Rolleiflex questions

JW PHOTO · Aug 1, 2015

trondsi said:
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

I try to never hand hold mine without a strap attached. with a strap around your neck and pulling lightly downward with the camera against your belly or chest will get you much sharper pictures. One other hint, find yourself a broken Rollei strap or just the Rollei connectors, drill out the rivets and re-rivet on a new, modern heavy duty strap. the old Rollei straps just can't take much downward pressure anymore and you'll save yourself much grief that way. I was always told that bubbles were a sign of excellent glass used in making the lens and they will have no bearing on the pictures outcome. I don't really know if this is true or not, but I have heard it from more than one well respected source. John W

trondsi · Aug 1, 2015

Thanks John.
I'm no expert, but a friend of mine who once visited a German lens manufacturer told me of their intensive testing. My best guess about bubbles in the lens is that if it passed the testing, then it didn't matter if the glass had a few bubbles.

Richard S. (rich815) · Aug 1, 2015

trondsi said:
Thanks John.
I'm no expert, but a friend of mine who once visited a German lens manufacturer told me of their intensive testing. My best guess about bubbles in the lens is that if it passed the testing, then it didn't matter if the glass had a few bubbles.

Many great lenses have some tiny bubbles in them. My favorite all-time lens is on one of my 2.8E Planar cameras. I found it all beat up in a small shop down an alley in Beijing back around 1999 or so. $170 USD. It worked but slow shutter speeds hung a little bit. Lens has some minor fine scratches and seems any coating long gone. I use it with a hood. Takes the most beautiful portraits with gorgeous buttery smooth tonality in B&W. Yes it can flare with certain brightly lit or sunny backgrounds but then I don't use it for that and I'm not try to shoot perfectly sharp and contrasty Air Force test charts either. I eventually sent it to Harry Fleenor who cleaned it all up, overhauled the transport, adjusted everything to spec, and installed a Maxwell screen for me. It's my most treasured "normal" Rolleiflex (tele- and -wide being another category in my book). Later on I found and purchased an almost pristine 2.8C Xenotar. Perfect lens with all coating intact. Took unbelievably sharp and contrasty images. I really liked it but much preferred my old Planar for portraits and the like. Later still I bought a beater 2.8E2 Planar with a fine lens that had come from a former wedding photographer who apparently shot with a slew of Rolleiflexes. He even epoxied the flash sync levers in place! But all works perfectly. It's not quite as contrasty as the Xenotar, but I swear is even sharper than any Rolleiflex I've ever used, sort of a personality all its own. I also have a 3.5E3 Xenotar that literally looked like it had been dragged on a rope behind a pickup for a few miles. Needed the side panel hammered out, a new screen, and a full blown CLA and still looks like shit. But now works great and also produces great photos. Got that one for $125 USD. Lighter and slightly more compact than my 2.8 Rollei's and also uses a nifty fold-down rubber hood I found so it's practically pocketable at least in a coat pocket.

I have even a few more. I never turn down a deal on a Rolleiflex. I love Rolleiflex TLRs....

JW PHOTO · Aug 1, 2015

Richard,
I agree about the Rolleiflex love thing. My first Rollei was a 3.5E3 with a Xenotar lens that I wish I still had, but that's about a 30 year old story. I now have a beat and abused 2.8E w/Planar and it's my bang around camera. I also have a very nice 3.5F w/Planar, but it's my least used. I then bought two 3.5E's w/ Planars for a very cheap price. Both had internal spider tracks from fungus. I killed the spiders and now these two are my sharpest and best picture takers of the lot. Light internal fungus doesn't bother me at all as long as the price is cheap enough. Just don't expect top dollar if you ever decide to sell the camera. Rollei's are like fine wine, they just seem to get better with age. John W

JW PHOTO · Aug 1, 2015

trondsi said:
Thanks John.
I'm no expert, but a friend of mine who once visited a German lens manufacturer told me of their intensive testing. My best guess about bubbles in the lens is that if it passed the testing, then it didn't matter if the glass had a few bubbles.

I agree,but if the lens was full of bubbles it might be different. Maybe it would have "ZEN" bokeh with all those bubbles? John W

trondsi · Aug 2, 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.

I won't get rid of my 2.8e. It's excellent in most ways. It has several cosmetic flaws, presumably due to heavy use by previous owners, but it performs surprisingly well. For instance, the shutter speed wheel does not seem to turn all the way to 500 (only very close) but when turned as far as it goes does appear to open at 1/500, because those photos are accurately exposed even on slide film. The timer also works, and the focusing screen is surprisingly clear despite some smudging.

It's interesting that several people here mentioned that the 2.8 lens is low-contrast. Maybe this is why I think it balances so well with slide film, which tends to be contrasty?

trondsi · Aug 3, 2015

OK folks, I just ordered a clean Rolleiflex Automat K4A with case included, and seller says that shutter speeds are accurate (if not, I'll return it). This was more or less exactly what I was looking for (I think).
Also great is that now I get to have my own opinion on the Tessar vs Planar lens discussion

JPD · Aug 3, 2015

trondsi said:
It's interesting that several people here mentioned that the 2.8 lens is low-contrast. Maybe this is why I think it balances so well with slide film, which tends to be contrasty?

Maybe, but you would have to make a side by side comparison with a 3,5 Planar to notice any difference.

trondsi said:
OK folks, I just ordered a clean Rolleiflex Automat K4A with case included, and seller says that shutter speeds are accurate (if not, I'll return it). This was more or less exactly what I was looking for (I think).
Also great is that now I get to have my own opinion on the Tessar vs Planar lens discussion

Good choice! Please post a picture of it when it arrives. After a long thread like this we all want to see that it paid out.

baachitraka · Aug 3, 2015

Pictures of the camera and the negative/slides it produces.

trondsi · Aug 3, 2015

Ok I will update this thread when I have revived it and tried it out

trondsi · Aug 5, 2015

OK, the Rolleiflex Automat just arrived. It looks good, but there's a problem: the mirror of the eye-level focuser came loose during shipping. Now the whole hood won't close properly. I have sent the seller a message about this, but the good news is that it looks easy to fix. Still

trondsi · Aug 5, 2015

OK seller says he will return $40. I'm pretty sure this is an easy fix, so hopefully the camera should be up and running in a couple of days.

Richard S. (rich815) · Aug 5, 2015

Actually if the mirror fell out you probably need the whole focus system recollimated.

Pioneer · Aug 5, 2015

Richard Sintchak (rich815) said:
Actually if the mirror fell out you probably need the whole focus system recollimated.

I think he is talking about the magnifier that flips up for critical focus. I doubt you need a full focus system recollimation for that. If so I would just work without it.

trondsi · Aug 5, 2015

Pioneer said:
I think he is talking about the magnifier that flips up for critical focus. I doubt you need a full focus system recollimation for that. If so I would just work without it.

Correct. Except that there is some sort of lever inside that makes it difficult to flip the magnifier out and back (a sort of metal rod flips out now that the mirror isn't there). I am planning to take it to a camera repair guy tomorrow, but let me know if there's an easy fix.

The camera appears to be in very good shape. I wonder if the ground glass is not the original, it is very bright.

EDIT: I am talking about the mirror which is behind the magnifier when the hood is folded.

Richard S. (rich815) · Aug 5, 2015

Ah I see. I thought he meant the actual focusing mirror.

JPD · Aug 6, 2015

A picture of the camera, please?

trondsi · Aug 6, 2015

Looks like I'm only left with grumpy camera repairs guys in this city. I'll get it back on Monday (seriously, I thought this would be a quick fix, but that's apparently a story the guy has heard too many times to believe). I swear I'll post some pictures when the camera is actually working.

trondsi · Aug 12, 2015

OK folks! Here are some snapshots my Rolleiflex Automat fresh from repairs Sorry that I don't have any sample photos yet, but the aperture and shutter speed controls seem nice and smooth, and the shutter speed sounds good.

Richard S. (rich815) · Aug 12, 2015

Terrific! Looks good. Now comes the best part...

JPD · Aug 13, 2015

That's a beautiful Rolleiflex 3,5 A (also called "MX" in North America). Very pretty indeed! Most have lots of signs of use, so yours is one a collector would love to have, and one many users would dream of owning.

trondsi · Aug 18, 2015

Here is a sample photo using Provia 100f. I am very happy with this camera (somewhat less happy with the scans from the film, oh well)

trondsi · Aug 18, 2015

More samples.

JPD · Aug 19, 2015

That's excellent! Did you get a lens hood with the camera? If the round aluminium thing on the bottom of the back has grooves around the edge you can use the Rolleifix tripod mount.

trondsi · Aug 19, 2015

Thanks JDP. No I don't have a lens hood. I have only the leather case for this camera so far.

Rolleiflex questions

JW PHOTO

trondsi

Richard S. (rich815)

JW PHOTO

JW PHOTO

trondsi

trondsi

JPD

baachitraka

trondsi

trondsi

trondsi

Richard S. (rich815)

Pioneer

trondsi

Richard S. (rich815)

JPD

trondsi

trondsi

Attachments

Richard S. (rich815)

JPD

trondsi

Attachments

trondsi

Attachments

JPD

trondsi

Rolleiflex questions

Attachments

Attachments

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency