They're At It Again...

[Sarcophilus Harrisii]

Some time ago I penned some thoughts about the process of buying and inspecting a Rollei TLR. It was based on my experiences over the last couple of years since jumping into the deep end of a seemingly incurable Rollei obsession. (Given that a Tele Rollei arrived on my doorstep late last week, you might be forgiven for thinking this shows no signs of abatement...and you would probably be right.) But I digress.

I was contacted recently by a photographer who had been through the wringer several times in his efforts to procure a sound example of a Rolleiflex 2.8F. He'd read my text and graciously passed one some kind words.

What concerned me, however is that he mentioned to me that he had recently returned a 2.8F to an ebay seller which was not a described. In particular, there were some problems with the condition of its Planar lens.

In the course of negotiations about the item condition, the seller suggested to the buyer, that he would be happy to swap over the existing front and/or rear lens groups of the taking lens with that of another camera in order to resolve the dispute. The buyer wisely declined this suggestion, obtained a refund and has since procured what would appear to be a rather more sound prospect.

However. He's advised that the seller has subsequently re-listed the returned camera, suggesting that it is in almost mint condition (and most likely, complete with substituted lens parts). So if you've been thinking of picking up a Rollei lately--you may want to keep your guard up--it would seem that there are still a few sellers willing to compromise the condition of their offerings, in order to move them at a higher price.

Of course, I have no way of confirming the veracity of the buyer's claims; however I have seen copies of the emails sent by the seller, and I have no reason to doubt him. He seems to have little to gain by fabricating claims, as he obtained a full refund from the seller by returning the camera involved.

I'm off to bed now, however before clicking "Buy it Now" on any EEU-based 2.8Fs, you may want to get in touch with me, first...
Regards,
Brett

 

[pixiepearls]

I hope that he replied back with some negative feedback so if someone does find that seller and reviews the recent feedback they will know to be wary!

 

[Calzone]

Congrates on getting a Tele Rolleiflex. What a great camera.

Cal

 

[Gumby]

Have fun with that Tele!

But why do you think that replacing a part is "compromising the condition" of the camera? Seems like that is improving the condition, if the original lens wasn't good. If it hadn' been mentioned do you think anyone would have ever known? It's done all the time with both modern and antique equipment. It's called "restoration/refurbishment/repair", isn't it?

 

[35mmdelux]

Simply: BUYER BEWARE

 

[Sarcophilus Harrisii]

I hope that he replied back with some negative feedback so if someone does find that seller and reviews the recent feedback they will know to be wary!

I don't think he realised at the time the significance of swapping over a part of the lens but as an engineer he felt it was not the best solution. Only afterwards did he become aware of the negative effects it can have on camera performance.
Regards,
Brett

 

[Sarcophilus Harrisii]

Congrates on getting a Tele Rolleiflex. What a great camera.

Cal

Thanks Cal, I'd previously read about your own experiences with your Tele, and this only encouraged me to take the plunge!
Regards,
Brett

 

[Sarcophilus Harrisii]

Have fun with that Tele!

But why do you think that replacing a part is "compromising the condition" of the camera? Seems like that is improving the condition, if the original lens wasn't good. If it hadn' been mentioned do you think anyone would have ever known? It's done all the time with both modern and antique equipment. It's called "restoration/refurbishment/repair", isn't it?

Lens assemblies were tested and matched to complement each other as a set to ensure best sharpness within manufacturing tolerances. Swapping over a part of a lens defeats this and will result in a lens of unknown performance. Taking and viewing lenses were also matched as a pair of lenses to their precise focal lengths. This enables the pair to focus together correctly across the entire focus range of the camera. Changing one of the lenses could affect the focal length of the lens, resulting in a camera that may focus correctly at one focal distance, but not at others potentially leading to further problems.
Regards,
Brett

 

[Gumby]

Umm, perhaps. I was unaware that they were hand-fitted... maybe they were and I'm just unaware of that fact. No matter and not intending to be argumentative, but camera repair as a normal part of business does lens replacement and lens calibration. Very few cameras I've worked on have had shims, etc to indicate that the manufacturing tolerances were off so far as to require hand-fitting.

 

[Sarcophilus Harrisii]

Umm, perhaps. I was unaware that they were hand-fitted... maybe they were and I'm just unaware of that fact. No matter and not intending to be argumentative, but camera repair as a normal part of business does lens replacement and lens calibration. Very few cameras I've worked on have had shims, etc to indicate that the manufacturing tolerances were off so far as to require hand-fitting.

Both Zeiss and Schneider, from what I understand, supplied Rollei with matched lenses ready for installation; it was not a case of the Rollei factory workers selecting the pieces of the lens assemblies themselves. As I recall this was the main problem with some of the 2.8A Tessars which had the elements mixed up and interchanged and which suffered accordingly.

There is a great deal of discussion about this and may other aspects of lens formulation, origin, "genealogy" of the lenses (in terms of their design, application and factory of manufacture) on the Rollei lists, by many far more knowledgeable owners than myself. If you would like a better quality explanation than I can provide, I can only suggest that you consult their discussions.
Regards,
Brett

 

[Gumby]

Again... perhaps; I've read that too. But how would you know that a lens was not swapped out? The serial numbers are not matched to each otehr or to the body.

As someone with experience in this area I can assure you that interchangeability is well within the realm of practical possibility.

If the camera takes good pictures, does it matter wheter it is the lens the camera was originally delivered with, or a replacement?

I'm in no better position to defend the seller than you are to condemn that seller. Neither of us knows that the seller did not properly perform the lens replacement.

Y'know... one can screw up a "factory matched pair" during a normal CLA if they don't know what their doing, just as one can replace a lens and have it perform just as well as the original equipment.

Just something for you to consider before you slur and defame a seller to protect a buyer who you have little vested interest in protecting.

Again, I'm not trying to be rude or argumentative... it's just seems like there is a bit of high-horse riding expressed and I want to make sure you know that just because a camera part -- even a lens -- is replace that does not necessarily mean that focus will be off.

But I can see that we are probably butting heads a this point, so I'll bid you adieu and best wishes on your Rollei adventures. I've been immersed in teh Rollei way of photography for 30 years; they are great cameras!

 

[thompsonks]

Yes, Gumby, a good time to withdraw:

"Umm, perhaps. I was unaware that they were hand-fitted... maybe they were and I'm just unaware of that fact." – If you've been seriously involved with Rolleis for 30 years, I'm surprised you hadn't heard or didn't believe that the lens pairs were matched by Zeiss & Schneider, & retested by F&H.

Many lenses need re-calibration – my repair person said that's true of most Rolleis he works on. But swapping out worn elements? When one pays for what's supposed to be 'mint' Zeiss, Schneider, Leica, etc., glass, one certainly hopes to avoid a seller who holds your opinion.

You write as if lens element substitution were like putting on a different film crank. Craftsmen like John Van Stelten & Paul Ebel do restore worn lens surfaces & coatings. Iif an ad said one of these folks had restored a Rollei's lenses & had colimated them, I'd consider it just about good-as-new. But that's quite different than 'improvement' by swapping elements.

And mis-describing the condition is just not OK. People are supposed to know what Mint means (also Excellent, User, For Parts, & such). If you replaced the leather, for example, you should say it was 'restored,' not 'almost mint.' Fudging that the camera is 'almost mint condition' when it doesn't have its original lens elements is plain dishonest.

IMO your opinion amounts to a reason for staying away form xBay, where some sellers agree with you. For my own part, I look for gear sold by photographers here in the RFF classifieds, or on DPI. Or on Craigslist, where the sellers often can't describe the equipment well, but you can see what you're getting.

Kirk

 

[PMCC]

Funnily enough, one of the well-regarded camera techs often mentioned in these pages -- one that I generally use -- once mistakenly swapped the lenses on a Rolleicord he was servicing for me with a set of Rokkors from an Autocord. A comically embarrassing on-off cock-up. Of course he was duly shame-faced and reversed the transplant, and the patient had a full recovery. But he did tell me that it would have been interesting to see the experiment through, and thinks I should have considered keeping the Rokkors. On the other hand, the Autocord specialist I spoke to was highly skeptical that it would have worked out. I shoulda tried it out before sending it back.

 

[Dan Daniel]

On older Tessars, from both Rolleiflexes and a Zeiss folder, the front and back elements had serial numbers. A number or two dropped off of the back piece, but still there. Maybe this practice was stopped. One of the Rollei sets is the infamous 2.8A Tessar, so matching numbers isn't always a guarantee of quality! (although my copy is actually very nice...)

The best Yashinon lens I had on a Yashica-Mat had a back element set from an LM and a front set from a late-model D. Go figure...

And just for fun, here is an Autocord with a pre-war Tessar in a Compur shutter. Measurements of the Seikosha/Citizen shutter said that it would have mounted up on the original body just fine. The threading and front/back spacing is the same in many cases from German to Japanese shutters as the Japanese moved into the market. I could only measure to 1/1000" with my calipers, so maybe there's a smaller amount that would wreak havoc in optical systems? Yes, you should have tried the Rokkors! If the focus and focal length differences worked out, as good if not better lenses than the originals.

Back on topic, the major issue I see is seller honesty. Considering the 'cult' aspect of rolleiflexes, playing games like that is asking for a bad reputation, for good reasons.

The issue of swapping elements is simply a crap shoot approach to dealing with buckets of parts. I simply don't have the experience and the technical testing skills to say if it is a practice that will always create optical problems.

 

[Sarcophilus Harrisii]

Again... perhaps; I've read that too. But how would you know that a lens was not swapped out? The serial numbers are not matched to each otehr or to the body.

As someone with experience in this area I can assure you that interchangeability is well within the realm of practical possibility.

If the camera takes good pictures, does it matter wheter it is the lens the camera was originally delivered with, or a replacement?

I'm in no better position to defend the seller than you are to condemn that seller. Neither of us knows that the seller did not properly perform the lens replacement.

Y'know... one can screw up a "factory matched pair" during a normal CLA if they don't know what their doing, just as one can replace a lens and have it perform just as well as the original equipment.

Just something for you to consider before you slur and defame a seller to protect a buyer who you have little vested interest in protecting.

Again, I'm not trying to be rude or argumentative... it's just seems like there is a bit of high-horse riding expressed and I want to make sure you know that just because a camera part -- even a lens -- is replace that does not necessarily mean that focus will be off.

But I can see that we are probably butting heads a this point, so I'll bid you adieu and best wishes on your Rollei adventures. I've been immersed in teh Rollei way of photography for 30 years; they are great cameras!

Gosh, Gumby, I am not sure how I might go about doing that given that I've taken some care to avoid identifying the seller involved and have not disclosed their identity to anyone. I think your (highlighted) comment is entirely excessive.

I also pointed out, quite clearly, I believe, that I was not in a position to verify positively the information passed on to me. Did you miss that bit?

For what it's worth, (relevant parts of) the conversation passed on to me went as follows:

Hi (Buyer) when I get it back I will exchange the front cell form my own camera and list it again, as the cosmetic condition is exceptional. Regards, (Seller)

Now I don't know about you--but that, to me, doesn't sound like a properly performed lens replacement (to borrow your own words above).

The TLR forum of RFF is a wonderful meeting point for TLR enthusiasts including Rollei. As a member of the community I would be sorry to see a photographer whose work I respect acquire an inferior camera at an inflated price, which is why I started the discussion--for no other reason. However I will certainly think twice in future before endeavouring to help.
Regards,
Brett

 

[Gumby]

Gosh, Gumby, I am not sure how I might go about doing that given that I've taken some care to avoid identifying the seller involved and have not disclosed their identity to anyone. I think your (highlighted) comment is entirely excessive.

I also pointed out, quite clearly, I believe, that I was not in a position to verify positively the information passed on to me. Did you miss that bit?

Brett, I was simply responding on your statement in post 1, "I'm off to bed now, however before clicking "Buy it Now" on any EEU-based 2.8Fs, you may want to get in touch with me, first..." I don't think it is excessive unless you were planning on offering anyone who contacts you about "any EEU-based 2.8F sellers" a few rolls of free film. 🙂

I think we can agree that it is not possible for either one of us to know, without buying the camera perhaps, if the lens swap is "properly done", or "done good enough", or "not done well"... I'm simply pointing out that it CAN be done right. I did not miss that bit about you not being able to verify facts at all. We all deal with reality based on what we know and you have acknowledged what you don't know also. I appreciate that.

 

[Gumby]

IMO your opinion amounts to a reason for staying away form xBay, where some sellers agree with you. For my own part, I look for gear sold by photographers here in the RFF classifieds, or on DPI. Or on Craigslist, where the sellers often can't describe the equipment well, but you can see what you're getting.

You are entitled to your opinion and I can respect your opinion. Thanks for voicing it.

As for my opinion on the best places to buy camera equipment... I've been screwed just as much buying on forums from "known people" - sometimes through their ignorance and other times through their lies. Most of the time, though, I do quite fine in equipment purchases. The best way to buy old gear is to know what you are buying and buy carefully - realizing all along that there is risk involvedd. You choose your risk and I'll choose mine.

 

[thompsonks]

Gosh it's great to have your advice – you've done such a fine job of qualifying as an expert.

Kirk

 

[Gumby]

Kirk -- you are "one of a kind". I never said I know it all. I said I have 30 years experience with Rollei and that includes both using and repairing. I made a living at one time using a Rollei. If you think everyone needs to be a scholar of all things related to the intimate manufacturing details to use or repair Rolleis then you are mistaken.

I've been polite to you and never disagreed with a word you wrote -- why are you being a jerk in response?

 

[Sarcophilus Harrisii]

Brett, I was simply responding on your statement in post 1, "I'm off to bed now, however before clicking "Buy it Now" on any EEU-based 2.8Fs, you may want to get in touch with me, first..." I don't think it is excessive unless you were planning on offering anyone who contacts you about "any EEU-based 2.8F sellers" a few rolls of free film. 🙂

I think we can agree that it is not possible for either one of us to know, without buying the camera perhaps, if the lens swap is "properly done", or "done good enough", or "not done well"... I'm simply pointing out that it CAN be done right. I did not miss that bit about you not being able to verify facts at all. We all deal with reality based on what we know and you have acknowledged what you don't know also. I appreciate that.

You are making some assumptions there, notably that I might automatically disclose the identity of the ebay member involved.
As it happens noone has contacted me regarding any ebay listings. If they did, I envisage I'd simply let them know, whether or not a particular listing was relevant to my post; in all likelihood, not, given the quantities of listings at most times. And I would be happy to pass on the details of the person who contacted me and who has dealt with the seller first hand, if it was.

I agree that it is not possible to be definitive about the performance of a lens that has a substitution. The proof as always is in the images it produces. However quite apart from the sharpness or lack thereof of such a lens, there remains the problem of the focal length of both viewing and taking lenses having to match closely. So, even if the adjusted lens demonstrated acceptable sharpness, there could well be focussing discrepancies between the two that would make it impossible to accurately calibrate the lens pairs across the whole focus range.

Of course, you might be lucky enough to find it all works OK. But it might not. And that is the issue; it's impossible to say, until it has been tested, and it after a change of lenses it may never be possible to set the camera up accurately.

Any way you look at this, it is a second best option to using a camera fitted with the original lens pair in good condition, so I cannot see how it can ever be recommended as an option of first resort, unless perhaps you can acquire a matched pair of lenses of the same focal length from a wreck.

I can see we are going to have to agree to disagree on this point.
Regards,
Brett