Which Rolleiflex?

RayPA

Ignore It (It'll go away)
Local time
5:01 AM
Joined
Jan 28, 2005
Messages
4,417
Location
The GOLDEN State
I've been perusing a few Rollei TLR sites, trying to get a feel for the product line. I see there are two basic offerings a f3.5 and an f2.8. Would anyone care to share opinions on the good, bad and ugly of the various models, and make a recommendation? I've shot with a TLR before, so I'm acquainted with the basic nuances. I think a GAS attack is brewing. Thanks in advance. 😀
 
Honu-Hugger said:
They argue about this on the Rollei site ad nauseum, and not just 3.5 vs 2.8 but Schneider vs Zeiss, too. Good luck!!! (any Rollei TLR seems like a good one)

LOL! 🙂 Thanks, HH. I've not been to that particular Rollei site, but after posting I thought this might be a c.o.w. I hope not. I also figured any Rollei would be a good one, but was looking for a little more detail. 😉
 
Planar and Xenotar are the best, Tessar and Xenar are next (but just as sharp stopped down), followed lastly by the Triotar. You have a choice of f2.8 or f3.5 max aperture. Faster lensed cameras cost more. You have a choice of Rolleiflex and Rolleicord models. 'Flexes cost more as their film advance and shutter tensioning are linked. (independent process on the 'Cords) Of the Rolleiflexes, the more modern series F have slide-off waist-level finders interchangeable with 90 deg. prism finder, and easy change focus screen. The earlier and less expensive series E has a fixed waist-level finder. (removeable with 4 screws)

Personally, I have a Series E Rolleiflex with f3.5 Planar. Also a "Cord with f3.5 Xenar lens.
 
Thanks, Roger. Yeah, TLRs are not for everyone. I think they're an acquired taste. When I first started out many years ago all I shot with was a TLR. I loved the results, but really hated the "old-style" feel to it and the lack of lenses. This was when SLRs were coming out with AE and all the bells and whistles, and I couldn't afford one! I was just a kid, and when I finally got an SLR, I put the TLR into storage for a long time. But I'm starting to get the urge again.
 
FrankS has summed things up fairly well. I have a 3.5F Planar and find that the effort it takes to compose and set the aperture and shutter speed on a totally manual TLR - the only thing not to be trusted on such a camera is the selenium metering - results in a much higher percentage of 'keepers' than with almost any other system.

I encourage you to give it a try.

Merrill
 
Don't the f2.8 lenses give you a brighter finder image than the f3.5 lenses?

I love to carry my Rolleiflex around, but when I want results, I use a Mamiya C330.

-Paul
 
I hate to say it, since you're probablly jonzeing for the Rollei's....

But have you considered a Mamiyaflex? They have interchangeable lenses, viewfinders, etc, and most of them come with bellows.

Very underrated glass in my humble opinion, and they can be picked up quite inexpensively.
For example, you could get a Mamiyaflex C2 (if I remember the model right) along with an 80 2.8, a 65 2.9 and a longer lense of your choice for the same price as a nice Rolleiflex.

Either way, enjoy!
 
I'd sooner have the Rolleiflex.

The speed of the lens is the "taking" lens, not the "viewing" lens of a TLR so the view is not brighter.
 
I've owned a Rolleiflex 3.5F Planar since the late 60's and it's a superb picture maker. I don't use it as much these days because I'm usually shooting 35mm or shooting with a Hasselblad, but the Rollei is great. I replaced the original viewing screen with a Maxwell screen and it's much brighter.

I may be selling my Rollei this year. It's too good a camera to sit in my closet ...

Gene
 
Rolleiflex viewing lenses, as Frank said, are almost always f/2.8 - exceptions are the old series, Automats, equipped w tessars or xenars. But the brightness difference is not too big.

What also should be added, is that a f/2.8 rolleiflex weighs much more than the f/3.5 brothers. I mean, the difference can be as big as 1.6 kg versus 0.9 kg. Automats are even lighter.

Automats are a very good value for the money. The tessar/xenar lenses are excellent. The most important thing that comes when buying an old/ish TLR is to have the lens properly aligned. Should be parallel with the film plane AND should be calibrated to the viewing lens. If this is not perfect, the Planars and Xenotars can produce very bad photos.

"Automat" refers to automatic film frame counter, all the rest is fully manual on the camera.

Rolleicords are cheaper but still very good. Well built, great lenses; only they are a bit slower in operation and always have the dim screen (unless sbody switched it).

Mamiya TLR's are great for the lens system, but you need a cart and an ox to carry the whole system with you. If you can live with that, they are very very cheap for what they can do.
 
FrankS:

I don't have 2.8 Rolleiflex, so I don't know for sure. You mean the 2.8 Rolleiflex has no brighter of a screen than the 3.5 model? The 3.5 has an f3.2 viewing lens. I always assumed the 2.8 model had a slightly faster viewing lens.

The Mamiya C330 lenses have the same viewing lens as the taking lens. In fact I've even heard of people swapping the lenses when one gets scratched.

If that's true I no longer feel envious of those with 2.8 Rolleiflexes.

Regardless of my user preferences, I still think the Rolleiflex is a fine camera.

-Paul
 
My 3.5E Rolleiflex has a 2.8 fiewing lens. In the camera literature they claim this as an advantage, not only in terms of viewing brightness but also in focussing accuracy: that the viewing lens is more critical in DOF than the taking lens. My Rolleicord III is older and has a 3.5 taking lens and I think an f3.2 viewing lens.
 
I have one of the Mamiyaflexes (an older model) and an 80 2.8.
The viewing lens is the same as my taking lens, and all other lenses I've used and seen are the same way.

As far as switching the lenses goes, I'm sure with some tinkering it would work, but I was actually just looking at my 80 2.8 the other day, and I noticed that the taking lens and viewing lens seem to have a different coating.

Don't mean at all to make this a Mamiya vs. Rollei thread, I just wanted to throw in some possibilities. I want to say though, the viewfinder in my Mamiyaflex is quite bright with the 2.8, in fact I think it looks a little better than real life to be honest; more vibrant colors, etc. All the other lenses I've tried have also been quite bright as well, even with some of the slower lenses in the line.
 
RayPA said:
I've been perusing a few Rollei TLR sites, trying to get a feel for the product line. I see there are two basic offerings a f3.5 and an f2.8. Would anyone care to share opinions on the good, bad and ugly of the various models, and make a recommendation? I've shot with a TLR before, so I'm acquainted with the basic nuances. I think a GAS attack is brewing. Thanks in advance. 😀


I have a Rolleiflex T with a 3.5 Tessar taking lens which I bought in the early 60s. I got excellent pictures with it and it is still in good condition but I haven't used it for years other than making certain it is still working.

The Rolleiflex T was the next step up from the Rolleicord. I never used a Rollei with a 2.8 lens so I can't tell you anything about them, but you certainly can get good pictures with a 3.5 Tessar lens.

Dick
 
Back
Top Bottom