Rolleiflex or RB67?

[Ian Grant]

Have to agree about the quality of the C2/3 series Mamiya lenses I had three a 55mm, 80mm & a 135mm, all were superb, equally as good as the Zenzanon, Zeiss & Nikon lenses I used on Bronica's or the occasional Hasselblad.

Ian

 

[eddym]

Years ago I bought a C330 and liked it very much, but missed my brother's Rollei TLR that he had loaned me. I traded the C330 on an RB67 and noticed a quantum leap in image sharpness. I'm sure that was due to the larger negative. Later I bought a Hasselblad and was surprised that the prints from it were even sharper than those from the RB67. I sold the RB.

 

[fschifano]

I have a pair of C220's and 6 lenses: the 65, two 80's (one old style chrome one newer black), the 105, 135, and 180. I'm also with 2F/2F here in that all these lenses are top notch as far as I'm concerned. I also have a Hasselblad 503cx with a set of 50, 80, and 150 lenses. I don't find the Mamyia glass to be lacking at all by comparison. If you were to put both on a bench and measure the performance, you will see differences. In real life, there are many other variables affecting the look of the final image making the bench test results less significant.

The 105mm Mamiya lens is probably my favorite of the bunch. Mine is old style one in the chrome housing and is supposed to be slightly inferior to the later models in the black housing. Maybe, maybe not. All I can say is that I'm very happy with the performance of this lens.

Direct comparisons of field of view between 35 mm and 6x6 are not very useful because the aspect ratios between the two formats are so different. The 80 mm "normal" focal length for 6x6 feels very much wider than the field of view cast by a 50 mm lens on the full frame 35 mm format. The 105 feels just about right.

 

[Gearoidmuar]

Well....
I've never had a Rolleiflex, but have had 2 Yashicas which were very very good.
I've had Mamiyflexes which were fantastic tripod cameras, and handholdable, but very heavy.
I've an RB67 which I seldom use, but when I do I'm impressed with the results.
I've a Mamiya 6 system which is optically nonpareil
I also have a Fuji GW670III. Optically brilliant.

The answer to your problem is that I don't know it! We have too much choice nowadays.

Pushed... RB67 is cheaper and is terribly well built.

 

[Steve Smith]

They are all good really. It's better to make your choice based on handling rather than chasing some marginal (or imaginary) superiority in optical performance.


Steve.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Years ago I bought a C330 and liked it very much, but missed my brother's Rollei TLR that he had loaned me. I traded the C330 on an RB67 and noticed a quantum leap in image sharpness. I'm sure that was due to the larger negative. Later I bought a Hasselblad and was surprised that the prints from it were even sharper than those from the RB67. I sold the RB.

I went through the same thing, almost. I never liked the C3 or the C330, skipped the Rollei step [my brother never had one] and went right to the Hasselblad 503 CX and 903 SWC.

eddym, you have good taste.

Steve

 

[moouers]

RB67 for $150 and you've used it before and like it...what was the question again?!

 

[elekm]

And if you want to really complicate matters, you could look at the Rolleiflex SL66 (6x6). Interchangeable backs (and can use 220) and excellent Carl Zeiss lenses. And like the RB, it's one helluva big camera.

It takes excellent photos, by the way.