Kodak Retina 11 (type 142)

[frank_wasson]

I'm thinking of acquiring a Kodak Retina II Type 142 camera to add to my modest rangefinder/viewfinder collection. Could someone give me the lowdown for this particular camera (aside from the scanty, drab details provided in Camerapedia and other online sites) . Apart from its pros and cons, how has it generally been rated overall and been received? Thanks, Frank<br />

[dhbebb]

<p>all retinas are entertaining but type 142 is pre-war - a later model with a coated lens is much more usable</p>

[charles_stobbs3]

Various models - http://www.leitzmuseum.org/CameraMakes/Retina/Retina.html - .

[john_shriver]

<p>The pro of the Retina II over the IIa and IIc is that it's not prone to a stripped "cocking rack".</p>

[Keith S in Arizona USA]

<p>Chris Sherlock of retinarescue.com in New Zealand, reports that the II<strong>a</strong> cocking rack failure issue is not a fact but a myth, BUT that the II<strong>c</strong> (and some other models) can indeed suffer this problem.</p>

<p>For those who do not know of him, Chris is a factory-trained and renowned Retina technician.</p>

<p>At his site, go to his COLLECTION page and you will find pertinent information posted with the IIa, and other, sections.</p>

<p>Also look under "Repair Help" / "Common Retina Problems"</p>

[dhbebb]

<p>Frank, you may be absolutely determined to buy a Type 142, but you may care to reflect on this - the differences between Retina models are primarily folding or rigid, with exposure meter and rangefinder or not and with f2 or f2.8 lens (early models f3.5). For years the models IIIc and IIIC were highly sought after and expensive, as time goes on they have got cheaper - I just bought a IIIc on e-bay in allegedly great shape for £50. In general these models are much easier to find in ready-to-use condition with clean lenses than earlier ones. </p>

[Brian1664876441]

I prefer the Retina IIc and IIIc for the better eye-relief on the viewfinder compared with the IIa and prior models. I also have

a IIC- with a viewfinder that is close to the Rigid body IIIS.

 

I have the Post-War Retina II, one (type 11) with the Ektar lens and a later version (Type 14) with the 6-element coated Xenon. Also have several Retina IIa's. The post-war

coated Xenon, F2 and F2.8 versions- are as good as a 50/2 Collapsible Summicron. I have some of those, too.

[mwmcbroom]

<p>I've always liked the IIc. I have one that's close to mint right now. Mine has the Schneider lens and it takes brilliant photos. An outstanding pocket camera. Its cocking rack works just fine. I don't abuse my gear, so I suspect its cocking rack will continue to work for the foreseeable future. The Type 142 looks interesting enough, however. But I'm satisfied with my IIc and I don't really feel the need to acquire any more.</p>

[dhbebb]

<p><em>I don't abuse my gear</em><br>

One thing that seems to apply to most Retinas (folding RF models, reflexes and rigid RF) is that it is very easy to damage them by turning dials with a little bit too much force in an attempt to compensate for stiffness (which will be due to dried-up grease). Simpler 35mm cameras with leaf shutters (Retinettes, Vitos, Silettes) don't seem to suffer from this but Retinas do!</p>

[John Smullen]

<p>A Retina II model 142 would be a fine addition to your rangefinder collection. It came with 2.0, 2.8 or 3.5 lenses. A hood should be used to control flare from that vintage lens.</p>