I'll start things up.
I started with a Retina S1

Added a Retinette 1b

and then added a Retina IIIc that I had given as a gift to my father, who after several years gifted it back:

(all images from the web - except my avatar)
How aboout you?

Cool, but I only have one Retina...a IIIC...I’ll have to add some more. The IIIC is about my favorite rangefinder, and a beautiful lens, but I wouldn’t mind something a little more compact.

My first 35mm was a IIIC Big it was graduation present from my aunts, 1966, new old stock, I still have it, need to get the shutter serviced and the light meter is dying. Over the years I added the 80 and 35mm, seldom used them, the 50mm is a great lens. Later that year I was able to afford a used Spotmatic, carried the IIIC as my second body. Considering the abuse I put that poor camera through a good performer. Every once in a while I get the notion to get a S, maybe someday.

About ten years ago, fortune would have it that I stumbled across an individual’s lifetime collection of Retina cameras at an estate sale. The earliest model was a Retina 1 (Type 119, made between 1936-38). The latest model was the original Retina Reflex (025), made between 1957-59. In the lot were various other versions of Retina I’s, and many of the II’s.

Over the years, when I’ve had a little fun money to spend, I have designated one of them for a CLA and a return back to life. I sent the Reflex (025) to Chris Sherlock, as I could find no one in the U.S. who would touch it. The Reflex, and a IIC, are my favorite models.

I enjoy the IIC because I learned photography in high school using a Canon P. So, the frame lines in the IIC finder are very natural to my eye. I don’t use the 35mm and 80mm lenses on the IIC since I have the Reflex. Even after reading the instruction manual multiple times, I’m not sure I even understand how to do the needed manipulation to get them to focus on the IIC.

The ring on the later 35mm/80mm lenses was too confusing. I just treat it as an uncoupled rangefinder--focus using the rangefinder spot, read the distance off the top of the focus ring, flip the camera upside down, and on the underside there are two distance scales--one for 35mm and one for 80mm, Just dial the distance you read off the top into the appropriate bottom scale. I also appreciate that the 50 has a infrared mark, as this is the camera I use for most of my IR shooting.

I have a Retina Ib, two IB, two IIc (Heligon and Xenon), three pre-war IIa (2,0 Xenon, 2,8 Xenon and 3,5 Ektar), two Retina II (142) with 2.8 Xenon and 3,5 Ektar that need to be fixed, and a Retina I (126, I believe). I've had a few more that I sold, like a post-war Retina II and a IIIc.

The one I have used the most is the humble Ib with Xenar. It's easy to use with eyeglasses, and easy to focus even though it doesn't have a rangefinder. My next favourite is the IIc with Heligon, because of the rangefinder plus the ability to use the 35 and 80 mm lenses (that I seldom use).

My IIc with Xenon isn't as sharp. The Heligon and Xenon should be equally sharp, but I think I got a bad example. I'll buy another one someday, or perhaps a IIC, because I have the wide and tele lenses for the Xenon.

I think the Retina I, Ia and Ib/B models deserve more attention. The Xenar is a fine lens, and guesstimating the distance isn't that difficult, and if you shoot stopped down to 5,6 or more the DOF takes care of small focusing errors.

My first Retina was a post-war type 010, which a friend sold me for $20. That was three years ago. I now own about 45 various models and have serviced most of them myself. In fact, check this out: https://www.gazettetimes.com/entert...cle_054d8027-589b-5182-9686-8a9553a35055.html

JPD said:

The one I have used the most is the humble Ib with Xenar. It's easy to use with eyeglasses, and easy to focus even though it doesn't have a rangefinder. My next favourite is the IIc with Heligon, because of the rangefinder plus the ability to use the 35 and 80 mm lenses (that I seldom use).

My IIc with Xenon isn't as sharp. The Heligon and Xenon should be equally sharp, but I think I got a bad example. I'll buy another one someday, or perhaps a IIC, because I have the wide and tele lenses for the Xenon.

I think the Retina I, Ia and Ib/B models deserve more attention. The Xenar is a fine lens, and guesstimating the distance isn't that difficult, and if you shoot stopped down to 5,6 or more the DOF takes care of small focusing errors.

Click to expand...

I have a IIIc with a Retina-Heligon lens, and recently acquired a IIa (016) with the Retina-Heligon lens. Its interesting how rarely the Rodenstock lens version shows up for sale, and when it does, it tends to be $$$, no doubt because there is the perception that the Rodenstock lens is superior. And yet, when comparing the Heligon to the Xenon (comparison between two IIIc's with the two lens types, and two IIa's with the two lens variants), I can detect absolutely no difference between the two manufacturers lenses, in terms of sharpness, contrast and overall performance. Even Kodak said the two lenses - though of different calculations - performed identically. My experience with them supports that notion. And yet the Retina-Heligon is difficult to find and so much more expensive!

As far as guesstimating distances with the Retinas lacking a built-in rangefinder, its quite feasible to guess and use zone focusing: its kinda what they were made to do. But I have a couple Kodak Pocket Rangefinders which are made to fit on the accessory shoe (if the camera has one) and I like using those. (See: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-7Vg37U3Ba8o/T8P0s0G1_2I/AAAAAAAACpI/08CtONZ7zMc/s1600/_5285531.JPG from http://knippsen.blogspot.com/2012/06/kodak-pocket-range-finder_11.html )

RE Retina lenses, better/best: I have a 1936 Retina type 126 with the Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar lens, and it does seem to perform better than the Schneider lens in my other 126's. Actually, my two other 126's have lenses branded as Kodak-Anastigmat EKTAR, but are in fact the same as the Retina-Xenar lenses: Schneider manufactured both, but at a certain point in production, Kodak insisted the lenses be marked as a Kodak product.

This is a sample photo from my 126/Tessar: https://live.staticflickr.com/7856/33165154778_ec5f69e956_k.jpg

I hope the Retina Reflex is welcome too. I love the Schneider-Kreuznach lenses, and some of my lenses do not have the rangefinder cam (that would imply the IIIS would be an option).

I note that my posted photo is the only Group Photo up so far.
(Hint, Hint)

Thanks Mark

Mine are kind of large. Anyway to delete? I want to reduce size. Would be nice if we had gallery view...

If you right click on photo, "open in new tab", you can get a good view. Cannot edit the comments... I think this was addressed before.

paulbarden said:

I have a IIIc with a Retina-Heligon lens, and recently acquired a IIa (016) with the Retina-Heligon lens. Its interesting how rarely the Rodenstock lens version shows up for sale, and when it does, it tends to be $$$, no doubt because there is the perception that the Rodenstock lens is superior. And yet, when comparing the Heligon to the Xenon (comparison between two IIIc's with the two lens types, and two IIa's with the two lens variants), I can detect absolutely no difference between the two manufacturers lenses, in terms of sharpness, contrast and overall performance. Even Kodak said the two lenses - though of different calculations - performed identically. My experience with them supports that notion. And yet the Retina-Heligon is difficult to find and so much more expensive!

Click to expand...

Yes, I think any difference between the Heligon and Xenon is only due to sample variation. I've had some bad Tessars and Xenars as well. I have heard that most, if not all, IIa and c/C cameras imported to the United States had the Xenon. The Heligon isn't that rare here in Europe, but I see more of the Xenon cameras.

As far as guesstimating distances with the Retinas lacking a built-in rangefinder, its quite feasible to guess and use zone focusing: its kinda what they were made to do. But I have a couple Kodak Pocket Rangefinders which are made to fit on the accessory shoe (if the camera has one) and I like using those. (See: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-7Vg37U3Ba8o/T8P0s0G1_2I/AAAAAAAACpI/08CtONZ7zMc/s1600/_5285531.JPG from http://knippsen.blogspot.com/2012/06/kodak-pocket-range-finder_11.html )

Click to expand...

Neat. I have a Voigtländer rangefinder, but I have so far only used it with a 6x9 folder.

That photo taken with the type 126 with Tessar looks great. What film did you use? You could have fooled me if you said it was 6x9 and a 400 film.

JPD said:

That photo taken with the type 126 with Tessar looks great. What film did you use? You could have fooled me if you said it was 6x9 and a 400 film.

Click to expand...

Thanks. That was made with that weird Ukrainian film, MZ-3 (the 3 indicates its ASA: 3!). I'm not sure who actually makes MZ-3 but its packaged and sold by Astrum. Its kinda like a microfilm or something. No idea what its original use was. Its totally red blind, so you can develop by inspection under a red safelight. Very fine grain, excellent sharpness, but it tends to be VERY contrasty, which is why I like to develop by inspection. Typically 4.5 minutes in Xtol is sufficient.

I started with two lenses- SK 35m f2.8 Curtagon and SK f1.9 50mm Xenon. Since these did not have the rangefinder cam, I bought a Retina Reflex IV. Since then I added the following SK Retina lenses (i.e., w/cam): 50mm f2.8 Xenar, 85mm f4 Tele-Arton, 135mm f4 Tele-Xenar.

abruzzi said:

The ring on the later 35mm/80mm lenses was too confusing. I just treat it as an uncoupled rangefinder--focus using the rangefinder spot, read the distance off the top of the focus ring, flip the camera upside down, and on the underside there are two distance scales--one for 35mm and one for 80mm, Just dial the distance you read off the top into the appropriate bottom scale. I also appreciate that the 50 has a infrared mark, as this is the camera I use for most of my IR shooting.

Click to expand...

Now that I can handle. Thanks for this tip! I'll give it a try. I'm curious what filter set-up you use for the IR exposures with the 50mm. What adapter do you use to fit an IR filter on the 29.5mm lens thread?

Question about the two Retina-Curtar 35mm (C type) lenses available for the Retina IIIc/IIIC: does anyone know if the f4 version vignettes into the frame like the f5.6 version does? I find the f5.6 Curtar vignettes the corners slightly. If the f4 version doesn't do this, then I will seek one out. Thank you!

Paul

paulbarden said:

Question about the two Retina-Curtar 35mm (C type) lenses available for the Retina IIIc/IIIC: does anyone know if the f4 version vignettes into the frame like the f5.6 version does? I find the f5.6 Curtar vignettes the corners slightly. If the f4 version doesn't do this, then I will seek one out. Thank you!

Paul

Click to expand...

Greetings! I've never had any such issues with the 35mm f4 version of the lens. I've always shot with it on the original Retina Reflex, and the image through the finder is also free of vignetting. The pic (color) that I posted on our group photo page was taken with this lens.
Cheers,
Russ

russljames said:

Greetings! I've never had any such issues with the 35mm f4 version of the lens. I've always shot with it on the original Retina Reflex, and the image through the finder is also free of vignetting. The pic (color) that I posted on our group photo page was taken with this lens.
Cheers,
Russ

Click to expand...

Thank you Russ. I believe my vignetting experience is due to the fact that I used a UV filter (Kodak brand, made for the Retina) on the f5.6 lens, and apparently you can't do that or you get vignetting! Tolerances are so tight that it doesn't even allow for a filter to be fitted to the front. Yikes.
Thanks for your reply. I will continue to look for a nice example of the f4 lens, just to see how it performs.

Paul

I got a Retina IIIc recently (from Photrio classifieds) with a Rodenstock 50mm f2 Heligon. I really like shooting it . It reminds me of the precision of my Contax iia. I am trying to load some shots, but the upload is not working.

...editing posts in Groups still does not work. Here is the error I got uploading (same error trying to edit the post above):

Photrio.com Photography Forums - Error
A server error occurred. Please try again later.