Confirm ID - Kodak Retina IIIc type 021 Ausf. II ?

Discussion in 'Leica and Rangefinders' started by erica_rivers, May 9, 2015.

  1. My ID of the camera is based on information provided by I'm wondering how the value may compare to the earlier IIIc model, as well as from what the "type 021 Ausf. II" descriptor is derived; as in, why "Ausf." ? I have not really explored the camera so I can't speak to the internal condition. It came with a few accessories, all of which are in good condition.
    [​IMG] [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG]
  2. They were made in Germany. "Ausführung" translates (probably) to variant / version?
    Value: Maybe somebody is really collecting Retinas and wants the more "rare" one desperately. - But lets be realistic: Although they are a milestone in history somehow, I 'd guess its the best idea to burn some film with them and enjoy their pocketability. - At least thats what I did with my Retina II user beater. As a user I 'd appreciate the wider ISO range of the later variant's meter (in case it is still working).
  3. Yes, as a german, I can confirm that "Ausf." is shortform for "Ausfuehrung" which means "version". It is derived from the verb "ausfuehren" which means "to make, to perform, to finish", so "Ausfuehrung" is the way a product is finished.
  4. As this
    shows, the man difference between a IIIc and IIIC is a larger viewfinder and meter cell. The IIIC is thus a little better to use and has traditionally been more sought-after by collectors. These days, values have fallen and seem to be between 150 and $200 for a camera in excellent condition, with the IIIC worth a fraction more (maybe $25). "Ausführung" does indeed mean "version", for practical purposes the differences between versions are not significant, Much more important is that the camera is in good order and that the piece of string (yes, really!) linking the aperture and shutter controls to the meter is working correctly. There are some repair people who will tackle a Retina but not many.
  5. I am curious as to why the Retina Iic with an f2.8 Xenon produces a sharper image than a IIIc or IIIC with
    an f2.0 Xenon, which seems to be a common opinion in Photonet postings. Is there something about the
    Xenon formula that prevents manufacture of a truly sharp f2.0 lens?
  6. More conservative design, for the same reason why the 50mm f3.5 Carl Zeiss Tessar on a Contax IIA/IIIA is sharper than
    either the f2 and f1.5 Sonnars.

    Of course, it's all relative. The f2 Xenons and Sonnar lenses are plenty sharp enough, just not as sharp wide open.
  7. The F2.8 Xenon has the same rear module as the F2.0 lens, and has a "truncated" front element. Stop the F2.0 lens to
    F2.8, should be the same.

    I have a late IIC (big C) which has an unmarked F2 setting on the aperture, I put an F2.0 front onto it. Works perfectly.
  8. In my opinion Kodak Retina IIIC has much better viewfinder.


    Esa Kivivuori

Share This Page