Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Retinar vs Kreuznach

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
June 29, 2005 5:58:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

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.

More about : retinar kreuznach

June 29, 2005 1:08:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Richard Bornstein" <richard.bornstein@3web.net> wrote in message
news:42c23862_2@news.cybersurf.net...
> 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
June 29, 2005 7:14:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Richard Bornstein" <richard.bornstein@3web.net> wrote in message
news:42c23862_2@news.cybersurf.net...
> 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
Related resources
Anonymous
June 29, 2005 7:14:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <DVywe.2239$cb6.1918@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com>,
"Jim" <j.n@nospam.com> 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.
Anonymous
June 30, 2005 12:45:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Jim wrote:
> "Richard Bornstein" <richard.bornstein@3web.net> wrote in message
> news:42c23862_2@news.cybersurf.net...
>
>>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 rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
June 30, 2005 3:55:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

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" <royphoty@iona-guesthouse.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fytwe.7913$5D4.1688@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
> "Richard Bornstein" <richard.bornstein@3web.net> wrote in message
> news:42c23862_2@news.cybersurf.net...
> > 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
>
>
Anonymous
June 30, 2005 5:41:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Richard Bornstein" <richard.bornstein@3web.net> wrote in message
news:42c36d2d_1@news.cybersurf.net...
> 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
Anonymous
June 30, 2005 9:38:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:o 8Iwe.969$302.249@fe04.lga...
> 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 rphunter@charter.net

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
Anonymous
June 30, 2005 9:38:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Gerrit 't Hart" <gthart@sad.au> wrote in message
news:42c3bd6f$0$8687$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
> "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:o 8Iwe.969$302.249@fe04.lga...
>> 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 rphunter@charter.net
>
> 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.
Anonymous
June 30, 2005 9:38:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <-dSdnbQV1rjtolnfRVn-vA@comcast.com>,
"Nostrobino" <not@home.today> 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.
Anonymous
June 30, 2005 10:28:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Gerrit 't Hart wrote:
> "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:o 8Iwe.969$302.249@fe04.lga...
>
>>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 rphunter@charter.net
>
>
> 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 rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
June 30, 2005 10:30:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bob Salomon wrote:
> In article <-dSdnbQV1rjtolnfRVn-vA@comcast.com>,
> "Nostrobino" <not@home.today> 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 rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
July 1, 2005 11:04:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

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

>
> "Gerrit 't Hart" <gthart@sad.au> wrote in message
> news:42c3bd6f$0$8687$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>
>> "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
>> news:o 8Iwe.969$302.249@fe04.lga...
>>> 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 rphunter@charter.net
>>
>> 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
Anonymous
July 1, 2005 11:04:59 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <pan.2005.07.01.07.07.54.92276@eater.pig>,
Neil Ellwood <charge@eater.pig> wrote:

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

Both still are independent.

--
To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.
!