Dirk
Privatier
I bought an excellent+ condition 3.5F Type 1 w/Planar for $778 on Ebay. So yes, they are out there.
Last edited:
thompsonks
Well-known
"Most people recommend Planars and Xenotars but I think Tessar is the sharpest."
Sorry, but no; Tessars are as sharp as Xenotars/Planars only if stopped down to f8. Only the re-designed Tessars in Rollei T's come close to Xeno/Planars.
IMO the best of the old-timers are the MX-EVS Automats (with Tessars or Xenars). They're the truest 'classics' & are a high-point of Bauhaus design. But if you want more sharpness from f3.5 to f5.6, get 3.5C-D-E w/ Planar/Xenotar.
F2.8s are mostly out of your budget, but that doesn't matter. People pay a lot more to get 2.8, not realizing how hard it is to focus a wide-open 80mm 2.8 taking lens accurately with a 2.8 viewing lens. And 3.5s are lighter & more balanced.
And Craigslist is better than x-Bay. If you follow Craigslist you can probably find an average MX-EVS for $250-300 or a 3.5C-D-E without a meter for $600 or so. Get one that simply has a clean lens, without worrying too much about cosmetics; & then budget $400 for complete CLA by Krikor plus a Maxwell screen. It will be as good as, or better than, new (because of bright screen).
Harry Fleenor offers a downloadable Rollei buyer's guide for $10. It would be helpful. Rolleiclub & Antique Camera sites give you data & SNs so you won't confuse the models.
PS, I wouldn't recommend starting with a cheaper TLR. The main thing that puts folks off TLRs is dimness of the focusing screen. If you get a Rollei & put in a bright screen, you probably won't lose much if it isn't the right camera for you. Rollei prices seem to rise despite the recession, so there's not much point buying something that won't resell very well & getting a Rollei later.
Sorry, but no; Tessars are as sharp as Xenotars/Planars only if stopped down to f8. Only the re-designed Tessars in Rollei T's come close to Xeno/Planars.
IMO the best of the old-timers are the MX-EVS Automats (with Tessars or Xenars). They're the truest 'classics' & are a high-point of Bauhaus design. But if you want more sharpness from f3.5 to f5.6, get 3.5C-D-E w/ Planar/Xenotar.
F2.8s are mostly out of your budget, but that doesn't matter. People pay a lot more to get 2.8, not realizing how hard it is to focus a wide-open 80mm 2.8 taking lens accurately with a 2.8 viewing lens. And 3.5s are lighter & more balanced.
And Craigslist is better than x-Bay. If you follow Craigslist you can probably find an average MX-EVS for $250-300 or a 3.5C-D-E without a meter for $600 or so. Get one that simply has a clean lens, without worrying too much about cosmetics; & then budget $400 for complete CLA by Krikor plus a Maxwell screen. It will be as good as, or better than, new (because of bright screen).
Harry Fleenor offers a downloadable Rollei buyer's guide for $10. It would be helpful. Rolleiclub & Antique Camera sites give you data & SNs so you won't confuse the models.
PS, I wouldn't recommend starting with a cheaper TLR. The main thing that puts folks off TLRs is dimness of the focusing screen. If you get a Rollei & put in a bright screen, you probably won't lose much if it isn't the right camera for you. Rollei prices seem to rise despite the recession, so there's not much point buying something that won't resell very well & getting a Rollei later.
Last edited:
noeyedear
Established
I paid £650. for a 3.5F in near mint condition, it has a working meter and is as good as any other meter when you point it the right way. My one also came with a leather case (good condition), lens hood and a set of close up lenses. The close-up lenses I managed to loose before ever taking a picture with them. That spoilt the day somewhat.
Great machine, offer me £2.5k and I might consider selling it, second thoughts nar I would only regret it.
Great machine, offer me £2.5k and I might consider selling it, second thoughts nar I would only regret it.
Vics
Veteran
I agree with almost all of that, except that I think you can't have a Rollei experience with a Yashica. Buy a Rollei of the types mentioned above, and if you don't like it, sell it for what you paid for it.
peter_n
Veteran
I've seen this advice in more than one place and followed it myself. I bought an MX Automat K4A a couple weeks ago for $235 on APUG, the camera had just been serviced with a repair made to the film transport. According to the seller all speeds are accurate, we'll see when I get the first roll back from Dwayne's. Can't wait to see the results.
I'm a bit wibbly-wobbly with holding it but so far the experience has been fun and totally different from using a 35mm camera. I bought The Classic Rollei - A Definitive Guide by John Phillips and published by Ammonite Press, Lewes in 2010. It really helped in sorting out the often minuscule differences between the various models.
PMCC
Late adopter.
+1. My vote for the best all-in-one reference on Rolleis, and a fun wallow.
thompsonks
Well-known
Yes, I read all the way through it as if it were a novel!
Phillips invites us to write him if we have thoughts to add, though I haven't got around to it. But I do have 2 thoughts:
1. Don't knock 2.8C so hard without saying something positive: Some folks like the bokeh of 2.8C Xenotar.
2. What about the development of Rollei's design/'aesthetics'? The original stereo Rollei looked like a funny-face. The Original is cute, as if Winnie the Pooh took pictures of Eeore with it. The Old Standard starts to look like fine machinery. And the Automat won design awards in its time for its Modernist appearance & functionality. Who was the brilliant designer who developed the way the looked, & brought about such a fine integration of form & function?
Kirk
Phillips invites us to write him if we have thoughts to add, though I haven't got around to it. But I do have 2 thoughts:
1. Don't knock 2.8C so hard without saying something positive: Some folks like the bokeh of 2.8C Xenotar.
2. What about the development of Rollei's design/'aesthetics'? The original stereo Rollei looked like a funny-face. The Original is cute, as if Winnie the Pooh took pictures of Eeore with it. The Old Standard starts to look like fine machinery. And the Automat won design awards in its time for its Modernist appearance & functionality. Who was the brilliant designer who developed the way the looked, & brought about such a fine integration of form & function?
Kirk
I must procure a copy of it, I have heard many good things about it from several sources. But I take it Phillips doesn't like the 2.8C, Kirk? Anything in particular he has issue with? It's true a lot of the Xenotars seem to develop coating problems but equally some of the Planars can suffer cement separation and I know which I'd rather have to fix. What is his beef with the model?
Regards,
Brett
Frank Petronio
Well-known
I shot for years with a 2,8F (and 2,8 E as well) but I wouldn't get one again. I'd hold fast for a clean Rolleicord Vb (budget for a CLA). They are lighter, simpler, more reliable, slower, and less fussy. I don't care about ultimate image quality (I would use a larger camera for that) and I find the slowness is a positive quality in terms of the shooting experience.
There is no such thing as a good >1970s vintage in-camera meter. They are nothing but ugly vestigial tails.
It really comes down to the experience you have with the equipment. I like a nice, clean, high quality camera but I don't mind if the corners go soft or I have to make an occasional educated guess or bracket an exposure.
I had a Vb at the freezing Obama inauguration - it was lean, easier to carry, less prone to jam - it made good pictures.
Oh and they are a lot less expensive. Yet nicer than a Japanese TLR in my opinion.
As for whether you'll like a TLR or not, it is very simple. Sell or hide or simply don't use your other cameras and only use the TLR for a while. Shoot a project. By the end of ten rolls you'll be an expert, just like most of us on this forum.
There is no such thing as a good >1970s vintage in-camera meter. They are nothing but ugly vestigial tails.
It really comes down to the experience you have with the equipment. I like a nice, clean, high quality camera but I don't mind if the corners go soft or I have to make an occasional educated guess or bracket an exposure.
I had a Vb at the freezing Obama inauguration - it was lean, easier to carry, less prone to jam - it made good pictures.
Oh and they are a lot less expensive. Yet nicer than a Japanese TLR in my opinion.
As for whether you'll like a TLR or not, it is very simple. Sell or hide or simply don't use your other cameras and only use the TLR for a while. Shoot a project. By the end of ten rolls you'll be an expert, just like most of us on this forum.
PMCC
Late adopter.
Highly recommended. I believe the author lives in the Antipodes, namely NZ.
Peter.
steveyork
Well-known
Consider a Zeiss Ikoflex too. The Ic have meters and are not that expensive.
CK Dexter Haven
Well-known
I disagree with the 'meter doesn't matter' position.
I had a 2.8F Planar for a long while, but used it only a couple of times because the meter didn't work. It DID 'respond to light,' but was not accurate, even if i 'cheated' the ISO rating to get it closer to a working range.
My issue? The TLR is already a camera meant to NOT be used quickly. Having to meter separately only triples the 'responsiveness' of the beast. If your subject matter is so suited, fine, but i wanted it to photograph during travels, when photography wasn't the actual purpose of the travel... or for people i encountered during those travels, who might consent to a quick shot, but not to a protracted 'session,' with me holding a meter up to their faces....
My answer - figure out how YOU are going to use the thing and get the machine that works that way. It's of no use to take advice from people who shoot only landscapes when you want to shoot 'street,' or vice versa.
Re: the Rolleiflex versus the World issue.... Get a camera that works properly. The results from a Rolleiflex versus from a YashicaMat are going to depend on what films you shoot and what you do after you process the films. Certainly, there may be small character differences between lenses, or slight performance differences, but any of the TLRs being discussed are going to give you excellent results.
I sold that old 2.8F Planar and much later bought a GX. Nice camera- great meter- but expensive, and the lens was more 'clinical' than 'characterful.' Sold that, and now i'd like to have a Yashica. Just because it's inexpensive and i know i won't depend on it for a 'main' camera, but also because i really like the rendering of the Tessar-ish lens.
[I'm sorta shocked there was no aftermarket business of supplying replacement meters for these old Rolleiflexes.]
I had a 2.8F Planar for a long while, but used it only a couple of times because the meter didn't work. It DID 'respond to light,' but was not accurate, even if i 'cheated' the ISO rating to get it closer to a working range.
My issue? The TLR is already a camera meant to NOT be used quickly. Having to meter separately only triples the 'responsiveness' of the beast. If your subject matter is so suited, fine, but i wanted it to photograph during travels, when photography wasn't the actual purpose of the travel... or for people i encountered during those travels, who might consent to a quick shot, but not to a protracted 'session,' with me holding a meter up to their faces....
My answer - figure out how YOU are going to use the thing and get the machine that works that way. It's of no use to take advice from people who shoot only landscapes when you want to shoot 'street,' or vice versa.
Re: the Rolleiflex versus the World issue.... Get a camera that works properly. The results from a Rolleiflex versus from a YashicaMat are going to depend on what films you shoot and what you do after you process the films. Certainly, there may be small character differences between lenses, or slight performance differences, but any of the TLRs being discussed are going to give you excellent results.
I sold that old 2.8F Planar and much later bought a GX. Nice camera- great meter- but expensive, and the lens was more 'clinical' than 'characterful.' Sold that, and now i'd like to have a Yashica. Just because it's inexpensive and i know i won't depend on it for a 'main' camera, but also because i really like the rendering of the Tessar-ish lens.
[I'm sorta shocked there was no aftermarket business of supplying replacement meters for these old Rolleiflexes.]
Highway 61
Revisited
This is an Internet forum, i.e. a place where you are advised to buy a 35mm rangefinder meterless camera after you have asked for advices about an affordable metered MF TLR camera, so you probably better know what to do now 
Joking aside, I recently switched to an unmetered 3.5 MX-EVS II after having used a metered 3.5F for years and I can't say which one I prefer, just because they work similar and produce similar results. Well the MX-EVS II is more compact and lightweight, this counts.
Metered Rolleiflexes-wise, there are the coupled and the uncoupled models. This makes a huge difference at use if you want to meter fast especially in incident light metering. IMO the uncoupled meters are worthless so you must go for the F models if you absolutely want a meter.
But if you shoot B&W only, and always use the same film, you don't even need a meter.
Rather than in a meter I would invest in a bright focusing screen. If you get a model with fixed viewfinder hood, get a screen from Rick Oleson, they are unbeatable for their price.
Joking aside, I recently switched to an unmetered 3.5 MX-EVS II after having used a metered 3.5F for years and I can't say which one I prefer, just because they work similar and produce similar results. Well the MX-EVS II is more compact and lightweight, this counts.
Metered Rolleiflexes-wise, there are the coupled and the uncoupled models. This makes a huge difference at use if you want to meter fast especially in incident light metering. IMO the uncoupled meters are worthless so you must go for the F models if you absolutely want a meter.
But if you shoot B&W only, and always use the same film, you don't even need a meter.
Rather than in a meter I would invest in a bright focusing screen. If you get a model with fixed viewfinder hood, get a screen from Rick Oleson, they are unbeatable for their price.
MaxElmar
Well-known
I wouldn't pay an extra dime for any vintage meter. Having done the Yahsicamat>Rolleicord>Rolleiflex progression, gotta say the Rollei 2.8 is very, very special in the way it draws. The Yashicamat is really nice and basically does the same thing as the Rolliecord, but it's just not the same quality of construction. It's very good, but it's a Canon 7 vs M4 kind of thing. Find the best deal and use it and enjoy it. Forget the meter, use the $ to get a Maxwell screen.
Having said all that - I really enjoy the little Rolleicord (Va) the most. It's light, simple, and beautifully made. I put a rolleigrid in it and it's joy to use.
Having said all that - I really enjoy the little Rolleicord (Va) the most. It's light, simple, and beautifully made. I put a rolleigrid in it and it's joy to use.
Frank Petronio
Well-known
Harry Fleenor recommends the 3.5 E and F models as the best values and most reliable. He also says that buying a camera that has been in a leather case will be cosmetically better. Can't argue with that.
That said, I would budget for a good quality CLA and a Maxwell screen (about $350 to $400) and I would replace the funky (at best) meter with a flat plate since their plastic housing often cracks.
There is a nice 3.5 in the classifieds right now.
If you make yourself use the camera, you will get used to the reversed image. It can be kind of fun actually.
That said, I would budget for a good quality CLA and a Maxwell screen (about $350 to $400) and I would replace the funky (at best) meter with a flat plate since their plastic housing often cracks.
There is a nice 3.5 in the classifieds right now.
If you make yourself use the camera, you will get used to the reversed image. It can be kind of fun actually.
Hatch
Established
Must disagree about the meter thing.
Or perhaps I'm just lucky.
Compared to incident light readings my 2.8F is nearly allways spot on.
But then the camera was serviced by Rollei in 2004.
They probably recalibrated the meter.
Sadly it's not mint anymore.
The carrying case has caused a small nick in the underside of the aluminium case ( a pinprick really but...) and it has also caused some paint to lift on the filmspool spindle cover.:bang:
The screen is dim but if I use the magnifying glass focus is spot on.
Or perhaps I'm just lucky.
Compared to incident light readings my 2.8F is nearly allways spot on.
But then the camera was serviced by Rollei in 2004.
They probably recalibrated the meter.
Sadly it's not mint anymore.
The carrying case has caused a small nick in the underside of the aluminium case ( a pinprick really but...) and it has also caused some paint to lift on the filmspool spindle cover.:bang:
The screen is dim but if I use the magnifying glass focus is spot on.
I've just bought my first Rollei with a meter which is, ostensibly, working, so it will be interesting to find out first hand what it is like to use when it arrives, as I've never gone out my way to find a metered model previously, but the recent purchase happened to have (an uncoupled) one fitted. If it's working and reasonably accurate this will be a bonus, but either way a Rolleiflex isn't really a speed machine to use (unless you use the hyperfocal distance and sports finder approach, of course). So using a very accurate hand held meter doesn't worry me too much, because film is so expensive here in Australia that I want to get each shot as well-exposed as I can anyway. YMMV of course.
Regards,
Brett
Regards,
Brett
Vics
Veteran
Here are Rolleis at good prices and a great returns policy:
http://www.keh.com/Camera/format-Co...-Cameras?s=1&bcode=RT&ccode=4&cc=79335&r=WG&f
http://www.keh.com/Camera/format-Co...-Cameras?s=1&bcode=RT&ccode=4&cc=79335&r=WG&f