Seeking advice: Kodak Retina IIIc and additional lenses

[rajmohan.]

<p>Hello everyone,<br />I have the opportunity to purchase Retina IIIc with a complete set of 50/35/80 lenses, case and accessory finder in good condition. I have a IIa, and really like it. The reason the IIIc set appeals to me is that the lenses are all Rodenstock Heligons rather than the more common Schneider Xenons. However, having read some reviews about the difficulty of use of the IIIc with the different lenses (no RF coupling, necessitating focusing with the RF, and transferring the distance to the lens focusing scale), I'm in two minds.<br />Do any of you have experience with using lenses other than the standard on the IIIc (or other Retina folders)? Is it a pain that likely trumps my lust for the Heligon lenses? <br />Thanks in advance for your help!</p>

[Dan Deary]

<p>If you have obsessive compulsive tendencies like a lot of us do in this forum and a great appreciation of vintage engineering in cameras then you will find it a challenge and pleasure to use various lenses and experiment, no matter how tedious. If its convenience you are after I would pass.</p>

[rajmohan.]

<p>Daniel - thank you for your response.<br>

I do appreciate and enjoy using several cameras from yesteryear (1940s-1970s), including some of the less user-friendly units, so my decision to proceed is not entirely dependent on convenience. Rather a question of whether the quality and unique user experience of this $250 system would be a better bet than investing that money into, say an additional lens for one of my other vintage systems - of course, the answer to this question will be a personal one for each individual, but I'm interested to hear the opinions of those who have used the IIIc (and other vintage systems).</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>I had a IIc and thought I would get an additional 80mm, but having played with it for a few hours I decided to pass. If taking good photos is your aim, then I wouldn't bother, but if you fit Daniel's description then by all means go ahead. If you wear spectacles those Retina eyepieces are highly abrasive.</p>

[BrianS1664879711]

<p>I've found the quality to be fine. It is a fiddly system to use with the accessory lenses so choose subject wisely; it is a lot less frustrating to shoot still life than action subjects!</p>

<p>If the body/shutter is fully functioning then I'd go for it at that price. Retina IIIc is a dream to shoot with. And as you say... it is the less common Rodenstock version. My understanding is that both versions are virtually identical in terms of performance but Heligon is less common so it has that "rarity/scarcity" factor going for it. But, of course, it all depends on what your other options are.</p>

<p>My only gripe is what Robin Smith mentions. That camera is really hard on spectacles. I'm planning on trying to add an o-ring (or the like) to the eyepiece.</p>

[dhbebb]

<p>Good camera, good lenses, very fiddly to use. A Retina IIIS would deliver the same optical quality with virtually the same lenses (in different mounts) and is much easier to use.</p>

[rajmohan.]

<p>Thank you, Robin, Brian and David.<br>

The consensus seems to be that it is a good performer if in good condition, and that it can be a little fiddly to use. Fiddly is no problem (I recently purchased a Zeiss Contarex and a Voigtlaender Prominent - unfortunately the latter had to be returned owing to a defective lens mount), but I might ruminate some more, especially about whether the IIIS might be a better option. I already have a Retina Reflex IV and its lenses, and I understand that they are usable on a IIIS body.</p>

[arnie___]

<p>If you are not going to be frequently changing from one focal length to another, and many or most of your shots will be at infinity (perhaps with the 80mm), then go for it. I found my 80mm to be tack sharp!</p>

[ben_ballard]

The rangefinder on the IIIc is coupled for the

50mm and 35mm, only the 80mm needs to be

focused with the finder to find the distance,

then refocused using the distance scale. It's

ok for still subjects, but certainly not kids. The

80mm is not close focusing anyway, so it's

best for landscapes and the like anyway.

 

 

 

The build quality is fantastic. It's well worth

trying, and should sell for what you paid if it's

not for you.

 

 

 

The IIIS is quite different. Not a folder for one

thing, and it shares lenses with the Retina

Reflex line of SLRs (and Voigtlander DKL), so

the lenses are larger and further away from

the film. Think Leica R vs. M, except these

are limited to 1950s vintage. Still, the

Schneider and Rodenstock glass is fantastic.

[dinis_leal]

<p>Just a side note about the accessory lenses for the iiic is that they can all be used on the first Retina Reflex SLR (type 025). Since you focus through the lens on the slr, you just focus and shoot. I have a iiic, type 025 slr, and all the lenses. They are all fun to shoot with.</p>

[rajmohan.]

<p>Thank you for the additional information, Arnie, Ben and Dinis - it's all very helpful. <br>

Raj :)</p>

[rajmohan.]

<p>A quick update, in case enyone is interested in follow-up: the person with the Retina IIIc set was kind enough to offer me, in addition, a Zeiss Ikon ConSol (with Biotar 58/2, Travenar 50/2.8 and a couple of other lenses), and a Voigtlaender Vitessa A (with Ultron 50/2) for a very good price. Though I'm running out of space for my cameras, it was far too good a deal to pass up. So I've taken the plunge. Now to go shopping for furniture to house my acquisitions!<br>

As always, I'm grateful to members of this forum for sharing your experiences and advice.</p>

[tony_lockerbie]

<p>Most people believe that the Rodenstock lenses are just like the Schneiders, and that is probably correct. I do have a Ysarex for my Retina S, and I like it more than the Xenar, otherwise I feel that the Heliogons are much the same as the Xenons, although the Rodenstocks are that bit more exclusive.<br>

As for the accessory lenses on the 111C, I did use them a bit, but soon gave the idea away! I much prefer the 111S when using extra lenses, so much more convenient, although it doesn't fold of course. As Dinis has said, you can use these on the first model Retina Reflex, if you can find a good working one.<br>

All that said, the 111C with the standard 5omm lens is a wonderful thing to use, and turns in great pictures.</p>

[tony_lockerbie]

<p>Just saw you last post regarding the extra cameras...well done! I think that the Consol is just another name for the Contax S? Anyway, the Biotar is great as Rick recently has shown, and that 50mm Ultron is cetainly one of the best fifties that has ever been made....but then I am a Voigtlander tragic :)</p>

[kerkko_kehravuo]

<p>As mentioned 35 mm and 80 mm lenses are not too practical, but I guess practicality is not the point when playing with classic cameras. Both lenses make good quality shots. Framing with tele lens and optical 35/80 finder is not too accurate. With 80 mm lens and it's close up lens you can find a focusing distance where range finder works right, only one distance, still nice. For me the biggest disadvantage has not been transfering the distance setting but loosing foldability. Retinas are great cameras.</p>

<p>K.</p>

[rajmohan.]

<p>Tony and Kerkko - thank you for your input. The sets should arrive today, so I'll find out for myself first hand!<br>

Tony - the ConSol is a rare version of the Contax D (as far as I can tell, the only difference being the inscription on the front plate). As for Voigtlaender, I'm also a big fan - they have some quirks, but are beautifully made. I bought a Vitessa T some time ago, and have recently bought a Superb. I also bought a Prominent with lenses, but the focusing mechanism/mount was misaligned, and I had to return it (a great pity!). </p>