Best Rolleiflex for the money

After reading Mark Hansen's blog about his reasons for preferring the stock focusing screen, it makes me wonder if the reason I had trouble focusing my last 2.8F with a Maxwell Screen might have been because of the screen installation rather than some other defect. He makes a good point and I remember that the Maxwell was brighter (by a lot) but yes, very centralized.

I know that on a view camera I hate fresnels because i end up looking at their pattern too much. You almost need a low powered loupe or just good eyesight so as not to be distracted.
 
Though not brilliant I find the screen on the 2.8E3 to be quite good at giving you that 3D feeling when things snap into focus, much better than my fresnel equipped (and brighter) Flexaret. I´ll be keeping mine stock, even if it is a bit of a pain in very bright and dim/dark conditions.
 
I just took my MX out at lunch time and I can focus easily with it in decent light. One thing I noticed is that one side of the screen is brighter than the other and I'm wondering if something needs adjustment?
 
Frank Version Two said:
After reading Mark Hansen's blog about his reasons for preferring the stock focusing screen, it makes me wonder if the reason I had trouble focusing my last 2.8F with a Maxwell Screen might have been because of the screen installation rather than some other defect. He makes a good point and I remember that the Maxwell was brighter (by a lot) but yes, very centralized.

I know that on a view camera I hate fresnels because i end up looking at their pattern too much. You almost need a low powered loupe or just good eyesight so as not to be distracted.
Click to expand...

Well... of course Mark Hansen is infinitely more qualified than I will ever be, but this passage sounds unconvincing to me: "The problems with most aftermaret screens are thus: Is the focal length the same as the lens on the camera you are using. f:3.5 Rolleiflex cameras have 7.5cm lenses, and f:2.8 cameras have 8cm lenses. This may seem trivial, but it is not. No camera equipped with a 7.5cm viewer lens will ever properly focus with an 8cm focal length bright screen." http://www.zeissikonrolleirepair.com/page04.html
Difference in thickness, yes. But if you accounted for that , I would be surprised if a "8cm focal lenght screen" could not be made to focus just fine on a 7.5cm lens.
We know from pro-SLRs with interchangeable screens that there are versions that are best
suited for wide-angle, medium and tele-lenses... but does anybody seriously believe that the difference between 75mm and 80mm would make a "wrong" screen unusable? I am not convinced.

However, he says the same thing about the not-so-hotness of the Maxwell screen with split image as Fleenor, or Kuschnik in Germany. Apparently the Maxwell screen with central split image for Rolleiflex is on the market because there is customer demand (split image, that has gotta be precise, right?), but the guys fitting it and with the tools to check for actual focusing accuracy all agree to forgo it and take the plain grid screen instead.
Greetings, Ljós
 
Last edited:
I need help understanding this! I trust & recommend Mark Hansen, but can't figure out what he's saying about 75 & 80mm screens. I don't understand how one screen can have a different focal length than another.

On another thread, Dan D. said what I thought was true:

"The surface a screen rests against in a removable-screen Rollei like an E3 is the same surface where the focusing happens. So no matter how thick the screen, the focus surface will always be in the same place, meaning no need for adjustment....

"Most TLRs, like older Rolleis, Autocords, Yashica-Mats, have the focus screen's top surface index its location. So different thicknesses of screens will locate the focusing surface at different levels."

If this is so, then on any Rollei with a removable hood, why would there be a difference between a 75mm screen & an 80mm screen, if they're resting in the same place?

Bill Maxwell asks you to order your screen for either the fixed or the removable viewfinder. I always thought this was because they're different-sized rectangles, &/or different in thickness, & had to be put in with the right side up. But am I to believe the focal lengths of the screens are different? In what sense does Mark mean that screens have different focal lengths – or is it just a difference in the height at which their focusing surface is positioned in the body?

If all fixed-hood Rolleis had 75mm lenses prior to the introduction of 2.8 lenses, & all had the same design for focusing screens, then the only models in which there could be a difference between 75 & 80mm screens would be the 2.8s with fixed hoods – that is, the 2.8A-B-C-D-E1. For E2-E3-F with either 75mm f3.5 or 80mm f2.8, No Problem?

Kirk

PS: I should add that for me, this is a very practical question. Mark is working on a couple of Rolleis for me now. One is a 'beater' 2.8C (with fixed hood) that I wanted to try because its Xenotar lens has 10 aperture blades, & supposedly nicer bokeh. I sent along a replacement screen of the fixed-hood type. So I wonder if this would become one of the mis-matched 80mm lenses with a 75mm focusing screen??

PPS on Ljos' point: I have Maxwell screens, both plain & split-image. IMO the latter are a mistake – definitely harder to focus accurately.
 
Last edited:
Did Rollei ever sell screens for the later TLRs specified by the focal length of the lens? If the fresnel design had a significant effect in use, I am pretty certain that Rollei would have seen this, heard about, or otherwise have determined that it was an issue.

Personally I would put more faith in the actions of a company like Rollei. Or Hasselblad. Or Nikon or Canon or Pentax for interchangeable screen SLRs.... Does anyone sell screens for specific focal lengths? Yes, I know about screens for long focal length lenses, designs to overcome split image black-out at small f-stops, etc. But Nikon telling you to change screens when you go from a 50mm to a 60mm lens?

I think that there are legitimate complaints to be made about fresnel screens and various aftermarket screens, but until I hear more I am not convinced that Mark Hansen's reasoning actually explains his displeasure?

Then again, if someone knows that Rollei sold screens for different focal lengths, I'll think that he may have a point.

(thompsononks, if that 2.8C doesn't work out for you, drop me a line!)
 
Last edited:
I've asked the highly tech-savvy folks on the Rolleiflex Yahoo Group about this, so maybe we'll have an answer. If so, I'll post a link here.

Dan, I don't know when the 2.8C will come home, or whether or not I'll want to keep it. I like 3.5 because they're lighter & seem to balance better, but if I'm persuaded the images & esp. the bokeh are more interesting, then I'll keep it & maybe get a ND filter to shoot consistently at wider apertures.

The lens had lotsa crud in it when I shot a test roll, & I rather liked the flare this produced. But the crud may be gone after Mark works on it. Despite the flare, the Xenotar was very sharp. But unfortunately it focused behind the point I had in mind. This should clear up too – unless there's really some problem about focusing screens.

Kirk
 
thompsonks said:
I've asked the highly tech-savvy folks on the Rolleiflex Yahoo Group about this, so maybe we'll have an answer. If so, I'll post a link here.
Click to expand...

If you're currently in touch with Mark, maybe he can help clarify.

I'm as confused as possible about 3rd party screen issues, but then again I've only tried the Oleson screen on a fixed-finder 75mm camera. That one had a horizontal split-prism focus aid, and if I had the choice to make now, I would have preferred a plain center spot. It does seem to work fine, but I haven't done anything like testing.

I wrote to the Ebay seller who sells screens out of HK, and he replied that his larger screens are the same for 75mm or 80mm lenses, and that no adjustment is required for installation, but without going into detail. I note that his screens have a diagonal split-prism focus aid, which, even for those who like focus aids, strikes me as the worst of all worlds. But I haven't tried it and it's 1/5 the price of a brand-name bright screen.
 
Dan, Kirk, PMCC, thanks for looking further into this. I am not in the market right now for a Rolleiflex, but I will :) Going to be interesting to hear what the Rolleiflex-forista come up with.

Greetings, Ljós
 
I've decided I'm keeping the original screen in the MX.

It is a bit dim in poor light but I can focus with it, and it's just fine in daylight. :)
 
My best Rolleiflex screens have been the Mamiya RB67 screens I bought from KEH at good prices. Simple to cut down to size w/ a sharp knife (score it, tape both sides to prevent splintering, and snap it on a counter edge). I never had to readjust focus. Some people prefer a split focusing spot in the center, but w/ a good screen you shouldn't need one. Simply having a very bright screen didn't work for me. I prefer something w/ a little more contrast to facilitate focusing. A fresnel will brighten up a darkish screen, but if you place it under the camera's screen you'll have to have the focus reset. Place it on top and you won't be able to close the WLF.
 
I came across this page on the focusing screen issue:

http://www.panum.de/rolleiflex_screen.htm

Seems to me that focusing screens are independent of the lens focal length, or else the Mamiya screens wouldn't work on Rolleis. The Mamiyas themselves take interchangeable lenses, but don't require change of screen to match the lens.
 
The link here provides some discussion about adapting Mamiya screens to Rolleiflexes. Although the article was written by the owner of an SL66 it may be relevant to TLR owners also. I have no first hand knowledge of the Mamiya screens myself, nor can I vouch for the veracity of the article, and am simply passing the information on in the event it's of use to RFF members.
Regards,
Brett
 
Thanks Brett. This is interesting anecdotal encouragement for those adventurous but economical souls who might be tempted to explore the Mamiya RB screen retrofit for the Rollei. It jibes with other advice I've come across to use the RB, not the RZ, screen for this purpose.

Peter.
 
Top TLR

Top TLR

I sold my Rollei f2.8 Planar as the pix I was getting were just ok. Picked up a Yashicamat and am very pleased with the results-lighter body, lens as good as any, AND money left over to buy some other novelty...;)
 
Sarcophilus Harrisii said:
The link here provides some discussion about adapting Mamiya screens to Rolleiflexes. Although the article was written by the owner of an SL66 it may be relevant to TLR owners also. I have no first hand knowledge of the Mamiya screens myself, nor can I vouch for the veracity of the article, and am simply passing the information on in the event it's of use to RFF members.
Click to expand...

I ended up getting an RB screen to cut down, and am happy with the results, not to mention pleased not to spend $200+.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom