Rollei TLR

[Melvin J Bramley]

My interest piqued in the Rollie TLR's when I saw this list..

Medium Format Cameras - Testing Lenses

Just what is the difference between the various Rollei TLR cameras in regards to the ultimate in image quality.

Will I see a difference in print quality using these cameras?

 

[ic-racer]

Planar and Xenotar sharper in corners at wide aperture s compared to the others.

 

[Dan Daniel]

Oh boy...

1- how big do you want to print?
2- The basic split in Rolleis is Tessar/Xenar compared to Planar/Xenotar. The Tessar/Xenar lenses are not as sharp wide open. After that, things get very squirrelly and how many angels can you see in that bokeh type stuff. And condition of the cameras and the glass matters. As the Hevanet test shows, with what looks to be a bad Xenotar in the batch.
3- If it has a letter in the name- C, D, E, F (A and B not included) it will have either a Planar or Xenotar. No letter, Tessar or Xenar. There are opinions on the differences between Planar and Xenotar. Like mine- out of focus circles are busier on Xenotars wide open. Aren't opinions fun?
4- 'You really should get a Hasselblad' will be said at least once in seriousness. 'You really should get a Holga' will not be said. serious or not.
5- The basic mechanics and basic production quality is pretty much the same from early 1950s until the end. The differences are mainly bells and whistles; some internal refinements happened, but a 2.8C is built as well as a 2.8F all in all. Again, condition of the specific camera is more important than which model.
5- Nothing personal, but any Rollei set up properly will not be what limits your photography. Find one and get on with taking photos.

I'd suggest you discuss what you want to do with cameras, what you shoot, how you like to work, what is making you look at Rolleis. You are going to get a rambling mess of responses here.

 

[gone]

That's about it, as ic-racer said. I prefer the look of the 3 element Triotars, they're better for head and shoulder portraits, the softness in the corners is a decided advantage. They're nice and sharp pretty much everywhere when stopped way down. This is all personal preference, no circles and arrows or graphs, it's just what I like.

 

[Steven Lee]

Never tired a Rolleicord, but I own two Rolleiflexes. To me the difference between all Rolleiflexes primarily comes down to the WLF and the screen. They are either dim or hard to focus with. Even the late FX models weren't as good as the screens in Mamiya TLRs. My advice is to get a meterless E-series and install an aftermarket screen. They tend to be cheaper than the F, something I don't quite understand, because AFAIK the F only adds a meter, which now is rarely accurate and it's not TTL anyway.

 

[Melvin J Bramley]

Rolleiflex 2.8C​

C$875
This ad intrigues me.
In years gone by I have had many Yashica TLR's and I enjoyed using them.
The image quality for 11 x 14 prints was as good as the Bronica SQA I replaced them with.
Currently playing with old folders Mamiya six and Agfa Isolette but the image quality seems to lag my 35mm Nikon primes.
My Mamiya 645 is somewhat better and is a delight to use.
I use good Schneider and Rodenstock lenses for enlarging plus a Bogen/Tominon 60mm f4 wide angle for my medium format which is no slouch.
Perhaps I should have bit the bullet and purchased a Hasselblad when the prices were depressed?

 

[btaylor]

$900 is about what I paid for my 2.8C a decade ago. I also have my Rolleicord IV and a f3.5 Automat 'flex, both with Xenars. I actually prefer the lighter 'cord most of the time. I do not generally shoot wide open and I love the look of the Xenars. As Dan mentioned above, any of them will do the job.

 

[GregY]

I've been dragging a Rolleiflex T ('58) for years. Maxwell screen & a Harry Fleenor rehab...... Tessar has never let me down.

 

[JPD]

Of the Planar/Xenotar models, the late six element 3,5 versions are marginally better than the 2,8 models. Just marginally. A touch. A tiny bit. Almost not noticeable.

A Holga you should get, not, if sharpness for you important is.

 

[Dan Daniel]

Rolleiflex 2.8C
C$875
This ad intrigues me.

Great camera if it is in good condition. Two things to watch- on earlier models like this the lens coatings were a bit softer so check for scratching. And there is a bellows around the rear of the lens that can be decayed or torn. Open back, extend lens, and use a flashlight to check its condition. Probably $150 or more to get it replaced.

The C was the last model with 10-bladed aperture if that matters to you (well, early MX-EVS Automats also).

Lens quality, models, etc. are hard to discuss and demonstrate on the internet. But build quality? Compared to the YashicaMat and the Bronica, Rolleiflexes were simply better built and more refined.

A Holga you should get, not, if sharpness for you important is.

I had a feeling once I sent that comment that someone would prove me wrong and add Holga to the mix... sigh...

 

[jp498]

Personally, I like the older ones such as Automat or 2.8a with tessar. I like the tessars for good multipurpose lenses with character. It's simpler design means I can sometimes include the sun in photographs and not get flare and internal reflections. I mostly like that the older 1950's and earlier had lots of aperture blades for smoother bokeh, like nicer new camera lenses tend to do also. Someone has mentioned the C has many blades too; that is worth considering. Don't spend big money on anything that is not properly working. You can spend an equal amount getting it repaired/tuned up for the next 50 years.

Honestly the biggest difference in sharpness I've seen among TLRs is comparing photos with and without a tripod. You really need 1/100 to shoot handheld and be within 1/focal length suggestion, but sharper yet is a camera on a tripod.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

Any Rolleiflex or Rolleicord TLR is a joy. I prefer the ones before the F series, for reasons unrelated to image quality. Honestly, unless you go back to the 1930s Rolleicords with Triotar lenses (which I love) you will not be able to tell Tessars or Xenars from Planars or Xenotars. Each was fitted at the factory to its body and viewing lens, and bench-tested there to ensure it was at optimal resolution. They all make amazing images. I have shot them all, and I can see no difference from one lens to the other, Triotar excepted.

You ask whether you will see a difference in prints. YES. A big part of that is common to all medium-format cameras -- the negative size. But the Rolleiflex lenses, and the camera's design, and the care taken in assembly, combine to optimize performance. I know it's just an anecdote, but here is a snap of an enlargement in my living room, of an image shot with a Rolleiflex 3.5E (Planar), on a tripod, onto Plus X, enlarged to 32 inches square:

 

[Paul Howell]

To some extend it depends on what you shoot. As I shoot landscapes nd cityscapes and generally shoot at F11 to 22 a 4 element lens works as well for me as 5 or 5 element. On the other hand if you shoot wide open then the planar is likely the better option. In my case if I need to shoot wide I will use my Kowa with 85mm 2.8.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

Each was fitted at the factory to its body and viewing lens, and bench-tested there to ensure it was at optimal resolution.

This is a critical point. Make sure you buy a body with its original lenses because they were critically matched. Avoid a repair item where some clown switched lenses among bodies.

Another thing: these are all old cameras. You almost surely need to factor in the cost of a cleaning and overhaul.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

This is a critical point. Make sure you buy a body with its original lenses because they were critically matched. Avoid a repair item where some clown switched lenses among bodies.

Absolutely. I doubt (film gate aside) you can tell a Rolleiflex negative from a Hasselblad negative. But the Rolleiflex is a precision instrument with a fixed lens fitted at the factory, that sets it apart from camera systems with interchangeable lenses.

And budget for a new viewscreen. I prefer Bill Maxwell's screens, if he's still in business -- maxwellprecisionoptics@yahoo.com -- but there are others that work as well.

 

[outwest]

Twenty years ago I picked up a 2.8C Xenotar for just $85 (didn't have the flip up magnifier). I also got a Rolleikin back then and tried it in 35mm. Results with 35 or 120 were outstanding. I also have a 3.5F Planar which I consider the cat's meow for TLRs. I replaced the screen on the 3.5F with a cut down one from a Mamiya RB. That made a world of difference.

 

[btaylor]

I must say also that I find the Rollei TLRs just a pleasure to use. The ergonomics, the little extra-well thought out features and long list of useful accessories make them the first medium format camera I reach for if a fixed normal lens if what I’m using.
I also like the Rick Oleson screens, they are only $100 and come with easy install instructions. I happen to prefer the micro prism center circle. I see he also now has a plain screen with no focusing aid- I might try one. My favorite screen on my OM-1 is the plain gg.

 

[etn]

If you are after the "ultimate image quality" in a Rollei, and have a lot of cash, you can look at the 2.8 GX / FX. Basically the same Planars as earlier 2.8, but with multi-coating. They shine with color slide film and will provide lovely results when projected. I photographed a tree one day with my FX (*) and when I saw the picture projected, the texture of the tree was so real, it seemed I could touch it. Out of this world.

(*) which I got at some point when they were more affordable!!!

That said, it depends what you look for in a picture. I really like the kinda "dreamy" results my old battered 2.8E is producing. That camera is a well worn out sample I got for cheap. Love the results for black & white.

But all Rolleis (or Yashica or ... - insert any TLR brand here, except maybe the cheapest modern knock-offs such as Seagull), even with simpler optics, will provide excellent results. We have beautiful, well detailed, prints done with my girlfriend's Rolleicord.

By the way, +1 on all has been said above on usability, ergonomics, pleasure, beauty of the tool itself, and excellence of the results.

 

[guangong]

In the ‘70s, when photography was so popular that operations such as Willoughbys and Camera Barn had multiple stores in Manhattan, I was very lucky. At the Willoughbys on 47th St (or 48th ?) there was a fellow flush with cash who regularly bought a new camera, used it for a few weeks, then traded it in for another new camera. I walked in just minutes after this guy left. The salesman, a friend, convinced manager that I would buy the camera immediately so it wouldn’t be sitting on the shelf. I got 2.8 F, case, two closeup lenses, etc. for little more than the trade in allowance.
I had used Minolta Autocord in the past but Rollei was a different world. Camera still going strong although meter is totally off. I shoot mostly hand held. How long a hand held exposure depends upon one’s physical condition, kind of camera, and subject matter.

 

[Melvin J Bramley]

Any Rolleiflex or Rolleicord TLR is a joy. I prefer the ones before the F series, for reasons unrelated to image quality. Honestly, unless you go back to the 1930s Rolleicords with Triotar lenses (which I love) you will not be able to tell Tessars or Xenars from Planars or Xenotars. Each was fitted at the factory to its body and viewing lens, and bench-tested there to ensure it was at optimal resolution. They all make amazing images. I have shot them all, and I can see no difference from one lens to the other, Triotar excepted.

You ask whether you will see a difference in prints. YES. A big part of that is common to all medium-format cameras -- the negative size. But the Rolleiflex lenses, and the camera's design, and the care taken in assembly, combine to optimize performance. I know it's just an anecdote, but here is a snap of an enlargement in my living room, of an image shot with a Rolleiflex 3.5E (Planar), on a tripod, onto Plus X, enlarged to 32 inches square:

Your reply is what I asked of in my post, print quality!
Was your larger print a wet print or scanned negative and inkjet?

 

[Rolleiflexible]

Your reply is what I asked of in my post, print quality!
Was your larger print a wet print or scanned negative and inkjet?

Wet print on fiber. I had Duggal in NYC print it for me -- I couldn't print it at that size. They made it 32" square because that was the largest silver gelatin paper they stocked. You could blow it up much bigger if you had the trays and paper. (Duggal printed by turning the enlarger head 90 degrees to project horizontally, and taping the paper to the wall.) It's an awesome print.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

I shoot mostly hand held. How long a hand held exposure depends upon one’s physical condition, kind of camera, and subject matter.

I do as well. I can pull off a one-second handheld exposure with a Rolleiflex. The weight and form factor make it quite stable balanced in the palm of your hand. And you can add some stability by pulling the Rollei down, taut against the neckstrap. With a little practice, you become a human tripod.

 

[Melvin J Bramley]

Wet print on fiber. I had Duggal in NYC print it for me -- I couldn't print it at that size. They made it 32" square because that was the largest silver gelatin paper they stocked. You could blow it up much bigger if you had the trays and paper. (Duggal printed by turning the enlarger head 90 degrees to project horizontally, and taping the paper to the wall.) It's an awesome print.

I am hoping to produce some 16 x 20 prints.
My issues are ; will my negatives be capable of it and will my enlarger, see other posts, allow it.
Believe it or not , I have done , many years ago, made 16 x 20 prints using an old Paterson enlarger https://www.photomemorabilia.co.uk/Paterson/Paterson_Adverts.html
The prints were done off the side of a table at really long exposure times , a real pain in the A.

 

[250swb]

It's one of those 'how long is this piece of string' questions. There are valid but subtle preferences for each Rolleiflex or Rolleicord model, like do you need f/2.8 etc. But in terms of lens quality, and on the simple basis of will you see a difference, then you might if you could compare enough models, but nobody else will see the difference in a print. All an old Rollei needs is a new screen, and I use Oleson screens.

 

[AnselMortensen]

A Holga you should get, not, if sharpness for you important is.

The coffee, from my computer screen remove I must.