Which Retina II model would you prefer? (and not prefer)

<p>It looks like a stupid question, but which model would you (or you won't) prefer most? <br /> I know IIa (type 016) is the best because of the winder located on the top, however I use the II (type 014) more. Both of them are having Xenon and the result has no significant difference, only in the speed of winding.<br>

I think IIc/F/S models could be included in this area, since they are also marked as Retina II models.</p>

<p>Well the Retinas are small but heavy. The IIa can be carried around in a pocket, but you need an external meter. I'm pretty sure the IIa has a rangefinder too. The later models like the IIIc and IIIC are nicely equipped but really too heavy to carry around in a pocket comfortably. I'd go with the IIa and a small clip on meter such as the Voigtlander.</p>

<p>I have to say though that the Retinas are pretty old at this point, and using them as everyday cameras may be overtaxing them. Staying simple like the IIa might be better from that standpoint too. They all have very nice lenses. I'm pretty sure the Retinas might not wind if there is not film in the camera if I'm remembering right, so if you want to check them out you may need to bring a film along, and it pays to do some research on operation prior to checking them out.</p>

<p>The IIF does not have the same feel as the earlier II models and it's not a folder. It feels cheaper and less solid -- more like a 60's Retinette but with a rangefinder (actually my Retinette IIB feels better.) The main plus is that viewfinder is newer/nicer than than all but the big C and it has a meter visible in the finder. It's also 45mm (which I like better than 50mm) but then again only 2.8 and front-cell focusing. It's bottom wind (which I don't mind.)</p>

<p>I like the IIc much better: folding, great mechanical feel, nice rounded shape. I actually prefer it to the IIIc but I don't need less than f/2.8 often. I just love the quiet "snick" of the IIc/IIIc shutter. I've not shot with the earlier II's.</p>

<p>I have (and use) a IIa from 1947 and a late model IIc: both are very nice cameras. In terms in terms of image quality and handling the IIc is really the better of the two, but I have a little more empathy with the IIa.</p>

<p>In 1985, my wife and I went to England, and just before boarding, she discovered that she had left her Canon Sure Shot at home, which was to be our main camera. That was before my camera addiction but I had brought my IIa as an emergency backup. It was in March, my only trip to the UK and every day contained some blue sky, some overcast and some rain. I based exposure settings on the guidance found inside the yellow film box of Kodacolor 200, essentially the "sunny 16" rule. Nearly every shot was properly exposed in the 6 boxes if film I used. So, a meter is not strictly necessary unless you shoot slide film.</p>

<p>My favorite Retina is the IIIC followed by the IIIc followed by the IIa over the IIc. I prefer the film advance on the top, but I like the viewfinder of the IIIC more. Guru Ivor Matanle claims the f2.8 lens is sharper than the f2.0, but I think they are the same lens, and is limited mechanically to f2.8 on the IIc. I use eveready cases with all of them. </p>

<p>Other folders to be considered are the Voigtlander Vito III (rare and big bucks, but the photo quality makes up for the strange ergonomics), the Voigtlander Vitessa, and the Zeiss Contessa 35.<br /><br /><br /></p>

<p>Concerning the RF models, I think the IIc is the best lookin' one of the bunch. But i could never get used that lever on the bottom for some reason. The IIa (016) is probably my favorite followed by the II (014).</p>

<p>Richard beat me to it - my favorite has always been the postwar IIa (have to bear in mind, there are a prewar II and a prewar IIa and a postwar II and a postwar IIa), and as a user it still is - slightly more compact than the IIc and the top mounted lever is definitely better ergonomics no matter what Kodak might have thought. But the IIc has joined my list of the most beautiful cameras ever made to look at, and the feel of precision in it is unlike any of the others. I have yet to verify that the f/2.8 Xenon is sharper than the f/2, but it's probably a safe enough bet. If I had to pick a winner between these two, the IIa would probably still win but it's a hard call.</p>

<p>LEAST favorite is easy, that's the prewar II - pretty awkward beastie, that.</p>

<p>Oh, and of course, in addition to the II and II and IIa and IIa and IIc there was also a IIC.</p>

<p>I have own most of the Retinas with rangefinders and the only one I kept is the post war IIa. The last one I sold was a IIc and while being a very nice camera was just not as nice to use as is the IIa. As for the f2.8 on the IIc being sharper? Well, if it were that much sharper than the f2 it would still be on my self. Truth is, my favorite Retina is the Retina Ia (015) with a 50mm f3.5 Ektar in Syncro-Compur. That baby just slides into your pocket like a knife going through butter. If I find another one it will be on my shelf next to its big sister the IIa. JohnW</p>

<p>I love the IIa, on of the best Retinas by far, it is my vacation rangefinder.</p><div></div>