Any Rolleiflex TLR users here?

[RJBender]

Joe,
I have been looking at a couple in some local shops here, amazing how close you can focus with those Mamiyas, it's like a macro TLR .


Todd

Todd,
You really need a paramender for macro work with the Mamiya TLR . With the bellows racked all the way out, you have remember to open up a stop and a half.

R.J.

 

[RJBender]

Speed loading Paterson reels

Speed loading Paterson reels

I like seeing how others load MF film. Have you found different films load differently? I find Kodak 120 to be less tightly curled than HP and stopped shooting it after I couldn't get 3-4-5 rolls on the reel. On the last two occasions I left the roll in the tank overnight but that didn't help.

After I developed this technique and practiced with an old roll of film, I could get 3 rolls in the tank in about 5 minutes.

Remove the paper backing and fold over the tape.
Start the end with the tape into the Paterson reel and let the film roll up.
Insert the tips of your index fingers into the ends of the roll and ratchet the reel using 3 fingers and thumb on each hand.​

Try it, you’ll like it! 😛

R.J.

 

[DougK]

Joe, something I've been seriously thinking about for my Seagull is one of those binocular harnesses you can find in sporting goods shops instead of a neck strap or a grip. Might look a little goofy but it's gotta be better than a sore neck from hanging a brick around it.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Look for Ebay seller 'redleica1', I have one of his screens in my Rolleicord Va, and reported my results on RFF a few months ago - basically, yes, much brighter than the original screen, esp. in the corners, BUT, the original, dark screen had more'snap' when coming from out of focus into focus, and when using the 'redleica1' screen with the focussing loupe, you have to rely on the split-image patch on the screen, as the lines from the fresnel lens around that patch are too coarse for focussing there with the loupe.

Roman

Thanks Roman, for the info. I've seen his screens on ePrey for a while, but have been hesitant. I think that getting a Beattie screen is a good (although painful at first) investment; I like that I don't need a split prism on the screen to focus properly, but in dim light, framing is very challenging. There are many times that I kick myself for having sold my whole Hasselblad 500c/m kit (it had a Beattie screen), and I am currently contemplating getting one for a third time, but I am trying to be strong.

The Rolleiflex with the Xenar has such a sharp lens, with such a nice bokeh that when I see the pictures taken with it remind me why I let go of the Hassie in the first place. But that's another story.

These babies are expensive for a good reason. They are overpriced for the wrong reasons (brand name, collectors).

BTW, if you don't have a light meter, I highly recommend getting a Gossen Digisix. They are pricey, but very well worth it; if you have other MF rangefinders, like say an Isolette, you can get a $15 accessory so you can mount this little thing on the flash shoe. It works just wonderfully in very dark places, like say, a very dim bar.

And last: Anybody out there have a spare fresnel they'd like to sell? (it's good to have options)

 

[Roman]

For those in Europe, there are two companies that have ROlleiflex screens that are supposed to be pretty good - Paepke, and FFS (try google.de for the webpages) in Germany; those are companies who do CLAs on TLRs, and will munt that screen for about an extra 90 Euros, don't know if they sell the screens for mounting them yourself, though.
I'm thinking about sending my Rolleiflex there for a CLA (not really needed, but I'd be sure it will be keeping on ticking for the next 30 years after that....), in winter, when my bankaccount has recovered from the recent blow (M2...)

ROman

Edit:

PS: Just looked up the addresses:

http://www.paepke-fototechnik.de/

http://www.ffs-service.de/onlinesho...tp://www.ffs-service.de/onlineshop/index.html

 

[Russ]

Joe, something I've been seriously thinking about for my Seagull is one of those binocular harnesses you can find in sporting goods shops instead of a neck strap or a grip. Might look a little goofy but it's gotta be better than a sore neck from hanging a brick around it.

How do you like your Seagull? I've heard so many varied reports on it.

Thanks
Russ

 

[Pherdinand]

I've used my 70 y old rolleiflex automat 2 intensively for a week. Slide, colour neg, and black and white neg from 3200 to 125 iso... dark insides of medieval churches and bright sunny outsides. Dusty country roads, wet nights in a tent. I still have to develop the film, but *using* th eold fellow was a real joy. It didn't fail ONCE in the 190-200 clicks it made.

 

[taffer]

I've used my 70 y old rolleiflex automat 2 intensively for a week. Slide, colour neg, and black and white neg from 3200 to 125 iso... dark insides of medieval churches and bright sunny outsides. Dusty country roads, wet nights in a tent. I still have to develop the film, but *using* th eold fellow was a real joy. It didn't fail ONCE in the 190-200 clicks it made.

Even without the shooting, that sounds REAL fun Pherdi 🙂

 

[Pherdinand]

you bet it was🙂 just the film devp'ment will cost me an arm and a leg🙁
And i'm stil unemployed.
But i have some interviews in the coming days🙂 wish me luck!

cheers

 

[CJP6008]

Rolleiflex - undisputed King of TLRs.

I have a 2.8 F Planar with meter and 220 capability - a beauty.

Yes there are loads of models available. The Es date from the 50s and are good, Ts had a Tessar 4 element lens (rather like that in a Yashica 124G - but a Zeiss). The Fs came with a 3.5 Zeiss Planar (reckoned to be the sharpest of the lot) a Zeiss 2.8 Planar and a Schnieder 2.8 Xenotar. For reasons of fashion more than performance the Xenotars will cost you less - folks want the 2.8 Planar most.
After the Fs came the GX (2.8 Planar) with TTL metering etc. Some say build quality was not quite up to the F quality. Still very well made. Now we have the FX (again with 2.8 Planar - made by Rollei who have permission to do so from Zeiss I gather).

I guess it is a question of doing some research, seeing what they things cost etc etc

Useful sites for more reading include - http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/rollei/rolleiflex/
http://www.foto.no/rolleiflex/

Hope this helps

C

 

[RJBender]

Rolleiflex - undisputed King of TLRs.

I have a 2.8 F Planar with meter and 220 capability - a beauty.

Yes there are loads of models available. The Es date from the 50s and are good, Ts had a Tessar 4 element lens (rather like that in a Yashica 124G - but a Zeiss). The Fs came with a 3.5 Zeiss Planar (reckoned to be the sharpest of the lot) a Zeiss 2.8 Planar and a Schnieder 2.8 Xenotar. For reasons of fashion more than performance the Xenotars will cost you less - folks want the 2.8 Planar most.
After the Fs came the GX (2.8 Planar) with TTL metering etc. Some say build quality was not quite up to the F quality. Still very well made. Now we have the FX (again with 2.8 Planar - made by Rollei who have permission to do so from Zeiss I gather).

I guess it is a question of doing some research, seeing what they things cost etc etc

Useful sites for more reading include - http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/rollei/rolleiflex/
http://www.foto.no/rolleiflex/

Hope this helps

C

That subject , Which is sharper, Planar or Xenotar? , comes up occasionally on the Rollei List. Users who have both types say there is no discernable difference.
You can search the archives here: http://digistar.com/rollei/search.html

It's my understanding that the models being produced today are made from the T design because they weren't able to get TTL metering in the F body.

If you are interested in reference books, try a search for authors Ian Parker, Arthur Evans or Klaus Prochnow.

R.J.

 

[RJBender]

BTW, if any of you are looking for a Rollefix adapter, they've been going cheap on eBay:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7550137655

R.J.

 

[Jabash]

Pricing TLRs

Pricing TLRs

"I am looking at a 2.8 F Planar 120/220. What kind of price range do these generally go for?

 

[Todd.Hanz]

"I am looking at a 2.8 F Planar 120/220. What kind of price range do these generally go for?

on the "bay" they run anywhere from 900 to well over 1000 USD but I haven't looked recently, they seem to be currently en vouge.

Todd

 

[RJBender]

Probably $1200 for a mint one and $600 for a user. Check the completed listings on eBay.
You might want to subscribe to the Rollei List and post a WTB ad.

R.J.

 

[Beniliam]

What about the Agfa Flexilette.

http://www.enter-net.de/auktion/photo/248fexilette.htm

Im interested to know about the 35 mm TLR.

Thanks 😉

 

[RJBender]

What about the Agfa Flexilette.

http://www.enter-net.de/auktion/photo/248fexilette.htm

Im interested to know about the 35 mm TLR.

Thanks 😉

I use 35mm film in my Rolleiflex with a "Rolleikin" adapter.

R.J.

 

[rotzbremse]

My favorite camera is a 1955 Rolleiflex 2.8D with the Planar lens. I used to own a 2.8F and 2.8E, but they were too pretty. I sold them and kept the trusted 2.8D. I ahve bene using this camera for the past 15 years at the very least. It's a great camera overall.

 

[lynn]

1973 was a very good year, Gene - were you a Toronto person then too?
I have a Yashica Mat 124 G, which is a delight, albeit a recent delight: the test roll has been printed, and even without a working light meter (nice day, sunny 16) the results were glorious.
I also have a Seagull TLR and a Great Wall MF SLR (my husband just got back from a trip to China). They're even newer terrain than the Mat, but the Seagull prints, picked up today, astonished even me. I was prepared for inaccurate focus particularly, but they are SO SHARP. The colours, funnily enough, (or maybe not, but I was rather surprised) are different in the Seagull prints (more garish, if you will) than in the Mat ones. Same film, same weather, same sunny 16, same lab...go figure.

 

[GeneW]

1973 was a very good year, Gene - were you a Toronto person then too?
I have a Yashica Mat 124 G, which is a delight, albeit a recent delight: the test roll has been printed, and even without a working light meter (nice day, sunny 16) the results were glorious.
I also have a Seagull TLR and a Great Wall MF SLR (my husband just got back from a trip to China). They're even newer terrain than the Mat, but the Seagull prints, picked up today, astonished even me. I was prepared for inaccurate focus particularly, but they are SO SHARP. The colours, funnily enough, (or maybe not, but I was rather surprised) are different in the Seagull prints (more garish, if you will) than in the Mat ones. Same film, same weather, same sunny 16, same lab...go figure.

Yup, I moved to Toronto in 1971. Enjoy those TLR's Lynne! They're such fun!

Gene