borrel
Børre Ludvigsen
Looking for something lighter and more compact than my Rolleiflex 2.8f Planar for travel, I'm wondering if there is any knowledge on the comparative merits of the optics of these two?
- Børre
- Børre
Plaubel Makina 67/670 vs. Rolleiflex 2.8f
- Thread starter borrel
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 13
- Views 11K
FrankS
Registered User
I have a Plaubel 67 and a Rolleiflex 3.5E. The Plaubel is not any lighter or compact. It has a flatter shape when folded which would make it easier to pack in most cases. It has the advantage of offering a 6x7 frame. The optics of either camera are superb.
Ernst Dinkla
Well-known
The Nikkor lens is considered as excellent but like with many folders it may not be in the right focus due to mechanical flaws in the folder design.
Illustrated in the MF lens tests of Chris Perez where they are put next to one another:
http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/MF_testing.html
Ernst Dinkla
historicist
Well-known
I've owned both (and still own the Rollei 2.8F). Despite the excellent reputation of the lens, it was not nearly as sharp as the Rollei, or indeed any other medium format camera I've ever owned.
I presume that I was unlucky and got one that was out of adjustment, although the camera looked as if it had been very well cared for, and it seems that if the camera in the test above was also badly adjusted, the camera might be more variable in lens quality than a Rolleiflex.
The Plaubel is also surprisingly big and heavy, heavier, if I remember right, than the 2.8F. The flat shape is better for packing, but the ergonomics are not great, even compared to the Rollei.
I'd try to test one yourself, as some people seem to really love them, but I didn't get on with mine.
I presume that I was unlucky and got one that was out of adjustment, although the camera looked as if it had been very well cared for, and it seems that if the camera in the test above was also badly adjusted, the camera might be more variable in lens quality than a Rolleiflex.
The Plaubel is also surprisingly big and heavy, heavier, if I remember right, than the 2.8F. The flat shape is better for packing, but the ergonomics are not great, even compared to the Rollei.
I'd try to test one yourself, as some people seem to really love them, but I didn't get on with mine.
Jim Watts
Still trying to See.
I have owned the Plaubel 67 and still own a W67, and have used various Rolleis in the past. Folded the Plaubels are more compact than the Rolleis and easier to transport when travelling. Extended with the lens hood on the W67 is quite large, but I found the ergonomics fine. The extended W67 is more compact and even easier to use.
I found the 80mm Nikkor on the 67 really excellent, even wide open, but hand-held camera shake can be much more of a problem than with a Rollei due to the long (stiff) linkage between the shutter release and the shutter. This can effect sharpness unless using high speeds or having the camera on a tripod. Again the wide angle W67 is much better for hand-held use in this respect due to a shorter linkage.
I found the 80mm Nikkor on the 67 really excellent, even wide open, but hand-held camera shake can be much more of a problem than with a Rollei due to the long (stiff) linkage between the shutter release and the shutter. This can effect sharpness unless using high speeds or having the camera on a tripod. Again the wide angle W67 is much better for hand-held use in this respect due to a shorter linkage.
joachim
Convicted Ektachome user
Matus
Well-known
If youcan afford the Plaubel nowadays, than you can consider waiting a month or 2 more and get the new Fuji/Bessa 6x6/6x7 folder. There are apparently no news over the last weeks on the final specs or price of this very interesting camera.
1joel1
Well-known
I thought that someone said the Fuji was gonna be $3k USD. That's way more than a Plaubel. I think that the Plaubel has a better lens (faster and sharper), maybe lighter, and for sure easier to shoot with.
My 2 cents,
Joel
My 2 cents,
Joel
S
Simon Larbalestier
Guest
I've had several Pluabel 67's and 670's over the years. The lens is plenty sharp and i like it at 2.8. I was lucky enough to source the special grip that was made by Plaubel years back and it certainly improves handling. They are prone to mechanical problems due to the folding design and the wires often get trapped causing the 5 degree meter to stop working (this is the most common breakdown). The Good news is the Plaubel company in Germany is still offering full service for them. I had one of mine 'rebuilt' for a very reasonable cost.
Actually i prefer it to the Mamiya 7ii and 6MF systems i had. But YMMV.
Actually i prefer it to the Mamiya 7ii and 6MF systems i had. But YMMV.
35mmdelux
Veni, vidi, vici
RE: camera shake due to "long linkage."
As with most MF cameras, when shooting handheld consider using faster film to pick up the shooting speeds .
For those fotos you really want sharp stop the lens down and consider a tripod.
As with most MF cameras, when shooting handheld consider using faster film to pick up the shooting speeds .
For those fotos you really want sharp stop the lens down and consider a tripod.
Last edited:
historicist
Well-known
That's a fair point, but one of the big advantages of the Rollei is the leaf shutter: it is possible to hand hold at really slow shutter speeds and still get a sharp image. I find this handy when I travel light and don't want to bring a tripod with me.
Harry Lime
Practitioner
I have two Rolleiflex (2.8F & GX) and have used my friend's PM 67 (80mm and wide). The Plaubel is flatter, but it's not a small camera by any means. Weight is about the same. The Rolleiflex frames a lot more accurate...
My solution was to find a Rolleicord III. 3.5/75mm, slightly more compact and about 450g less than a 2.8. The 75mm Xenar is quite sharp, especially once you stop it down a little...
The biggest hurdle is getting it cleaned and the focusing screen exchanged. Harry Fleenor in California would be my first pick.
My solution was to find a Rolleicord III. 3.5/75mm, slightly more compact and about 450g less than a 2.8. The 75mm Xenar is quite sharp, especially once you stop it down a little...
The biggest hurdle is getting it cleaned and the focusing screen exchanged. Harry Fleenor in California would be my first pick.
Last edited:
raid
Dad Photographer
Eddy Smolov also works on Rollei TLR cameras, and he would be less costly than Harry Fleenor. The 3.5F would be a great way to get a lighter TLR with a killer Planar lens. Eddy fixed my 3.5F recently. I need to get the rolls of film developed in which I used on the same day my 2.8D, an MX-EVS, and a 3.5F.
borrel
Børre Ludvigsen
I got my PBM 67. After a trip to Beirut last year, the summer heat melted the light seals. The linkage and light meter wiring to the lens didn't fare much better. Leicashop in Vienna promptly took it back and it returned quite quickly good as new. Bellows and struts naturally make folders somewhat less robust than Nikon F2's, but they also need seals replaced after 30 years. The remakrs above are true for most MF cameras, although 80mm is mildly on the wide side for 6x7. I've had some doubts about the sharpness of the lens (and film flatness) until a set of negatives went into a glass negative holder on my ArtixScan 120TF film scanner a few weeks back. (Look at the details in the window of the lighthouse in this shot at full size: http://abdallah.hiof.no/photography/saltoe/originals/20100912-009.jpg ) That Nikkor 80/2.8 wants a lot finer grained film than 125PX to show what it can do! It seems that most of my problems have been with the film flatness in the carrier of the scanner. I have a Rolleiflex 2.8f, a Mamiya Universal and a Bronica SQ. The Rollei is lighter and more compact with a guaranteed sharper lens and "better" viewfinder, both the Mamiya and the Bronica are heavier, more stable and have interchangeable menses, but it's the Plaubel that goes in the bag. Maybe it's because it's easier to use interchangeably with the Leicas?
- Børre
- Børre
Similar threads
