I am completely satisfied with the resolution provided by my IIIc, which has a six element lens. If I get a Ia or Ib will I notice a difference in resolution due to the four element lens? I develop at home and scan for use on my 24 inch diagonal computer screen in my office. I might print an 8x10 but nothing larger. Most of my pictures are outdoors on sunny days using black and white film with apertures from f8-f16. Thanks!
There is no appreciable difference between the earlier Retina lenses in terms of resolution, when used with care (using an optimal aperture, making sure there is no camera shake, etc). However, the earlier lenses (especially the uncoated ones on pre-war models) aren't going to have the same contrast as post-war coated lenses, and contrast contributes to the impression of sharpness. You could easily chose one of the Ib or Ia models and get superb results from those lenses, assuming the lenses are not damaged or have fogged balsam (glue) layers.
That said, be aware that the Ia and Ib types do not have a built in rangefinder, which I find seriously limits how usable they are. It would be in your best interest to choose instead the IIa (type 016) or a II (type 011 or 014), which have a rangefinder built into the camera. But if you are asking specifically about the Ia and Ib because someone is giving them to you, there's no reason not to use them. If you're hunting for another model of Retina, there are far better options than the Ia and Ib, solely because of the rangefinder.
I've had all three of the Retinas you mention, and still have the Ib. I recommend the Ib (small b). Very sturdy camera, and the Xenar is very sharp. It's only at apertures 5,6 and larger you will notice differencies between the Xenar and the Xenon/Heligon.
I have a IIc with the 2,8 Heligon that I sometimes use with slower film and have to use larger apertures, because the IIc has a rangefinder, and if I want to use the tele or wide accessory lenses. But when using the normal lens, medium speed or fast film, the Ib is amazing.
The Ib has a better finder than the Ia and can easily be used while wearing glasses, which is a big plus. That was the main reason I sold the Ia and kept the Ib. The Ia is a nice camera, though, so I regretted selling it.
If you aren't printing larger than 8x10, I would say no.
Do you use and project slide film? If so, you might see a small difference there, if projecting large.
But lens "quality" differs very little when comparing lenses like the ones you reference.
Probably. While you might notice a difference the more important question could be if it affects your photographic intent.
The Retina IIIc/C are very high on my list of favorite cameras. I’m very satisfied with image quality from them. But I also use older cameras/lenses when sharpness isn’t really the imaging goal.
I wasn't aware of the finder difference. That's definitely a plus for the Ib! Thanks!
If you are good at estimating distance and stop down to at least f:8 the depth of field will compensate for small fodusing errors. I have an accessory rangefinder but have never used it with my Ib. The DoF markings are very useful. Just make sure you buy a camera with the correct focus scale as converting Meters to Feet or vice versa could be confusing.As I mentioned below, I am looking at the Ia and Ib as a "minimalist" camera. I will undoubtedly blow a shot now and then not having a rangefinder! Thanks!
Good point about the rangefinder. I was actually considering the Ia and Ib to satisfy my "minimalist" urge! Thanks!
Beautiful photograph! And that camera has an uncoated Xenar! But the pre-war Retina I cameras have squinty viewfinders, unprotected bellows and are not as rigid as the Ib. They take smaller sized filters and 27mm slip-on sun shades. But they are lighter, cute and now there is an expert in America who can repair them.If you want a minimalist Retina, get the pre-war Type 119. It’s a wonderful, tiny camera with an excellent Tessar type lens.
photo made with a Retina type 119:
Beautiful photograph! And that camera has an uncoated Xenar! But the pre-war Retina I cameras have squinty viewfinders, unprotected bellows and are not as rigid as the Ib. They take smaller sized filters and 27mm slip-on sun shades. But they are lighter, cute and now there is an expert in America who can repair them.
Retinas are addictive.
As I mentioned below, I am looking at the Ia and Ib as a "minimalist" camera. I will undoubtedly blow a shot now and then not having a rangefinder! Thanks!
If you want a minimalist Retina, get the pre-war Type 119. It’s a wonderful, tiny camera with an excellent Tessar type lens.
photo made with a Retina type 119:
Is the 119 held vertically? One on ebay has some vertical shots. Looking through the back there and looking at your shots it looks like it might be a square negative? 24x24? Great pictures!
Is the 119 held vertically? One on ebay has some vertical shots. Looking through the back there and looking at your shots it looks like it might be a square negative? 24x24? Great pictures!
My all time favorite of the minimalist 35mm camera is the Retina I (type 010) with Ektar 50/3.5 lens. I like it more than the Rollei 35TE. The Retina is more precision built, and in my humble opinion, has better lens. The rangefinder is quite optional, since you probably already know how to guesstimate distance.
Kodak Retina I (Type 010) with Ektar 50/3.5 lens by Zheng, on Flickr
A sample photo showing the sharpness and resolution of the lens (nothing artistic, and handheld). And it was from a 2400 DPI quick scan from an Epson V700 flatbed. I'm sure it could yield even better results with a Nikon Coolscan or drum scan:
Palm tree trunk details - Retina_Ektar_Arista100_033 by Zheng, on Flickr
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?