How nice are higher end TLR's?

[Ces1um]

I have a lubitel 166u. I absolutely love the way it works but I really wish the gearing was metal. I wish my bulb mode didn't stick. I wish the focusing screen was easier to see. Other than that I have few complaints. It's small size is fantastic and it's weight is very manageable. All that being said, I was wondering how the experience of shooting a high end TLR differs from what I'm getting out of the Lubitel. Do people generally enjoy shooting them? They look heavy to lug around, are they? Are the shutter mechanisms much smoother? I'd love to get a feel for what a good quality TLR is like compared to what I experience. How do you feel about your TLR's?

 

[rrusso]

I briefly owned a Rolleiflex 2.8, which I purchased in what was advertised as "good" condition. It wasn't. Lenses were scratched, focus was "grindy", and both the aperture and shutter speed dials were difficult to turn. Because I had gotten it at a good price, I still ran a roll through it, since it's really about the quality of the image. They were terrible, and I returned it.

I now own a very nice Yashica D which I'm very happy with. Some things about the Yashica seem a bit flimsy compared to the Rollei, but that's ok.

If the Rollei had produced images consistent with what they're known for, I'd have kept it.

If you're happy with the quality of the images the Lubitel gives you, don't concern yourself about what the experience of using a Rollei* is like.

* Or insert other brand here.

 

[R.Gould]

I have 3 high end tlr's, a Rolleiflex,rolleicord and a English microcord, and I have used a Lubitel in my dim and distant past, and the difference is as different as chalk and cheese, the Rolleis and Microcord are solid, they a=may look heavy but are easy to carry trekking all day, the focusing is smooth, the lenses are on one lens board and move via a knob on the side, as does the film winder, all automatic, with the cord's wind untill the film arrows line up with the red dots and close the back,with the Flex, an Automat, thread the film between the rollers,close the back and wind with the handle on the side, very smooth, the Shutters on the Rolleis are compurs, speeded to 500, and very quite, the backs on all 3 cameras lock well, I remember with the Lubital it opening easly if not closed firmly, no such problems with the cord's and flex, I love my Tlr's, and use them a lot, if I am taking something that is important then it is to a Tlr I go, all 3 are reliable, with great lenses, easy almost instinctive to use, While the Lubital can take good problems for me the cords and flex are the rolls royce of Tlr's.once you se one then you will not go back to the Lubital, and none of them cost me an arm and a leg, the Flex I got, from a dealer, for around £90 GBP, the cord was about £110, and the Microcord was £119 GBP, great value for money,
Richard

 

[summicron1]

If you like what you get from the Lubitel, go ahead and use it. Finer machines tend to not have the niggling mechanical issues you complain of -- quality build will show -- but what the heck. They ARE very nice to use -- I just souped a cupla rolls I shot with a Rolleicord and was, as always, blown away by the image quality.

I would flock -- black felt or perhaps just matt black paint -- the inside of the Lubitel to cut down on on internal reflections, which will muddy your images. Be sure to mask off the inside lens first if you use paint -- get the flattest, deadest black primer the auto store has. I did this with my Sputnik stereo (essentially two lubitels glued together) and it makes a big difference.

 

[bvy]

I have a Lubitel 2 and I have a Yashica Mat 124G. The Yashica is bulky and heavy, but focusing is a breeze and the lens is sharp. The Lubitel is lighter and much easier to carry. Focusing is impossible; I gave up. I now zone focus or scale focus and hope for the best. Why do I bother with it? The images have a certain charm that no other camera I have can reproduce. More saturation, swirly-ish bokeh, yet still quite sharp when you nail the focus.

So it's a trade off.

 

[Fixcinater]

The 2.8 Rolleis are heavy, but still balance well and I prefer the 80mm over 75mm (same for the Japanese copies that have 80mm) for my use.

The Bay I models are quite light, and the Rolleicord or equivalent knob wind Yashicas/other Japanese copies are quite friendly for weight.

A good condition Yashica or Minolta Autocord doesn't leave too much to be desired. The Planar models are a notch above but if you normally shoot fast film or have the lens stopped down for your work anyway, it's not really a concern IMO.

 

[saman13]

I really like both my TLRs, although neither of them are “high end” German ones. I have a Mamiyaflex C2 which I love. It does everything right in my opinion, except for the heft. It’s pretty heavy for a TLR, but lighter than the later Mamiyas and other MF ILCs.
My other one is a Yashica D I picked up very recently for under $35. It’s in great shape and has the same smooth functionings as my Mamiyaflex and Nikon F2. All high quality builds and enjoyable to use. I can’t see these yashicas (not called a Yashicamat 124-G) costing much more than a Lubitel, so why not try one out?

 

[Gerald C Koch]

The Rollei's and the Mamiya C's are what are termed professional quality. They are build to withstand daily use. If you wish to buy a Yashica make sure it has a 4 element lens. The triplets are poorer picture takers. Overall the Yashicas have adequate construction but not fro day in day out use. I would not even consider the Luubitel.

 

[saman13]

Poor composition has ruined many more photos for me than a lens element has.

 

[Ian Grant]

If you want the greatest flexibility then the Mamiya C series is ideal as there's inter-changeable lenses available, the downside is an increase in size.weight over YAshica's and Rollei's.

I have a Rolleiflex 3.5E2 but it needed a full CLA as it had only had less than a dozen films through it from new when I was given it. I use a Yashicamat 124 when I'm in Turkey (I leave it there) it's a lovely camera to use but definitely not as well made as a Rolleiflex. I picked up a Rolleiflex Automat 3.5 Opton Tessar at a flea market 2 or 3 years ago and now us it more than the 3.5E2 (which is mint) it was very cheap - I bought other items from the same seller (on a different day) and I think he must have had it serviced as it's in superb condition.

TLR's are great fun and easy to shoot with, I really enjoy the square format but I need a half decent lens and shutter, the Opton Tessar and Yashinon are very good, I have a Microcord with and Xpres and that's a touch sharper as is my F3.4 Xenotar.

Ian

 

[Alan Gales]

I own a Mamiya C220f. It is larger and heavier than other brand TLR's. to give you an idea, it weighs the same as my old Hasselblad 500CM. The C330's are a little heavier. The Mamiyas are the only choice if you need interchangeable lenses.

I recently bought a Minolta Autocord. I love the way it feels in my hands and the way it focusses. It is both smaller and lighter than the C220f. You might try the Autocord. They are pretty inexpensive.

I weighed my C220f with the 105mm DS lens attached. It weighed 3 lbs. and 9.5 oz. My Autocord weighs 2 lbs 2.9 oz. It's not a lot of difference but it feels like more than it is for some reason. I guess the size difference is playing into it too.

 

[cramej]

The Lubitel operates like a toy compared to even a Yashicamat. Anything will be nicer to use than that. I have used 2 of the Lubitel's and I eventually turned one into a pinhole camera with a shutter. I still don't use it.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

A Rolleiflex (2.8 or 3.5) is a thing of beauty and a joy to use. A bullet to the wallet if you have to have it serviced, but once done, you've got a camera that is good to go for decades. My only major gripe with my Rolleis (and to call it a major gripe is overstating it a bit) is that the focusing screens are dim. That of course can be remedied. But I've taken mine to New York City, Paris, Rome, Florence, and Mexico City, as well as using them around Washington DC, and they've held up nicely.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I have a lubitel 166u. I absolutely love the way it works but I really wish the gearing was metal. I wish my bulb mode didn't stick. I wish the focusing screen was easier to see. Other than that I have few complaints. It's small size is fantastic and it's weight is very manageable. All that being said, I was wondering how the experience of shooting a high end TLR differs from what I'm getting out of the Lubitel. Do people generally enjoy shooting them? They look heavy to lug around, are they? Are the shutter mechanisms much smoother? I'd love to get a feel for what a good quality TLR is like compared to what I experience. How do you feel about your TLR's?

Lubitel = Yugo (car), Rolleiflex = Mercedes-Benz 450 SEL.
I have a Rolleiflex Automat K4B2 from 1946 and a pre war Rolleiflex Standard from 1937-8, both with f:3.5 Tessars. They're superb, if in clean well lubricated condition - nothing else like one. They aren't particularly heavy, no more so than a Nikon F or f2, the lenses are excellent, etc. etc.. The Leica of medium format. Easy to hold steady, lots and lots of really neat accessories, (with a Rolleikin 1 I can use 35mm film in my '46 Automat), they usually have an eye-level sports finder built into the hood - my Automat also has a mirror that lets you focus on the center of the GG while using the sports finder.
Do your due diligence, buy one, if you don't like it sell it on and get your money back.

 

[MattKing]

I've used a Mamiya C330 since the 1970s. I don't find the size or weight objectionable, and (to give you context) my 35mm preference is Olympus OM.
The C330s are incredibly capable, professional quality system cameras. C220s are a bit simpler, and a bit lighter and while compared to the C330 they lack some features, their quality is the same. I used one for a while as a backup to the C330.
One thing you might consider is that while the C series Mamiya TLRs are relatively large and heavy with one lens, if you have a body plus one or two lenses, the total package is relatively light and compact for a three lens, medium format kit.
I used to use my C330 to do wedding photos (for clients). It was a great camera for that.
If you are looking for smaller, the medium format folders are nice, although my experience is with the scale focusing versions.
If someone were to give me a Rollieflex in good condition, my experience with the C330 tells me that I could get good results out of the Rollieflex (operator limitations excluded). I expect I could get good results of the other (non Lubitel) TLRs mentioned here. You probably can too.

 

[etn]

To many, "high-end TLR" means Rolleiflex. I became enamored with TLRs with a Yashicamat, then in 2006 I eventually bought what was (and still is) for me the "ultimate" TLR: a Rollei 2.8FX. A crazy buy (I bought it brand new!) but the only camera I used for almost 10 years. It has been everywhere with me during that time and created some of the most beautiful images I ever made. It is very reliable, has top notch optics, a very bright ground glass, a precise modern meter. A much better experience than the Yashicamat indeed!

I also found (much later) a bargain condition 2.8E at a too-good-to-pass bargain price. Although nice, it is not comparable. The ground glass is very dim and as stated in other posts, condition plays a role. This particular one is also not as reliable (the autoloading mechanism failed on me a couple times), but I like the look it produces with B&W pics.

To answer your question, I would say that indeed high end TLRs are nice. The difference vs lower end cameras is mostly in handling - only you can tell if it is worth the price tag. Lower end TLRs still produce beautiful pictures - it's medium format after all! If you decide to fork out the money for one, be careful when buying, most of them are over 40 years old with a high "mileage". Many have been used extensively by press photographers. If you have the funds and are serious about TLRs, a more modern Rollei 2.8FX or GX is definitely worth considering. Current prices go for $2000 to $3000 on the used market. The good thing is, you are not losing any value if you decide to resell it later (possibly even making a profit).

Those days I am more using my Hasselblad (bought in December 2015), mainly for the film backs and lens interchangeability, but the 2.8FX is the last camera I will ever sell. To me, it is the perfect walkaround package, ideal for traveling. The one-lens-only approach is a welcome limitation which stimulates creativity. To be honest, if I haven't had the funds to buy the Hassy I would still happily use my Rolleiflex and look no further. But let's not start a Rolleiflex vs. Hasselblad discussion here. Besides being out of topic, it's like comparing apples to oranges, both are great, both have their place. They are more complementary than anything else!

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Don't ignore the British Microcord or the Czech Flexaret. Both are more than competent, and while maybe not quite as gorgeously made as a Rolleiflex, they don't suck either.

 

[dasBlute]

If I could only keep one camera, it'd be the Rolleiflex. Once serviced, all the problems are behind the camera, if you know what I mean

 

[Cholentpot]

I love my Lubitel 2. Took a handful of rolls until I figured out how to use the focus screen but once I got it the camera performs fine. Is it as nice as a rolli or mamiya? No, but I got it for about $35 so I'm not complaining. It came mint with a flocked interior and a bonus yellow filter. I have a Ricoflex VIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII that vignettes something awful but the Lubitel stands on it's own merit.

Lubitel 2, Tmax 400.

 

[Paul Howell]

You get what you pay for. I have used Rolleiflex's in the AF, owned a Konica Omegaflex,(not really a TLR), Mamyia C33, and currently own a Yaschia 124 and couple of Ds. In terms of image quality, I give a nod to the Mamyia C with 80mm 2.8. In terms of build quality the Rolleiflex, overall best value the Yashica D with 4 element lens, lightest with fast handling, the 124G.

 

[jgoody]

I have a Minolta Autocord and it's a fine camera. It is smooth, takes excellent pictures, and feels solid. The only issue with the Autocord is that the focus lever can get sticky (due to old hardened grease) and should not be forced; in that case it needs a clean and regrease. I haven't had that issue. In 35mm rangefinders I have a Canon P and a Canon 7, and the Minolta seems of equal fine build quality. Don't know if the Rolleiflex is better - perhaps it is. The f2.8 lens on some Rollei models would be nice - the Autocord is f3.5.

 

[phrons]

Quality of light and technique are more important.

But, this seems more like a question of the heart.

Your heart seems set on something more.

With how prices are these days, you can get back your money if you do not like the different experience.

 

[grahamp]

Bear in mind that you will not find many new TLRs, so their current state has to be considered. My YashicaMat has been a travel camera, or backup travel camera for a number of years. If I had to grab one camera with the house on fire, that would be it. Not because it is the 'best', but because it suits me - it sits in the middle. It is more portable than the 5x4 and 8x10, has a screen compared to the MF rangefinders, and is more portable than the C330 kit.

Would I go from a Lubitel to a Yashica/Rollei/Minolta/...? Only if I was sure that a TLR is the way I wanted to go.

 

[RichardJack]

I used a Rollieflex 2.8F and 3.5F with Planar lenses and they were beautiful. They handled easily, a joy to carry around and they produced great images. The only drawback was their non TTL CDS meter. Other than for collecting purposes, I wouldn't give up my DSLR for one. Yashica shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence, their lenses are soft. Minolta had great optics but the camera didn't handle well. Mamiya is almost as good optically but a big tank, I'd choose a 6x6 SLR over one of those (and did).
This is just one guys test and opinions but I agree with his TLR findings:
http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/MF_testing.html

 

[JensH]

Hi,

I would say: Yes, get a Rolleiflex and see how it feels for you.
A 3.5A or any of the post-war Automats with coated 3.5/75mm Tessar are great but not too expensive.

I used a lot of TLR since the 1990s.

First was a Seagull, the ugliest camera I ever touched, even smelled bad...
Then a Rolleiflex 3,5F, great camera and optics, a bit too heavy.
Then a 3.5A, I loved it, but it was my brothers camera, he sold it.
Next was a 1937 first edition Automat, uncoated Tessar 3.5/75mm, still like to use it sometimes.
A 1934 Standard old, fine camera, sports finder but I don't like the look/design.
Finally some 1929 Rolleiflex Original, my most used and favourite MF camera, slower handling, a bit fragile finder, film needs to be respoold or cut to 620 size... But I love their feeling and the negatives. (https://www.flickr.com/photos/136145166@N02/albums/72157665628017552)

Best
Jens