I'm gonna tell you what - Rolleiflex appreciation thread

[Huss]

NB needs to try out a Brooks Plaubel Veriwide 100. Would love to see what he can do with it.

Think of it as a cross between a Rolleiflex and Xpan. 6x10 size images on 120 film.

 

[faberryman]

This thread dovetails nicely with the film cult thread.

 

[NB23]

NB needs to try out a Brooks Plaubel Veriwide 100. Would love to see what he can do with it.

Think of it as a cross between a Rolleiflex and Xpan. 6x10 size images on 120 film.

I will try one, one day

 

[Vaughn]

NB needs to try out a Brooks Plaubel Veriwide 100. Would love to see what he can do with it.

Think of it as a cross between a Rolleiflex and Xpan. 6x10 size images on 120 film.

I had fun with one in Kyoto.

Rainy Day in Kyoto, 2017 (from my son's apartment)
Platinum print

 

[mshchem]

Remember the good old days when making a pair of pants required twice as much fabric as it does today.

 

[JensH]

I think the original Tessar would be fine. But I don't think it's coated. Has anyone tried that?

Hi,

the original Tessar on Rolleiflexes, 4.5/7.5cm is still my favourite 6x6 lens. Uncoated but not prone to flare.
Hard to describe why I like them better than all the other 75mm lenses...

Jens

 

[Down Under]

mschem, this is truly hitting below the belt!!

After a lifetime of having used almost every Rolleiflex/Rolleicord ever made, I believe no Rollei was ever made with a bad lens - not even excepting the original Tessar on the first eve 1940s Rollei 2.8 made, which apparently had horrible bokeh (if anyone cares) and was prone to flare. This said, I know someone who has one of these beasts in his collection, uses it from time to time to shoot off a roll as he (like many of us) tries to put a roll thru every one of his cameras once every year, and insists there is absolutely nothing wrong with the lens.

The old Automats were amazing cameras, photographers in the '40s and '50s used them to photograph everything under the sun for media publication and if we look back in all those old magazines and books, those images were superb. Times have changed and everything has moved on but the old timeless photographs are just that, timeless and will be remembered and enjoyed long after almost all the digicrap posted online nowadays has vanished from memory if not from sight.

 

[mshchem]

THIS IS WHAT I WAS SMILEY FACEING. I LOVE THE ROLLIES WISH I HAD THE EXTRA MONEY

 

[Bill Burk]

Hi,

the original Tessar on Rolleiflexes, 4.5/7.5cm is still my favourite 6x6 lens. Uncoated but not prone to flare.
Hard to describe why I like them better than all the other 75mm lenses...

Jens

Thanks! Mine had significant cleaning marks (which explains how I got it for sixty bucks). I did find it sharp but very flare prone. That’s because it was damaged.

 

[lobitar]

This grandma agrees! Rolleis rock!

Is this the 2.8 Biometar?

 

[lobitar]

I had fun with one in Kyoto.

Rainy Day in Kyoto, 2017 (from my son's apartment)
Platinum print

Beautiful print - even if rainy!

 

[JPD]

I think the original Tessar would be fine. But I don't think it's coated. Has anyone tried that?

the original Tessar on Rolleiflexes, 4.5/7.5cm is still my favourite 6x6 lens. Uncoated but not prone to flare.
Hard to describe why I like them better than all the other 75mm lenses...

The uncoated 3,5 Tessars on my Rolleiflex Standard and 1939 Automat are as sharp as the coated Tessar on my 3,5 B. I always use the sun shade and don't have any problems with flare. I think the negatives taken with the uncoated Tessars are easier to print, maybe because the slightly lower contrast bring out more details in the shadows.

I do have the 4,5/75 Tessar on one of my Rolleiflex Standards, but I have trouble focusing with these cameras. They have a slower viewing lens and low-geared focusing mechanism. I have to turn the focus knob back and forth too many times and then still not be sure if the focus is spot on or not. Focusing is much easier and faster with the Automat.

 

[JensH]

The uncoated 3,5 Tessars on my Rolleiflex Standard and 1939 Automat are as sharp as the coated Tessar on my 3,5 B. I always use the sun shade and don't have any problems with flare. I think the negatives taken with the uncoated Tessars are easier to print, maybe because the slightly lower contrast bring out more details in the shadows.

I do have the 4,5/75 Tessar on one of my Rolleiflex Standards, but I have trouble focusing with these cameras. They have a slower viewing lens and low-geared focusing mechanism. I have to turn the focus knob back and forth too many times and then still not be sure if the focus is spot on or not. Focusing is much easier and faster with the Automat.

Hi JPD!

Agree, that focusing an Automat is easier... I had some (1937, 1939, 3.5B), too. Kept the 1937.
But if the "focussing screws" of the older models are free of hard grease and the mirror is fine, I don't feel much difference.
Indeed the Rolleiflex Original and Standard have a f/3.1 viewing lens not a f/2.8.

Best wishes
Jens

 

[JensH]

Actually, I have 3 Photograohic passions: the Xpan, Rolleiflexes, Leicas. My problem is that I can shoot any format equally well. Going from Pano to square is easy to the point that I don’t even notice. I just frame.

I understand that for some people, square is impossible to work with, always needing to crop. And for others, the pano format is mind boggling. In my case, I work them all equally.

On trips, or important projects, whenever I mix my Leicas with the Xpan or a Rolleiflex, I end up not using the Leica.

How funny is that: my main camera always ends up being number two (or three) when there’s a Rollei or a Xpan around. Is it truly a main camera, after all?

-The Xpan is the greatest engineered film camera ever made. Too many things to mention but it all boils down to mind boggling Quality and technical prowesses in a tiny, powerhouse package.

Not for every day life, great for important trips, serious projects.

- Leica, every day use, best companion. Such a lovey toy/tool. Fondle action. Heanly mechanical feel, addictive.
The problem with Leica is that, truly, it is mistaken for what it is. It’s addictive for sure, but it’s not a rolleiflex.
The never ending search for the magical glass/look/optical rendering is actually quite simple: people are looking for the rolleiflex look, but in the Leica land. Folks want the medium format magic, but from a Leica.

-Rolleiflex: Pure poetry. Pure artistry. From the camera itself (a true, beautiful design), to the photographic output. Poetry.

Difficult to compete on the “portability” front, versus Leica, but he (and she) who has the guts to use a Rollei as an every day camera will be immensely rewarded by TRULY poetic images. Just by the optics: the richness, the feel. This is what Leica users are chasing without understanding; the ELUSIVE Leica look is the STANDARD Rolleiflex look.

—-

.. Magical stuff. The Best? 3.5F planar and 2.8F Xenotar. Meaty images, just so full of meat. Juicy. Wet rendering, as opposed to Dry rendering with the Tessar on the ikoflex. And so on.

But while the 6000+ prints of my kids I’ve shot with the Leicas were, after all, normal, standard to my eyes, with bot much magic going on, the Rolleiflex stuff is magical from print to print. Yes, medium format plays a definitive role, but the whole Rolleiflex experience, with its slightly debilitating, yet addictive, quirks is a way of life, in the end.

This was my HIGHLY subjective opinion.

Great post, agree on most points, but have to promote the 4.5 Tessar into your hall of fame next to the 3.5F planar and 2.8F Xenotar...

Sure a subjective opinion. too. After using several 4.5, 3.8, 3.5, 3.5 coated 7.5cm Tessars and a 3.5F Planar....

 

[cliveh]

A Rolleiflex is one of the best film cameras ever made, but in operational terms it doesn't match the speed of capture that you can make with a Leica.