Best Rolleiflex for the money

[fgianni]

Does it need to be a rolleiflex?
While the planar and xenotar lenses are widely recognized to be the best, the Rokkor sported by the autocord is very close, and the focusing lever makes it sooo much handier to use!
I sold an autocord to partially fund a Rolleiflex GX (2.8 planar, reliable metering, all the bells and whistles, and quite a new model) after my wife tried to use the thing, she made me sell it back again and get another autocord, once you tried the lever focusing you don't want to go back to the knob!

 

[Meleica]

David

I'd vote for a Planar or Xenotar 3.5 lens. A Rolleiflex E2 w/o meter would be my "pick."

Rolleiflex Price and Info Guide
http://members.aol.com/dcolucci/rolleitlr.htm

While the 2.8 lenses are "sexier," the 3.5 lens is easier designed and is *usually* sharper at all Fstops and is less expensive.

 

[Ben Z]

I have a 2.8F Planar and an MX 3.5 Option Tessar, both overhauled by Harry Fleenor, both with Beatty focus screens. I use the F mostly with the prism for people portraits. The MX is my travel camera because it's smaller and lighter. The Planar is sharper at wider apertures but at f/8-f/16 where most of my travel snaps are made, there's really no difference I can tell.

Also for wider views with landscapes I have great luck shooting semi-panoramics, that is 2 shots with about 1/3 overlap which gives me a 6x10cm effective capture. I use a regular pan-base tripod head, a cheap bubble level and the stitching software that came free bundled with my wife's old digital ELPH.

 

[KoNickon]

I have a 3.5F Type I Xenotar that I'm learning to love -- only because I am still not convinced it's any better than a Tessar-type lens TLR. But it's a lovely camera to use. That said, I can wholly recommend the earlier MX-EVS, or the Xenar-equipped later Rolleicords, or definitely the Rokkor on the Autocords. (And the Yashinons are really excellent too!)

 

[Pherdinand]

For the best value as a photographer (contrary to the collector), i think you have to eliminate the:
-mint/like new etc samples
-special versions, rarities
-the ones that look good but have bad ergonomics to your way of using a TLR camera. E.g. you might dislike knob winding or left-habd focusing or a dimmer screen or a coupled speed-aperture mechanism.

The new version 2.8 ones will obviously out of your budget.
2.8C (E) versions with planars/xenotars and visible signs of use might fit nicely the budget, with some luck. 3.5 E and F models (xenotar/planar) will be there too.
A Tessar equipped one is nice but it is under the $400-600 price range. If you get a tessar one for 400$ or more, you either pay for the "mint" quality (which you don't need!) or you are wasting your money.
SO i'd say you have to decide if you need the extra wide open sharpness of the xenotar/planar versions, and then get an older 2.8 or a 3.5 E-F (meterless is always cheaper and same useability unless you get extremely lucky with a properly working meter) OR you go for a cheaper tessar/xenar lens version and spend the rest on a Maxwell brightscreen, or a handful of film. Or a good light meter if you don't have one yet.

 

[Ezzie]

I'm waking this one up from the dead to see if there are any new takes on the issue now 4 years down the road. Much like the OP I am in the market for a Rolleiflex, but would like to get the best bang for my bucks. I have a TLR already, admittedly not a Rollei, but not too shabby and with a Tessar formula lens (The Flexaret Va with coated Belar). It awoke the desire for an even better TLR, and I knew I had to try a Rolleiflex, anything else I would only go wondering; what if, what if.

Since I already have a Tessar type TLR, I really am in the market for a Xenotar or Planar type Rolleiflex. Or I might be swayed if someone can convince me a late model Tessar will outperform and older Tessar with distinction.

I'm not too fussy if it has EV coupling or not, I would like the larger focusing knob, I would prefer no meter (but not imperative), I prioritise weight over speed (3.5 before 2.8 - though not discount the latter), I would like it to be in good condition (pro models may often not be, but do some stand the test of time better than others?), nice if finders are interchangable, and of course Xenotar and Planar over Tessar/Xenar, all for $800 - $999 (either fully functioning of after a CLA)? Not forgetting case and straps and caps.

I've formed a list myself, but would like to see what others think and why.

 

[Matus]

I had Rolleiflex T for about 3 years and it produced some excellent images for me. Not as clinically sharp as my Mamiya 6 can be, but once stopped down to about f/8 I could really not complain. Wider open it is quite special - great for portraits.

However - you should have a look at Minolta Autocord - it also has an f/3.5 Tessar lens, but users are VERY happy with that lens and some claim it is sharper that the one in Rolleiflex T. It also has the same bayonet I as the T so you can use the same close-up lenses and filters. When I got my T I actually wanted to get an Autocord, but came across the T in very good condition for VERY good price and bought it.

I agree about the CLA - until you will find one that had it recently it is quite probable that the camera will need one.

 

[Vics]

I have a 3.5F w/Xenotar and meter, and an MX w/xenar and no meter. To tell the truth, I like the 1951 MX better. It's quite a bit lighter, FEELS smaller, Harry Fleenor has made it silky smooth in every respect, and they can be had for a lot less money. The lens is tack sharp, but with lower contrast, which I like a lot when I'm printing. I do like the 3.5F, and I use it when shooting in "studio" conditions.
I often wish I had the 5mm of extra focal length that the 2.8 cameras offer (80mm instead of the 3.5's 75mm). I think it makes a big difference in portraits.

 

[Ezzie]

Thanks. I understand your sentiments regarding a light and handy TLR, my Flexaret ticks those boxes already. Which is why I would like a bigger brother, even if MX-EVS's and T models do have merit and are tempting options in their own right.

 

[Ezzie]

I landed on a 2.8E3. Not pristine, but reasonably priced, recent CLA. Looking forward to taking over stewardship (I am after all a Steuart).

 

[David DeMello]

I just purchased a Type 1 MX-EVS with Xenar 3.5 on the auction site for an undisclosed sum. Total impulse buy, which is a little scary. I bid on a lark, three dollars over the high offer five seconds before auction close and was shocked - and a little terrified - when I was declared the winner.

I may need help.

The seller said that the camera belonged to his Father, whose collection of cameras he was selling. Despite my knee-jerk moral condemnation of the man for turning his legacy and his Father's passion into quick cash, I was overcome by that warm and comfortable feeling of one about to receive a thing well cared for. Hopefully it's not all snake oil and his Father had a firm grip.

Anyway, thanks all for setting down here over the past five years these words that now allow me to rationalize my "decision" of today as I embark unexpectedly and with no prior planning upon the road of Rolleiflex ownership.

The wait for the mail begins...

 

[Frank Petronio]

Seeing this is a zombie thread I'll throw in my worthless opinion for the heck of it. I used to shoot a lot of Rolleis and in the end, if on a limited budget, I'd get a late, clean, bright Rolleicord Vb or V instead of the expensive flex. I'd budget enough for a really good CLA from someone like Fleenor and getting a Maxwell screen while these guys are still alive!

Really I rather have a 9/10 Cord than a beater Flex.

The extra steps you have to go through to wind the next shot are minimal and I need to slow myself down from overshooting anyway. The lenses are just as sharp, the Cords are lighter/more compact but still satisfyingly well made.

Twenty years from now when all these cameras are ancient and nobody is left to work on them, the Flexs will be all gummed up and nasty while the Cords will still be humming along, shooting that stockpile of TXP you wisely stashed in the bomb shelter's freezer ;-p

Now if I had money to blow, I'd still do the Fleenor-Maxwell trip but I'd look for a Rolleiflex 2.8E, E2, or E3 without the meter. Or an F if I wanted to use one of those adapters and a Hasselblad Chimney Finder with the diopter adjustment. Get them to remove the worthless broken meter and put the flat plate in its place.

Planar or Xenotar don't matter. What matters is that the front of the camera is straight and the lens focus in sync, many of them have been wacked over the years and really aren't that precise, so I would never buy a fine Rolleiflex without budgeting for a quality CLA and check-up.

 

[MISH]

david, I have a MX-EVS with a tessar 3.5 and I would give it my highest recomendation, what a great camera to shoot with.... you made a great choice
(the only part I am not happy with is the dim focus screen but that will be fixed in the near future)

I agree with what Frank said above about a good CLA , my Flex sat unused for a good thirty years and while it had not seen a hard life the CLA made a world of difference in its operation (BTW the CLA cost more than I paid for the camera)

and Frank I have a Cord from the same time period as the Flex (early 50's) and the Flex beats the pants off it as far as joy of use, just the f/ stop and shutter speed dials are worth the extra as far as I am concerned. As my ex-father in-law always said "it only costs 10% more to go first class"

 

[PMCC]

Now if I had money to blow, I'd still do the Fleenor-Maxwell trip but I'd look for a Rolleiflex 2.8E, E2, or E3 without the meter. Or an F if I wanted to use one of those adapters and a Hasselblad Chimney Finder with the diopter adjustment. Get them to remove the worthless broken meter and put the flat plate in its place.

Chimney finder and Maxwell screen posts have been coming up lately here in TLR land -- yours truly among the chum feeders. So, allow me to ask of you Maxwell screen fans: what's the true scoop on whether it requires a Fleenor or other tech to install it, or is installation DIY-friendly on an otherwise properly tuned-up Rollei?

 

[peter_n]

I've been reading this thread and also just bought my first TLR, and it seems to me that the 50's MX and MX-EVS are good value as they're often described as workhorses and you can pick one up fairly cheaply if you want to try out the format.

I missed out on an MX Xenar 3.5 on eBay, but then a couple days later found an MX Tessar 3.5 on APUG and bought it for $235. The camera had just been serviced including adjustments to the film transport and shutter speeds, and it arrived a couple days ago. The taking lens is supposed to be very good in it so I'm itching to use it, although the screen is a bit dim.

Unfortunately I can't use it till next week but film for it is on the way from Freestyle! 🙂

 

[andredossantos]

I've used a ton of different models of Rolleiflex and they were all great in terms of optics: Tessar, Xenar, Planar, Xenotar. The latter two are a tad better at wider apertures but also more expensive.

For value, an MX or MX-EVS in good shape is usually a great deal. Get it overhauled with a Maxwell screen installed and you'll have a great, small, and light MF camera. I used one for several years and took it on many trips and it never let me down.

In the end though, the one model I held onto (and still use) is a early model 3.5E that has been Fleanor'ed and Maxwell'd. This one doesn't have a meter (I prefer meteless Rollei's BY FAR). I love this camera and will never let it go.

Also, I much prefer the 3.5 models to the 2.8 models. For half a stop you get a camera that is noticeably heavier and IMO doesn't balance as nicely in hand. That being said I've owned a 2.8D and a 2.8F and they were great.

I just love Rollei's 🙂

 

[thompsonks]

"So, allow me to ask of you Maxwell screen fans: what's the true scoop on whether it requires a Fleenor or other tech to install it, or is installation DIY-friendly on an otherwise properly tuned-up Rollei?"

IMO it should be installed or at least checked out by someone who uses a collimator & not just a piece of ground glass to get the screen, viewing lens, & taking lens in sync.

My choice would be Mark Hansen. He's a very competent Rollei repairman when what you need is an adjustment, & much cleaper than Fleenor. He doesn't have a parts collection like Fleenor or Krikor, but if you don't need parts you can rely on him. He mentioned that a very high % of the Rolleis he works on need this particular adjustment anyway, whether or not you're changing screens. He's improved the adjustment of a couple of screens that Krikor installed for me.

Kirk

 

[PMCC]

I had forgotten about Mark Hansen's camera repair blog. I took a look again and interestingly he's not a fan of any third-party bright screens, and doesn't use them himself. http://www.zeissikonrolleirepair.com/page04.html

The more I read about Rolleis, the more my head hurts. Time for me to read less and just use mine more. Then I can report back with yet another opinion, from my own experience!

Not to sound ungrateful in the least: I appreciate all the contributions that RFF posters have made to the body of knowledge and general confusion. 🙂 Love these zombie threads (nod to Frank 2.0)!

 

[Brian Legge]

I agree with others. If you can't CLA it yourself, pick up a camera that is a bit of a step up and budget $150+ to have it brought into excellent condition. Going or something high end without money to bring it into shape seems like its really just deferring that spending until you hit issues with it which could be now or years from now.

I took a few test shots with an Autocord wide open, at near focus limits to verify a little focus tweak. Here is one of the test shots:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/cannelbrae/6128898265

Focus is exactly where I put it but I'm still impressed at the sharpness over all. In all of these, hand holding it and the quality of my scanner were much more limiting than the lens itself.

A few non-test photos wide open (or close to it):
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cannelbrae/6138703239
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cannelbrae/6140354417

And stopped down a bit:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cannelbrae/6140352533
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cannelbrae/6138693562
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cannelbrae/6128897837

I haven't used a high end Rolleiflex - only a Rolleicord - but both it and the Autocord have been great users and I have little to complain about in terms of the lenses. While I love the idea of a faster lens, of a lens that is sharper wide open, I really can't complain about either of these cameras... particularly given the price difference.

Edit: yes, I sound like an Autocord fanboy right now but thats just me being really excited about the last few rolls I ran through it. 🙂

 

[Ezzie]

My 2.8E3 (without meter) still had a valid warranty on the CLA performed a few months previously. It had indeed been given a whack and the shutter needed rebuilding. Its worked beautifully since I got it. If better than a Xenar or Tessar I wouldn´t know, though I have two other TLR´s with Tessar formula lenses, the Planar sure is an addictive experience


La Citadelle de Blaye #1 by Eirik0304, on Flickr