Best Rolleiflex for the money

[David Murphy]

Lately I've been getting annoyed by the lack of sharpness in 35mm photography compared to medium format. Everything really has to be optimal to get good enlargements. Can anyone proffer an opinon as to the best Rolleiflex obtainable in the $400-$600 range? I am talking about a working camera here with the best optics available in this price range, I don't care collectibilty. I once owned an older Rollei Tessar, and while nice, I need something better for serious shooting purposes.

 

[raid]

David: I recommend the Rolleiflex 2.8D with either the Planar or the Xenotar lens. I have been using such a model Rolleiflex for about 15 years now, and I find it one of the best cameras ever made. The models E and F do not have better lenses, but they will cost you more.

Cheers,
Raid

 

[Chaser]

In your price range keh.com has a few xenotar or planar versions. Both lenses are said to be supurb, though someone else may have more knowledge on specifics.

 

[dreamsandart]

Any Rolleiflex will be a great camera - tessar, planar, xenotar - as long as its working well, taking lens is clean and the lens board and back alined properly. A really good over-haul is worth while but expensive ( not everyone does the work like it should be done - I've had experience! ). With that in mind I would highly recommend calling Harry Fleenor at Oceanside Camera and seeing if he has a camera he's worked on in your price range. I am the extremely happy user of one of Harry's cameras.

 

[FrankS]

I suggest any model you can find that sports a 75mm f3.5 Planar lens. I have a model E and it is great! It also has a Harry Fleenor sticker inside.

 

[RicardoD]

I recently went down this path, similar price range. I ended up with a 3.5E with a Xenotar lens. Bought at KEH in "bargain" condition for $310, paid some more for a complete overhaul by Mark Hansen of Class Camera, ClassCamera@aol.com, and then purchased some essential accesories, in beat up "user" condiction (a lens cap and a hood). I think I ended up at about $500 when I was done. The best thing about the CLA was getting the viewing and taking lens aligned and getting my shutter speeds calibrated.

I just got my set of color transparencies back from a week vacation in San Diego and holy crap was I blown away by the trannies! What's killing me now is getting the scans to look as good as the trannies do on my light table .

You'll save if you are willing to get a Xenotar and bypass the more desired Zeiss Planar even though everything I have read states you can't tell the difference between the two. If you go 3.5 instead of 2.8 I think there is more money to be saved there as well.

 

[raid]

I favor the 2.8 models because that extra speed can make a difference with hand-held portraits. I keep a Tessar model with the 3.5 for special portraits.

Raid

 

[harry01562]

Most of the suggestions simmer down to the lens choices. I own a bargain grade early 3.5E (Xenotar) and a similar 2.8F 12/24 (Planar) that together cost me somewhat over your top range. Both were bargains when bought, and snapped up at the asking price. There was a gap of several years between the 2 acquisitions. The lens are both excellent performers, and very tough to tell what took which picture. The 2.8 is also a larger, heavier camera, and the extra bulk may not be welcome.
That said, I think a clean lens on a cosmetically challenged CLA-ed 3.5D or E would be the least expensive option that would provide what you are looking for in a Rollei. If you can actually shop one-on-one for the right camera, it might be at the low end of your range, even with the CLA. I found my 2.8F just over a year ago at a mall-type shop, and was almost tempted to not bother asking the price. I was more than surprised at the low price tendered. A shop with the wrong walk-in trade may be willing to sell at wholesale or even a bit below. The only hard part is finding the right shop.
I did it when not looking for a Rollei, but being pleasantly surprised. The KEH suggestion may be a good one. I've heard some less than stellar comments lately, but have always been happy with their bargain grade coupled with the liberal return policy. That relationship is over 12+ years and a few dozen various purchases. Best to talk to someone, rather than just email, and if it's someone you've had a prior dealing(s) with, all the better.
You will enjoy the right camera... and it will do what you want....

Harry

 

[x-ray]

Anything from the 2.8 or 3.5 C and up are excellent lenses. The one problem with some of the older cameras is the poor focusing screen. I always replace the screens with modern ones which makes a world of difference in focusing accuracy. I have had a number of Rolleis and shot the SK66's for 25 years but still keep a 2.8D with a Xenotar for casual shooting. You had a bad experience with a Tessar on one of the cameras but my guess is that it was an old pre war model. The Tessar is excellent and will produce equally fine images. I would no overlook the Rolleiflex T. For some reason it wasn't as popular but i've shot one where I once worked and can say the lens and camera is every bit as good as the regular Rolleis. They tend to be lower in price than many of the other models and many are in super condition.

 

[ARCHIVIST]

Everybody seems to opt for the Planar and Xenotar lenses but having owned many of them on and off since the mid '70s I find that many people forget the model T with it's brilliant Tessar 3.5 lens and even the much underated Rolleicords (especially the Va and Vb) with their Xenar lenses.

I had a Rolleiflex T and it's Tessar gave me razor sharp 16"x20" ( 40cmx50cm ) prints. The big advantage of the T is that it will cost you half the money of the Planar jobs and can still take the 5.5 x 4 adaptor ( 16 exposures per roll ) kit as well as the 35mm kit. It takes standard B30 (series 1) filters which are more common and much cheaper to buy than the B36 and B40 used on the other Rolleis. The B30 being uses on most of the Yashica, Minolta, Waltz, Rolleicord TLRs etc. that took a bayonet filter/hood.

Food for thought.

Regards
Peter

 

[ffttklackdedeng]

My vote goes for the MX-EVS (aka 3.5 B) - it has the beautiful EVS system, no meter to die, bay 1 and is lightweight and compact (because of 3.5 lens and no meter).

If you want maximum quality you will have to use a good tripod and stop down to around f8 anyway where the Tessar should be as good as the more expensive choices (that is when everything is aligned correctly etc. of course).

 

[stephen_lumsden]

Hi

Unless you are doing low light or specificv bokeh type shots I would go with a Rollei-T or MX-EVS which I have, as athey are cheap, especially in good condition (as everyone seem to want planar types..) and bay 1 filters are cheap. Saying that I do have a curiosity about the bay-2 xenotar type as they are supposed to have good bokeh, or may be its just GAS. God help my bank a/c if they every bring out a digital TLR 🙂/

rgds
Stephen

 

[Greg_E]

God help my bank a/c if they every bring out a digital TLR 🙂/

rgds
Stephen

You have to be willing to make it yourself:

I haven't gone to much farther because I broke one of the tools that I need to make the metal mounting parts. The only drawback is the sensor selection, there are few square sensors, and the largest that I know of is only 16 megapixels. And at that there is a large crop factor (I forget the exact amount but I think it is 36x36mm) The good news is that Megavision also has that same 16mp sensor in a monochrome version.

 

[VictorM.]

I have an MX, MX-EVS and a 3.5E. The MX-EVS is a beater I bought for $100 on pnet and is amazingly good. The 3.5E with Planar might be slightly better, lens wise, but it's usually difficult to evaluate because I don't use a tripod. My advice would be to get an MX-EVS in the best possible condition, then have it cla'd by someone good. Or buy one from a trusted source after it has been cla'd. The remaining funds can be used to buy a lens hood, a Rolleifix tripod mount and, if you use b&w film, a couple of filters. If you do buy a later model, E or F, you will need to find a strap in good, usable condition.

When I go out to work on my neighborhood project I take a camera with hood and strap, meter, 3 rolls of film and an orange filter and a 2 stop ND filter. If I'm going further afield, I add more film and a couple more filters. If there's rain, I add a UV filter on the lens. Simple is good.

 

[Abbazz]

You have to be willing to make it yourself...
I haven't gone to much farther because I broke one of the tools that I need to make the metal mounting parts. The only drawback is the sensor selection, there are few square sensors, and the largest that I know of is only 16 megapixels. And at that there is a large crop factor (I forget the exact amount but I think it is 36x36mm) The good news is that Megavision also has that same 16mp sensor in a monochrome version.

Very impressive, Greg. Is it finished yet? Could you post some sample pictures?

Cheers,

Abbazz

 

[Greg_E]

Nope, not finished. My sheet metal shear broke so I haven't been able to make the new mounts yet. Then I really need to do a cla on the shutter to get the speeds fixed. I also had to modify a truly beaten camera body to get the CCD closer, this is not pretty and would give most Rollei lovers nightmares for months. Wish I could afford the 16MP back for this project, but it is around $13,000 USD. What I have is only 6MP. I really hope to get back to this soon, but not really sure when I'll get the chance.

These Megavision backs are one of the few that will work with just about any camera that has a flash socket. So in theory you could build a 'cord with a 39 megapixel back on it. Might be a little tight in landscape mode, but should fit fine in portait mode.

 

[David Murphy]

OK, thanks all for the scholarly advice on Rollei's -- I'll take it to heart

 

[Keith]

I picked up a Rolleicord IV a year ago off ebay for $75.00 from a Swedish seller in perfect condition. Very simple camera with all the advantages of medium format without the whistles and bells or expense of a Rolleiflex. My only beef is the focussing screen which is a bit dim but apparently that is easily dealt with! 🙂

 

[motosacto]

I have been very happy with my 3.5E Xenotar. I also have a 2.8E Planar that takes wonderfully sharp pictures. I find that the 3.5E has a little better handheld balance--the heavier lens of the 2.8E makes it a bit front-heavy. The little gallery below was shot with my 3.5E, then scanned and post-processed using a digital lith workflow in Photoshop.


http://www.westerickson.net/lithportals/

 

[Flyfisher Tom]

it all depends on your price point ...

any of the 2.8 or 3.5 models, whether planar or xenotar are great.

one of the best 6x6 TLRs is the Rolleicord with the Xenar lens ... lighter in weight and less expensive, what a stellar lens