Rollei SLR 35mm Cameras with Zeiss Lenses

raid

raid

Dad Photographer
Local time
6:01 PM
Joined
Nov 2, 2005
Messages
36,440
Location
Florida
View My Gallery
I enjoy using RF photography, but I also use my SLR cameras here and there, and I certainly was using the SLR equipment full time for many years before "discovering" the world of RF photography.

I love the results from Zeiss lenses, and I was using some Zeiss lenses with my Rollei SL35 cameras. The SLR cameras made by Rollei for 35mm were never highly reliable [and this is mildly put], but their lenses were first class optics.

After reading an article by Bob Shell (Shutterbug) on the SL35, I got GAS for such cameras and the corresponding lenses, so I bought three such cameras over the years. The cameras are very elegant and sleek looking. The meter is slow, and there is a chance that the SL35 will need repair one day. They made this camera in Germany and in Singapore, with the German cameras being more reliable.

At that time, there was no internet, and according no ebay! I bought from one gentleman his pair of beautiful Zeiss lenses; a 35mm/1.4 Distagon and a 85mm/1.4 Planar. Both are beautiful but heavy lenses. I later on added a 50mm/1.4 Planar and several other lenses (Schneider, Rolleinar).

At one stage, the 85mm/1.4 had a broken aperture mechanism that I have been unable to repair (not even by DAG). Since becoming a RF photographer, I discovered the world of open aperture photography, and this led me to rediscover this lens as a lens to be used wide open. Suddenly my broken lens has become a super lens again.

I once bought a beautiful mint Rollei SL2000F. It looks like a MF camera but is a 35mm camera. I had no clue that this camera was famous for suddenly dying. It died on me. Nothing seemed to work. This is a camera that requires a battery pack and that only works with batterey power. The main circuitry board seems to be its Achilles weakness. I sent the camera to KEH Repair, who then forwarded it to Germany. Nobody seems to have sprae parts for it anymore. Four months later and after paying $400 as a super reduced cost, I got back the camera without a warranty. It failed again three months later. Luckily for me, I still have my fully manual SL35 cameras!

A few days ago, I decided to use my SLR equipment for a change [from RF]. I got my light Galen Rowell camera bag, and I loaded it with a Rollei SL35 and the three Zeiss lenses: 35mm/50mm/85mm all 1.4. Then I added the Canon T90 with the Canon 80-200/4L lens, and I threw in a Canon 7.5mm fisheye lens for those special images. Before leaving our home to take photos, I remembered my newly acquired Konica I RF camera and a Pentax digital spotmeter that also went into the camera bag.

Then, the shock came in ... ! That camera bag was heavy! I was reminded how much lighter RF equipment is. Still, I love my heavy Zeiss lenses for my Rollei SLR cameras.

Do you still use Zeiss SLR lenses in your photography? This is the question that I wanted to ask up front. :angel:

Raid
 
Last edited:
Yes, I do.

I am relatively new to RF photography. My only RF camera is a Electro GS that I fixed. I am a man with limited financial means so I really can't into interchangeable lens RF photography. I do, however, love this forum, so I am glad that I have at least my Yashica to justify my being here. 😀

When it comes down to investing in a Zeiss lens for my Contax 167 or getting an RF, right now I would still invest in Zeiss glass until I have collect the lenses I want to have (and I am getting close).

I have a distagon 35/2.8, a planar 50/1.7 and a yashica ml 28/2.8. I recently purchased on ebay a vario-sonnar 28-85/3.3-4 which I am expecting to come in the mail any time now (a great deal at $179 plus shipping). I think I still would like to get a sonnar 135 and then I would have all the glass I use and can afford. (Who wouldn't want a Planar 85, or distagon 35 1.4, but I just can't see myself affording these great lenses)

I love the look of Zeiss. Even my wife, who usually says I am over critical when I look at a picture, loves the look of a Zeiss lens. I remember when I first got my Contax this year from my brother who wasn't using it. I took some pictures and showed them to my wife and she was surprised to see how alive and 3D they looked compared to the consumer Canon SLR I used to have. She even admitted it with out me asking, "what do you think?"

I have toyed with the idea of trading my Contax SLR in for a Contax G1, but there are a few things preventing me. 1) This camera was my brother's so it would be hard for me to sell (eventhough he said that he wouldn't care if I did trade it in 2) If 35mm film were to even get too rare and expensive in the future, I could still use these lenses on a digital Canon. I don't know if I could do the same with Contax G lenses.

Thanks for reading and have fun with your Rollei.
 
Raid:

In the 80's I had a pair of 3003's and a full set of Zeiss glass from 15mm to 200mm. I had 4 backs and a polaroid and for my applications it was the perfect system. As you said reliability was the big problem. I bought the bodies new so they were under warranty but after a few months of heavy use I had motor problems out of one body and backs started scratching. For the next couple of years I had one body and atleast one back at rollei constantly. Rollei even loaned me a new body so I would have a backup which I kept for over a year. Another pro friend sold his Leicaflex SL's and bought a Rollei system. He experienced the same problems. I finally sold the Rolleis and bought Nikons and never regretted it. I never had any problems with them other than a few minor adjustments and one gear in the motor. Not a big issue since I was shooting 2000 rolls a year in them.

You're right the Zeiss lenses were tops with the exception of the 35 1.4. It might have been my copy but it just wasn't very sharp at 1.4 and not great at f2. All the others were top notch and the concept of the camera was excellent. It's was like a small MF camera with all the features of 35mm and MF rolled into one.

Looking back on the Zeiss glass for my Rolleis and comparing in my mind with my M Zeiss glass I feel the new Zeiss glass is even better. Unfortunately the lens selection for M's is very small compared to slr's.

I have to say that prior to the Rollei's I had Leicaflex SL's and a MOT. My Leicaflexes weren't much if any better then the Rolleis. I constantly had problems with the transport or shutter in all the bodies.

During all this time I've had leica M's and really never had a problem but the downside is they're not for every 35mm job. I still use M's after 39 years and shoot more with them now than I have in 20 years.. I guess I'll probably always use them or atleast untill film is unavailable if that ever happens (hope not).
 
navilluspm said:
Yes, I do.

I am relatively new to RF photography. My only RF camera is a Electro GS that I fixed. I am a man with limited financial means so I really can't into interchangeable lens RF photography. I do, however, love this forum, so I am glad that I have at least my Yashica to justify my being here. 😀

When it comes down to investing in a Zeiss lens for my Contax 167 or getting an RF, right now I would still invest in Zeiss glass until I have collect the lenses I want to have (and I am getting close).

I have a distagon 35/2.8, a planar 50/1.7 and a yashica ml 28/2.8. I recently purchased on ebay a vario-sonnar 28-85/3.3-4 which I am expecting to come in the mail any time now (a great deal at $179 plus shipping). I think I still would like to get a sonnar 135 and then I would have all the glass I use and can afford. (Who wouldn't want a Planar 85, or distagon 35 1.4, but I just can't see myself affording these great lenses)

I love the look of Zeiss. Even my wife, who usually says I am over critical when I look at a picture, loves the look of a Zeiss lens. I remember when I first got my Contax this year from my brother who wasn't using it. I took some pictures and showed them to my wife and she was surprised to see how alive and 3D they looked compared to the consumer Canon SLR I used to have. She even admitted it with out me asking, "what do you think?"

I have toyed with the idea of trading my Contax SLR in for a Contax G1, but there are a few things preventing me. 1) This camera was my brother's so it would be hard for me to sell (eventhough he said that he wouldn't care if I did trade it in 2) If 35mm film were to even get too rare and expensive in the future, I could still use these lenses on a digital Canon. I don't know if I could do the same with Contax G lenses.

Thanks for reading and have fun with your Rollei.
Click to expand...


I only paid $200 per lens for the Zeiss 35mm/1.4 and 85mm/1.4, so it was not a large expense. It is a good investment that I never have regretted. The Zeiss lenses have a special look that is difficult for me to describe.
 
x-ray said:
Raid:

In the 80's I had a pair of 3003's and a full set of Zeiss glass from 15mm to 200mm. I had 4 backs and a polaroid and for my applications it was the perfect system. As you said reliability was the big problem. I bought the bodies new so they were under warranty but after a few months of heavy use I had motor problems out of one body and backs started scratching. For the next couple of years I had one body and atleast one back at rollei constantly. Rollei even loaned me a new body so I would have a backup which I kept for over a year. Another pro friend sold his Leicaflex SL's and bought a Rollei system. He experienced the same problems. I finally sold the Rolleis and bought Nikons and never regretted it. I never had any problems with them other than a few minor adjustments and one gear in the motor. Not a big issue since I was shooting 2000 rolls a year in them.

You're right the Zeiss lenses were tops with the exception of the 35 1.4. It might have been my copy but it just wasn't very sharp at 1.4 and not great at f2. All the others were top notch and the concept of the camera was excellent. It's was like a small MF camera with all the features of 35mm and MF rolled into one.

Looking back on the Zeiss glass for my Rolleis and comparing in my mind with my M Zeiss glass I feel the new Zeiss glass is even better. Unfortunately the lens selection for M's is very small compared to slr's.

I have to say that prior to the Rollei's I had Leicaflex SL's and a MOT. My Leicaflexes weren't much if any better then the Rolleis. I constantly had problems with the transport or shutter in all the bodies.

During all this time I've had leica M's and really never had a problem but the downside is they're not for every 35mm job. I still use M's after 39 years and shoot more with them now than I have in 20 years.. I guess I'll probably always use them or atleast untill film is unavailable if that ever happens (hope not).
Click to expand...

These Rollei's were not made to stand up to 2000 rolls/year. I cannot afford the new M lenses, so I use the SLR Zeiss lenses instead. I am giving my broken SL2000F a last chance to be repaired by an electronics person, with the help of a camera repairman. Then, it will either be used as paperweight in my office, or used to take photos, depending on the repair being successful or not.
 
Yes, I do. I have a very nice set for my Contax RX:

35/2.8 PC-Distagon
50/1.8 Planar
60/2.8 Makro-Planar
85/1.4 Planar
100-300/4.0-5.6 Vario-Sonnar

Yes, they are heavy and I do not use the set as much as my Contax G2 or Leica MP. However, for the most part the SLR set is for more specialized purposes than the RFs.

The PC-Distagon is perhaps ones of the smoothest and best feeling constructed lens I've ever used. It's sharpness is phenominal and it's use as a perspective-control lens is great.

The 50 is simply a nice fast lens and using it with the RX's viewfinder is a dream.

The 60 is a macro lens and a great one at that.

The 85/1.4 is wonderful for portraits and also a pleasure to use with the RX viewfinder.

And lastly the 100-300 is so amazingly sharp I cannot believe it's a zoom. It's even good when used with a 7-element Tokina 2x converter.

My RFs are much lighter and more compact but for the uses of my set of Zeiss lenses the purposes only overlap a tad. And sometimes it's nice to take a break from the RF style and use the SLR and actually see the focusing and DOF in action.

All this said I've often wondered why the Rollei SLRs and their lenses go so cheaply.
 
Rich: It is the poor reliability of the Rollei SLR cameras that resulted in the superb Zeiss lenses being inexpensive. In your case, Zeiss lenses are not too cheap for Contax cameras, but such cameras are not widely used, and this also results in dropped prices for their great lenses.

Raid
 
If you are willing to change formats and start over from scratch, the SLR Rollei SL66 and its variants are easily available and the Zeiss lenses for it are superb.
LJS
 
I bet that these days there are ways to adapt such lenses to other mounts if serious hacking is involved. The only way to make use of these great lenses at silly prices is to get a SL35E or similar body that is known for better relaibility.
 
ljsegil said:
If you are willing to change formats and start over from scratch, the SLR Rollei SL66 and its variants are easily available and the Zeiss lenses for it are superb.
LJS
Click to expand...
I can vouch for that. I had a couple of SL66 bodies, several backs, and the 50, 80 and 150mm lenses. All the lenses had reverse bayonet mount built in so that they became macro lenses, and the front standard of the body had tilt built in for a bit of perspective correction. The entire kit was heavy, but were I to return to MF in an SLR system, I would certainly search out a good SL66 kit.
 
raid said:
Rollei is great for MF but not so great for 35mm. I wondered about people here using their 35mm cameras.
Click to expand...

Ah, I take issue with that. Yes, I love my Rollei TLRs and my SL66 but also my 35T (a 35mm Rollei) is AWESOME! 😀
 
Raid,

When you and I spoke about your Prominent, its too bad we didn't discuss Rollei. We could have gone on and on.

I have a perverse fascination with Rollei SLR's. I've got a SL35, SL35E, SL35M and SL2000F. Unfortunately, the only official Zeiss lens in the lot is the 25 f2.8; remainder are Rolleinar or "Made by Rollei". The 25 is beautiful and rather heavy. I also use adaptall Tamron 90 macro and 35-105 f/2.8 on the Rollei bodies.

That SL2000F is a bear. Amazing idea, terrible execution. Mine works but the metering on the cartridge won't communicate the ISO to the body so I have to use it meterless. Even to get it to that point required big repair work. The side-grip makes the body much more user-friendly. People think it's a camcorder though from the way the whole contraption looks. The SL35 is nice and simple and pretty reliable, albeit with stop-down metering. SL35E looks so smooooth but is pretty bad. SL35M is hopeless. As others have said, for other things Rollei is great. The little 35SE is amazing, and is the perfect size for my daughter to use.

As for Zeiss on other SLR's, I'm afraid all I've actually used is a 50 f/1.4 in M42 that is intended for the Zeiss Icarex TM body. The Icarex is not pleasant but using that lens with the Bessaflex produces superb results.
 
Last edited:
julianphotoart said:
Raid,

When you and I spoke about your Prominent, its too bad we didn't discuss Rollei. We could have gone on and on.

I have a perverse fascination with Rollei SLR's. I've got a SL35, SL35E, SL35M and SL2000F. Unfortunately, the only official Zeiss lens in the lot is the 25 f2.8; remainder are Rolleinar or "Made by Rollei". The 25 is beautiful and rather heavy. I also use adaptall Tamron 90 macro and 35-105 f/2.8 on the Rollei bodies.

That SL2000F is a bear. Amazing idea, terrible execution. Mine works but the metering on the cartridge won't communicate the ISO to the body so I have to use it meterless. Even to get it to that point required big repair work. The side-grip makes the body much more user-friendly. People think it's a camcorder though from the way the whole contraption looks. The SL35 is nice and simple and pretty reliable, albeit with stop-down metering. SL35E looks so smooooth but is pretty bad. SL35M is hopeless. As others have said, for other things Rollei is great. The little 35SE is amazing, and is the perfect size for my daughter to use.

As for Zeiss on other SLR's, I'm afraid all I've actually used is a 50 f/1.4 in M42 that is intended for the Zeiss Icarex TM body. The Icarex is not pleasant but using that lens with the Bessaflex produces superb results.
Click to expand...


Hi Julian,

There is always room to chat again!
I sold my SL35M because it looked ugly, while working very well. I once had a SL35E that I had to return to the seller (through Shutterbug Magazine) because it was not functioning properly.

My last hope for the SL2000F is the joint work of an electronics guy along with the camera repairman who is fixing my RF cameras In NYC. The camera looks super cool, but is super unreliable and not practical to use without the side-grip. I once saw such a grip for sale ($125), but I was still mad at rollei for my messed up SL2000F and I did not make a bid.

I added a Rolleinar zoom a year ago; it may have been a 80-200 lens. How good/bad are the Rolleinar lenses? I bet they are fine.

Greetings,

Raid
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Shab
A 35mm lens for a Nikon FM3A
2 3
Replies
42
Views
4K
Dogman
Dogman
WoodallP
Bangkok camera browsing suggestions requested
Replies
3
Views
135
WoodallP
WoodallP
hilltime
German Deckel Shutter Cameras/ Voigtlander Bessamatic/Ultramatic Specifically
Replies
5
Views
733
hilltime
hilltime
splitimageview
You can only choose one lens…
7 8 9
Replies
166
Views
14K
Phil_F_NM
Phil_F_NM
P
My first SLR for many years ....
Replies
3
Views
536
pgk
P
Back
Top Bottom