Retina IIa Lens Advice

Ikontafan

Ikontafan

1936 Zeiss Super Ikonta C
Local time
6:26 AM
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
33
Please help me with this decision:

I have 2 Retina IIa's. One has an Xenon and the other a Heligon f/2 lens. Based on the quality of the lens, which would be the better camera to have CLA'd for the best pictures ?

Thanks for your input!

RB
 
Both lens are of equal quality.

The Xenon lens was sold to the US market while the Heligon was meant for the European market..

Have both CLA'd and enjoy both...
 
Last edited:
Thanks, Coyln. Good to know, and good advice. RB

By the way. "HELLO" Fort Worth. Have they rebuilt Carlson's on University Drive, yet.
 
Last edited:
the Heligon demands much higher price often... if your's in is great shape you might want to hold that one back as the collectable and shoot the Xenon. A CLA made a huge difference in my IQ... and I thought mine was nearly perfect before the CLA...
 
The Heligon/Xenon designation isvery important for the additional lenses for Retina IIc/IIIc's as you could put Heligon 35/80mm only on a Heligon Retina etc.
Lucky you! CLA and enjoyyyyyyy
 
More than half a century on, I doubt there's much in it. In fact I doubt there was in the 1950s. I have had both; both are excellent. Years ago I sold the Xenon and a while later bought the Heligon (which at the time I was told wasn't as good).

It may be that in the USA, Heligons are more highly praised because they are rarer, while in Europe, Xenons are more highly praised because there are more Heligons about. The Party Line, as far as I recall, is that there was nothing to choose between them; and though I have mislaid my 1954 catalogue, I don't think there was a price difference (not that this necessarily means anything).

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
Sorry I'm a bit late on this, but I have one of each. They're both in great condition and both lenses are superb - I really wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
 
Felt I needed to bump this old thread:

Roger Hicks said:
It may be that in the USA, Heligons are more highly praised because they are rarer, while in Europe, Xenons are more highly praised because there are more Heligons about. The Party Line, as far as I recall, is that there was nothing to choose between them
Click to expand...

Not true. It's easier to find Retinas with Xenons than Heligons here in Europe. Maybe 3 to 1 (if we are talking about the c-models, but Xenons aren't rare on the earlier II and IIa either).

I have them both on my two IIc cameras, and find the 2,8 Heligon a bit sharper. It could be due to sample variation, or maybe I just need to do a better side-by-side comparsion.

Maybe this weekend, since I'm planning to do some tests anyway.
 
heligon or xenon

heligon or xenon

I second JPD. I've bought several IIa-s (in the german bay). Most of them had Xenon lenses. Now I own one with Xenon and one with Heligon and I cannot find any difference.

But regarding those Retinas with interchangeable lenses there is a clear dominance of Schneider lenses here in Germany. Rodenstock sets are quite rare and therefore more expensive.
 
murpograph said:
I second JPD. I've bought several IIa-s (in the german bay). Most of them had Xenon lenses. Now I own one with Xenon and one with Heligon and I cannot find any difference.
Click to expand...

I too couldn't find any difference in image quality between a 1949 II (type 011) with 2,0 Xenon and a 1954 IIIc with 2,0 Heligon. At least with black and white. The coating on the "newer" IIIc was a bit better though.

Added two hours later: *phew* I took test shots with four Retinas on a Efke KB25 roll. The IIc Retinas with 2,8 Xenon and Heligon plus their 35mm wide and 80mm tele. The Ib with 2,8 Xenar and a pre-war IIa (150) with 2,8 Xenon. I will develop the roll and scan the results this weekend.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom