Is anyone here shooting with Bessamatic/Retina Reflex lenses on mirrorless cameras?

[peterm1]

I have recently been taken by the idea of trying out some old European lenses and the idea struck me that a relatively inexpensive and interesting way to go might be to try some lenses for Bessamatics and Retina Reflex on mirrorless cameras with adapters (which I have confirmed seem to be available). Both have that "ugly chic" look so popular in German etc cameras and their derivatives in the 1960s. But I really know nothing about them.

I would be interesting in hearing your views and seeing some images both of lenses and images made by these lenses.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Don't those cameras have some lens elements built in to the body that are needed for the lenses to work? I think the interchangeable lenses are actually the front half of the lens only.

 

[mich rassena]

Don't those cameras have some lens elements built in to the body that are needed for the lenses to work? I think the interchangeable lenses are actually the front half of the lens only.

Depends on which bodies are being referred to. The lenses with all the elements are DKL mount

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kodak_Retina_Reflex#DKL-mount_lenses

And adapters are available for the Kodak DLK as well as Voigtlander.

I would like to have a full set of Kodak DKL lenses, simply because they are so nice looking, even if most of them are slow by today's standards.

 

[retinax]

No Chris, I believe there are some SLRs like that, but the Bessamatic and Retina Reflex have no lenses in the body.
Through an inheritance a Bessamatic with the elusive 40/2.0 Skopagon has come into my family. The body is jammed and I'd love to try that lens on a mirrorless camera, but don't have one. Too bad we're too far from each other to cooperate on this, Peter. I'm considering buying a simple adapter to use the lens on a film Pentax. They have a long register, so they can be adapted to many SLRs as well.

Edit: Ah I see from mich rassena's link, the original Retina Reflex actually did have part of the lens in the body.

 

[peterm1]

Don't those cameras have some lens elements built in to the body that are needed for the lenses to work? I think the interchangeable lenses are actually the front half of the lens only.

Chris that is part of what I am trying to find out. I thought some people here were bound to know as I knew some old cameras had this arrangement but did not know which and a quick Google was not all that helpful. But I was in general also interested in finding out which ones were good. Two I see come up reasonably frequently are a Voigtlander Skoparex 35mm f3.4 for Bessamatic (Usually going for around $100) and a Voigtlander 135mm f4 Super-Dynarex for Bessamaticwhich often goes for less though I do not think this necessarily denotes low quality - just abundance combined with low demand. Of course I am sure there must be others. My experience of older European lenses of this era is that they are strongly made and optically very good but low in contrast. I have also noted that some of these other Bessamatic lenses command very high prices considering they are for a dead system.

Both of the above named lenses are cool looking lenses. I especially like what appears to be movable depth of field indicators on the first camera similar it looks to the lens.

 

[retinax]

Peter, if this is the same 135/4 for Bessamatic that I inherited (not sure, don't have it here), the minimum focusing distance is incredibly far, over two meters, possibly 3 (also don't remember exactly). Ans on that specimen the grease in the helical has become stiff. Not keen on fixing it because of the mfd.

 

[nparsons13]

I've shot some with my Retina Reflex lenses on mirrorless. Here are a couple with the Schneider-Kreuznach Retina-Xenon 50mm f/1.9. The body was a Pentax K-01.

Spanish needle, or beggar-ticks by Noel Parsons, on Flickr

Old boards by Noel Parsons, on Flickr

I've also shot the Retina-Tele-Xenar 135mm f/4 on the K-01. It looks good, but I found that its image characteristics aren't much different from those of the Takumar 135/3.5, and its close focus distance is, indeed about 3 meters.
Retina Tele-Xenar by Noel Parsons, on Flickr

 

[nparsons13]

The first Retina Reflex had the rear elements built into the body, like the Retina II and III c and C rangefinders. The Later Retina Reflex S, III, and IV (and the IIIS rangefinder) had fully interchangeable lenses using the Deckel (DKL) mount. The Voigtlander Bessamatic and Ultramatic also used DKL-mount lenses, and the adapters for them will also accept the Retina lenses. If you want to use DKL-mount Retina lenses on a Bessamatic or DKL-mount Bessamatic lenses on a Retina Reflex, you'll need to grind down the mounts a little in specific spots.

 

[peterm1]

Thanks for this nparsons13. I have just got around to finding these later responses from you.

The comment about the early Retina lenses being only partially interchangeable is just what I was looking for - I had an inkling of this but could not locate info on exactly which cameras did this and which did not.

I really like the Schneider-Kreuznach Retina-Xenon 50mm f/1.9 images - especially the flower image which shows this lens' potential well.

I think on the strength of these responses I will keep my open for suitable candidate lenses.

 

[hilltime]

One of my favorite lenses of all time is a Voigtlander 50mm/F2 Septon.
I have regularly used it on a Bessamatic CS and Ultramatic CS in the past, but have never adapted to anything digital.

The lenses can be found but be aware of balsam separation of the elements which looks like a kaleidoscopic multi colored area in the lens. Those lenses are plentiful and should always be quite inexpensive.

Very sharp early 60's lens I rate very close to a Zeiss Planar for Contarex.

Gary Hill

 

[peterm1]

One of my favorite lenses of all time is a Voigtlander 50mm/F2 Septon.
I have regularly used it on a Bessamatic CS and Ultramatic CS in the past, but have never adapted to anything digital.

The lenses can be found but be aware of balsam separation of the elements which looks like a kaleidoscopic multi colored area in the lens. Those lenses are plentiful and should always be quite inexpensive.

Very sharp early 60's lens I rate very close to a Zeiss Planar for Contarex.

Gary Hill

I am not familiar with the Speton but I did previously have a Voigtlander Ultron 50mm f2. That lens was for the Voigtlander Prominent rangefinder camera. I recall it as being somewhat low contrast but sharp and I did like it but the Prominent was and is a very quirky lens to use and I ended up selling it and the lenses I owned for it. Which of course I now regret.

It may be worth me trying to track down a copy of the Septon. Some photos from a Flicker user follows and they certainly look very good:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/10603642@N07/albums/72157627797911227

I should say that from what i have read any Contarex lenses are pretty much to die for. They are superbly built bits of optical bling. The only Contarex equipment I own however is a bayonet mounting UV filter for one of its 50's that I found in an old camera store many years ago. I recognized it from photos I had seen in a book on Zeiss equipment so bought it just in case I was ever lucky enough to acquire such a camera and lens. But I never have - still with mirrorless cameras owning a lens at least is now a practical option. Hence me starting this thread.

 

[hilltime]

I might think the Septon was a combination of the Nokton and Ultron for the Bessamatic series. I have used all. Sold my 2 Ultrons and kept the Nokton. Prices have gone outasite for that lens and I use it occasionally on a Prominent but more regularly on a Contax IIA with adapter.

Never will afford the original made for LTM, although the new Nokton looks very interesting...

 

[rybolt]

[/url]PRT29762 by Paul Rybolt, on Flickr[/IMG]
PRT29763 by Paul Rybolt, on Flickr