Planning on buying a Rolleiflex, 2.8 Vs 3.5?

[Steven Lee]

Since we're sharing personal Rolleiflex stories, here's mine: I also couldn't decide which one to get. I devised a plan to buy both the 2.8F and 3.5F, expose a few rolls of film with each, pick a favorite and sell the other one. Don't do this. Big mistake. I now have 3 and I can't even recall how the 3rd one materialized.

You've been warned!

 

[albireo]

I once had a Rolleiflex with the f3.5 Xenotar lens, and it was not especially sharp. My Rokkor lens on the Autocord is sharper. I sold the Rolleiflex.

Condition is everything. You probably had a faulty or malfunctioning Rolleiflex. So many knackered samples about, sadly.

I own several TLRs, with the following 4 in heavy rotation: an Autocord, two xenar Rolleicords, a Rolleiflex 3.5F Planar. All CLAd, all in as new condition. Additionally, the 3.5 F was entirely rebuilt and recalibrated by the Rolleiflex guru, Magicflex.

My Autocord takes pictures that are indistinguishable from those of my Rolleicord Va and Vb (not better, not worse: indistinguishable) and my 6-element Planar 3.5F at f/11 or smaller.

However, f/5.6-f/8, the fully CLAd Rolleiflex is noticeably different (some would say 'sharper'? 'better'? I'll go with different) than the Rolleicords and the Autocord. At 3.5, my 3.5F is a world away from the Autocord and Rolleicords.

I'm not dissing the Autocord/Rolleicords: in fact my Va is my favourite camera of all times: light as a feather, amazing lens, robust and quiet.

Also, it should be noted that the Autocord (as much as I love mine, I've taken some of my all time favourite pictures with it) is much more fragile than the Rolleiflex, and more 'pedestrian' in build quality.

I know people really love their Autocords - the camera is a legend and deserves the accolades - but a well calibrated 3.5 Planar/Xenotar is something else.

 

[retina_restoration]

Condition is everything. You probably had a faulty or malfunctioning Rolleiflex.

I have several TLRs, with the following 4 in heavy rotation: an Autocord, two xenar Rolleicords, a Rolleiflex 3.5F Planar. All CLAd with lenses in mint condition. The 3.5 F was entirely rebuilt by the Rolleiflex guru, Magicflex.

My Autocord takes pictures that are indistinguishable from those of my Rolleicord Va and Vb (not better, not worse: indistinguishable) and my 6-element Planar 3.5F at f/11 or smaller.

However, f/5.6-f/8, the fully CLAd Rolleiflex is noticeably different (some would say 'sharper'? 'better'? I'll go with different) than the Rolleicords and the Autocord. At 3.5, my 3.5F is a world away from the Autocord and Rolleicords.

I'm not dissing the Autocord/Rolleicords: in fact my Va is my favourite camera of all times: light as a feather, amazing lens, robust and quiet.

Also, regarding the Autocord - as much as I love mine, I've taken some of my all time favourite pictures with it - is much, much more fragile than the Rolleiflex.

I know people really want to love their Autocords, but a well calibrated 3.5 Planar/Xenotar is something else.

Nope. It was serviced and collimated by Harry Fleenor. It was in excellent condition.

 

[albireo]

Nope. It was serviced and collimated by Harry Fleenor. It was in excellent condition.

I'd recommend a second try with another sample.

There are some really heavily abused Rolleis around, many invisibly so. Some routine CLAs don't fix everything.

Also repairmen get old, make mistakes. Sometimes they'll offload the job to a son or a wife (happened to me once).

 

[retina_restoration]

I'd recommend a second try with another sample.

There are some really heavily abused Rolleis around, many invisibly so. Some routine CLAs don't fix everything.

Also repairmen get old, make mistakes. Sometimes they'll offload the job to a son or a wife (happened to me once).

It's possible that mine was not an ideal example (I'm sure every manufacturer occasionally sent out a mediocre example of even their best glass), I'll concede that. But I rather doubt that Harry Fleenor performed a less than exemplary job on the camera.

When I say that the Xenotar lens on my Rollei wasn't as sharp as the Rokkor on my Autocord, the difference was very small, but enough to be perceptible. It's not like I said that it was a blurry train wreck - just less sharp than the Rokkor.

 

[Rayt]

if you say the Rokkor is sharper than the Xenotar then perhaps it is. The Rokkor is a sharp lens with higher contrast this is true.

 

[albireo]

Right - Xenotar. I had missed that detail - apologies. Well I don't know about the Xenotar, as I've never tested one. My 3.5 F has a 6 element Planar.

In my comparative tests (same film, same tripod, same development, same scanning setup, same subject, same lighting) the Planar in my 3.5F is significantly better than the Rokkor in my Autocord III at apertures larger than f/8, and indistinguishable in an ABX blind test at apertures smaller than f/11.

 

[Dan Daniel]

if you say the Rokkor is sharper than the Xenotar then perhaps it is. The Rokkor is a sharp lens with higher contrast this is true.

This is sample-based. I had a Xenotar (~1954) that I would have put up against any lens. Including a Kodak Ektar 100mm f/3.5, considered one of the absolute sharpest field lenses made. Then again, someone here has had a few copies of that Ektar and found them all unsharp. And among tessar-types, I had a 1949 Xenar on a Rolleiflex that was the sharpest I've ever used. And I've used the Rokkors on Autocords and had great results. Variation in both grinding and assembly, and optical bench assessment to create matched sets... I seem to hear more variance in Xenotars than Planars and such over the years but this isn't any studied issue for me, just aggregated hearsay

Well, I usually shoot at f/8 or smaller so I'll go with albireo- they are all good at small apertures. If you don't like a lens, then don't use it. Use another sample, or another type of lens. Seems this is what everyone falls into eventually.

And as a palette cleanser, I will revisit one of my favorite photo books of all time, Nancy Rexroth's 'Iowa'

Photography Book IOWA - Nancy Rexroth Photographer

Nancy Rexroth's 1977 Fine Art Photography cult classic Diana Camera book IOWA is being republished by the University of Texas Press in Spring 2017. fine art photography female

www.nancyrexroth.com

 

[Rolleiflexible]

And as a palette cleanser, I will revisit one of my favorite photo books of all time, Nancy Rexroth's 'Iowa'

Spectacular image. Clearly Ms. Rexroth did not choose the sharpest lens. (Few real photographers do.)

 

[Rayt]

I don’t shoot with Rolleiflex because they are ”sharp and contrasty“ but rather for the tonality with b/w film. Maybe it’s the Zeiss look I get with the 3.5 Planar if that’s such a thing - smooth and sharp like glass. So if sharp and contrasty is the thang then ok.

 

[albireo]

Spectacular image. Clearly Ms. Rexroth did not choose the sharpest lens. (Few real photographers do.)

Agreed. Real photographers agonize, instead, over the perceived advantages of stand or semistand development over standard agitation techniques.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

Agreed. Real photographers agonize, instead, over the perceived advantages of stand or semistand development over standard agitation techniques.

Oh please no don't you go stirring up no crazy stand agitations no more.

 

[grain elevator]

if you say the Rokkor is sharper than the Xenotar then perhaps it is. The Rokkor is a sharp lens with higher contrast this is true.

Shouldnt this depend highly where you look? I thought it's very well possible for a tessar type to be as sharp as more highly corrected lens in the centre at wide-ish apertures, just not toward the edges.

 

[reddesert]

Spectacular image. Clearly Ms. Rexroth did not choose the sharpest lens. (Few real photographers do.)

Nancy Rexroth pioneered the use of the Diana camera for "artistic" photography. It's likely that many of the "use the flaws" school of work owe her a debt of influence, whether they know it or not.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

It's possible that mine was not an ideal example (I'm sure every manufacturer occasionally sent out a mediocre example of even their best glass), I'll concede that.

For some years in the mid-20th century, F&H tested every camera at the end of the production process with film. I have seen pictures of a film holder on a stand mounted against the film rails. I do not know when they stopped the 100% tests. If a camera did not pass some criteria, it went back for adjustment or replacement of the lenses. I suspect if you had a mediocre lens, it had been repaired incorrectly or some other alignment issues were affecting your body. 70 years passed, so I'm not surprised.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

For some years in the mid-20th century, F&H tested every camera at the end of the production process with film. I have seen pictures of a film holder on a stand mounted against the film rails. I do not know when they stopped the 100% tests. If a camera did not pass some criteria, it went back for adjustment or replacement of the lenses. I suspect if you had a mediocre lens, it had been repaired incorrectly or some other alignment issues were affecting your body. 70 years passed, so I'm not surprised.

Agreed. F+H also hand-matched each pair of taking and viewing lenses to minimize sample error and ensure precision. I doubt any clunkers left the factory. But I am sure that decades of hard work took a toll on individual cameras later on.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

Agreed. F+H also hand-matched each pair of taking and viewing lenses to minimize sample error and ensure precision. I doubt any clunkers left the factory. But I am sure that decades of hard work took a toll on individual cameras later on.

You are right. Another issue over the years: Some clowns (incompetents) switched viewing and taking lenses to "restore" a Rolleiflex.

Moderator's edit: Meaning: Replacing a viewing or taking lens with the equivalent from another body

 

[Rolleiflexible]

{Moderator's edit: removed quoted posts that arose out of misunderstanding - plus attendant comment}

... (P)eople sometimes may have swapped out a taking lens from a parts camera to replace the taking lens on another. And not appreciating that the viewing and taking lenses were matched at the factory, (they) didn't bother to swap out the taking lens as well. That would degrade performance, to be sure.

 

[MattKing]

As the misunderstanding about lens switching (swapping?) has now been resolved, I edited out most of the related discussion.

 

[Dan Daniel]

As the misunderstanding about lens switching (swapping?) has now been resolved, I edited out most of the related discussion.

Good. I wouldn't want the stand development discussion to get lost!

 

[BorHa]

Hi folks,

I'm planning to part ways with my 500CM after my honeymoon, and moving back to a TLR, hoping to also pick up a Leica M2 with the remaining cash but we'll see..

I had a Rolleicord briefly that I picked up cheap and sold on for spares as it needed a lot of work and was missing parts etc.

I'm planning to use some of the money to buy a Rolleiflex as I really like the size etc of these and portability is key for me.

What I can't decide on is 2.8 Vs 3.5! This will be my only medium format camera for the time being, and as the lens isn't removable (to change mid-shoot) I want to make sure it's right! Rather than the speed, I'm more thinking about the quality of the lens, hopefully I wouldn't lose sleep over approx 2/3rds of a stop.

I also am unsure if Planar is worth the extra ££ over Xenotar?

Does anyone have any opinion on this and also which version e.g. A, B C etc to go for? I've read between the types and I can't notice any real world differences from what I can see! I don't care about having an in-built light meter, in fact I'd prefer one without but happy with whatever option.

If I decide down the line I want to do studio stuff, I'll buy an RB67 or something, but the Rolleiflex I want for general life, portraits, and landscapes etc but sharpness is important!

Thanks!
TT

I’d like to also suggest a Minolta autocord. Bright viewfinder that makes it easy to focus, sharp image quality and some of the models have working light meters. And it’s a fraction of the price of a rollei. If you do end up with a rolleiflex, get the 3.5. My 2.8C was extremely heavy and a pain to carry in my opinion.

 

[Twotone]

UPDATE

Hi folks,

The recent bumping of this thread reminded me that I need to provide an update to you all as it was several months ago I posted this.

I reflected on all of the contributions and also what I was trying to avoid by moving on from the 500CM and have since sold the 500CM and bought two cameras.

The first was a Leica M2 which I am over the moon with and has had a complete rebuild and a few upgrades courtesy of Cameraworks-UK, I've clicked with this thing more than any other camera before and it's been a pleasure to use.

The second camera, and more relevant to this thread was a Rolleicord! I went back and forth on the Rolleiflex idea but in the end I wanted absolute compactness with the opportunity to also shoot it in a 645 format (or equivalent). I also didn't want an inbuilt meter or anything that would add any potential heft/complexity to it.

I had a tough few weeks and was doing my usual check on a few places local to me and spotted an absolutely mint Rolleicord VB come up. It was the model I had decided on but with the cost of a full CLA factored in, they were often beyond my price range, or in a condition I wasn't happy with. I bagged this beauty for a total of £70, and the bonus was it came fitted with the soft shutter release and the '16 exposure kit' which equates to 645 (there or there abouts from my understanding), along with a very good condition original case and lens cap - I can't describe how clean it is! Like all Rolleicords of this age, especially one such as this which hasn't been used for decades, the shutter speeds were all off and the slow speeds were sticky - all of which I expected.

Due to how good an example this is, I decided to ship it off to a camera tech who I trust. Fast forward 5 weeks or so later, I received this back in mid-January and now have my first roll from it currently sat in my paterson tank about to be developed.

As it didn't come with a 12 shot counter dial (for the normal 6X6 frames), I'm watching a few on the usual sites and plan to pick one up shortly once I've reviewed the reality of using 645 sized frames.
I'll keep you posted with how the roll comes out!

Thanks
TT

 

[Dan Daniel]

Ha! A great end run around the Rolleiflex debates. Having used a Vb with the 6x4.5 kit as my everyday carry for extended periods, you should enjoy this. Pre-focusing and using the sports finder for portrait format is simple. And if you can find an 'F' focus hood with the flip down mirror for focusing, you can even focus at eye level when using portrait format.

I might give the 6x4.5 kit a few rolls to see how you get on with it. For me the Vb was sort of a 'sketch' camera,an everyday carry that I would use a bit relaxed, see what happens, etc. Hassys and 'Flexes can elicit a 'this is serious work' attitude at times. And yet I probably got more keepers with the 'Cord than the 'Flex for periods (says more about me than the cameras, of course).

The Xenar is an excellent lens. Off into photo-hooey land here, here goes- more open with nice microcontrast compared to a Tessar. Lower contrast. Not sure what lens you are using the M2 but it might blend well with the Xenar in feel.

Small, light, fits a knapsack easily. Enjoy.

 

[Twotone]

Ha! A great end run around the Rolleiflex debates. Having used a Vb with the 6x4.5 kit as my everyday carry for extended periods, you should enjoy this. Pre-focusing and using the sports finder for portrait format is simple. And if you can find an 'F' focus hood with the flip down mirror for focusing, you can even focus at eye level when using portrait format.

I might give the 6x4.5 kit a few rolls to see how you get on with it. For me the Vb was sort of a 'sketch' camera,an everyday carry that I would use a bit relaxed, see what happens, etc. Hassys and 'Flexes can elicit a 'this is serious work' attitude at times. And yet I probably got more keepers with the 'Cord than the 'Flex for periods (says more about me than the cameras, of course).

The Xenar is an excellent lens. Off into photo-hooey land here, here goes- more open with nice microcontrast compared to a Tessar. Lower contrast. Not sure what lens you are using the M2 but it might blend well with the Xenar in feel.

Small, light, fits a knapsack easily. Enjoy.

My thoughts exactly! The zone-focusing approach is very liberating and has been a big aspect of the Leica's enjoyment. Definitely going to stick with the 645 kit for now, I'm only planning to pick up a 12 exposure dial so I have the option down the line before these little things end up unobtainable!
I'm using a Voigtlander Ultron 35mm F2 on the M2, however I may swap this out in the coming months. That being said, I've recently picked up a couple of IIIFs which are a passion project, which I'll be planning to get a more period appropriate lens for which will pair nicely with the Rolleicord!

 

[Dan Daniel]

Look at the Summaron 35mm f/2.8 for the M2. Wonderful lens, and might be a good match for the Xenar in the 'openness' thing.