Preferred Rolliflex

[JPD]

I've never heard that before about the 3.5E3 Xenotar? Do you know what the difference is? JohnW

Yes, first Zeiss gave the Planar an extra element, and then Schneider followed. The reason was to improve sharpness in the corners at the largest apertures. That's the answer I got from Zeiss.

The rumours about "built-in UV-filter" and "to make it cheaper to produce" aren't true. But the sixth element didn't make the lenses more expensive for Franke & Heidecke, according to the Rollei engineer Claus Prochnow.

If you don't make comparisions between the five and six element Planars and Xenotars shot at full aperture, I doubt you can see any difference.

 

[JW PHOTO]

Yes, first Zeiss gave the Planar an extra element, and then Schneider followed. The reason was to improve sharpness in the corners at the largest apertures. That's the answer I got from Zeiss.

The rumours about "built-in UV-filter" and "to make it cheaper to produce" aren't true. But the sixth element didn't make the lenses more expensive for Franke & Heidecke, according to the Rollei engineer Claus Prochnow.

If you don't make comparisions between the five and six element Planars and Xenotars shot at full aperture, I doubt you can see any difference.

Later this winter, when things have slowed to a crawl here in Michigan, I'm going to do some serious testing between my best 5 element 3.5 Planar and the 6 element and see what I come up with. I sure can't tell any difference in normal shots that's for sure. Johnw

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I'm quite happy with my 2.8E Planars. They're my go-to choice for a Rolleiflex. The meter in one is marginal, and dead in the other, but I always carry a handheld meter anyway. They're just phenomenal- I just put in a 14-roll weekend with the two, running around Toronto.

 

[Ian Grant]

I'm more than happy with the sharpness of the Xenotar on my 3.5E but then I'm more used to the Yashinon on my Yashicamat 124 or the Opton Tessar on my Automat. All excellent lenses.

It's more about having reliable cameras than the slight differences between models.

Ian

 

[TheToadMen]

can't resist: I'd get a SL66...

You can take my SL66 (+ case with lenses), since I don't use it (because I have too many cameras). I had it serviced a few years ago and only shot one roll....
But I couldn't bring myself to sell it yet ...

Back to the OP, I've got a nice Rolleiflex T1 and I love it. It's old school (good quality) and I like that!
It even has the same square negative size

 

[mnemosyne]

Rick,
That was interesting reading and seems to still have left the answer up in the air. Many years ago, when I did the camera show circuit in the Mid-West, I was setup next to an older gentleman that was a wealth of knowledge as to the Rolleiflex. I can't even remember his name, but do remember he had links to Rollei Germany and I believe was an employee at one time. Since he had his table filled with was Rolleiflex cameras I decided to pick his brain a little. One of the questions I ask was about the difference between the 5 and 6 element Planar. He just smiled at me and said that the sixth element was basically a built-in UV filter. He might have said Skylight filter, but my memory isn't that good anymore to know for sure.
That might just be why it's still a Rollei mystery about the makeup of that 6th element. If Rollei said it was just a built-in UV or Skylight filter it wouldn't mean much to anybody, but if that 6th element were some magical mystery element then..................................! I have both the 5 and the 6 element Planar and if that 6th element is magical I can't see it. They are both exceptional lenses. Case closed for me, but everybody likes a good mystery now and then. JohnW

It was maybe just his way of saying that the difference between the 5 and the 6 element was the same as the difference between a lens with and without UV filter, which translates into "non existent under normal shooting conditions" for me? Sometimes a perfect lens has to be redesigned because certain materials/glasses are not available anymore or the redesign allows savings on the manufacturing/assembly side. It ain't necessarily so that a redesign is always done for or results in improvement of optical properties. Anyway, I don't think it makes much sense to worry about this point when picking a Rolleiflex. The decision between the 2.8 and 3.5 models seems more relevant (not so much for picture quality but for availability/pricing of accessory) or, for instance, if you can live with one of the older models that have a EV coupling. My 3.5E has that "feature" and I got used to it, but I can imagine how it could drive some other guy nuts easily ...

 

[rst]

My 2Ct:

If I were to buy a TLR, I would go with a Rolleicord instead of a Rolleiflex. And it would be a Rolleicord V. I know it is a matter of getting used to, but I kind of like that with the Cord (except for the Va and Vb) all Action is on the right side and the left hand is just holding the camera.

Cheers
Ruediger

 

[k.hendrik]

You can take my SL66 (+ case with lenses), since I don't use it (because I have too many cameras). I had it serviced a few years ago and only shot one roll....
But I couldn't bring myself to sell it yet ...

Back to the OP, I've got a nice Rolleiflex T1 and I love it. It's old school (good quality) and I like that!
It even has the same square negative size

Hey Bert,

Wat moet die sl66 kosten ? en wat zit erbij ?

vrgr
k.hendrik

 

[k.hendrik]

can't resist: I'd get a SL66...

or a sl66se