Retina identification question

[stark raving]

You could have either the Model 148 or the Model 010, which was produced after World War II using various prewar and wartime parts

Mike,

The camera he shows has separate stampings for the viewfinder and film counter housing, which I thought makes it definitely a 148. I.e. some 148's had two stampings, some had one, but all 010's are the one-piece stamping.

There's an obscure difference in the indicator mark next to the film counter dial that's supposed to definitively divide 148's from 010's, but I can't remember what it was. It was in an issue of Photoshopper a few years ago which I've since tossed.

Cheers,
Jonathan

[paul ron]

I found a few links that may be of interest to anyone collecting these beauties. I'm still interested to know what they are worth these days in working condition. I have seen a few in my repair shop but really know nothing about what makes one more valuable over another aside from these descriptions in the links.

ANyone have any ideas?

http://www.photoethnography.com/Clas...html~mainFrame

http://shutterbug.com/equipmentrevie...204sb_classic/

http://www.nwmangum.com/Kodak/_menus/menu-Retinas.html

[ricksplace]

To me, the value is in the usablilty of the camera. For the biggest bang for the buck, a retina 3c or 2c gets my vote. 3c has a meter (that usually doesn't work after 50 years) and a 50/f2 Xenon, the 2c has no meter, and a 50/2.8 Xenon. Both have post-war multi-coating. Both have the dreaded "cocking rack" weak point. IMHO, the cocking rack problem is not a problem if you don't want to try and approximate a motor drive with the manual film advance. Both cameras can take the 35/5.6 and 80/4.0 auxilliary lenses. The 3C (big C) has bright lines in the finder for these lenses, otherwise it's pretty much the same camera as the 3c. A 3C will probably cost you 2X the price of a 3c. Some of these cameras came with Rodenstock Heligons which don't seem to be as sharp as the Schneider Kreusnach Xenons. (somebody is probably going to flame me for that statement)

Since these retinas are about 50 years old, the shutters usually need servicing. Often, the fast speeds are pretty close to OK, and the slow speeds are really slow. My 3c is like this. I compensate for the slow speeds by stopping down an extra stop. 1/30 and faster is OK.

I regularily take my 3c when I go cycling since it fits folds up and fits just about anywhere.

[Steve Roberts]

These retinas are such beautiful cameras. I have had the pleasure of working on a few.

I bought one (a IIa) off the nameless well-known electronic auction site a few months ago. I stripped, cleaned and lubricated it with the aid of a very good website. With patience and care, there's not much that anyone with a little practical knowledge couldn't do to a IIa. Last night I developed a film from it, which looks pretty good except for a few of my exposure guesstimations. One thing that always catches me out is when the backwards exposure counter reaches zero and won't let me wind on. That usually precipitates a few minutes of puzzlement before I turn the counter past zero and carry on.
The IIa winds the film emulsion inwards, and I suspect it's that extra curl that makes Retina films so easy to load into developing tank spirals.

Steve

[stark raving]

One thing that always catches me out is when the backwards exposure counter reaches zero and won't let me wind on. That usually precipitates a few minutes of puzzlement before I turn the counter past zero and carry on.

You, me, and thousands of others. Chris Sherlock devoted a whole web page to this: http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/%7ESrawhiti/retinauser.html.

(BTW, check out the rest of his site for useful info about Retinas.)

[stark raving]

I'm still interested to know what they are worth these days in working condition. I have seen a few in my repair shop but really know nothing about what makes one more valuable over another aside from these descriptions in the links.

The IIIC (big C, or Type 028) is pricey because for some reason it has grabbed the interest of collectors. It was the last and highest-specification folding Retina. You can pay $350 for a nice one.

The first Retina II, Type 122, is very pricey just because it is extremely rare. I've seen them go for $2000.

Any of the pre-war Retina I models with a Zeiss Jena lens is 2-3x more expensive than the same model with the Schneider lens or "Kodak Ektar" (a re-badged Schneider.)

Here's a decent write-up of some of the more exotic folder Retinas: http://www.mwclassic.com/articles/ra...are_retina.htm

Jonathan

[JPD]

Some of these cameras came with Rodenstock Heligons which don't seem to be as sharp as the Schneider Kreusnach Xenons. (somebody is probably going to flame me for that statement)

It took five years, but better late than never!

I have two IIc, one with Xenon and one with Heligon. The Heligon is sharper than the Xenon!

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1338/...ca4c6a45_b.jpg

Both lenses are in pristine shape and focus correctly. I believe that the difference is due to sample variation. The f:2 Heligon on my now sold IIIc performed like the Xenon above, as did the f:2 Xenon on a II (011) I had for a while.

I'm planning to buy another IIc with Xenon to test and compare.

The f:2,8 Retina Xenar is also an excellent lens, but the Xenon and Heligon are better wide open. Stop the Xenar down to f:8 and they are equally good.

Remember that the pre-war Xenon lenses have different constructions than the post-war versions.

The f:2,8 Xenon was before the war actually a Xenar with an extra front element to raise the speed and give better corrections at full opening. It was called Xenar on some cameras, but Xenon on the Retina. The f:2 Xenon was also different from the one on the IIIc. Both the f:2,8 and f:2 were redesigned to be able to use the wide and tele front components. (they are the same lens except for the size of the opening)-