Rolleiflex questions

trondsi · Jul 28, 2015

Hi folks!
I am currently shooting with a 2.8E, which is really nice, although the taking lens has a small but clear scratch on the inside (maybe 1.5 mm long) and a few cleaning marks on the outside.

I'm thinking about getting a somewhat smaller Rolleiflex, but I would like to stick to the 120 film, as I have learned to love the 6X6 format. I'm trying to find something relatively inexpensive, less than $500 would be fantastic. Is a Rolleiflex 3.5 what I should be looking for on ebay? What about the 'Automat' Rolleiflexes? Are they any good? The 2.8E that I have seems to take better photos than the 35mm camera Minolta/Sigma lenses I also use (apart from the format obviously being different), so mint condition does not seem to be necessary (or am I wrong here?), but at what point does a Rolleiflex lens go from being great to being too damaged (i.e. image quality visibly affected)?

BrianShaw · Jul 28, 2015

Pristine lenses are always better but in reality it takes a rather large amount of scratches to noticeably affect the image.

trondsi · Jul 29, 2015

Well, mine does have cleaning marks, and I have shot some great photos with it.

Slixtiesix · Jul 29, 2015

If you want a smaller and lighter alternative to your 2.8 Flex, you may want to try the Rolleiflex T. You should be able to find a nice one for far below 500 $.

mooseontheloose · Jul 29, 2015

I have an Automat that takes fantastic photos - I've never had a "better" Rolleiflex, so can't really compare, but the images it produces are fantastic. That being said, I'm a much bigger fan of the Minolta Autocords - the lenses are just as good, and it's a much nicer camera to handle. I fumble with Rolleiflex all the time as it just is not as intuitive as the Autocord, although that could be due to the fact that I've been using Autocords a lot longer. In any event, they can be cheaper than equivalent Rolleiflexes, although I've noticed the prices for them have gone up in the last couple of years.

jimjm · Jul 29, 2015

Trondsi -

I've got an Automat X (1949) with the 3.5 Tessar that I absolutely love to use and have made some great images with. Mine is a bit rough/scuffed on the outside (only cost $125), but the glass is good. If I was in the market for another one, I'd look for the Automat MX or MX-EVS with either the 3.5 Tessar or Xenar. The MX had an improved interior light baffle over the X model. The Automat series was started in 1937 to replace the old Standard, and introduced automatic first-frame positioning, among other features. Quality-wise, the Automats are just as good as any other Rolleiflex, the main difference being they were never offered with 2.8 lenses or meters.

Since you're looking at a lighter body to accompany your 2.8E, don't rule out one of the later Rolleicords like the V, Va or Vb. I have a Rolleicord III and V with Xenar 3.5 lenses, and these are also great cameras, each being about 100-150 g lighter than my Automat. The main difference in use is they have knob wind instead of crank, and a separate lever to cock the shutter. Model V and older also have the focus knob on the same side as the wind knob. Quality seems to be just as good as other Rolleiflexes, just fewer features so they could sell at a lower price point. I honestly can't tell the difference between any images taken with the Xenar or Tessar lenses.

I've read that the Rolleiflex T is the one version that compromised Rollei's quality standards, using lower-quality parts in order to offer Rolleiflex features at a Rolleicord price. I've no first-hand experience with this, so maybe someone here on the forum who has used a T can chime in.

I will always use a camera with good glass/ugly body over one with damaged glass/clean body, given that there are no other mechanical or functional problems. I don't think a small amount of internal dust ever matters, and scratches are not noticeable in most images. Coating damage or scratches might result in additional flare or contrast loss in certain lighting situations, so try to get the best glass you can find. Haze, dust and (sometimes) fungus can be cleaned off.

Good Luck!

JPD · Jul 29, 2015

Yes, the earlier 3,5 Automat models with Tessar/Xenar are nice, but for a light weight Rolleiflex you should look for a model with the smaller aperture/speed knobs AND with the earlier style viewing hood without the sports finder. But then it's not easy to find a post-war one with coated lenses.

I recommend a late Rolleicord, a V, Va or Vb (Vb has the bright viewing screen). The III and IV are good too, but lack the selftimer.

jochen · Jul 29, 2015

Hello,
I think the Rolleiflex T, Automat or Rolleicord are not much smaller and lighter than your 2,8 E. The Tessar/Xenar lens is very good, but the Planar of your 2,8 E is better. The older Automat and Cord IV and olders have far inferior focussing screens. The influence of scratches on the lens are mostly neglectible. I'd stay with your 2,8 E.

JPD · Jul 29, 2015

jochen said:
Hello,
I think the Rolleiflex T, Automat or Rolleicord are not much smaller and lighter than your 2,8 E. The Tessar/Xenar lens is very good, but the Planar of your 2,8 E is better. The older Automat and Cord IV and olders have far inferior focussing screens. The influence of scratches on the lens are mostly neglectible. I'd stay with your 2,8 E.

The early automats and Rolleicord Vb are around 200g lighter than the 2,8E. Rolleicord III and IV over 400g lighter.

The Tessar and Xenar are contrastier than the 2,8 Planar, and stopped down one or two stops more at least as sharp.

The Automat has the same focusing screen as the 2,8E. Rolleiflex T and Rolleicord Vb have the later plastic fresnel screen. The Rolleicord III, IV, V and Va have the same screen as the 2,8E, but the viewing lens is a little slower (3,2).

I wouldn't call the older glass focusing screens inferior to the later plastic ones. They "snap" into focus much easier than many modern fresnel screens.

Richard S. (rich815) · Jul 29, 2015

trondsi said:
Well, mine does have cleaning marks, and I have shot some great photos with it.

Me too.

BrianShaw · Jul 29, 2015

trondsi said:
Well, mine does have cleaning marks, and I have shot some great photos with it.

Me too. A lens hood/shade is a good remedy for any potentially negative impacts of "cleaning marks".

Given my druthers I'd ruther have a pristine lens... but they co$t and not so easy to find in older gear.

ToddB · Jul 29, 2015

I own a T model and it's been a really good camera, producing stunning images. Getting it, I knew it was a less robust model that all the rest and I've had no issues with it as far as performance. Maybe I just got lucky and got a good one.

Todd

trondsi · Jul 29, 2015

Thanks for the response everyone!
As mentioned, I really like my 2.8E so I will definitely continue using it. A smaller one would also be great because then it would be easier to bring it in my bag that I take to work for instance (I sometimes shoot a couple of pictures in my lunch break).

I like to use the magnifier above the ground glass, do all of them (Rolleicord, Automat etc) have this feature?

Richard S. (rich815) · Jul 29, 2015

Loads and loads of great info on this page here (and be sure to view the links on the left column of the page): http://www.rolleiclub.com/cameras/tlr/info/

And here you can download and view manuals for many, many of the Rolleiflex and Rolleicord models: http://www.butkus.org/chinon/rolleiflex.htm

John Koehrer · Jul 29, 2015

There's a lens rental company on line that gives examples of images with damaged elements. Until there's
SEVERE damage they'll work.
In theory marks degrade the image but in practice most* won't be notice able.

*with care to light in the scene

trondsi · Jul 29, 2015

Like some of you have mentioned, I find that a lens hood really helps. It's a good idea even if the Rollei was in mint condition.

trondsi · Jul 30, 2015

OK, now I'm really interested in a Rolleicord, although they seem a bit different mechanically.

baachitraka · Jul 30, 2015

If I recall correctly, that was the only one that didn't have that irritating EV lever. Whoever though of locking together the aperture and speed controls should have been horsewhipped.

Having the EV lever is indeed a very nice feature to have, since I own a digisix meter which gives me the exposure in EV. I transfer the EV to camera and choose aperture/shutter combination based on required DOF, mostly between f/8-f/16.

Remember, Rolleicords are notoriously dark to look down into that finder, especially when the sun is blazing overhead.

This is not true with Rolleicord Va and presumably with Rolleicord Vb. Focus screen is evenly illuminated and never had any problems with focussing.

I use either a hat or make a chimney with hands.

* In the field you will never ever care about this, rather a nice rain cover to protect the camera.

JPD · Jul 30, 2015

trondsi said:
OK, now I'm really interested in a Rolleicord, although they seem a bit different mechanically.

Knob wind and combined cocking and release lever. You will get used to it, and it's fun when the camera is a little different from the 2,8E you already have. And you might be surprised with the late Xenar's sharpness and contrast. It will bite more than the 2,8 Planar.

APUGuser19 said:
You'll need to find a Vb.

I will vote for the Rolleicord Vb too. It is the last of the line and with most features of all Rolleicords. With a Vb you wouldn't envy other Rolleicord models (except maybe the pre-war ones with their nice uncoated Triotar lenses )

The Vb has the selftimer, removable hood, bright screen, possibility to use adapters for 645 and other sizes...

baachitraka · Jul 30, 2015

Triotars are well kept secret. Esp., when shooting wide open.

BrianShaw · Jul 30, 2015

baachitraka and JPD have quite obviously used a Rolleicord before. Their comments are quite right. So have I... a Vb for 30 years as my primary travel camera. Lightweight, good optics, and worry free. Needed an overhaul about every 15 years so the maintenance costs were fairly reasonable. In addition to all the advantages mentioned already, the bayonet-1 accessories are both available and affordable. One thing I found to be a significant improvement in using a Rolleicord is a monopod with Rolleifix quick release. Its a good option to consider!

flavio81 · Jul 30, 2015

baachitraka said:
Having the EV lever is indeed a very nice feature to have, since I own a digisix meter which gives me the exposure in EV. I transfer the EV to camera and choose aperture/shutter combination based on required DOF, mostly between f/8-f/16.

I like the EV system as well. It is really practical.

I own a Rolleicord, Vb if i'm correct, and like it very much. The Schneider Xenar is really sharp. The viewfinder is good enough, although dim if you're used to the Mamiya C330. But it is still bright enough for general use.

The camera is very light, well made, and rugged. What else can you ask? Well, i wished it had the ability to focus while using the sports finder, like the 'flexes. Also, the way the shutter release is implemented is not the most stable, in my opinion. Besides that, great camera.

jerrybro · Jul 30, 2015

I have an old 'cord, a III I think. Really handy and inconspicuous. If anyone does notice it they smile. I find it the most accurate camera I've played with for zone focusing. The lens is really a surprise, wide open it has a nice softness and stopped down it can render reasonable detail. Made me fall in love with 120 square and eventually buy a Blad

Paul in Arizona · Jul 30, 2015

I still have a 'cord III and while there is absolutely nothing wrong with it I wound up getting an Automat MX. The swing factor was that the ergonomics are the same as that on my Rolleiflex E. Same optics as the 'cord III far as I can tell but the film advance, shutter cocking and release on it and the E are now all the same. A minor point but something that appealed to me.
Automats are not very expensive either.

trondsi · Jul 31, 2015

I took a second look at my Rolleiflex 2.8e lenses, and it turns out that the "scratch" I mentioned earlier in the rear element is actually a few bubbles in the glass near the surface. Otherwise this element is in pretty nice condition, while the front element does have cleaning marks that are visible in strong light (difficult to see in slightly dimmer light). They are not terribly dense, but they are all over the lens. Having shot several rolls with this camera now, I find that my best shots with it are probably the sharpest pictures I have taken with any camera (I don't have many though, a minolta 35mm with Minolta and Sigma lenses, and a Crown Graphic with Optar lens), but yes, a lens hood really helps. I seem to have a problem with shaking the camera when I take a picture, but I think this is something I will get better at. Sometimes using the timer might actually help, even if hand held (I have done this with my Minolta at 1/4 sec, with a sharp result). I also think that colors come out very nice in the Rollei.

I am fast becoming a Rollei fan

Rolleiflex questions

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency