Retinar vs Kreuznach

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Richard Bornstein, Jun 29, 2005.

  1. It seems that my first post didn't end up here so I am trying again. I was
    wonder what the differences between the two Kodak lenses were and was one
    better than the other? Thanks.
     
    Richard Bornstein, Jun 29, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Richard Bornstein

    Roy Guest

    "Richard Bornstein" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > It seems that my first post didn't end up here so I am trying again. I
    > was
    > wonder what the differences between the two Kodak lenses were and was one
    > better than the other? Thanks.
    >
    >


    Hi there.

    Those sort of Cameras and associated lenses are really collectors items.

    I would have thought that a digital NG, even though it contains some
    wrinklies like me, would not be the most suitable place to ask.

    Roy G
     
    Roy, Jun 29, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Richard Bornstein

    Jim Guest

    "Richard Bornstein" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > It seems that my first post didn't end up here so I am trying again. I

    was
    > wonder what the differences between the two Kodak lenses were and was one
    > better than the other? Thanks.
    >
    >

    Retinar was Kodak's trademark for a house brand lens. These lenses have not
    been made in a very long time.
    Kreusnach is half of the name Scheider Kreusnach which is a highly regarded
    German optics firm (still in business by the way).

    Kreusnach is the more desirable lens.
    Jim
     
    Jim, Jun 29, 2005
    #3
  4. Richard Bornstein

    Bob Salomon Guest

    In article <DVywe.2239$>,
    "Jim" <> wrote:

    > Scheider Kreusnach which is a highly regarded
    > German optics firm (still in business by the way


    Was.

    The current company is the successor to the company that made the lenses
    for the Retina. The Schneider company that made the Retina lenses was
    bought by Heinrich Mandermann several years ago who then downsized it by
    liquidation and re-opened as the current company. By the liquidation he
    was able to spin off parts of the company and reduce employment.

    --
    To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.
     
    Bob Salomon, Jun 29, 2005
    #4
  5. Richard Bornstein

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Jim wrote:
    > "Richard Bornstein" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    >>It seems that my first post didn't end up here so I am trying again. I

    >
    > was
    >
    >>wonder what the differences between the two Kodak lenses were and was one
    >>better than the other? Thanks.
    >>
    >>

    >
    > Retinar was Kodak's trademark for a house brand lens. These lenses have not
    > been made in a very long time.
    > Kreusnach is half of the name Scheider Kreusnach which is a highly regarded
    > German optics firm (still in business by the way).
    >
    > Kreusnach is the more desirable lens.
    > Jim
    >
    >

    You are so misinformed it is amazing. Both lenses are still available
    on Kodak cameras, from the latest releases of digital cameras. At least
    LOOK before you make such an embarrassing misstatement....


    --
    Ron Hunter
     
    Ron Hunter, Jun 30, 2005
    #5
  6. Thanks for your reply, but both lenses are on kodak digital cameras so I
    thought that the digital newsgroup would be the best place to ask. I am not
    quite a wrinkly just yet. lol

    "Roy" <> wrote in message
    news:fytwe.7913$...
    > "Richard Bornstein" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > It seems that my first post didn't end up here so I am trying again. I
    > > was
    > > wonder what the differences between the two Kodak lenses were and was

    one
    > > better than the other? Thanks.
    > >
    > >

    >
    > Hi there.
    >
    > Those sort of Cameras and associated lenses are really collectors items.
    >
    > I would have thought that a digital NG, even though it contains some
    > wrinklies like me, would not be the most suitable place to ask.
    >
    > Roy G
    >
    >
     
    Richard Bornstein, Jun 30, 2005
    #6
  7. "Richard Bornstein" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Thanks for your reply, but both lenses are on kodak digital cameras so I
    > thought that the digital newsgroup would be the best place to ask. I am
    > not
    > quite a wrinkly just yet. lol


    For those of us who are wrinkly, those names actually used to mean something
    (the Kodak Retina cameras were wonderful cameras; true classics, Kodak made
    the lenses for the early Hasselblad as well as some excellent LF lenses, and
    the Schneider-Kreuznach lenses for film cameras have always been top notch).
    Nowadays, you must look for reviews of the individual camera and see how it
    performs as a system. The name on the lens is largely irrelevant.

    The usual suspects (for reviews):
    http://www.dpreview.com/
    http://www.steves-digicams.com/default.htm
    http://www.imaging-resource.com/

    If you can't find a thorough review of the camera, don't buy it.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Jun 30, 2005
    #7
  8. "Ron Hunter" <> wrote in message
    news:O8Iwe.969$...
    > Jim wrote:


    SNIP

    > You are so misinformed it is amazing. Both lenses are still available
    > on Kodak cameras, from the latest releases of digital cameras. At least
    > LOOK before you make such an embarrassing misstatement....
    >
    >
    > --
    > Ron Hunter


    OK Ron, but which is the better product?

    Kodak cameras with the Schneider lenses are generally more expensive, but
    that may not say anything. (Maybe having a German sounding name can justify
    charging more?)

    Gerrit
     
    Gerrit 't Hart, Jun 30, 2005
    #8
  9. Richard Bornstein

    Nostrobino Guest

    "Gerrit 't Hart" <> wrote in message
    news:42c3bd6f$0$8687$...
    >
    > "Ron Hunter" <> wrote in message
    > news:O8Iwe.969$...
    >> Jim wrote:

    >
    > SNIP
    >
    >> You are so misinformed it is amazing. Both lenses are still available
    >> on Kodak cameras, from the latest releases of digital cameras. At least
    >> LOOK before you make such an embarrassing misstatement....
    >>
    >>
    >> --
    >> Ron Hunter

    >
    > OK Ron, but which is the better product?
    >
    > Kodak cameras with the Schneider lenses are generally more expensive, but
    > that may not say anything. (Maybe having a German sounding name can
    > justify
    > charging more?)


    I think one or two of these guys are talking about the old Kodak German-made
    Retina line of 35mm cameras. I bought a new Retina IIa in 1952, and that had
    a Schneider Xenon lens. I don't think I've ever seen a Retina with a
    "Retinar" lens, but if there was such an animal it would have been an
    economy version. The Retinas were Kodak's upscale line of 35s and all of
    them that I ever saw had lenses from the best German lens makers like
    Schneider and Rodenstock, as I recall.

    The name "Retinar" strongly suggests a lower class of lens. "Schneider
    Kreuznach" is clearly Kodak's name for what it's presenting as a prestige
    class lens, though whether it really has anything to do with the original
    German Schneider (Schneider-Kreuznach) company I have no idea.

    N.
     
    Nostrobino, Jun 30, 2005
    #9
  10. Richard Bornstein

    Bob Salomon Guest

    In article <>,
    "Nostrobino" <> wrote:

    > the original
    > German Schneider (Schneider-Kreuznach) company


    That company was Jos. Schneider& Co. Optische Werke in Bad Kreuznach,
    Germany

    The company that was formed after the liquidation of the Jos. Schneider
    Co. was Jos. Schneider Optische Werke GmbH in Bad Kreuznach, Germany.

    The former one made lenses for the Retina. The latter one licenses
    companies like Kodak and Samsung to use the Schneider name on their
    lenses.

    --
    To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.
     
    Bob Salomon, Jun 30, 2005
    #10
  11. Richard Bornstein

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Gerrit 't Hart wrote:
    > "Ron Hunter" <> wrote in message
    > news:O8Iwe.969$...
    >
    >>Jim wrote:

    >
    >
    > SNIP
    >
    >
    >>You are so misinformed it is amazing. Both lenses are still available
    >>on Kodak cameras, from the latest releases of digital cameras. At least
    >>LOOK before you make such an embarrassing misstatement....
    >>
    >>
    >>--
    >>Ron Hunter

    >
    >
    > OK Ron, but which is the better product?
    >
    > Kodak cameras with the Schneider lenses are generally more expensive, but
    > that may not say anything. (Maybe having a German sounding name can justify
    > charging more?)
    >
    > Gerrit
    >
    >

    I really can't say which is better. Conventional wisdom says the
    Schneider lens would be better, and I chose my current camera partly on
    that assumption, but I have used Retinar lenses over the years and can't
    fault them either. I think the simple answer is that for a P&S camera
    in the price range, and under 7 mp, it probably doesn't matter.


    --
    Ron Hunter
     
    Ron Hunter, Jul 1, 2005
    #11
  12. Richard Bornstein

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Bob Salomon wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > "Nostrobino" <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>the original
    >>German Schneider (Schneider-Kreuznach) company

    >
    >
    > That company was Jos. Schneider& Co. Optische Werke in Bad Kreuznach,
    > Germany
    >
    > The company that was formed after the liquidation of the Jos. Schneider
    > Co. was Jos. Schneider Optische Werke GmbH in Bad Kreuznach, Germany.
    >
    > The former one made lenses for the Retina. The latter one licenses
    > companies like Kodak and Samsung to use the Schneider name on their
    > lenses.
    >

    But who makes the lenses?? Someone must make them. Kodak puts the S-K
    lens in its higher priced P&S cameras, so they probably cost more to
    make, which doesn't always mean they are better. I have found mine to
    be quite serviceable..
    Fast to zoom, and very quiet.


    --
    Ron Hunter
     
    Ron Hunter, Jul 1, 2005
    #12
  13. Richard Bornstein

    Neil Ellwood Guest

    On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 14:52:30 -0400, Nostrobino wrote:

    >
    > "Gerrit 't Hart" <> wrote in message
    > news:42c3bd6f$0$8687$...
    >>
    >> "Ron Hunter" <> wrote in message
    >> news:O8Iwe.969$...
    >>> Jim wrote:

    >>
    >> SNIP
    >>
    >>> You are so misinformed it is amazing. Both lenses are still available
    >>> on Kodak cameras, from the latest releases of digital cameras. At least
    >>> LOOK before you make such an embarrassing misstatement....
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> --
    >>> Ron Hunter

    >>
    >> OK Ron, but which is the better product?
    >>
    >> Kodak cameras with the Schneider lenses are generally more expensive, but
    >> that may not say anything. (Maybe having a German sounding name can
    >> justify
    >> charging more?)

    >
    > I think one or two of these guys are talking about the old Kodak German-made
    > Retina line of 35mm cameras. I bought a new Retina IIa in 1952, and that had
    > a Schneider Xenon lens. I don't think I've ever seen a Retina with a
    > "Retinar" lens, but if there was such an animal it would have been an
    > economy version. The Retinas were Kodak's upscale line of 35s and all of
    > them that I ever saw had lenses from the best German lens makers like
    > Schneider and Rodenstock, as I recall.
    >
    > The name "Retinar" strongly suggests a lower class of lens. "Schneider
    > Kreuznach" is clearly Kodak's name for what it's presenting as a prestige
    > class lens, though whether it really has anything to do with the original
    > German Schneider (Schneider-Kreuznach) company I have no idea.
    >
    > N.

    In the mid '50s when I bought my Retina 1b and the the 2c there were
    alternatives the the rodenstock lenses were about a £1 cheaper, at that
    time a substantial difference, but the interchangable front halves of the
    lenses on the 2b had to be the relevant match to the original lens built
    in to the camera. Both the lens companies were at that time independent
    companies.

    --
    neil
    delete delete to reply
     
    Neil Ellwood, Jul 1, 2005
    #13
  14. Richard Bornstein

    Bob Salomon Guest

    In article <>,
    Neil Ellwood <> wrote:

    > Both the lens companies were at that time independent
    > companies.


    Both still are independent.

    --
    To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.
     
    Bob Salomon, Jul 1, 2005
    #14
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Joa

    KODAK RETINAR 37 mm Telephoto Lens

    Joa, Jul 22, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    2,622
    Ron Baird
    Jul 27, 2004
  2. Richard Bornstein

    diff between Kodak Retinar and Kreuznach lenses?

    Richard Bornstein, Jun 28, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    373
    Ronald Baird
    Jul 12, 2005
  3. Schneider-Kreuznach Lens'

    , Jul 14, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    714
    Pete D
    Jul 15, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page