King of the Kodachrome

[bob_h]

<p>Sadly, these days it is all academic due to the lack of Kodachrome and its processing to shoot with. I used a Kodak 35RF well used when I got it in the early 60's. I thought it was good until I inherited an almost new Contarex. Still have the 35RF on a shelf display.</p>

[a._t._burke]

<p>Mr. Drawbridge: </p>

<p>Thank you for your mini-review of the Signet 35. My, you have a nice looking example! </p>

<p>I did not have one when they were new, but bought several used ones in the 1990s. Camerapedia claims the shutter holds up well. My first Signet 35 was sent to three different CLA "experts". None of them got the shutter working on time, hence the multi-purchases as I tried to get a good one. But the lens is excellent. It is a "modified Tesar". Kodak ads described the lens as equal to any 35mm lens including its own high priced Retina 35mm examples. That is not true, but it is as good as the much vaunted Yashica T4 Super with a Zeiss Tessar lens. </p>

<p>Here are two pictures (2008?) using Kodachrome 64 taken about 10 minutes apart with both the Signet 35 and a T4 Super, scanned with a Nikon 5000 at 4000PPI for your comparison. </p>

<p>Yashica T4 Super:</p>

<p><a href=" </p>

<p>Signet 35: </p>

<p><a href=" </p>

<p>A. T. Burke</p>

[rick_drawbridge]

<p>Thank you <strong>Mr. Burt</strong>, I'm pleased you liked the post and yes, I waited until I could find a fairly pristine example of the Signet 35 before reaching into my pocket... The Ektar is certainly a fine lens, and the links you posted to your comparisons between the Ektar and the Tessar certainly confirm the superiority of the Ektar. Thanks for supplying such an interesting comparison.</p>

<p><strong>Walter</strong>, I hope you can get that operation soon; eyesight is such a precious thing. The Kodak 35 RF with the Anastar lens <em>did</em> perform well, in my experience, <strong>Bob</strong>, but it certainly missed out when the good looks were being handed around...</p>