Rolleiflex TLR Selection

[JPD]

I had forgotten about the E3. It has a 6-element taking lens like the late-model 3.5F. Probably the best if you can find one. The E2 has the 5-element, like all the other Planars/Xenotars.

The six element 3,5 Planar has a slightly improved corner sharpness at the largest apertures, according to Zeiss. But it should not matter much, since the Planar, and Xenotar, are not razor sharp fully open anyway (but it is at 5,6).

 

[Laurent]

I am not a Rollei aficionado by any means, but I was in your shoes 4 years ago and decided to get both, the 2.8F and 3.5F and both are Xenotars. There are no image quality difference vs Planars, but folks who repair them suggested that Xenotars are less prone to separation.

Personally I agree with those who say that condition is more important than the model, with one caveat: the screen needs to be user-replaceable. Stock screens aren't bad, BTW. In fact, under bright light I prefer them, but they are on the dim side, that's why my 2.8F has a screen from the 2.8GX

Mine (Automat) had a Mamiya RB67 screen fitted, and I do not find it an annoyance that I can't change it myself.

 

[baachitraka]

Mine (Automat) had a Mamiya RB67 screen fitted, and I do not find it an annoyance that I can't change it myself.

RB67 screen are thicker and also bigger. How challenging is that to get it in correct size without scratching it.

 

[hap]

I agree.
I have an Automat with a f3.5 Tessar, sans meter, and I like it a lot. The Tessar isn't as contrasty as the Planar or Xenotar, but you can always add contrast in processing (but you can't take it out).
Spend as much $$ as makes you happy, but the condition of the camera is far more important than the model or lens.

try http://www.kohscamera.com/ I haven't bought Rollei from him. However, he has a very good reputation with sales and repairs. All for sale have had a recent CLA by Jimmy. http://www.kohscamera.com/

 

[sfphoto]

"wanted a Rolleiflex but my Rolleicord is serving me good"

I can second that, the late models w/ Tessar lens are small, light & sharp. Much more simple design too if it ever needs servicing.

 

[hap]

I have Rolleiflex 2.8, Minolta Autocord, Yashica 124G....and.....Rolleicord Vb.

the Rolleicord is great. Oh and I have a Yashicamat with the Yashinon lens. that's a wonderful camera but needs a better screen.

 

[dpurdy]

I have an HFT Planar in the FX and a Xenotar in the 2.8F and they are great and I can't see a difference I also have a Rolleicord V with a Xenar and in my opinion, stopped down a bit, it is just as good as the Planar and Xenotar. I have tested them against each other.

 

[Rob Skeoch]

I think it depends which lens you want. If you want a wide angle, you have to buy the Rollei Wideangle. If you want a tele you have to buy the tele with the 135mm. Or if you want the standard lens, then it's an easier choice because they're easy to find.

 

[Alex Varas]

RB67 screen are thicker and also bigger. How challenging is that to get it in correct size without scratching it.

Carefully, right cutting knife and good technique. No scratches made.

 

[Besk]

I have an HFT Planar in the FX and a Xenotar in the 2.8F and they are great and I can't see a difference I also have a Rolleicord V with a Xenar and in my opinion, stopped down a bit, it is just as good as the Planar and Xenotar. I have tested them against each other.

Agreed Wish I had never sold my Rolleicord V. But considered the ability to get reasonable sharpness at wider lens openings at times to be worth the extra weight and cost of the 3.5F.

 

[brian steinberger]

I also have a Rolleicord V with a Xenar and in my opinion, stopped down a bit, it is just as good as the Planar and Xenotar. I have tested them against each other.

I agree. For me the option to move to a Rolleiflex is the IMO awkward ergonomics on the Rolleicord. Particularly the shutter.

 

[dpurdy]

I agree. For me the option to move to a Rolleiflex is the IMO awkward ergonomics on the Rolleicord. Particularly the shutter.

I agree with you on that. I can't get used to the left handed shutter. Plus I always use a prism.

 

[runswithsizzers]

I agree with you on that. I can't get used to the left handed shutter. Plus I always use a prism.

As a new owner of a Rolleicord V, I am curious to know more about how the prism works with that model. Can you please comment on any of the following?
Does using a prism help any with the dark edges and corners I am seeing with the factory screen of my Rolleicord V?
Is the overall screen brightness better, worse, or about the same when using a prism on a Rolleicord V?
Does the prism provide as much magnification as I would get using the flip up magnifier on the waist-level-finder?
Are there many different models of Rollei prisms, and if so, will any or all fit my Rolleicord V?

Thank you.

BTW, I am finding the shutter lever at the bottom of the taking lens to be somewhat awkward when hand-held. Still trying to decide if adding a short cable release makes it any less awkward.

 

[dpurdy]

As a new owner of a Rolleicord V, I am curious to know more about how the prism works with that model. Can you please comment on any of the following?
Does using a prism help any with the dark edges and corners I am seeing with the factory screen of my Rolleicord V?
Is the overall screen brightness better, worse, or about the same when using a prism on a Rolleicord V?
Does the prism provide as much magnification as I would get using the flip up magnifier on the waist-level-finder?
Are there many different models of Rollei prisms, and if so, will any or all fit my Rolleicord V?

Thank you.

BTW, I am finding the shutter lever at the bottom of the taking lens to be somewhat awkward when hand-held. Still trying to decide if adding a short cable release makes it any less awkward.

I don't think there is a way to use a prism with a Rolleicord. I meant that as a reason I like the F better. Using a prism on an F allows you to see the image oriented properly and is much easier to focus. Though it seem most people don't like a prism on a TLR, I do.

 

[Pieter12]

I don't think there is a way to use a prism with a Rolleicord. I meant that as a reason I like the F better. Using a prism on an F allows you to see the image oriented properly and is much easier to focus. Though it seem most people don't like a prism on a TLR, I do.

The prism adds weight and bulk to the camera, making it taller and in my opinion, clunkier. If you want a prism, go for a MF SLR like the SL66.

 

[runswithsizzers]

I don't think there is a way to use a prism with a Rolleicord. I meant that as a reason I like the F better. Using a prism on an F allows you to see the image oriented properly and is much easier to focus. Though it seem most people don't like a prism on a TLR, I do.

Sorry, I misunderstood your post. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[dpurdy]

The prism adds weight and bulk to the camera, making it taller and in my opinion, clunkier. If you want a prism, go for a MF SLR like the SL66.

I love my prisms on my Rolleis and wouldn't use a Rollei otherwise. I have used it this way for more than 35 years. So your opinion is your opinion. I find the weight comfortable. I find the balance comfortable. It gives options as to how to hold my camera, sideways or upside down or normal. Upside down makes me just a bit taller. Sideways is easier to hand hold at very slow speeds and is great for looking straight down.

 

[Pieter12]

I love my prisms on my Rolleis and wouldn't use a Rollei otherwise. I have used it this way for more than 35 years. So your opinion is your opinion. I find the weight comfortable. I find the balance comfortable. It gives options as to how to hold my camera, sideways or upside down or normal. Upside down makes me just a bit taller. Sideways is easier to hand hold at very slow speeds and is great for looking straight down.

It is certainly my opinion. Have you ever tried a MF SLR with a 45º prism? You might just find it easier and more enjoyable than a TLR with a prism finder.

 

[dpurdy]

It is certainly my opinion. Have you ever tried a MF SLR with a 45º prism? You might just find it easier and more enjoyable than a TLR with a prism finder.

Well certainly I have used a Hasselblad that way. If I want to use an SLR I use my Pentax 67. The Rolleiflex is a special camera that I love for many reasons. The prism works well and I don't even bother carrying a WLF in my camera bag.
We should end this discussion because it is off track from the OP. We can agree to disagree and your opinion doesn't change mine.

 

[Pieter12]

Well certainly I have used a Hasselblad that way. If I want to use an SLR I use my Pentax 67. The Rolleiflex is a special camera that I love for many reasons. The prism works well and I don't even bother carrying a WLF in my camera bag.
We should end this discussion because it is off track from the OP. We can agree to disagree and your opinion doesn't change mine.

Yes. That's why they are opinions.

 

[Ben Hutcherson]

I spent a long time with my two primary medium format cameras being a Rolleicord Va(fitted with a Rick Oleson screen-way back in 2007) and a Rolleiflex Automat. I think my Automat I finally decided was a Model 3. Both of these cameras have coated f/3.5 Xenars(my Rolleiflex has a Compur-Rapid shutter, the Rolleicord a Synchro-Compur).

15+ years later, I can't tell you what film came from which camera unless I have a specific recollection of using one. I shot almost exclusively transparency film then, primarily Provia 100F and Velvia 100F(I was in college and got great deals on some short dated and recently expired 20 roll boxes of both) and my transparencies certainly speak for themselves in image quality. I still have ones that wow me even so many years later.

It's true that the Rolleiflex has a lot more to go wrong than the Rolleicord. I actually bought my Automat advertised non-working(would not start frame counter) on Ebay and dove in head-first. I dug through what information I could find on the internet, learned all I could about how things like the Automat system worked and how to adjust it, and ended up setting it up to work perfectly. It still gives better frame spacing than any of my Hasselblad 120 backs...

Both cameras are very useable, but there's just something about the Rolleiflex that I love. It's very satisfying to load film, crank it, and hear the "clunk" that tells me the counter is starting. I also much prefer the ergonomics. With the Rolleiflex, I can focus, set the exposure, and shoot with all the controls just falling right under my hands when I "cup" the camera in them. I only have to take my right hand off the camera to advance the film. On the Rolleicord, I'm constantly moving my hands around to adjust the exposure, then cock the shutter and release it. Everything about every Rolleiflex I've ever used just feels so much more refined than any Rolleicord I've ever handled. Both are still nicer than the Yashica 124, which gives you the Rolleiflex ergonomics but not the fit/finish...

 

[lenspeeper]

I bought an E series 2.8 Xenotar with an active but very inaccurate meter. So I use a hand held meter and it's no problem, I replaced the rather dim focusing screen myself. It is an easy job although the screws are very tiny and easy to lose, so be mindful of that. The bright screens are available from Rick Olson ( http://rick_oleson.tripod.com/index-175.html)) and he ships it with very easy to understand instructions. It is a worthwhile modification and while you are doing it you can dust out and clean the mirror and back element of the viewing lens; another benefit of this excercise. Good luck on your shopping search.

 

[baachitraka]

Don't get confused about the shutter at awkward position in Rolleicord, that's the least part you have to concern when you are in the field.

As discussed the brightness of the original ground glass is not uniform but sharp. I personally may find a original Rolleicord Va screen to replace yours. That's all ready it.

From @f/8 onwards till @f/16 xenars are sharp (very sharp). @f/5.6 it's not bad either...

My concerns are good shoes, comfortable bag and time and money to explore.