Rolleiflex models,types etc

[Alan W]

I used to use a rolleicord back in the old days,then I grew up.Now I use a Hasselblad for 6x6 negatives.I've been looking at sold Rolleiflexes on ebay and there is a bewildering variety of models and prices on sold cameras.A simple question to the users out there,what serial number/lens etc do you prefer/recommend and why?

 

[Alan9940]

I'd suggest visiting rolleiclub.com. Lots of good info there.

I just recently bought a late model Rolleicord Vb and I'm very happy with it. I'd caution you to be very careful buying any 'flex off eBay. Not saying you can't find a good deal, but most 'flex's were used heavily and could require a good CLA by a reputable service such as Harry Fleenor. FWIW I bought my 'cord from www.igorcamera.com and was very happy with the transaction and the camera delivered.

Good luck!

Best regards,
AlanH

 

[Vaughn]

I have used a variety of Rollei TLR cameras and I like the Rolleicords as well as the 'flexes. I started with a 3.5 'flex, then a couple 2.8 'flexes (one stolen, the other needs a CLA and possible transport work). Using a 'cord now (a post red-window model)...very happy with it and a tad lighter for backpacking, too. I have gotten quite use to the pull-n-push shutter release, and most times remember to advance the film after every shot.

I am contact printing the negatives, so I can't really say which lens is better -- probably all excellent.

 

[Paul in Arizona]

Assuming it is fully functional with good glass what model you select probably has less importance than you might think.
Buy the cleanest one your budget allows. A full CLA is not cheap so factor that possibility into a bargain priced camera.
As to lenses, an f3.5 will be less expensive than a 2.8. The difference is a half stop which is no longer all that meaningful with modern film speeds. It made a difference when "fast" film was ASA 64.
For me, metered bodies are a minus factor. Bulky, easily and frequently damaged and all too often inaccurate anyway.

 

[JW PHOTO]

Rolleicords are a good start. I say start because you'll probably end up wanting to move up since you hear so much of Planar / Xenotar lenses as having no equals. If I were looking to get a starter Rollei I would go for a very good/late Automat. If you want the best bang for your buck and an excellent lens go for an "E" model Rollei. I prefer the Xenotar lens myself, but I actually have more Rollei's with the Planar lens. Either one is as good as it gets in my opinion. Somebody will probably through in a link to a page with all the models, serial numbers and dates the Rolleis were made. I would, but I'm not at home at the moment and time is running out for my APUG time. I also have several Hasselblad bodies and lenses and image quality is near identical. Just my 2 cents. John W

 

[BrianShaw]

I don't understand the pejorative implications some folks imply when mentioning a Rolleicord. Most of my best images have been make with a Rolleicord. Some of my worst images have been made with Hasselblad.

 

[flavio81]

I own a Rolleicord with a Xenar 75/3.5 and I must say that the lens is as good as you will ever need. Very good.

 

[gone]

Why do you say that you grew up? As if a 'blad is somehow better and more mature than a 'cord? I very much doubt that, having owned them both. Maybe you need to un grow up, or grow down.

Your basic decision is whether or not you want a Xenar lens for sharpness (boring) or a Triotar lens for character (classic look). I also prefer models w/ the 1/500 top shutter speed, although 1/300 is usually just fine, and a sports hood is a must for me, as it really speeds up grab shots. For me, it's Triotar all the way. One of the best 3 element lenses ever made for MF shooting, especially for portraits. More than sharp enough stopped down too. I find the usual Tessar formula like the Xenar does not give the best bokeh, and pics from these lenses all seem to look the same as other Tessars. Not so the Triotar.

 

[JW PHOTO]

I don't understand the pejorative implications some folks imply when mentioning a Rolleicord. Most of my best images have been make with a Rolleicord. Some of my worst images have been made with Hasselblad.

Some of my best work was done with a Yashica 124G and that has a Tessar clone for a lens just like a Rolleicord does( unless it's an early Triotar). I really wasn't implying that a Rollicord was inferior to a 'flex, but if you shoot in low light or use wider apertures you will see a difference. Heck, the old Triotars were excellent at f8 and smaller as were the Novars on the Ikoflex, but shoot them wide open and the corners went soft. Of course that did work fine for portraits. I could get by with a Rolleicord or Yashica just fine, but I figure I might as well shoot with a 3.5F or one of my E's since I have them. Do I see much difference? No, because I usually always try to shoot at least at f5.6 even with a Planar. Oh, I also use a tripod whenever I'm doing anything serious as it help these old unsteady hands. Yes, ain't nothing wrong with a Rolleicord. John W

 

[JW PHOTO]

Why do you say that you grew up? As if a 'blad is somehow better and more mature than a 'cord? I very much doubt that, having owned them both. Maybe you need to un grow up, or grow down.

Your basic decision is whether or not you want a Xenar lens for sharpness (boring) or a Triotar lens for character (classic look). I also prefer models w/ the 1/500 top shutter speed, although 1/300 is usually just fine, and a sports hood is a must for me, as it really speeds up grab shots. For me, it's Triotar all the way. One of the best 3 element lenses ever made for MF shooting, especially for portraits. More than sharp enough stopped down too. I find the usual Tessar formula like the Xenar does not give the best bokeh, and pics from these lenses all seem to look the same as other Tessars. Not so the Triotar.

Whoops! Momus, I didn't see your post until after I finished mine, but you view of the old Triotar is much like mine. Stopped down they are fine picture takers( landscapes etc.) and wide open they are a perfect portrait lens. John W

 

[mike c]

I like my 3.5 xenar Rolliecord, its light and built well, easy for hand hold and tripod, use the self timer instead of a cable release, and very quiet.

 

[Vaughn]

I don't understand the pejorative implications some folks imply when mentioning a Rolleicord...

Well, with the Rolleicord it is much easier to make double exposures -- on purpose or accidentally!

 

[Theo Sulphate]

I used to use a rolleicord back in the old days,then I grew up.Now I use a Hasselblad for 6x6 negatives.I've been looking at sold Rolleiflexes on ebay and there is a bewildering variety of models and prices on sold cameras.A simple question to the users out there,what serial number/lens etc do you prefer/recommend and why?

Having gone through this decision process recently, my first choice was a 2.8C Rolleiflex. It is an early model that doesn't have a meter, so I wouldn't be worried about its accuracy or coupling mechanism. Additionally, it predated the EV-interlocking of some (all?) E models (*). Well, the particular camera I looked at had issues, so I ended up with a 3.5F Rolleiflex. It does have a coupled meter, which adds complexity when being repaired, but I decided to buy it because it had been refurbished and came with a 1-year warranty. Mine was lightly used, maybe KEH 'Excellent' quality, so I think it was a good choice.

The key thing is that I had the chance to hold, examine, and use the cameras before buying and also got a warranty. I would never have bought one on-line.



(*)
Old Hasselblad C lenses had the EV interlock engaged by default that I found annoying (later CF lenses were nicer in that the engagement was off by default and you needed to hold a button if you wanted to use the lock). Anyway, apparently Rollei came to the same conclusion because the interlock feature was gone in the F series.

 

[Slixtiesix]

As others said, condition is essential when buying a Rollei, but the difference in picture quality between the different models and generations will be mostly negligible. There is a difference between the old lenses that were designed before WW2, and the more so if they were uncoated, and the later models from the 50s on, but that´s it. John Phillips made an extensive test on this in his book "The Classic Rollei" and came to the following conclusion: The old Tessar used in the Automat-models was a bit behind the later lenses. When used wide open, center sharpness was acceptable, border sharpness was quite lacking. When used at f8, the old Tessar becomes reasonably sharp and is only marginally worse than the newer lenses in the edges, with very good center sharpness. The new Tessar (used in the Rolleiflex T) and the Xenar perform better. Although not perfect, they are visibly better than the old Tessar when used wide open and become practically identical to the Planar-designs when stopped down. The different Planar/Xenotar models, be it 3.5 or 2.8, all perform very good without distinction. Please mind that Phillips used high-resolution film and examined his results with a strong loupe. I don´t think the differences even between the old Tessar and the postwar-lenses would be all to great on a 10x10" print. I visited a Vivian Mayer exhibition some time ago and was completely stunned (and I mean it so!) by the technical quality of her pictures, even the ones she took with her old Automat.

 

[Brett Rogers]

I don't understand the pejorative implications some folks imply when mentioning a Rolleicord. Most of my best images have been make with a Rolleicord. Some of my worst images have been made with Hasselblad.

I agree with you. But on the internet there can be many "tribes" of photographers. A lot of people who own a Rolleiflex (or a Canon, or a Nikon, or a Yashica TLR etc.) think that everyone should belong to their tribe (if they don't want to be, it raises the—scary, for them—proposition that maybe they're in the wrong "tribe").

You see this in action all the time. A newby does a little research. Decides a medium format SLR will suit their imaging needs. Interchangeable lenses, magazine backs. That sort of thing. But perhaps they're not sure which one to get. Hassy or Bronica? 6x6 or 6x7? So they ask for advice. Along come three or four people telling them they should really get a TLR, instead. And guess what? Yes, they are all TLR owners. Maybe Rollei owners. I see this all the time online in forums, and, frankly, it annoys the shit out of me.

So it's a bit of a dirty little secret. A lot of owners who have lashed out on a Rolleiflex (especially, it would seem, those well-heeled types who have ponied up for a 2.8F "White Face" in mint condition, because we all know that white paint will give you better images) have so much invested in their choice of kit, emotionally, that they are unwilling to consider the possibility that a Rolleicord costing a fraction of the price is capable of making images that, in most instances, are very hard to pick from those made with an 80mm Planar. It's very much the same sort of thought process, I suspect, that occurs when so many owners, or would-be owners, seek out a Planar lens instead of a Xenotar, when the facts suggest there is so little practical difference between them, that sample variation is the determinative factor in performance differences. The short version is they seem to have an ongoing need to justify their choice of camera and/or to be reassured about it.

None of these people are going to tell a prospective purchaser that they could be really happy with a Rolleicord, which is a fabulous camera in its own right. Even if it's a better choice for someone's budget, or their neck, or perhaps, ergonomically (right side focus for earlier Cords v left etc.) They just don't see past the idea that other photographers should be in their tribe, which is potentially unhelpful—at best.

It's appropriate to disclose that I own three or four Rolleicords, two 2.8 Rolleiflexes and a Tele. My comments above aren't those of a disgruntled Rolleicord owner who couldn't afford the Rolleiflex of their choice. I can't afford a Wide, and I'd love an Art Deco Rolleicord one day, and perhaps an Automat, but, I've got my prime desires in the Rollei line up, and am very happy about that. I think they are all fabulous cameras that are more capable than their owner. But I wouldn't, in good faith, tell a prospective buyer to get a Rolleicord (or a Rolleiflex) when they really would be better served with, say, a Hasselblad, instead, because I don't feel a need to convert others to my own preferences—rather, to offer some suggestions relevant to them, not to me.

Getting back to the question posed, initially, Ie.

I used to use a rolleicord back in the old days,then I grew up.Now I use a Hasselblad for 6x6 negatives.I've been looking at sold Rolleiflexes on ebay and there is a bewildering variety of models and prices on sold cameras.A simple question to the users out there,what serial number/lens etc do you prefer/recommend and why?

It's all about condition. These cameras are all getting older, like us. Some of them have been cherished and treated lovingly, others have been thrashed, trashed and abused. You just can't say that, Eg. an E or F model will always be a better choice than an Automat or a Rolleicord because it depends on their condition. They last a very long time, indeed, but even a Rollei can wear out if it has been used professionally for decades. And they weren't always owned by people who appreciated just what it was they had obtained. Condition, condition, condition.

There are some basic things that should inform your investigations for a Rollei. Do you prefer to focus with your left hand or right hand? Up to the Rolleicord V the focus and film wind was on the right side. From the Va it went to the left like the Rolleiflexes.

Do you prefer a 75mm field of view or 80mm? Personally I think this is more important that the 2.8 v 3.5 issue. For portraiture the 80mm is a great choice. For general imaging including some landscape, the 75mm is useful. Naturally you can do any sort of imaging with either focal length. But still, food for thought.

How important is weight? I have a shocking neck so I pay for it when I lug a camera or two around for a few hours. It doesn't stop me using my 2.8 but 3.5 Rolleiflexes and Rolleicords are both lighter, in some cases quite noticeably.

Do you need the option of fitting a prism? Most models of Rolleicord or Rolleiflex cannot accept them. The Rolleiflex E2-->F, T, and Rolleicord Vb being the main types that have the option. I am of the school that feels a TLR handles and works best with a waist level finder so (apart from the Tele) my own preferences are for the older models. I think the earlier types look better without the meters. But this last is a personal thing, not a black and white factual consideration. Plenty disagree with me there.

Budget is another unavoidable point. You can get a better example of a Rolleicord for any given budget than you will for, say, a 2.8. If funds are tight ask yourself if you really need that Planar lens, 2.8 instead of 3.5, or even a Flex at all when a Rolleicord is a great camera in its own right.

How big do you print? Do you shoot wide open often? The famed Xenotars and Planars really come into their own when used wide open. This is when their superior edge and corner definition begin to make a palpable difference. If you don't have a need to make largish prints that were shot with a wide open lens you will struggle to see a lot of benefit from choosing a late Flex instead of a Cord, which performs well at all apertures but is stunningly sharp from f/5.6 if you have a good example (and most are, or, were, when they were new so they are out there).

There are other things worth considering but these are some of the main points of differentiation between the various types. Apart from the Rolleimagic models Rollei never made a really bad TLR, and even the pre Automat types from the early 1930s (or earlier) have made images of surprising sharpness and quality. It is all relative. Think about your needs and find the best example in the best condition that meets your budget.
Cheers
Brett

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

This is just my take on the 2.8 models -

• 2.8A - first 2.8 made, rare, collectible, and probably not a good user candidate.
• 2.8B - ditto the 2.8A
• 2.8C - these can still be good user cameras, but they have their quirks.
  In the plus column, there's the aperture in the lens - the C and earlier models had a 10 blade aperture diaphragm which produces a nearly-circular aperture, which leads to even prettier out-of-focus areas and nicer looking specular highlights.
  In the minus column, there are several items.
  1. The shutter was the first one to have the high-speed 1/500th of a second, and to engage 1/500th, you need to make sure the shutter is not cocked before stepping into or out of 1/500th or you can break the shutter.
  2. To change the shutter speed or the aperture, instead of just turning the shutter speed or aperture wheel, you must depress a small chrome tab under the wheel and hold it while turning the wheel.
  3. The locking tabs to control the shutter button lockout and to secure the flash sync cord are plastic and prone to breaking. While it doesn't prevent the camera from being used if they are missing, they are frequently missing and cannot be replaced.
• 2.8D - an improvement over the C in the shutter, shutter and aperture controls, and the locks for the shutter button and flash sync. The aperture was changed from the 10-blade to a 6 blade aperture. It has an aesthetic impact on the specular highlights. They also changed the strap lugs from using the "gator clips" to a different configuration.
• 2.8E1 - introduction of the ability to do EV coupling of aperture and shutter speed, built-in but uncoupled meter as an option, and a return to the "gator clip" strap lugs.
• 2.8E2/3 - arrival of user-changeable finders.
• 2.8F - improved built-in meter, interchangeable finders.
• 2.8GX - fancy model with (I believe) coupled meter (turn the shutter or aperture dial, meter changes), TTL OTF flash metering possible with correct SCA-module flashes (again, I believe, could be wrong on this). Many collector-edition variants were issued of this model.

The most desirable from a user perspective are the Es and Fs. With an E, assume the meter is dead - this is a 60 year old selenium cell meter. IF it works, it's probably already degraded especially in low light, so it'll just basically confirm Sunny 16 applies plus or minus a stop or two. The meters in Es, if they die, are basically beyond repair as spare meter cells are no longer available. The meters in Fs, especially later production models, are still fairly reliable. Fs of any version (2.8 or 3.5, Planar or Xenotar) command the highest prices, sometimes ridiculously so. Personally I'm happy with my 2.8Es (I have two) with weak and/or dead meters, as I either just Sunny 16 it or I use a hand-held meter. It's faster than reading the match-needle in the meter knob then transferring the EV value, then deciding which aperture/shutter speed I want. The hand-held meter gives me aperture/shutter values which I can set without having to look at the face of the camera.

 

[baachitraka]

That said, the best model is the one which working and clean.

 

[Alan W]

Thanks for the recommendations,a lot to consider here-just as I thought.As for the bit about "growing up",well, I just like to see the reaction sometimes ,no offense

 

[BrianShaw]

I worked for a guy that would do stuff like that. He called it "uncontrolled experimentation". He was very mean-spirited... not that you intended it that way.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

Any clean working one with no dents. Any E ideally.

 

[Andy38]

Hello,

A small correction : strap lugs changed with "gator clips" on 2,8 E.
2,8 D has the same as the 2,8 A, B, C and all Automat's.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Any clean working one with no dents. Any E ideally.

Do bear in mind that any E or earlier camera is closing in on, or in excess of, 60 years old (both of my Es were made in the initial production run and as such date from 1956. The E2 and E3 models are newer). As such, they will need maintenance. And maintenance on a Rollei isn't cheap. Same with most Rolleicords. The Fs were made from the 1960s to the 1980s in intermittent bursts. When in doubt about a specific model, get the serial number and look it up on the various serial number charts online.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

Do bear in mind that any E or earlier camera is closing in on, or in excess of, 60 years old (both of my Es were made in the initial production run and as such date from 1956. The E2 and E3 models are newer). As such, they will need maintenance. And maintenance on a Rollei isn't cheap. Same with most Rolleicords. The Fs were made from the 1960s to the 1980s in intermittent bursts. When in doubt about a specific model, get the serial number and look it up on the various serial number charts online.

True enough but in my observations the additional cost of most F's over a decent E is more than it would cost to get the E a full overhaul! And the end result being a fully overhauled and perfectly useable E. Versus buying a newer F that might also need some work still.

 

[baachitraka]

I have paid €230 for complete CLA of my Rolleicord. In future its not the cost but the person who is doing may be difficult to find.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

True enough but in my observations the additional cost of most F's over a decent E is more than it would cost to get the E a full overhaul! And the end result being a fully overhauled and perfectly useable E. Versus buying a newer F that might also need some work still.

No disagreement here. Although Es are starting to creep up in price too, as folks are asking silly money for Fs (almost $2k for a garden-variety F with a couple accessories? I've seen that recently). The comment about the age was meant as a general disclaimer - be aware that you're coveting a 60+ year old piece of hardware, and budget and plan accordingly. Don't assume that because it's a Rolleiflex it will be maintenance free.