35mm Folders

[Two23]

<p>Over the years I've come to realize I just love folders! It started with a 1035 Bessa 6x9 in near mint condition. Then I picked up a 1914 Kodak Special No.1, a 1937 Bessa RF, a Kodak 3A postcard camera, and most recently a Century No. 46 4x5. I'm thinking, "What the heck, maybe I should get a 35mm folder too!" So, what's the "best" 35mm folder? I'm thinking of something that has rangefinder focus, or at least doesn't have only scale focus.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[bernard_lazareff]

<p>Can't claim to have seen them all, but for me the Retina IIa (50/2.0 Xenon) is top.</p>

[yann1]

<p>Folding Retinas are the best 35mm folding cameras . And the IIa was my favorite, with a f2 lens. But other Retinas are excellent too.</p>

[charles_stobbs3]

I am also a Retina lla fan, it being my only camera for years, almost always loaded with Kodachrome. But

I have since used others, I also recommend the Agfa Solinette, with an Apotar or Solinar lens (also

marketed as Ansco Regents). With or without rangefinders. You don't really need a rangefinder, the

learning time for guesstimating distances is very short.

[Dustin McAmera]

<p>The only folding 35 mm RF camera I have is a Super Dollina II, made by Certo. I'm not here to champion my camera against the Retina in the contest for 'best'; the VF and RF are separate eyepieces, and I find the VF a bit small. It was made for many years, but you don't see a lot of them around (at least not here in the UK). It's a horizontal folder, unlike the Retina IIa. Mine has a coated f/2.8 Tessar and a Synchro-Compur shutter.<br /> Another one you might look at is the Super Baldinette: that can come with an f/2 lens (it also comes with Balda's odd winder-lock button).<br /> Although the OP wanted not to have scale focus, I agree with Charles. I think a wide-aperture lens and a good range of shutter speeds are more important for a user than an RF. I have a Solinette II (mine has an f/3.5 Apotar), and a Balda Jubilette, with Balda's own f/2.9 Baltar triplet (and front-element scale focus down to 0.6 metre!)</p>

[chauncey_walden]

<p>The Retinas mentioned or a Vitessa with an Ultron.</p>

[Brad Cloven]

<p>What is a good Retina IIc worth? I just saw one for $48 in an "Antique" store. I passed it by, thinking the III was supposedly better, and I really don't need more cameras..... Yikes!</p>

[bruce_z._li2]

<p>I'm partial to the Vitessa with Ultron lens, mostly for its lens. But the Kodak Retinas and Zeiss Contessas are plenty good too.</p>

[Ian Rance]

<p>Retina IIc is my favourite. Sharp lens, good (excellent) for colour work, looks nice, easy to use and after a service very reliable. AND you can put a 35mm lens on for when 50mm is not enough. The Retina cameras really are standing the test of time and in fact seem more in tune with what we like in a camera nowadays than when they were for sale. The lens is every bit as good as a modern 50 but maybe a bit lower in contrast.<br>

Retina IIIc is nice too and the meter is handy (mine has the Rodenstock lens). The Ib is as they say 'a photographic notebook' and while cheaper is still very nice with the Kodak modified Tessar lens (Xenar).<br>

A tip for you. Get the camera serviced before you head out to burn some film. Jamming old grease and out of whack shutter speeds are not condusive to good picture taking.</p>

[rick_schuster]

<p>I can't imagine a better 35mm folder than my Retina IIIc (though I haven't used a lot of others, so take that with a grain of salt) -- it's a joy to use, and the lens is fantastic. Any of the Retina folders with a rangefinder should be great users though -- which means any of the II or III models, I believe. If you don't care about having a light meter on it, which may or may not work anyway (the meter on mine happens to work and I use it), then maybe go for a II model and save some money. I have a couple of Retina IIa folders that I've been doing a little work on, and the biggest difference I see is the solidity of the whole lens/shutter mechanism on the IIIc compared to the IIa. On my IIIc the lens is rock solid and steady, but the IIa has a bit more flimsy build in the slide-out lens mechanism. It might be that these particular copies of the IIa are more worn out than usual, but the build of it makes me think this might be typical.</p>

<p>I also have a Zeiss Ikon Contessa, which I absolutely love the look of but don't find it as easy to use as the Retina. It spends more time on the display shelf while the Retina IIIc might be out being used. </p>

<p>p.s. - I'm sure some would disagree, but I wouldn't pay the extra premium for the 'big-C' Retina IIIC model. </p>

[Gus Lazzari]

<p>So far, love everybody's choices.<br>

Even with it's "scale focusing", the Minox ML35 is the one I grab most often...</p><div></div>

[Gus Lazzari]

<p>The early glass does return the "old school" look to some Ektar 100.<br>

Minox 35ML<br>

Contax T<br>

Zeiss Contessa<br>

Kodak IIIc</p><div></div>

[kris-bochenek]

Moskva 5 is a folding camera. I was going to pick one of

those up but the prices can go high.

[paul_wheatland]

<p>From past and present ownership and use: low price Voigtlander Vito II with compur/ skopar f3.5/ medium price EKC Retina IIc with compur/ f2.8/ high price Zeiss Ikon Contessa compur/ Zeiss tessar f2.8! The most compact and user friendly IMHO is the Vito II. </p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Do any Retina IIa's have coated lenses? Most of the ones on ebay seem to be uncoated. I liked the IIc but the viewfinder will destroy the lenses on your glasses (if you wear them) if you don't watch out.</p>

<p>I agree with Gus about the merits of the Minox, but feel that perhaps Kent is not looking for such a plastic fantastic...</p>

[bgussin]

<p>Kodak Bantam. If you don't mind rewinding film onto 828 spools with backing paper and dealing with the sprocket issue. It folds as small and flat as a couple of stacked i-phones.</p>

[Mike Gammill]

<p>Voitlander Vitessa L with the 50 mm f2 Ultron. My dad bought it new in 1955 and it still works today, although the selenium meter appears to be off by about one stop. I really like the plunger film advance.</p>

[User_502260]

<p>If you can live with zone focusing and don't mind the weight I would recommend a Rollei 35. I have an original German f/3.5 model and an early Singapore f/3.5 model. The German one will be going out for service soon. I have two of the early black plastic Minox models and I do not like them. If the build quality doesn't throw you off then an Olympus XA model could be nice too. </p>

[Two23]

<p>I followed the leads here and did more reading. The Vitessa L has the sleek styling and precision I like. I like the Retina in that it has three available lenses and its historical significance (35mm cassettes.) I reallly love the styling on the Kodak Bantam Special, but am a little put off by the hassle of 828 film. Otherwise that one would be a winner for me! I really like pre-War stuff--it's so classy.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[rick_drawbridge]

<p><strong>Kent</strong>, if you like pre-war design, how about my favourite, the Welta Weltini II? There's a good article on it here:<br>

http://galactinus.net/vilva/retro/weltini2.html<br>

This is a very elegant little camera.</p>

[Kent Shafer]

<p>I have a Retina IIIc and like it very much but would caution that using the auxiliary lenses isn't much fun. You have to focus with the rangefinder, read the distance on one scale, then transfer that distance to a different scale. And of course the camera won't fold with the auxiliary lens attached.</p>

<p>Kent in MI</p>

[charles_stobbs3]

Robin, my lla has a coated Xenon lens, not sure of the Rodenstock lenses of the same era.

[Troll]

<p>Retina IIa, by all means.</p>

[bernard_lazareff]

<p>Earlier in that thread I voted RetinaII. But I second paul wheatland's recommendation for the VitoII. I have a Vito IIa, and despite its lower "specs" (no rangefinder, slower lens) I find that it has something I can only describe as "class". </p>

<div></div>

[bernard_lazareff]

<p>Another pic, open</p><div></div>