vdp Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 Can anyone tell me about the Kodak 35, a viewfinder camera that takes 35mm film and was sold in the late 1930's around 1937,38,39. This one has black plastic knobs on top. Were these cameras considered good for their time? Any information about this camera is greatly appreciated. By the way, I'm not a collector I'm a user. Thanks in advance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charles_stobbs3 Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 They came in at least two versions. I have one with silver knobs, a B to 1/200 Kodamatic shutter, and an f3.5 Kodak anastigmat special shutter. I don't think there was much choice in 35mm cameras in the late 30's, you either spent $300 for a Contax or Leica or about $30 for a Kodak, Argus A or a Univex. Kodak later put a clumsy rangefinder on this model for a few dollars more. I haven't put any film through mine yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alex_lofquist Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 There were two versions of the non-RF Kodak 35. One had an f/4.5 three-element lens that was just OK, the other had the four-element Anastigmat Special, based on the Tessar formula. It was later called the Anastar. When used on some Kodak Signets, it was given the name Ektar. The post-war versions were coated. I used both the non-RF and (postwar) RF versions while I was in the Air Force, and was pleased with my Kodachromes from that time. (Late '40s) They weren't as classy as the Leica, but could hold their own against its excellent 50mm f/3.5 Elmar lens. The Argus (3-element) Cintar lens wasn't up to the Kodak lens. There were other good cameras at the time such as the Kodak Bantam and Bantam Special which took unperforated paper-backed 35mm roll film (828). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troll Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 The RF version of this camera has the distinction that it is, unquestionably, the uglest 35mm camera ever made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alex_lofquist Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 You're right. It certainly was ugly. No one ever stole it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan flanders Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 I got the rangefinder version about 1941. The lens was excellent, the shutter less so, and the transport mechanism unreliable. Finally when they had gotten scarce I sold mine to a guy who just had to have it for about what I had paid for it and went back to the Foth Derby that was a high school graduation present. I still have some of the Kodachromes I made with the Kodak and for their age they are amazing; but when I remember how much anxiety the bloody thing caused, and especially how ungly and clumsy it was, I don't have any regrets about the faithful Foth which I carried through the war and which still makes pretty good images when I can get the film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larry_mobbs Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 I agree with the posting above that the Kodak 35 is the ugliest camera I've ever seen. I have two of these critters I bought on a whim after I tracked one down for a friend who went through WW II with one in the pacific. After seeing his I had to have one. I bid on two on Ebay and ended up with both. I used one and everything worked. I never tried the second but it seems to be is just as good shape. They both have cases. I'll let them go cheap if anyone is interested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan flanders Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 Thanks, Larry! Even though it was generally good to me, (photographically, that is) I don't think I want to go through all that angst any more despite the wonderful 'chromes, as well as old time's sake. We were friends, we parted, let it go at that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gene m Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 More homely than ugly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troll Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 Interestingly, this ugly duckling was transformed into the Signet 35, one of the classiest 35s of the '50s. I used to buy them used (with leather case) for $5 and give them to my friend's kids as their first cameras. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_elek Posted July 20, 2004 Share Posted July 20, 2004 Put the Kodak 35 next to a Retina, and you wonder how they came from the same company. Of course, the same could be said of the Ford Edsel and the Thunderbird. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelly_flanigan1 Posted July 20, 2004 Share Posted July 20, 2004 One Variant of the Kodak 35 was used in the military; in WW2. It was in Kodak adverts during the war. The Signet 35 also had two variants; for the military. It has a ball bearing focusing mount; great Ektar lens; and a fair shutter. The Kodak 35 is ugly because the cam lingage was added on later. The rotating lens front piece has the cam surface; the rangefinders coupling gizmo. Here I have one apart on a bench. Mine has second surface mirrors. In the Signet 35; the advance linkage/bar on the bottom often gets gummed up; and the advance gets flaky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_eve Posted July 20, 2004 Share Posted July 20, 2004 Your version, with the black plastic knobs, is the "cheaper" model, with the f/5.6 lens in a three-speed shutter ... for a user camera, if I specifically wanted a Kodak 35, I'd shop around for the the "better" version with the f/4.5 lens, though I'm sure your camera will perform well within it's limitations, assuming it's in good working order. I think this non-r/f version is not unattractive, but I'd have to agree with the other posters about the r/f version, despite it's better lens specification, I'd need to be feeling particularly adventurous to go out of the house with one around my neck and in full view ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pc1 Posted July 20, 2004 Share Posted July 20, 2004 i agree with all you guys, got the military version in Ex +++ condition, and it just sits in my cabinet trying to look pretty... pc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vdp Posted July 20, 2004 Author Share Posted July 20, 2004 Thanks for all the feedback. I think the one that I got in the mail Yesterday is very nice looking. I need to sit down and give it a good look see to find out exactly how it works. I'm used to the modern cameras like the Contax RX and Aria, where you just drop the film in and start shooting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charles_stobbs3 Posted July 21, 2004 Share Posted July 21, 2004 In summary of the info here, there were three versions, f3.5, f4.5, and f5.6. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_elek Posted July 21, 2004 Share Posted July 21, 2004 Vincent -- good to hear that you're branching out a bit. Most of us have an enormous amount of fun buying and using different cameras. Don't judge everything against the Contax or you'll be sorely disappointed. One suggestion: Try some of the older German-made cameras or one of the popular small rangefinder cameras from the 1970s. Great fun, all of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roland_larson Posted July 22, 2004 Share Posted July 22, 2004 ... may not be a relevant response to your question : I took the Xenar 45mm 2.8 from a jammed Kodak Retina Reflex, found some suitable adaptors and the lens now lives happily with a Pentax MX. Attached is a snapshot taken in Shanghai during their Chinese New Year, with Kodak VC 160 neg. Certainly not the sharpest lens around but I'm pleasantly surprised to see the degree of color saturation from the one-hour prints, considering it's vintage and minimal coating. Lens fully opened at 1/60s, negative scanned by Epson 2450 PHOTO; some sharpening is done to counter the jpeg loss.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pshinkaw Posted July 28, 2004 Share Posted July 28, 2004 I've got both ends of this combo, the Xenar 45/2.8 and the Pentax MX. which adapter did you use? -Paul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roland_larson Posted July 28, 2004 Share Posted July 28, 2004 Glad to know I'm not the only one :) <p> The mount is made by <a href="http://elefoto.hp.infoseek.co.jp/MOUNT/deckel.html">elephoto</a>, comes in AI and M42 versions. I got both from the World Photo Supplies on Stanley Street, Central, Hong Kong. Quite costy at approx USD 200 a piece, but with them I can keep on shooting with my modest collection of Kodak Retina lenses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roland_larson Posted July 28, 2004 Share Posted July 28, 2004 ... sorry but it seems that I can't make the file size right today. Here comes the top view, note that the mount comes with its own aperture control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roland_larson Posted July 28, 2004 Share Posted July 28, 2004 ... and this is for Nikon, shown with the Xenar 50/2.8 The mirror clearence for Nikon is not quite enough for the Curtagon 28/4 and some Tele-Xenar 135/4 to shoot at infinity, but usable at closer distance when the rear of the lens moves away from the mirror by approx 0.5mm. The Xenar 45/2.8 has a fixed rear group regardless of focus distance and so it couldn't be used on Nikon at all. The Aetna Coligon 135/4 and 200/4.8 can't mount on either the M42 or the AI because of a claw thickness issue. Hope this helps -- and sorry about messing up with the image size for posting :P ... and I would like to add that, you also need an M42-to-K adaptor for use with the MX ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roland_larson Posted July 28, 2004 Share Posted July 28, 2004 The Tele-Xenar 135/4 works with the MX but will jam the Nikon's mirror at infinity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roland_larson Posted July 28, 2004 Share Posted July 28, 2004 ... and so is this Curtagon 28/4 Well, I give up -- I can't get the file size right :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now