Fun Cheap TLR's

GaryFlorida · Apr 1, 2015

Richard Sintchak (rich815) said:
Firing up a thread untouched for 9 years!

aint the internet great? Time stands still online. I love when I get a pm on a forum I havent checked for 5 years and then I answer back. ahahhahaha.

BetterSense · Apr 1, 2015

The sad thing is the prices... I don't think we will see $50 Yashicas like we did 9 years ago.

bergytone · Apr 1, 2015

Ive got an Argoflex which is a model E I think...bakelite body. Needs an overhaul. Just finished an overhaul on an argus 40, which has a similar set of glass. I cant wait to shoot with it, it may become a favorite little tlr. I have a Ricohflex which I was a little disappointed with the vignetting I saw , even with the relatively fast lens. Too many cameras, too little time!

Roger Cole · Apr 2, 2015

waynecrider said:
I've see em priced as high as $150 or more. You got a pretty good deal if it as clean.

I paid about $140 best I recall for my 124 non-G (more rare since fewer were made, the differences are more chrome, less black on the non-G, gold plated flash synch contacts on the G (thus the G) and reportedly different wind gears that may actually be more durable on the non-G. They certainly sound different on winding.)

Maybe more than you want but I like mine a lot. In fact I think of all my cameras I enjoy using it the most.

Lee Rust · Apr 2, 2015

The Ciro-flex is still pretty inexpensive. I found one recently for just about $40. Very basic mechanically, but the lenses and shutter are fine. The similar Graflex 22's now go for well over $100.

zanxion72 · Apr 2, 2015

Get a Lubitel. Its triplet lens is pretty sharp. The only draw back is its rear red window that makes certain backing papers hard to read. Other than that it delivers surprisingly good results and it is fun to use.

Steve Smith · Apr 2, 2015

Mongo said:
Excepting possibly the Yashica 24, which only takes 220 film and will therefore limit your choice in film

If you put some paper spacers on the outer rails, that will leave enough of a gap between the inner rails and the (incorrectly named) pressure plate to allow 120 film and backing paper to pass through.

Some 24s have a start mark for 120 film. Just remember to stop taking photographs after No. 12!

Steve.

02Pilot · Apr 2, 2015

Barring finding a steal on something that should cost more, the best cheap entries into the TLR world have got to be the Ciroflex and the Lubitel.

I started with the former, and the most basic one at that: a Model D, with the Alphax shutter and triplet lens. It's bigger than most TLRs and not the most solid-feeling (stamped steel versus cast aluminum), but it takes more than decent photos and is plenty sharp stopped down.

My girlfriend started with a Lubitel. Smaller, lighter, and cheaper than even the Ciroflex, but again, perfectly capable. Easier to carry, too; much better for travel than the bulky Ciroflex.

We've both graduated to more advanced models (me to a Rolleiflex Old Standard and a Mamiyaflex Automat A, she to a Mamiya C330), but if it came down to it, the entry-level models would do just fine, though without some of the mechanical finesse to which we've become accustomed.

OptiKen · Apr 2, 2015

Another vote for the CiroFlex.
Surprisingly excellent, sharp photos from mine. I don't know what model I have but it feels very solid to me.

r.reeder · Apr 2, 2015

waynecrider said:
Does anyone have any rec's for a cheap and fun TLR around a $100 or under that is reasonably good. The Rollei prices are too much, and the 124G's although not as pricey I've have heard can have focus gear problems. I've a Ricoh VI but the lens is bad and I don't have anything that quite replaces it with a 1" rear diameter so time for something different.

Late 1940's Ciroflex TLR's are good cameras. I've got an Alphax shutter (1/10 sec to 1/200 sec) as well as a Rapax shutter (1 sec to 1/400 sec) (I can't remember the model letters.), both were $35 or $40 a couple of years ago, & they yield good photos. They take 120 film, to boot. I've also got an Ikoflex IIA from around 1951; all are good.

GaryFlorida · Apr 2, 2015

r.reeder said:
Late 1940's Ciroflex TLR's are good cameras. I've got an Alphax shutter (1/10 sec to 1/200 sec) as well as a Rapax shutter (1 sec to 1/400 sec) (I can't remember the model letters.), both were $35 or $40 a couple of years ago, & they yield good photos. They take 120 film, to boot. I've also got an Ikoflex IIA from around 1951; all are good.

do you notice any difference between the Rapax lens and the Alphax lens?

GaryFlorida · Apr 2, 2015

02Pilot said:
Barring finding a steal on something that should cost more, the best cheap entries into the TLR world have got to be the Ciroflex and the Lubitel.

I started with the former, and the most basic one at that: a Model D, with the Alphax shutter and triplet lens. It's bigger than most TLRs and not the most solid-feeling (stamped steel versus cast aluminum), but it takes more than decent photos and is plenty sharp stopped down.

My girlfriend started with a Lubitel. Smaller, lighter, and cheaper than even the Ciroflex, but again, perfectly capable. Easier to carry, too; much better for travel than the bulky Ciroflex.

We've both graduated to more advanced models (me to a Rolleiflex Old Standard and a Mamiyaflex Automat A, she to a Mamiya C330), but if it came down to it, the entry-level models would do just fine, though without some of the mechanical finesse to which we've become accustomed.

how does the Ciroflex copare to the Rolleicord size wise? I like the size of the Argoflex EM or 40 but alas the 40 is quite limited.

02Pilot · Apr 2, 2015

GaryFlorida said:
how does the Ciroflex copare to the Rolleicord size wise? I like the size of the Argoflex EM or 40 but alas the 40 is quite limited.

I just matched my Ciroflex up to my Mamiyaflex Automat A, the latter being almost identical to a Rolleicord. The Ciroflex is maybe a half an inch taller, and the lenses project about an inch further out from the body. I think the difference in depth is due primarily to the shutter on the Ciroflex being external, while it is internal on the Mamiyaflex and the Rolleicord. It's not a huge difference, but the Ciroflex always struck me as notably larger (I'm actually surprised how small the differences actually are).

GaryFlorida · Sep 23, 2024

Richard S. (rich815) said:
Firing up a thread untouched for 9 years!

Firing it up again. I love the Argoflex EF!! Wow the time flies by.

JPD · Sep 23, 2024

19 year old thread and no one has mentioned the Reflekta II, that can be found with the popular Meyer Trioplan lens.

FotoD · Sep 23, 2024

Today you may have to buy this to stay below $100:

See you in 9 years.

GaryFlorida · Sep 23, 2024

FotoD said:
Today you may have to buy this to stay below $100:

View attachment 379203

See you in 9 years.

Lol

xya · Sep 23, 2024

But there are quite a few under 100$ now. The Reflecta, yes, The Lomo Lubitel, even a working Olympic version sometimes, and the Voigtländer Brillant S, different from the non-TLR Brillant non-S. The latter 2 you can see here https://www.oddcameras.com/tlr.htm I still have to add the Reflecta and the Weltaflex...

250swb · Sep 24, 2024

I bought a Lubitel 166 in a junk shop thinking it may be similar to my Holga and I'd use it for that dreamy OOF look. How wrong I was, the lens is pretty sharp and delivers very decent results and the only problem I have is focusing on the ground glass which isn't the brightest on a TLR. I wouldn't pay more than £30 secondhand for one because above that I think you're paying for the 'cult status' built up by the Lomo crowd, but it's a camera worth keeping an eye open for.

henryvk · Sep 24, 2024

The Lubitel 166 is not a toy camera; it's a misunderstood, quality triplet with a very challenging focusing screen whose main advantage imo is that it is by far the smallest and lightest TLR.

Now fight me

Dali · Sep 24, 2024

henryvk said:
The Lubitel 166 is not a toy camera; it's a misunderstood, quality triplet with a very challenging focusing screen whose main advantage imo is that it is by far the smallest and lightest TLR.

Now fight me

No reason to fight as you are right in your statement.

Donald Qualls · Sep 24, 2024

Won't hear me disagreeing. The only reason I haven't put more effort into getting one is the "very challenging focusing screen". I'd sure like to get another Seagull TLR, though...

blee1996 · Sep 24, 2024

For a cheap but still very ergonomic TLR, I will recommend a mid-later model Ikoflex with Novar 75/3.5 lens. The screen is very bright (with fresnel), full range of speed and aperture control, and high quality triplet lens. One common problem with Ikoflex is stiff focusing due to dried out grease, but you can still find ones that are tight but still tolerable.

JPD · Sep 24, 2024

henryvk said:
The Lubitel 166 is not a toy camera; it's a misunderstood, quality triplet with a very challenging focusing screen whose main advantage imo is that it is by far the smallest and lightest TLR.

Now fight me

No fight. The Lubitel is derived from the Voigtländer Brillant, that already in the humble beginning, with zone focusing and Brilliant finder, was designed to take good photos.

joelbolden · Sep 24, 2024

Glenn Mathison said:
The meter on my LM works reasonably well and agrees with my handheld meter to within a 1/2 stop or so. Not so good in poor light of course. I never bother with the internal meter as I always have the handheld meter with me.

hth.

Glenn

I recently acquire a Yashica LM44(127 format) in excellent condition and shot my first roll(Shanghai Film's Gold200) through it using the camera's meter. I've since shot a second roll, using the meter, in some dark conditions (EV2) and am waiting for the scans. Here's 3 pics from the first roll: First is very gloomy day, second is into the sun and came back underexposed(it was edited for exposure), and the third is in clear sunlight.

Fun Cheap TLR's

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency