Dcanalogue
Established
Indeed, it was equipped with a Schneider Kreuznach Xenon 50 mm f/2 lens. What makes a bit special the copy in my possession is a small white triangle (which means not coated) between marks that identify the lens and which is present only in a small number of copies, produced in Germany during 1948 for the domestic market. Of course this is only a little curiosity that adds nothing to the value of the camera itself, if not from the historical point of view.
You can see more on my Film Blog.
You can see more on my Film Blog.
colyn
ישו משיח
Nice image..
However I do need to correct you on some misinformation. Most type 011 cameras have non-coated lens with the white triangle. I've had a number over the years and all with uncoated lens with white triangles and currently have 6 in my collection as the others. A couple of years ago I sold one with a coated len which also had the white triangle but then it could have been originally uncoated...
Many were assembled from pre-war Retina II parts since Kodak was still ramping up production after the war...
If you want more Retina information or to check out other Retina cameras contact Chris at http://retinarescue.com/
However I do need to correct you on some misinformation. Most type 011 cameras have non-coated lens with the white triangle. I've had a number over the years and all with uncoated lens with white triangles and currently have 6 in my collection as the others. A couple of years ago I sold one with a coated len which also had the white triangle but then it could have been originally uncoated...
Many were assembled from pre-war Retina II parts since Kodak was still ramping up production after the war...
If you want more Retina information or to check out other Retina cameras contact Chris at http://retinarescue.com/
Dcanalogue
Established
Thanks for the info. I'm not an expert and in effect I made a mistake and wrote that only 200 were made..... But I wrote it's quite rare... because David Jentz told me it was a "small series" made......
I've already corrected the post in my blog.