ROLLEIFLEX question

A Rolleiflex with a Xenotar or Planar f/3.5 or f/2.8 lens is the best optically, but the older Tessar-design lens models will challenge the Planars and Xenotars when stopped down a bit. You might find a 3.5F in the $600-700 range -- sometimes higher -- depending on the condition. What kind of budget limit are you looking at? The lower-cost Rolleicords are also nice shooters.

Gene
 
I still use one from my father with a Tessar 3,5 and seems me a good quality lens, as GeneW says when stopped down a little. Be carefull the mirror isin good condition; my one is deteriorate and with low light it is difficult to check the framimng along the borders.
 
Michael,

You may want to subscribe to the Rollei List, which is owned by Marc James Small, co-author of the Zeiss Compendium and Vice-President of the Zeiss Historica Society. There is more information about the List HERE.

R.J.
 
speaking of bad mirrors.. my 2.8A needs a mirror replacement.. does anyone know of a good source for replacing or resilvering?
 
Michael I. said:
I am contemplating getting me a rolleiflex.I wonder which one is the better one and how much am I expected to pay for one in good condition?
Click to expand...

I'd consider the Automat models from the early 1950's if budget is a problem. They have the Tessar and Tessar-type lenses which, as already pointed out, do quite well. If money isn't a factor, the 2.8 series are top of the line.

Walker
 
I've been a Rollei user for thirty plus years. I used SL66's in the business for about twenty five years and in recent years they have been getting harder to get them repaired. I've also owned a number of TLR's starting with the MX up to a 3.5F with a planar. I currently have a 2.8D with a xenotar and find it very good. I really can't tell the difference in the planar and xenotar variety. I don't think I would go back past the early 50's. The early models had only fair lenses and the viewing screen is terrible. I have a 1933 black baby rollei that is terrible to focus. In the 50's models you will want to replace the focusing screen with a more modern one. It might take cutting one down like I did but that's easy. The mechanics in Rollei are superb and they will run and run and run. Even my SL66's ran withour a problem till I had used them for about twenty years. I pur an average of three hunderd rolls a month through them and hardly a problem untill the past few years. Another model to consider is the overlooked T model. All were excellent with a Tessar. The Tessar and Schneider xenar are very fine lenses. Also the Chord from the fifties up is an excellent deal. My brother has our dads Chord from the mid fifties and it's still clicking.

Something you might consider. The Rollei TLR's are a little over priced in my estimation. A clean 2.8 D can run over $500 and the E will run a huindred more. For about six hundred dollars you can purchase a very clean Hasselblad 500c or cm with a back and 80mm 2.8 planar. I purchased a very nice black CM with lens and three backs, NC2 prism, 50 T*, 150 T*, 80 T*, polaroid and a few other expensive goodies for $1,700. I also purchased a very clean SWC/M in black for $1,500. The 500c oe cm will give much more flexability to expand and give excellent images. Parts and repairs are readily available at reasonable costs. I just destroyed the shutter in my 150mm and had KEH replace the blades and cla the lens for just a little over $200. Not bad by todays standards.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=5045
 
Look here: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14949
I have three, one from each major post-war era: MX, MX-EVS (as above), 3.5E. The MX-EVS cost me $100 from someone in Florida and despite looking rough and having dirt everywhere, it's a great camera. I thought the Planar on the 3.5E would be a much better lens, but it isn't really; it's just different. All three have Mamiya RB screens cut down to fit and two have new mirrors. I bought the mirrors from an American supplier in oregon for $17.95. I haven't seen that seller on ebay recently. The mirrors were a direct replacement, no adjustment needed. The Mamiya screens are the same thickness as the plastic Rollei screens and didn't need focus adjustment. They are a bit thicker than the glass Rollei screens and will, in that case, need a focussing adjustment.
 
I use a Rolleilfex 2.8D from m1955, and I also use an MX with a 3.5 Tessar. The Planar lens with the 2.8D is sharper and contrastier. I have chnaged the screens in both cameras; one got a Maxwell screen and one a $35 screen sold on ebay. Both improved focusing a lot. My camera repair person in town changed the mirror in the MX (no charge) as he was installing a new screen. He used parts of a mirror from some other camera. There may be no need for a genuine 2.8 mirror or 3.5 mirror if cost is high. Victor seems to have had a similar experience (above) with replacing mirrors.
 
raid amin said:
I use a Rolleilfex 2.8D from m1955, and I also use an MX with a 3.5 Tessar. The Planar lens with the 2.8D is sharper and contrastier. I have chnaged the screens in both cameras; one got a Maxwell screen and one a $35 screen sold on ebay. Both improved focusing a lot. My camera repair person in town changed the mirror in the MX (no charge) as he was installing a new screen. He used parts of a mirror from some other camera. There may be no need for a genuine 2.8 mirror or 3.5 mirror if cost is high. Victor seems to have had a similar experience (above) with replacing mirrors.
Click to expand...

If I recall correctly, the older Rollei TLR mirrors were first-surface mirrors.

R.J.
 
RJBender said:
If I recall correctly, the older Rollei TLR mirrors were first-surface mirrors.

R.J.
Click to expand...

RJ: what are first-surface mirrors, and are later models second-surface mirrors and what does this exactly mean and imply? You seem to know more about mirrors than I do.
 
x-ray said:
I've been a Rollei user for thirty plus years. I used SL66's in the business for about twenty five years and in recent years they have been getting harder to get them repaired. I've also owned a number of TLR's starting with the MX up to a 3.5F with a planar. I currently have a 2.8D with a xenotar and find it very good. I really can't tell the difference in the planar and xenotar variety. I don't think I would go back past the early 50's. The early models had only fair lenses and the viewing screen is terrible. I have a 1933 black baby rollei that is terrible to focus. In the 50's models you will want to replace the focusing screen with a more modern one. It might take cutting one down like I did but that's easy. The mechanics in Rollei are superb and they will run and run and run. Even my SL66's ran withour a problem till I had used them for about twenty years. I pur an average of three hunderd rolls a month through them and hardly a problem untill the past few years. Another model to consider is the overlooked T model. All were excellent with a Tessar. The Tessar and Schneider xenar are very fine lenses. Also the Chord from the fifties up is an excellent deal. My brother has our dads Chord from the mid fifties and it's still clicking.

Something you might consider. The Rollei TLR's are a little over priced in my estimation. A clean 2.8 D can run over $500 and the E will run a huindred more. For about six hundred dollars you can purchase a very clean Hasselblad 500c or cm with a back and 80mm 2.8 planar. I purchased a very nice black CM with lens and three backs, NC2 prism, 50 T*, 150 T*, 80 T*, polaroid and a few other expensive goodies for $1,700. I also purchased a very clean SWC/M in black for $1,500. The 500c oe cm will give much more flexability to expand and give excellent images. Parts and repairs are readily available at reasonable costs. I just destroyed the shutter in my 150mm and had KEH replace the blades and cla the lens for just a little over $200. Not bad by todays standards.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=5045
Click to expand...


Please contact JURGEN KUSCHNIK at JURGEN.KU@ADELPHIA.NET. Tell him Tony Rose sent you. He is the best for SL66 and TLR

TR
 
From my experience restoring Rolleiflexes to shooting condition, they are all front surface mirrors. You would never want a second surface mirror for this application as the light transmission through the viewfinder is significantly diminished. Are you certain that the mirror on the TTL metering models GX and FX isn't a semi transparent mirror, which diverts some light into the meter? I don't know, I've never touched one, let alone opened one up! The real oldies (prewar) use shellac coated silver mirrors which if bad, are basically shot. Try to clean them and you ruin the shellac coating, then off peels the exposed silver. The shellac was applied to protect the silver against oxidation, but it breaks down leaving black spots where it flakes off and hazy yellow tint where its still intact.

For any Rollei without a TTL meter, you can put any modern front surface aluminum mirror that fits into the camera. There is no magic mirror. Makes life a little easier if its close to the same thickness with regards to mounting it into the retainer clips, but you will in all likelyhood have to adjust the focus, due to the small difference in the length of the light path to the bottom of the screen when the mirror thickness is changed. Not really a job for the beginning camera repairman IMO. I have about 5 polaroid camera mirrors laying around which can be cut with a glass cutter.

That source from ebay looks reasonable if cheaper polaroid mirrors and cutting is not for you. There is also a seller from Taiwan selling $15 uncut focus screens. (plain matte with split image) I'm going to try cutting one for an old Automat and see how it looks with a new mirror. Also have one lined-up for my Pentacon Six TL.

X-ray: I don't know if Michael C posts here, but a while ago I did a 1935 Old Standard for him. New mirror, brighter focus screen - looked fabulous IMO. Not as good as my $125 Maxwell screen on the 2.8E, but pretty darned good. I'd say the silver mirrors and grainy screens are the biggest negative against the real old ones - otherwise, the uncoated Tessar LENS WAS FIRST RATE. There are no bad Rolleis IMO, as long as they are in proper working order. Look on photo.net at Sam Liu's photos taken with a similar old standard - OUTSTANDING.
 
Last edited:
raid amin said:
RJ: what are first-surface mirrors, and are later models second-surface mirrors and what does this exactly mean and imply? You seem to know more about mirrors than I do.
Click to expand...


Raid, if the reflective coating is applied to the top surface, it's a first surface mirror. If the coating is applied to the bottom surface it's a second surface mirror. You can't have a glass shop cut an ordinary mirror for you because it's most likely a second surface mirror.

If your camera focuses correctly, your camera repairman used a first surface mirror. Next time you see him, ask him where he got the replacement mirror.

R.J.
 
OK RJ, now I know better. I think, he told me that he had a left-over mirror portion from some other camera he was working on. Now I have an MX (or similar) with a clean mirror and new screen.
 
Mike Kovacs said:
willing to bet a beer that the mirror came from a polaroid 😉
Click to expand...

A Molson Brador ... ? 😛
I don't know the origin, but the MX has now is more useful than before.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Roastchestnuts
M246 or M10M or....
Replies
3
Views
617
Roastchestnuts
Roastchestnuts
wrs1145
Leica M5 compatibility?
Replies
18
Views
2K
38Deardorff
38Deardorff
S
Normal price for leica m2
Replies
13
Views
717
Freakscene
Freakscene
wrs1145
Question regarding Olympus 35SP
Replies
11
Views
452
wrs1145
wrs1145
bucs
Black S2 value/price
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
modernhero
modernhero
Back
Top Bottom