Thomas78
Well-known
Hello,
I am looking for a bayonet I Rolleiflex.
I want a camera with the shutter cocking coupled to the film transport, so a Rolleicord is not an option.
Also I would prefer an Automat over a Rolleiflex T.
For the lens I have no specific preference for a Tessar or Xenar, though the Tessar seems to be available more often at a Rolleiflex Automat. Does anyone have a direct comparison and know if there is any real difference between them? (As much as I have read before, there seems to be no to very little difference.)
Oh, and I do not like the EVS-system and I hate it if I can not uncouple the shutter from aperture permanently.
So the question is: Which model of the Automat ist the best one optically and mechanically?
I am looking for a bayonet I Rolleiflex.
I want a camera with the shutter cocking coupled to the film transport, so a Rolleicord is not an option.
Also I would prefer an Automat over a Rolleiflex T.
For the lens I have no specific preference for a Tessar or Xenar, though the Tessar seems to be available more often at a Rolleiflex Automat. Does anyone have a direct comparison and know if there is any real difference between them? (As much as I have read before, there seems to be no to very little difference.)
Oh, and I do not like the EVS-system and I hate it if I can not uncouple the shutter from aperture permanently.
So the question is: Which model of the Automat ist the best one optically and mechanically?
PMCC
Late adopter.
Aside from EVS, all the post-war Automats are much of a muchness. Buy on condition and price, and assume you'll need a CLA sooner or later.
ellisson
Well-known
Have you considered a Minolta Autocord? Has shutter cocking linked to transport, completely separate aperture and shutter speed controls, and the Rokkor lens is outstanding.
VictorM.
Well-known
I've had both an MX and an MX-EVS Automat, both with Tessars, and preferred the MX-EVS. The latter has the more modern shutter speeds and larger focusing knob that make operation a little easier. Lens differences at this time, 55+ years later, won't be as important as condition. They're all great cameras, built to last a lifetime and still relatively easy to get serviced.
I now use a 3.5E with a Planar, but I doubt anyone looking at prints would be able to tell which camera made what picture.
I now use a 3.5E with a Planar, but I doubt anyone looking at prints would be able to tell which camera made what picture.
Brian Levy
Established
I had a MX Automat along side a T and sold the MX. I liked both but the Automat viewfinder even with the Rollei accessory diffuser was so much darker than the later T finder. Also, liked the removable hood on the T though never had a reason to remove it. I do not care for the lever EVS shutter on the T as well as the knob controlled MX. I understand the locking of the shutter/speed mechanism can be uncoupled and am considering do it when I get the T serivced.
The biggest tossup is the loss of the film threading system in most Rolleis that is not in the T. Admittedly the later models after the reorgnization eliminated the system citing that with the newer film emulsions eing so thin, the system was not as reliable as in the good old days. I never had any issue with the old Automat and suspect it was deleted only to save money. But, I never had any problem with starting a roll of film on any camera so the loss of it is not biggy for me. It seems more like a solution to a non-problem and an engineering challenge than a real benefit but maybe at the time it was a big thing with photojournalists and others.
As for the differnt lenses, I'm not into the worry of what is the best of the best as even the worst glass on a Rolleiflex is better than most lenses on anything else. As I have Bayonet I accesories if I were to go into the marketplace for another, I would be more concerned with finding another with a Bayonet I then the lens though I might make it a 2nd tier priority. I do doubt I'd move to a 2.8 version as with today's film speeds, a 3.5 lens is fast enough for my shooting so I'd not care about the faster lens especially at the premium charged for the larger lens.
In answerto your question, I agree with the majority that rahter than model desirability, get the one in the best condition for the dollar and if possible one that has been serviced by someone who can be trusted. Makes life easier and less stress induced worry about if the camera shutter speed is right on, if it will be reliable, etc. I may be over confident but the camera is one of only a few that I am confident when properly serviced will be as reliable as a new camera and longer lived than probably anything made in the later 60s and up except for other professional level mechanical cameras.
The biggest tossup is the loss of the film threading system in most Rolleis that is not in the T. Admittedly the later models after the reorgnization eliminated the system citing that with the newer film emulsions eing so thin, the system was not as reliable as in the good old days. I never had any issue with the old Automat and suspect it was deleted only to save money. But, I never had any problem with starting a roll of film on any camera so the loss of it is not biggy for me. It seems more like a solution to a non-problem and an engineering challenge than a real benefit but maybe at the time it was a big thing with photojournalists and others.
As for the differnt lenses, I'm not into the worry of what is the best of the best as even the worst glass on a Rolleiflex is better than most lenses on anything else. As I have Bayonet I accesories if I were to go into the marketplace for another, I would be more concerned with finding another with a Bayonet I then the lens though I might make it a 2nd tier priority. I do doubt I'd move to a 2.8 version as with today's film speeds, a 3.5 lens is fast enough for my shooting so I'd not care about the faster lens especially at the premium charged for the larger lens.
In answerto your question, I agree with the majority that rahter than model desirability, get the one in the best condition for the dollar and if possible one that has been serviced by someone who can be trusted. Makes life easier and less stress induced worry about if the camera shutter speed is right on, if it will be reliable, etc. I may be over confident but the camera is one of only a few that I am confident when properly serviced will be as reliable as a new camera and longer lived than probably anything made in the later 60s and up except for other professional level mechanical cameras.
Last edited:
JayGannon
Well-known
Whats the going rate for an Automat with the 3.5 Tessar in fully restored CLA'd condition?
ZeissFan
Veteran
The Rolleiflex T is a combination of the Automat and the Rolleicord. I think they're vastly overpriced and would purchase an Automat every time.
There isn't much discernible difference between a Schneider Xenar and a Zeiss Tessar. Both give you the swirlies when shot at medium distances wide open to about f/5.6. At f/8 and smaller, you'll get very sharp images.
If you shoot mostly wide open, you should consider the Planar/Xenotar model.
Two years ago, I tried to sell a Rolleiflex Automat with a Tessar (excellent condition) for $175. No takers. I decided to keep it.
I agree with the others. Get the best camera that you can. Don't worry about whether it's a Xenar or Tessar.
And now the obligatory shots. These are with an Automat with a Xenar that I bought in the mid-1980s. I nearly sold this camera last month. Changed my mind. Sentimental value, I suppose:
Sometime around 1990. I thought this was North Carolina, but now I think this might have been New Jersey.
My least favorite section of the Great Wall, because there are way too many people trying to sell you something.
Shot on Verichrome Pan -- you know this was a long time ago. This was 1989 in North Carolina.
There isn't much discernible difference between a Schneider Xenar and a Zeiss Tessar. Both give you the swirlies when shot at medium distances wide open to about f/5.6. At f/8 and smaller, you'll get very sharp images.
If you shoot mostly wide open, you should consider the Planar/Xenotar model.
Two years ago, I tried to sell a Rolleiflex Automat with a Tessar (excellent condition) for $175. No takers. I decided to keep it.
I agree with the others. Get the best camera that you can. Don't worry about whether it's a Xenar or Tessar.
And now the obligatory shots. These are with an Automat with a Xenar that I bought in the mid-1980s. I nearly sold this camera last month. Changed my mind. Sentimental value, I suppose:
Sometime around 1990. I thought this was North Carolina, but now I think this might have been New Jersey.
My least favorite section of the Great Wall, because there are way too many people trying to sell you something.
Shot on Verichrome Pan -- you know this was a long time ago. This was 1989 in North Carolina.
Thomas78
Well-known
Thanks for all your replies! 
I prefere to take my pictures at around f/8, if I do not want a extra shallow DOF.
@ellisson: The Autocord seems to be a interesting alternative to a Rolleiflex (good lens and the film transport) but I am unsure of the ergonomics of the focusing leaver and it seem to be not easily available in germany.
I will keep you informed, when I get the Rollei.
@ZeissFan: Nice images!
Do you know with which aperture the photo of the cat was taken?
I prefere to take my pictures at around f/8, if I do not want a extra shallow DOF.
@ellisson: The Autocord seems to be a interesting alternative to a Rolleiflex (good lens and the film transport) but I am unsure of the ergonomics of the focusing leaver and it seem to be not easily available in germany.
I will keep you informed, when I get the Rollei.
@ZeissFan: Nice images!
Do you know with which aperture the photo of the cat was taken?
Jerevan
Recycled User
Well, I think a late Rolleiflex Automat MX-EVS (K4B) in good condition is the best choice between those two you mentioned. The T models are for some reason overpriced. I suppose collectors have driven up the prices. If you want a brighter screen for the Automat, there are alternatives.
rumbliegeos
Well-known
I do not have any special religion about the choice between Tessar or Xenar lenses, but would recommend finding a model that can take the Rolleifix tripod clamp. It is a much more secure way of fitting a Rollei TLR to a tripod than the simple socket on the camera's film door, and not all models with Bayonet 1 lenses have compatible fittings.
ridinhome
Member
I'm going to chime in about the Autocord. I bought one recently and it is an excellent camera. Beautifully constructed, and generally feels very solid...with the exception of the focussing lever. Mine broke off within 5 minutes of buying it. Luckily Karl Bryan was able to do a wonderful job of fixing it (he machines a replacement part out of steel) and now I have an excellent shooter which should last me for several years, so long as film is still around.
Long and short of it is that an Autocord makes a great alternative to a Rollei, and is still usable even with the focussing lever broken. But it sure is irritating when it is broken.
Long and short of it is that an Autocord makes a great alternative to a Rollei, and is still usable even with the focussing lever broken. But it sure is irritating when it is broken.
Mablo
Well-known
A clean Tessar or Xenar are both outstanding performers stopped down. ZeissFan's photos show you exactly what kind of clarity and sharpness you can expect. Myself I'm a cheapskate so I'm using a Rolleicord/Xenar:
Brian Levy
Established
If discussing alternatives, then the is the Yashica Mat 124G that uses Bayonet I accessories and the lens (Yashinon sp?) is a very good lens in its own right. Though nt as silky smooth mechanically as the Rollei, it is a very good camera. I had one and was very happy with it but, sadly (in retrospect) sold it when I got my first Roleiflex.
JPD
Retina and Rollei user
I have many Rolleis and happen to like the EVS-system on my Rolleiflex 3,5B (MX-EVS) with Tessar. The EVS-system makes it faster to change aperture/shutter speed if you first have set them correctly after reading the lightmeter. If I set it to f:8 and 1/125 I can change the aperture to 11 and the shutter speed will automatically set to 1/60.
I have the first model of the "MX-EVS", but on the second model you can uncouple the EVS-system.
I have the first model of the "MX-EVS", but on the second model you can uncouple the EVS-system.
Capt. E
Established
3 different forms of the MX EVS
3 different forms of the MX EVS
Look for an MX EVS with serial number starting with 17XXXXXX. This is the third version which allows you to disconnect the shutter/aperture link by turning the lock button.
I have what is called a type 1 (serial number 1488xxxx) which I find quite enjoyable once you get used to its controls. I don't find the EV linkage a big deal. You can easily vary the setting by turning the two wheels in opposite directions or press the button on the left control and change the EV setting
3 different forms of the MX EVS
Look for an MX EVS with serial number starting with 17XXXXXX. This is the third version which allows you to disconnect the shutter/aperture link by turning the lock button.
I have what is called a type 1 (serial number 1488xxxx) which I find quite enjoyable once you get used to its controls. I don't find the EV linkage a big deal. You can easily vary the setting by turning the two wheels in opposite directions or press the button on the left control and change the EV setting
mfogiel
Veteran
I would add to look at the year of manufacturing too - the early automats have lenses that handle contre jour rather badly. Frankly, I would look for a Rolleiflex 3.5 F ( Bay II) with a Tessar, if you prefer the Tessar look, or Planar, if you prefer razor sharp from wide open.
Greyscale
Veteran
This thread is six years old. I doubt that the OP is still just looking.
Capt. E
Established
True, an old thread, but perhaps someone else is looking now.
CMur12
Veteran
Marek, I'm not aware of any 3.5F or Bay-II Rollei with a Tessar, so I'm guessing that you are referring to a Xenotar or Planar lens. At the same time, it looks like you are providing some information here about the Xenotar and Planar lenses that is new to me, so I would like to be sure that I got it right. Can you confirm or clarify?
Thanks.
- Murray