Phantomas
Well-known
Hi guys and girls, I'm slowly becoming interested in Rolleiflex cameras and interested in getting one to further diversify my photographic tools and hence the results. And of course quite importantly to satisfy my GAS needs 
My main (only) MF right now is a Hassie 500 C/M, which I absolutely love. Results from Rolleiflex that I see around intrigue me quite a bit and I believe I'd enjoy working with it.
So naturally I'm doing some research and am roughly aware of techical differences. However, such hard data doesn't tell me which camera is actually better, or more value for money. Seems there are quite a lot of models out there, with simingly minor differences, so it's hard to make out what's what.
Can you give me some general tips on Rolleiflex models, which are considered best, which are good value, what are the must-have features, what to watch out for buying an old used one, do meters still work, 2.8 or 3.5 lens (and which FL), etc, etc, etc? Oh, and here's an embarassing one: what's a 4x4 format and how is it different from 6x6?
Obviously, surprise!, I'm on a budget an would like to not break the bank in purchasing one, something simple and good, but I would like to forego Rolleicord models completely. Probably something of a Hassie 500 C/M equivalent - modestly priced and best bang for the buck. I don't know, I see similar 'flexes priced at $100 and over $1000...
My main (only) MF right now is a Hassie 500 C/M, which I absolutely love. Results from Rolleiflex that I see around intrigue me quite a bit and I believe I'd enjoy working with it.
So naturally I'm doing some research and am roughly aware of techical differences. However, such hard data doesn't tell me which camera is actually better, or more value for money. Seems there are quite a lot of models out there, with simingly minor differences, so it's hard to make out what's what.
Can you give me some general tips on Rolleiflex models, which are considered best, which are good value, what are the must-have features, what to watch out for buying an old used one, do meters still work, 2.8 or 3.5 lens (and which FL), etc, etc, etc? Oh, and here's an embarassing one: what's a 4x4 format and how is it different from 6x6?
Obviously, surprise!, I'm on a budget an would like to not break the bank in purchasing one, something simple and good, but I would like to forego Rolleicord models completely. Probably something of a Hassie 500 C/M equivalent - modestly priced and best bang for the buck. I don't know, I see similar 'flexes priced at $100 and over $1000...
Last edited:
kenken
Newbie
I think this website could you some ideas
http://www.butkus.org/chinon/rolleiflex.htm
http://www.butkus.org/chinon/rolleiflex.htm
matt_s
Established
4x4 formats...
4x4 formats...
Are exactly what they sound like- a 4cmx4cm image- but most cameras that produced 4x4 images used 127 film which is no longer made- or really hard to find unless you want to roll your own.
Good Luck,
Matt
4x4 formats...
Are exactly what they sound like- a 4cmx4cm image- but most cameras that produced 4x4 images used 127 film which is no longer made- or really hard to find unless you want to roll your own.
Good Luck,
Matt
Al Kaplan
Veteran
When you can find 127 film it cost a fortune compared to 120!
Frank Petronio
Well-known
If you want a look similar but somewhat smoother than the 80mm Planar on your Blad, look for a Rolleiflex D, E, E2, E3, or F in a f/2.8 version of either the Planar or Xenotar (no difference between the Zeiss or Schneider in use).
Personally I think the D and Ex models are such a better deal than the F that I wouldn't even bother with Fs. The only "advantage" of the Fs is really a disadvantage -- an interchangeable hood that you'll never swap (the prism sucks), and a non or semi-functional Selenium meter that usually has a cracked plastic casing.
The older 2.8C Rolleiflex (and earlier) have a more classic old-school look. I'd opt for a very clean 2.8C because it was the last model to have circular aperture openings, afterwards they switched to polygons (less blades = cheaper).
Unless the previous owner has already done so, Rolleiflexs need regular CLAs and the viewing system needs to be cleaned -- and most likely upgraded -- the Maxwell screens are supposed to be the best, although I always used the stock screen after a good CLA.
For whatever reason, a lot of Rolleis have bad lens scratches so be careful when shopping. John Van Selten can recoat them but it is slow and expensive.
Inexpensive fast CLA and a good selection of used stock -- Jimmy Koh, Koh's camera, kind of like Youxin Ye for Rolleis.
Expensive slow CLA from a German -- Harry Fleenor, there is also an old guy who used to work at Linhof, forgot his name -- kind of like DAG.
When you get a camera back from a CLA shoot a test roll wide open to check focus, as they often miss calibrating the two lenses (at least two different CLA people did with me).
You can save money getting the f/3.5 versions but... that's half a stop... there are also variations like the Rolleiflex T, one with auto exposure, etc. but pass.
If you want an inexpensive, much more compact and LIGHTWEIGHT 6x6, consider the Rolleicords, like the V and Vb, they are usually under $200 and they will make excellent photos, they are just as well made, just simpler designs. Great for travel and carrying around.
Finally, the straps, metal hoods, and spiffy mirrored lens caps are expensive so look for combos when buying. Many people buy the old straps and re-use the proprietary strap lugs with a new strap riveted on my a shoe repair shop, etc. Gordy's straps also work well.
Since getting my middle-aged nearsightedness I don't enjoy focusing Rolleis or Blads and it is a pity, they are wonderful cameras.
Personally I think the D and Ex models are such a better deal than the F that I wouldn't even bother with Fs. The only "advantage" of the Fs is really a disadvantage -- an interchangeable hood that you'll never swap (the prism sucks), and a non or semi-functional Selenium meter that usually has a cracked plastic casing.
The older 2.8C Rolleiflex (and earlier) have a more classic old-school look. I'd opt for a very clean 2.8C because it was the last model to have circular aperture openings, afterwards they switched to polygons (less blades = cheaper).
Unless the previous owner has already done so, Rolleiflexs need regular CLAs and the viewing system needs to be cleaned -- and most likely upgraded -- the Maxwell screens are supposed to be the best, although I always used the stock screen after a good CLA.
For whatever reason, a lot of Rolleis have bad lens scratches so be careful when shopping. John Van Selten can recoat them but it is slow and expensive.
Inexpensive fast CLA and a good selection of used stock -- Jimmy Koh, Koh's camera, kind of like Youxin Ye for Rolleis.
Expensive slow CLA from a German -- Harry Fleenor, there is also an old guy who used to work at Linhof, forgot his name -- kind of like DAG.
When you get a camera back from a CLA shoot a test roll wide open to check focus, as they often miss calibrating the two lenses (at least two different CLA people did with me).
You can save money getting the f/3.5 versions but... that's half a stop... there are also variations like the Rolleiflex T, one with auto exposure, etc. but pass.
If you want an inexpensive, much more compact and LIGHTWEIGHT 6x6, consider the Rolleicords, like the V and Vb, they are usually under $200 and they will make excellent photos, they are just as well made, just simpler designs. Great for travel and carrying around.
Finally, the straps, metal hoods, and spiffy mirrored lens caps are expensive so look for combos when buying. Many people buy the old straps and re-use the proprietary strap lugs with a new strap riveted on my a shoe repair shop, etc. Gordy's straps also work well.
Since getting my middle-aged nearsightedness I don't enjoy focusing Rolleis or Blads and it is a pity, they are wonderful cameras.
35mmdelux
Veni, vidi, vici
The Rollieflex FX is pretty sweet but over your proposed budget. I was shooting with the GX for awhile. Nice glass and very light to carry around.
charjohncarter
Veteran
Nothing nicer that a TLR Rolleiflex, I used my disabled T (for years) until I got rich and could afford to have it gone though. You will not regret having any 120 Rolleiflex (TLR).
Al Kaplan
Veteran
Mamiya made a lightweight substitute for a pentaprism finder called a Porroflex. It was a maze of mirrors, not as bright as a prism but much lighter and less expensive. They made a version for the Mamiyaflex and another that fit interchangeable hood Rolleiflexes.
http://thepriceofsilver.blogspot.com
http://thepriceofsilver.blogspot.com
Last edited:
raid
Dad Photographer
The RD-1 sounds good for a trade for a Rolleiflex 3.5F.
Last edited:
BSchall
Established
There are basically 3 sets of Rolleiflexes.
First are the f3.5 Tessar/Xenar models. The Automats from the early 1950's are great cameras. The Tessar lens is great with the classic look of, well, a Tessar. The 1952 MX I have takes great pictures. Paid $160 for it a year ago in EX condition. I've paid less in the past for a MX or MX-EVS and sold them for more.
Next are the f3.5 Planar/Xenotar models. Had a 3.5F Xenotar, cost me $350 to have Krikor Marilian rebuilt the shutter and CLA the camera. Meter didn't work and he advised against getting it fixed. Sold it 2 years ago when credit cards exceeded income. (Bending over so someone can kick me.) These lenses are fantastic. The 3.5 version is hundreds of dollars cheaper than the 2.8 for only 1/2 stop. Never shot any of my 'Flexes wide open to begin with, so can't see the need for the extra 1/2 stop. The viewing lenses are usually f2.8 to begin with so no advantage in focusing either.
Last is the f2.8 Planars/Xenotars. I'm sure they are great lenses and wish I could afford to own one but I can't.
Another thing to think about are the accessories. The 3.5 Tessars take Bay I hoods and filters. Relatively easy to find and relatively cheap. The 3.5 Planar/Xenotar takes Bay II accessories. Hard to find and more expensive. The 2.8 models take Bay III accessories, easier to find than Bay II but much more expensive. A Bay III hood will set you back easily $100.
First are the f3.5 Tessar/Xenar models. The Automats from the early 1950's are great cameras. The Tessar lens is great with the classic look of, well, a Tessar. The 1952 MX I have takes great pictures. Paid $160 for it a year ago in EX condition. I've paid less in the past for a MX or MX-EVS and sold them for more.
Next are the f3.5 Planar/Xenotar models. Had a 3.5F Xenotar, cost me $350 to have Krikor Marilian rebuilt the shutter and CLA the camera. Meter didn't work and he advised against getting it fixed. Sold it 2 years ago when credit cards exceeded income. (Bending over so someone can kick me.) These lenses are fantastic. The 3.5 version is hundreds of dollars cheaper than the 2.8 for only 1/2 stop. Never shot any of my 'Flexes wide open to begin with, so can't see the need for the extra 1/2 stop. The viewing lenses are usually f2.8 to begin with so no advantage in focusing either.
Last is the f2.8 Planars/Xenotars. I'm sure they are great lenses and wish I could afford to own one but I can't.
Another thing to think about are the accessories. The 3.5 Tessars take Bay I hoods and filters. Relatively easy to find and relatively cheap. The 3.5 Planar/Xenotar takes Bay II accessories. Hard to find and more expensive. The 2.8 models take Bay III accessories, easier to find than Bay II but much more expensive. A Bay III hood will set you back easily $100.
Last edited:
T
Todd.Hanz
Guest
What Frank said.
I have a 3.5 F and a 2.8 E2, the 2.8 sees more use.
I also have a 500cm, the planar lenses are very similar in look to the 'blad, maybe you'll want something different looking. The Rollei's don't focus as close so keep that in mind.
All in all, the TLR's are a joy to use. Same waist level focusing (unless you opt for the prism),quiet, quiet leaf shutters compared to the 'blad. You can handhold the camera at slower shutter speeds.
Good Luck.
Todd
I have a 3.5 F and a 2.8 E2, the 2.8 sees more use.
I also have a 500cm, the planar lenses are very similar in look to the 'blad, maybe you'll want something different looking. The Rollei's don't focus as close so keep that in mind.
All in all, the TLR's are a joy to use. Same waist level focusing (unless you opt for the prism),quiet, quiet leaf shutters compared to the 'blad. You can handhold the camera at slower shutter speeds.
Good Luck.
Todd
easyrider
Photo addict
Roger Hicks
Veteran
If you've not actually used one, be aware that (like every camera ever made) Rollei TLRs don't necessarily suit everyone. I don't like the way I have to throw the camera from one hand to the other to operate the controls. I know this is a minority view; I know they produce wonderful quality (especially the f/3.5 Planar, a stunning lens); I know they're very quiet; and I know that after fancying one for years, I got one, and didn't get on with it at all.
Cheers,
R.
Cheers,
R.
35mmdelux
Veni, vidi, vici
The Rollies are nice but more of a yesteryear camera. If I dont travel with 2 Leicas, then I'll back up a Leica with a Mamiya 6 -- compact and light. Too bad they dont make these anymore. For my money one of the best MF RF out there.
martin s
Well-known
D.O'K.
Darren O'Keeffe.
Having touted a Rolleiflex 3.5F (planar lens) and a Rolleicord Vb (xenar lens) for years, increasingly the latter gets more use. I find its lens as good as the planar at f8 and below, and almost as good at the wider apertures: it's also smaller and lighter (but still solid and well made), and distinctly easier to carry around for long periods.
A V model would also be much cheaper than a later Rolleiflex such as a 3.5f.
The only real disadvantage of a Rolleicord, to me, is that it's somewhat slower to use than the 'flex, mainly as winding on and cocking the shutter are done separately. But again the difference is not very great--and is for the vast majority of situations insignificant.
Roger makes a pertinent point about a potential handling problem, but to a large extent this can be overcome by careful use of the strap, which if used at the right length to suspend the camera on the chest frees up both hands (I suspect "strapmanship" is more important with a TLR than with any other type of camera, and admittedly some would find it too irksome).
All the Rolleis are great cameras though. They provide one of the only ways to get first class medium format quality handheld.
Regards,
D.
A V model would also be much cheaper than a later Rolleiflex such as a 3.5f.
The only real disadvantage of a Rolleicord, to me, is that it's somewhat slower to use than the 'flex, mainly as winding on and cocking the shutter are done separately. But again the difference is not very great--and is for the vast majority of situations insignificant.
Roger makes a pertinent point about a potential handling problem, but to a large extent this can be overcome by careful use of the strap, which if used at the right length to suspend the camera on the chest frees up both hands (I suspect "strapmanship" is more important with a TLR than with any other type of camera, and admittedly some would find it too irksome).
All the Rolleis are great cameras though. They provide one of the only ways to get first class medium format quality handheld.
Regards,
D.
raid
Dad Photographer
I recently added a Rolleiflex Automat with a Zeiss Jena lens to my Rolleiflex set of TLR cameras. It is the lens that intrigued me. For many years I only used 2.8 Planar lens models, and I pretty much ignored my Automat with a Tessar 3.5 lens. Later on, I realized that having different lenses opens up lots of possibilities for photography. The 3.5F somehow fell into my hands as a broken camera,and after many years I got it repaired. The lens is excellent indeed.
My current set:
work horse: 2.8D
tele: Tele Rolleiflex [original model]
other: 3.5F, Automat with Zeiss Tessar, Automat with Zeiss
Jena
The 2.8D is basic and it has a great lens. I sold off my mintish 2.8F and 2.8E years ago.
My current set:
work horse: 2.8D
tele: Tele Rolleiflex [original model]
other: 3.5F, Automat with Zeiss Tessar, Automat with Zeiss
Jena
The 2.8D is basic and it has a great lens. I sold off my mintish 2.8F and 2.8E years ago.
Last edited:
elwrongo
Established
Rolleiflex 2.8F
Rolleiflex 2.8F
Rolleiflex 2.8F - I saw one of these at a camera market recently for $Au700. It was beautiful and mint with a Planar. I held it in my hands, hesitated and lost. The guy next to me offered $600 and got it. He then sold it on ebay for $US2300 minus the accessories that came with it! I'm not sure what this experience tells me apart from buy everything just in case. Dangerous.
Rolleiflex 2.8F
Rolleiflex 2.8F - I saw one of these at a camera market recently for $Au700. It was beautiful and mint with a Planar. I held it in my hands, hesitated and lost. The guy next to me offered $600 and got it. He then sold it on ebay for $US2300 minus the accessories that came with it! I'm not sure what this experience tells me apart from buy everything just in case. Dangerous.
sahe69
Well-known
Whichever Rollie you decide to buy, I'm sure you'll love the sound (or actually the lack of it) of it's shutter releasing, after having got used to a Hassie.
I've not much to add to the above posts - much has been said already. Maybe one thing to consider would be also the weight. 3.5's are much lighter than the 2.8's.
Like you said, at least on eBay the prices seem to vary quite a lot. I bought my 3.5F with functional lightmeter a few years ago for around 350 euros. With some patience I'm sure you'll find one in nice condition and attractive price.
I've not much to add to the above posts - much has been said already. Maybe one thing to consider would be also the weight. 3.5's are much lighter than the 2.8's.
Like you said, at least on eBay the prices seem to vary quite a lot. I bought my 3.5F with functional lightmeter a few years ago for around 350 euros. With some patience I'm sure you'll find one in nice condition and attractive price.
Last edited:
Frank Petronio
Well-known
On the large format photography forum this morning there are two users for good prices, I have no association and buyer beware, etc.:
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=52751
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=52751