back.

There may be variations in lenses and mount tolerances between these samples. Doing three focal distances with a common back element set is a significant restriction for design. I would not expect the Schneider and Heligon sets to be much different in average quality.

It seems that the Heligon set is rarer than the Schneider. Maybe it was Kodak's second source, and if so maybe they tried harder than Schneider. I know my Heligon is very good.

Rob-F, thanks for your lens comments, but my post was about the Kodak Retina IIIc, not the better known, L-named IIIc.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-16-2015   #5
Dwig
Registered User
 
Dwig's Avatar
 
Dwig is offline
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Key West, FL, USA
Posts: 1,493
Quote:
Originally Posted by julio1fer View Post
...
It seems that the Heligon set is rarer than the Schneider. Maybe it was Kodak's second source, and if so maybe they tried harder than Schneider. I know my Heligon is very good. ....
If memory serves, for most (all??) of the post-war Retina production only the Schneider lensed variants were sold in the US. Both lenses were offered in Europe. This would account for the larger number of Schneider lensed versions.
__________________
----------
Dwig
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-16-2015   #6
JPD
J. Patric DahlÚn
 
JPD's Avatar
 
JPD is offline
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Northern Sweden
Age: 46
Posts: 391
Quote:
Originally Posted by julio1fer View Post
Thanks for the comparison of lenses. JPD. Nice exercise and very decent results! I'll try something like this when I get the camera and lenses back.

There may be variations in lenses and mount tolerances between these samples. Doing three focal distances with a common back element set is a significant restriction for design. I would not expect the Schneider and Heligon sets to be much different in average quality.
Yes, both Kodak and most users say that the image quality should be the same, and I believe them too. I may get another IIc (or IIIc) with Xenon someday.

When you test the lenses, please post the results here on RFF. They don't have to be scientific.

Quote:
It seems that the Heligon set is rarer than the Schneider. Maybe it was Kodak's second source, and if so maybe they tried harder than Schneider. I know my Heligon is very good.
And Dwig is right, both lenses were offered in Europe. If you buy the wide and tele Heligon C from Europe, it shouldn't matter if they have the scales in Meters, since they only are DOF scales. You use the camera's scales to focus anyway.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
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 05:31.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, 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.