TLR owners/users (If you dare admit if)

[Pherdinand]

ted - i have such a "real sleeper" Kowa Six for sale 🙂 if u r interested🙂 including the 80mm lens to die tfor , and a 55/3.5 lens...to live for!!

The lens shutters need some CLA but rest is fine!

Eric - Rolleiflex are expensive because:
1: Collector value
2: They always were considered "the best". Top of the line stuff is always most expensive, you pay a lot for the name, and they lose value slower than other brands.
3: As said above - very high quality. Durability, precision, great design, excellent lenses, excellent image out of them.

A better yashica or minolta autocord or ricoh diacord can produce an image as good as an average rolleiflex, i dare to say. But all the good/best things combined in one TLR camera will have the name Rolleiflex on it.

Yes, Mamiyas are also fine, and have the advantage of interchangeable lenses. They are considerably bigger/heavier than a Rolleiflex, though.

 

[Sanders McNew]

I am considering getting a TLR. As a novice in this area, why are the Rollei Rolleiflexes so expensive? Is it lens quality? Is it true that the Mamiya TLRs are the only ones with interchangeable lenses?

A used Rolleiflex is cheap by comparison to what you
are getting for your money. You have to work hard to
spend $800 on one today. A good user can be had
from good eBay sellers for half that.

Ted's Leica comparison goes further. Leica invented
the modern 35mm camera. The Rolleiflex was the
first TLR. Others have mimicked the style but no one
has improved upon it. Yes, the Mamiya has inter-
changeable lenses, but the result is a tank -- big,
heavy, cumbersome. Hold both in your hands, and
then ask yourself which one you want to use.

If $400 is too steep for you, look into Rolleicords.
They offer the same build quality, form factor and
lenses as the Rolleiflex, with some of the complexities
(automatic shutter cocking with film advance being
the most obvious) removed to lower the price. A
Rolleicord is still way ahead of the other TLRs, and
a good user will run you maybe $200.

Whatever camera you buy, you will need to budget
for improvements. Most older TLRs will suffer from
a dim viewscreen. A Beatty or Maxwell screen will
set you back $175 but the result will be a viewfinder
so bright people will ask you if it's an LCD screen.

Good luck to you.

Sanders

 

[raid]

I finally remembered my broken Rolleiflex 3.5F, and it is right now being taken care of by a pro repairman. A few years ago, I ordered this camera all the way from Egypt as an ebay item, but it arrived messed up. The meter cover is broken, and I doubt it that the meter works. The film advance crank is stuck and looks "too big". I raised hell with the seller [a few years ago], and I may have reduced the buying price. There was no way getting back my money from a new Egyptian ebay merchant.


For some reason, many users of this model insist that it is "the best" model. To me, the various models are identical except for presence of meter and lack of it and the capability to remove the viewfinder.

I have replaced the original screen by Maxwell screen on the 2.8D and the Tele Rollei and I replaced the screen on the Automat with a $40 screen sold on ebay fby some dealer in Hong Kong. In fact, I don't know whether the camera is an Automat or a Rolleicord. How can I tell the model? It has a 75mm/3.5 lens. How can I distinguish [from a user's perspective] between the 3.5F and a less expensive model with the same lens, like the Automat?


Some people insist that the 2.8E with the Xenotar lens is the "best". Why?


I wonder if there really are any true differences between the Rollei models. I used to own the 2.8E and 2.8F models while I was heavily using a 2.8D. In the end, I sold the E and the F because they were too pretty looking.

 

[Pherdinand]

Raid,
Automats all have Tessar lenses, or Xenars too, maybe. In any case, the "weaker" four-element design lenses. So it is easy to distinguish. There is no Automat with the same lens as the 3.5F...
However the Tessar types are also very good. If oyu stop that lens down to f8-ish and everything is set correctly, the results will be as good as a 3.5F with a Planar or a Xenotar.

Some people say the "best lens" is the Planar on the 3.5F - i don't know. It definitely is worse than the 2.8 equipped versions - at f/2.8 🙂

The bigger lenses / later models also cost more in accessories, and they are slightly heavier. My pre-ww2 automat is noticeably lighter than the "new" 3.5F i just got serviced. Is it weaker? well that's still to see, when i use the 3.5F a bit more. The first roll out of it is in the tank right now.

 

[BigSteveG]

Just picked a Rollei-Wide. Never used a TLR. Took it directly to H Fleenor (the Rollei counterpart of DAG/Krauter) for a full mechanical overhaul and new screen installation. If I don't like the square format I'll either sell or trade for other equipment. That Diastigon renders gorgeous images from what I've seen on Flickr. Also, the wide angle lens will be perfect for street/candid work.

 

[BigSteveG]

Also, while there, Harry showed me a gorgeous 2.8 Planar F model re-covered in a brown Lizard skin. Very pretty, but I don't see how someone could take that thing out in public. Seems awfully ostentatious.

 

[Morca007]

I'd love to get into TLR's, but I can't realistically spend more than $50-60, is it worth it at that threshold?

 

[Eric T]

Thanks Ted, Sanders, and Pherdinand for your valuable advice. I need another camera like a hole in the head but the Rollei 2.8D is nice for the $300-400 it would cost to get a very nice example.
Eric

 

[Sanders McNew]

How can I distinguish [from a user's perspective] between the 3.5F and a less expensive model with the same lens, like the Automat? Some people insist that the 2.8E with the Xenotar lens is the "best". Why? I wonder if there really are any true differences between the Rollei models. I used to own the 2.8E and 2.8F models while I was heavily using a 2.8D. In the end, I sold the E and the F because they were too pretty looking.

People argue endlessly and pointlessly about this.
The reality is that the differences among the various
lenses have negligible visible effect. User error will
cause far more problems than the lenses.

 

[tedwhite]

I absolutely agree with Sanders. I have owned three Rolleis - a 'cord with, I believe, a 3.5 Tessar, an Automat, and a 'flex with a 2.8 Xenotar.

As I look at my photographs taken with them, I see nothing that allows me to distinguish the lenses from one another.

Conclusion: They're all excellent.

 

[d_ross]

I use my Rollieflex on a regular basis, I shot this two days ago.

 

[Dogman]

Two Mamiya C330 bodies with 55, 80 and 135 lenses. Seldom used anymore. I use Pentax SLR's for medium format. The Mamiyas do a good job but they're difficult for me to use handheld so they have limited applications. Why do I have the outfit? It's what I used for 35 years before finally being able to afford to buy the Pentax outfit.

Always wanted a Rollei. Almost bought a non-functioning one from a friend once. I took it to a repair shop and was told it would cost more to repair than it was worth.

 

[tedwhite]

D_Ross:

Wonderful photograph. Made me want to duck and run for cover. That's a really nasty looking sky. Having said all of that, the lamp post (if one can call it that) lends an orienting perspective for the viewer. Without it - well, it's not for me to say - but now we know it for what it is. Angry clouds, and the Rollei with its larger negative does an admirable job of capturing the gray scale.

Dogman: I've had both. The Mamiya was a brick, suitable only for studio work. The Pentax 6X7 looks like a Spotmatic on steriods, but is much easier to tote about. Both have the virtue of interchangeable lenses, which the Rollei of course does not (unless you can afford two more Rolleis - the Tele and the RolleiWide - but then you're festooned with three Rolleis and a depleted bank account).

But you really should get a Rolleiflex. It'll teach you a lot about how to take better photographs. Why? Just my opinion: It's slower, contemplative, more time is spent selecting a subject and composing, and if done well, should result in a superior image.

We hope.

Ted

 

[d_ross]

Thanks Ted, believe it or not that was a very nice hot day, and while they were rather exceptional looking the clouds are reasonably common and typical of a certain weather pattern we have here. The Rollieflex is a perfect camera for wandering, if you want big negs. I find it extremely easy to operate, it's not too heavy, and the lens is as good if not better than any other camera Ive used. Most importantly though is the look the rollie gives, it's an aesthetic that would is hard to describe, but I find the same look in my yashica GT as well.

 

[chambrenoire]

I'm interested in buying a Rolleiflex with a 2.8 lens, which one should I get? I prefer using an external lightmeter so it doesn't have to have one built in. Any suggestions? I really like my Yashica Mat though, but 2.8 is way nice on MF.

 

[tedwhite]

I don't think it really matters. Both Zeiss and Schneider lenses are superb. There are those who will argue about what in reality are virtually indistinguishable differences between the Planar and the Xenotar. I happen to have a 2.8 E with the Xenotar, but if the first one I got my hands on had been a Planar I'd be just as happy.

I would tend to shy away from the earlier models - K7A (1949-51) with Zeiss Tessar; K7B (1952-53) with Zeiss Biometar - simply because they are older and more likely to need some work. Or be viewed as collectible and cost more (I'm just guessing about the latter).

The 7B (1952-55) is the first one offering both Planar and Xenotar lenses.

The 4C is, I think, the first one with the meter, although I don't think all of them were meter equipped.

Personally, I would limit my search to the C, E, or F. Then I would spend some dinero for a Maxwell or Beatty screen.

Ted

 

[navilluspm]

I just joined the TLR crowd. I have a Yashicamat LM. I can't wait to use it.

 

[dannynono]

cheaper TLRs

cheaper TLRs

Morca007,

You should be able to find a few entry level TLRs in that range. Ciroflex's will be half that much, Yashicamats are definitely a little more. There are a few others in that category, but I've not worked with them.

You should keep in mind that at that range it wouldn't be the camera of your dreams, but you'd still be learning how to use the format and working with a TLR is one of the best methods for improving your compositional skills.

I currently have a couple Circoflexes (one for parts) that kept me busy a few years back and last spring I picked up a Mamiya C220 w/80mm for the better quality glass and for the close-focusing ability.

attached are a couple images from my first Ciroflex with a wollensak lens:

 

[chippy]

Superfekta

Superfekta

a couple of firsts for me, first post and I have just got my first TLR. a Welta Superafekta 6x9 (about a 1935-39 model).

I would like to give it a run but it needs a little work first, mostly the Mirror is completly degraded and needs replacing. however I'm not sure how to remove it yet. i dont suppose anyone here would either? its pretty old and i dont think many of them are around. apart from that it is pretty good

 

[tedwhite]

Wow! I've never even heard of such a critter. Can you post a picture of it?