Aditionnal lenses for Retina IIc

Hi,

I have been very impressed by the sharpness of the 50mm/f2.8 Heligon

lens on my Retina IIc. I am hesitating to buy the 35mm and 80mm

interchangeable C-type Heligons for this camera because these lenses

are not practical to use (determine distance with the camera's RF

first, then report the distance to another scale, etc.) I also tend

to compare their usefulness with the add-on lenses for the Yashica

Electro's, which are said to offer only a limited extra reach. Since

the Retina lenses are real front components instead of add-on lenses,

I suppose they do not degrade the sharpness. Does anyone have any

experience with these lenses? Are they a worthwhile purchase? Thanks,

Perhaps I should add that I was not terribly impressed by the interchangeable lenses for the Retina IIIS (Schneider 28mm and 135mm), adding to my hesitation to purchase the C-type additional Heligons for the IIc. Time to try another film in the IIIS maybe?

My Retinas use Schneider lenses, but the Heligons should be as good (or vice versa). The 35mm f/5.6 is useful ... accurate focussing is less of a problem with a wide-angle lens, so you can use scale focussing, and it takes the same filters and lens hood as the 50mm, though you can't fold the camera with it fitted. The 80mm is a bit more clumsy to use, as you've noted, but still not to be dismissed, as the extra "reach" is useful on occaision, even if only to save cropping at print time. I wouldn't bother with the 35mm f/4 unless it's cheap, it's as big as the 80mm for only one more stop of aperture.

 

Note that with a IIc (small c) camera you'll need an auxiliary viewfinder with any of these lenses.

 

See my page http://user.itl.net/~kypfer/35/ret-028.htm for an idea of what the camera looks like with the auxiliary lenses fitted.

Thanks Chris. The 35mm/f4 is indeed as huge as the 80mm lens. Is the resolution of these extra lenses comparable to the standard 50mm lens?

I already have a nice shoe-mount Tewe varifocal finder that I could use with them. A side-question : would the viewfinder of a IIC (big C) be much bigger/brighter in use?

I've not been dissatisfied with with the Schneider lenses on my IIIS and have had similarly acceptable results with the same lenses on my Instamatic Reflex, so I don't have a problem recommending these lenses.

 

For my (un-critical) self I see little or no difference between the standard 50mm lens and either of the auxiliary lenses on my IIIC. I must admit to usually being more concerned with distortion and contrast than actual resolution, and these factors haven't been a problem for me with my lenses ... obviously "your mileage may vary".

 

The Retina IIC is a rare bird, so usually has a collector premium, probably even more so with the (scarcer) Heligon. The viewfinder on my IIIC is certainly far superior to those on my IIc or IIIc, or indeed any earlier Retina ... my recommendation would be a good "user" IIIC, probably with a Schneider lens, as these are more easily souced than those with a Heligon, as are the Schneider auxiliary lenses.

 

I do use both my IIIS and IIIC regularly, though not interchangeably. The IIIS usually lives in a bag with a set of lenses, so by definition becomes almost "serious", whereas the IIIC is far more pocketable (by design) and often goes for a walk with just a lens hood, a couple of filters and maybe the 35mm f/5.6 for company.

I have the Schneider lenses for my IIIc; the 35mm F4, 35mm f5.6, and 80mm F4. I paid $10, $35, and $35 for them respectively. They are very slow to use; for scenic shots that is okay. I bought them just for the sake of completeness. <p>

 

If you already have the IIIS, you will be much happier with the 35mm F2.8 Curtagon, the 50mm F1.9 Xenon, and the 85mm F4 Tele-Arton. In my opinion, they are the "pick-of-the-litter" in the Schneider line-up. They are not expensive. The 28mm and 135mm are not as sharp as these; but I also have and use them as well.<p>

 

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=360680"> (90mm F4 Tele-Arton on Retina IIIS) </a>

 

<p>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=350967"> (50mm F1.9 Xenon on Reflex-S and Retina IIIS) </a>

Lots of good info here - thank you everyone.

Brian, your pictures with the Tele-Arton seem indeed to be a lot sharper than with my Tele-Xenar 135mm. Nice bokeh too.

I expected more from the Tele-Xenar and the 28mm Curtagon, but I'm pretty sure my pictures have much less contrast and only so-so sharpness (don't have them at hand right now).

I've had good results with the 35m f/5.6 Curtagon IIc/C and IIIc/C series. With the Curtagon, I've noticed some barrel distortion, so it wouldn't be the best choice for architectural photography. If you look at the sample, you can see how the gate at the base is bowed a bit near the edges of the photo. It's more pronounced when shooting close up.<p>

 

I found the wide angle lens to be a worthwhile purchase, although when used with the "small c" cameras, you'll also want to have the auxiliary viewfinder. The 80mm lens is a bit of a pain, because you have to be much more precise in focusing and transferring the setting to the bottom of the lens.<p>

 

I've also found the 35mm lens for the IIIS to be very sharp and satisfying. Perhaps you had a bad example.<p>

 

<center><img src=http://pages.prodigy.net/mm-elek/cameras/big_buddha.jpg border=0><br>

<i>My tourist shot: Big Buddha on Lantau Island,<br>Retina IIC with 35mm f/5.6 Curtagon, Agfapan 25</i>

Some 25 years ago I used the Schneider 80mm on my IIIC during the tourist boat ride around Manhattan Island. With the focus at infinity, there was no problem with transferring the distance from the rangefinder to the 80mm itself. Agfa slide film was used, and viewing the slides with a 30x magnifier (pocket microscope) revealed an impressive degree of detail and sharpness. I was likely shooting at F 8 to F 11.

Mike, I don't own the 35mm for the Retina IIIS - I have the 28mm with the widening front barrel (latest model?) because I wanted the widest possible lens for this camera... apparently not a good idea. I was planning to sell the camera because of the 'disappointing' results and because the aperture and speed rings don't seem to lock properly. The meter is way off too. Perhaps I should give the camera another chance and try one more film.

For the IIc I just might watch out for the 35mm/f5.6 lens then - admittedly more for the sake of 'completeness' and the fun of it than out of necessity. Thank you all.

I've been their with a IIIS Bad meter and Rings not locking up! I replaced the meter "module" with one from a Retina Reflex S that was jammed; but had a good meter. Parts camera ran $10. If the Selenium cell is good; but the calibration is off, that can be repaired more easily. The rings get dirt/"gunk" in them and get tight. You can clean around them; and if you get brave, take off the lens mount and clean them quite well. But this latter takes time, patience, some skill, and Quiet. It also takes the repair manual. EMail me if you want to give this a try.