advice on purchasing a Rollei

[tbarker13]

I have this craving to buy a Rolleiflex TLR.
Just want to delve a little into medium format.

I've been trying to decipher all the different models and lenses and I'm just growing more confused.
I think I'd be happy with a f/3.5 model and either a tessar or xenar lens. And I don't need one with a light meter. I also want one with the hand crank.

But where do I go from there? There are just so many models to choose from. Are there ones I should avoid? Reading another thread about shutter speed issues (not adjusting to 1/500 while cocked) makes me think I want a model made after 1950.

Any advice here would be greatly appreciated.

 

[jja]

Start at or near the top: 3.5E or 3.5F w/ xenotar or planar lens. Get it CLA'd and then be done. A well calibrated Rolleiflex produces gorgeous negatives, no matter the model.

 

[tbarker13]

I was really hoping to start closer to the bottom (in the $300 range), with a lower entry price. I'd like to make sure I actually enjoy that style of shooting before investing a huge amount of money.

I've been looking now at two of the Automats - the ones made between 1951 and 1956.

 

[Tuolumne]

I bought a Rolleiflex f3.5 from Krikor Maralian in NJ. He does repair, service and sells old Rolleiflexes. I would call someone like him, there are a few others like Harry Fleenor, and talk to them. They are experts and will sell you something that meets your needs and price point. Avoid eBay unless you know exactly what you are doing. I found most of the Rolleiflexs there to be in far worse comditions than the seller admitted.

Go to this URL and look under the US listings. Call those people.

/T

 

[jja]

Good suggestions, Double Neg. In the low end, I've tried Yashica Mat 124, Rolleicord III, and Minolta Autocord. By far my favorite of those three is the Autocord, which can be had for maybe $200 in top shape. There's a guy in the NW--Karl Bryan--who services and sells these.

If you are interested in a lower end Rollei, the MX-EVS seems to have a good rep, but I've never used one. Igorcamera.com sometimes has these listed.

 

[aizan]

another vote for mx-evs.

 

[Meleica]

PS - dont waste your time on all the other models... For me, there are only 2 choices in the end:

1. a late model 3.5F
2. a 2.8F

Dan

 

[nightfly]

I would say if at all possible, hold a few. The controls on different models are on different sides of the camera.

I really like the layout and images I get from my Rolleicord V. It is considered "low end" but I liked it because it was very simple to use and one of the lighter models.Both the focus and winding knob (no crank but really I don't find this a problem in the least) are on the right. This makes it easy to cradle in my left hand and focus and wind with my right.

This isn't the case on all of them.

I had a Maxwell brightscreen put in by Henry Fleenor. I brought it into his shop when I was in LA (he's right near LAX). I think he might have done it for me the same day or a few days later. I was expecting him to mail me the camera but I'm pretty sure I just dropped by and picked it up before I went home.

 

[x-ray]

Good suggestions, Double Neg. In the low end, I've tried Yashica Mat 124, Rolleicord III, and Minolta Autocord. By far my favorite of those three is the Autocord, which can be had for maybe $200 in top shape. There's a guy in the NW--Karl Bryan--who services and sells these.

If you are interested in a lower end Rollei, the MX-EVS seems to have a good rep, but I've never used one. Igorcamera.com sometimes has these listed.

I agree completely. I've used rollei TLR's since the mid 60's and have owned quite a few. I had an MX in college that was a fantastic camera (Tessar) and sold it to a friend that dropped it from a balcony three floors up. Bad news!!! even for Rollei. I've had a couple of F models and a T and a couple of D models which I have currently. I have a 55 model 2.8 D with a Xenotar and find it to be very fine although in a bit of rough shape. The Xenar or Tessar lenses are both excellent as the Xenotar and Planar lenses. The Xenar and Tessar are both the same design (Tessar) and give the same quality image as are the Xenotar and Planar the same formula (Planar). Schneider made one and Zeiss the other. There's much snobb appeal to Zeiss but they are virtually the same in performance. Older variations can be less than good performers optically as well as a nightmare mechanically. I also have a 1933 Chord and 4x4 Flex which are not much good for real shooting. Lenses aren't too good and focusing screens are a disaster and extremely dark in the early models.

I would look at a clean MX, 3.5 C or D or a much overlooked T model. The T is a great camera with a Tessar. For some reason the T is often overlooked but is a fantastic camera.

I don't think the Seagull or Russian variations are very good and the Yashika is OK but not great. I agree that the Autocord Minolta is a great camera and are available at a great price.

 

[hiromu]

If you are okay with xenar and without meter, a nice Rolleicord V, Va, Vb should also be your option... But if you ever want to start with Seagull, I am selling elsewhere online, so let me know.

Hiromu

 

[VictorM.]

The MX-EVS is a good starter that will last you for life. It has the same controls as the later versions, but weighs less and costs less. The Tessar lens is as good as the Planar under most real-world circumstances. The accessories are Bay I, the smallest and least expensive to buy. Get a shade, a Domke Gripper strap and lots of film. I had an MX-EVS, then stupidly sold it.

I currently have an Old Standard (1935), an MX (1951) and a 3.5E with Planar (1958). The uncoated Tessar on the Old Standard is an excellent lens!

 

[VictorM.]

Seagull? I think not: http://photo.net/medium-format-photography-forum/00SCqX

 

[rayfoxlee]

I have owned Rolleicords (Vb's), Wide Angle (rare beast!) and 2.8F. Out of the standard lens Rollei's, there is no doubt that the 2.8F has the aura of being the supreme and most sought after camera. In use, though, the cheaper 3.5F was found by many users to be sharper. Also, the Planar in both 2.8F and 3.5F tends to be more expensive than the Xenotar - it's the Planar name that has the cachet, although Rollei engineers have said that both yield virtually identical performance. Out of the Vb and 2.8F, my first Vb that I bought new in 1966 produced stunning negs - the Xenar was sharper than the hugely expensive 2.8F and produced beautiful creamy skin tones. This may have just been down to a better than average Vb and a slightly below par 2.8F. The Vb lacks all of the automation of the F models - knob wind and manual shutter cocking, but despite these perceived shortcomings, that model is a great and reasonably cheap entry to Rollei TLRs. Also, it has the ability to take a 16 on kit if you can find one. If you decide to go for any Rollei, I would strongly suggest a model with a removable hood that folds flat on top of the viewing screen, as this will make it easy to fit a Beattie Intenscreen which will vastly improve the brightness of the screen.

If lever wind is essential, I would suggest a Rollei T (there were 3 types made between October 1958 and 1976). These had a f3.5 Tessar lens. Up in price range I would go for a 3.5F (E2) without a meter to keep the price down. Generally, I would not go for anything earlier, as even the 3.5E go back as far as 1956.

Collimation of the taking lens and viewing lens can sometimes be out - the lens panel is a bit sensitive to knocks. The other things to watch for is haze on the taking lens, as these lenses with their built shutters are expensive to clean (viewing lens is straightforward. Also, some early cameras show signs that the balsam used to glue lens elements is failing - expensive. And finally, if you buy a lever wind camera that requires a strap that has the 'scissor' fitting and this is not included, make sure you can source one before you buy the camera, as these can be hard to find and disproportionately expensive.

I strongly recommend you get Collectors Guide to Rollei Cameras by A G Evans if you can, as this really is the Rollei bible. I still have my copy, so I'm happy to do a bit of research for you.

I hope this helps. Good hunting!

Ray

 

[Al Kaplan]

The two biggest differences between the Autocord and EVERYTHING else:

1) The Autocord's feed spool is at the top and the film comes straight down to the film aperture and pressure plate BEFORE making a right angle bend. The Yashicas and Rollies feed from the bottom and the film does the right angle bend before it gets to the shooting position. If you wait a few days between shots the film might not flatten out and you'll get a fuzzy band across the frame.

2) The Minolta Autocord is the onle one without a focusing knob. You focus by pushing a lever back and forth under the lens panel. You soon get to know where the knob should be for various distances so if you're using the open frame sportsfinder in the hood you can still focus even when you can't see the ground glass. Great for flash photos, such as at a wedding.

MOST, Rolleiflexes but not the T, come with a hood designed in such a way that there's a magnifier just under the sportsfinder eyepiece, and when you push in the front panel of the sportsfinder a little mirror flips down, letting you focus on the center of the ground glass. Also, late model Rolleiflexes have a removeable hood so you can use the Rollei pentaprism finder. Heavy, but a fairly bright image, or the Mamiya Porroflex finder, lightweight but not as bright, and cheaper too. Just make sure it's the one for the Rollie, not the Mamiya TLR's.

Rollie made a conversion kit for the model T to give you 16 exposures. With the T you gotta "line up the arrows" when loading the film. With the Rollei Automats you feed the leader under a bar (not always easy to do in low light) and the bar senses when the thicker sandwich of film, tape and backing paper goes under it, resetting the frame counter.

The Xenar on the Rolleicord, Tessar on several Rolleiflex models, the Yashinon on the Yashicamats and the Rokkor on the Autocord are all 4 element Tessar designs. The Rokkor is generally considered the best, but they're all pretty close.

The f/3.5 and f/2.8 Planar (6 elements) and Xenotar (5 elements) give a slightly different "feel" to the pictures, and 40 years ago it was a popular topic of discussion. Then there were Rolleis with f/2.8 Tessars (not many) and for the East German market Zeiss Jena supplied f/2.8 Biometers, a five element design.

In the end though they all make good pictures...LOL, and the larger negative beats the pants off the little 35mm frame. Have fun! Sometimes you can pick up the metered models of the Autocords and Yashicas for peanuts because the meter is dead. If you don't want a metered TLR these are the best buys of all.

 

[tbarker13]

Lots of great advice. I think I am leaning toward the mx-evs model.
It looks like a nice entry point that fits my pocket book right now.

And Dan, just wanted to say that your price guide/rollei page was one of my primary resources while trying to learn more about these cameras. Great site.

 

[Meleica]

Thanks Tim

Al - Planar and Xenotar lenses were originally 5 elements on the Rolleis, save for the period from about 1962-1972 when the Planar and Xenotar 6 element lens came into the Rollei line up....

Dan

 

[Leigh Youdale]

If you go to < http://www.rolleiclub.com/cameras/tlr/info> you will find technical details and serial numbers (but not pricing) on all Rolleiflex models. That should help you distinguish between ones you might look at.
I have a mint Yashica 124G which is excellent, but I've also just bought a 1959 Rolleiflex E2 Planar 2.8 that I'm having CLA'd and refurbished by the local Rollei technician in Sydney.