Rolleiflex TLR Selection

[Maximus966]

Hello All!

I am assuming that this might have been thought of by many of you, so here's the question: If I were to decide purchasing only one TLR Rolleiflex camera, whta would be the model and why? Preferably, a mechanical one...

Thanks!

Jorge

 

[ic-racer]

Well, they are all mechanical. Personally I have a late model 2.8F Panar.
When I got my 2.8F Planar, the TLR was out of production, the GX and later models had not been produced yet.
If I had to get a new one today I'd get the 2.8 FX-N. Matching up the arrow on the backing paper is no big deal.

 

[Maximus966]

Well, they are all mechanical. Personally I have a late model 2.8F Panar.
When I got my 2.8F Planar, the TLR was out of production, the GX and later models had not been produced yet.
If I had to get a new one today I'd get the 2.8 FX-N. Matching up the arrow on the backing paper is no big deal.

Thanks! Don't mind having to manually set the film either.

 

[campy51]

I would probably suggest the 3.5E without a meter. It's probably as good as the 3.5F but much less expensive. If you want to easily replace focus screens then get the 3.5F. If you want the 2.8 lens then get what is in best condition.

 

[campy51]

Just saw this. I have bought a lot of used cameras from them. Ask for the shutterbug dept. and talk to Steve. He will check it out while talking to you.

https://www.natcam.com/products/rollei-rolleiflex-mx-evs-type-1-medium-format-film-tlr-camera-with-75mm-f3-5-tessar-lens/

 

[Laurent]

I'd suggest condition is more important than the exact model, but that's only my 2 cents comment.

I'm perfectly happy with a 3.5 "B" (aka Automat aka MX-EVS), which detects the film to set the counter (but setting film start is no big deal, I did it on my Yashica and was happy with it).

I'd also have a look at the accessories (filters, Rolleinars mostly) as the different lines do not take the same size. Since everything seems to have to be bought used, avaliability and price may help you deciding which camera to get.

 

[Saganich]

I've bought two, one is an early 3.5 Xenotar Automat, which is fantastic but the age worries me so I picked-up a 3.5E as a compliment. For me the on board light meter is pointless, but others may need/want that. The most IMPORTANT advice is to buy one from a trusted source who actually knows the history and that it is actually working properly. Hold out and let the "good" deals go to the impetuous people out there. In other words there is a certain price point for various models in proper verifiable working condition and paying more for an older model that is properly used and serviced may be better than a "good deal" on an F that "looks great" and was "CLA'd" by some anonymous person.

 

[baachitraka]

I am still on the same boat like you and wanted a Rolleiflex but my Rolleicord is serving me good.

But I must tell that, I don't know how the planar/xenotar will render the negatives.

I may suggested a Rolleiflex T and this has got much better lens despite of tessar type.

 

[OrientPoint]

(Full disclosure: I have a 3.5E posted for sale)

The "best" model, in my opinion, is the 3.5F. It's lighter than the 2.8 while being only 1/2 stop slower, and the folding/removable hood is nicer than those on previous models. You'll find models with either a Xenotar or Planar lens. People have spent a lot of energy debating which is better, but really I don't think anyone can actually tell the difference. They're both excellent. Unfortunately F models are collectible and thus expensive.

Which brings me to my unsatisfying non-answer: *any* postwar Rollei TLR is going to be excellent providing it's still in good condition. Rolleicords are lighter, simpler and much cheaper, Rolleiflexes have more features and command higher prices. Having owned a bunch of Rollei TLRs, I do find I enjoy using the Rolleiflex more than Rollecord, but quality-wise they're closer than most Rollei-fans will admit.

Regarding the meter, they're often non-functional and even when they work you'll probably prefer to use a handheld meter. The 3.5f is coupled; the 3.5e meter is not, so it's even less useful on that model. You can always remove the meter if you want, providing you can find the plug that goes in its place. I think someone sells new ones these days.

 

[Maximus966]

Thank you all for your feedback.

I have light meter, so no meter or non-working meter will not be an issue.

 

[OAPOli]

If I could, I would get the 3.5 E2. It's a 3.5F without the meter and ISO dial.

I love the folding hood of the 3.5F, and the coupled meter is very useful. But the camera looks a little bit better without it

 

[macfred]

For my taste Rolleiflex 3.5F Planar (with or without meter) - Rolleiflex 3.5 E2 - Rolleiflex T

I'd suggest condition is more important than the exact model, but that's only my 2 cents comment.

I totally agree !

 

[Steven Lee]

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

 

[dpurdy]

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

The 2.8F screen is a different size than the GX/FX screens.

 

[Besk]

I had the same question 20 years ago. Purchased a 3.5 F with Xenotar lens without the meter.

 

[outwest]

I replaced the screen on my 3.5F with one I modified from a Minolta RB (IIRC). Easy to do and much improved. There were instructions online. I believe that Minolta made the high end screens for Hasselblad.

 

[Dan Daniel]

I replaced the screen on my 3.5F with one I modified from a Minolta RB (IIRC). Easy to do and much improved. There were instructions online. I believe that Minolta made the high end screens for Hasselblad.

Mamiya RB, not Minolta?

All Rollei screens are replaceable, just some need to be slightly disassembled. And on these, ideally you also reset focus. In practice, it is often a simple swap, or a swap with some minor shimming.

For me, the 'best' Rolleiflex I have is a 3.5 E3, with no meter. It is built on an 3.5 F body but has none of the meter coupling systems installed. Easier to find will be a 3.5 E2, which also has the easily replaced screen that does not need focus reset.

But the important thing is condition. Decide if a Tessar/Xenar or Planar/Xenotar matters to you. After that, condition, condition, condition. It's actually pretty amazing that the basic mechanics are the same from the first Automat to the last F. There were some refinements over the years, and they added new items like meters and EV locks and such. But the core design didn't change. A well-maintained Automat with an updated screen is as much a pleasure to use as a late model F, and even weighs less

 

[campy51]

Xenotar lens seems to have more contrast than the Planar. At least to my eyes.

 

[Besk]

Mamiya RB, not Minolta?

Minolta

 

[Steven Lee]

The 2.8F screen is a different size than the GX/FX screens.

I bought it brand new from https://rolleiflex.us two years ago. It is an OEM Rolleiflex screen. It's bright and reminds me of Hasselblad's AcuteMatte screens. The owner (Eric) said it's from their latest TLRs. Could it be 4.0 FW?

 

[brian steinberger]

After alot of research I just recently found a very nice condition Rolleiflex 3.5E3. It has a Xenotar which I actually wanted. I don’t have any Schneider lenses in my stable and I thought it would be something different. I love the way it renders and is super sharp.

 

[dpurdy]

I bought it brand new from https://rolleiflex.us two years ago. It is an OEM Rolleiflex screen. It's bright and reminds me of Hasselblad's AcuteMatte screens. The owner (Eric) said it's from their latest TLRs. Could it be 4.0 FW?

Ii don't know the answer to that but I have an FX and a 2.8F. The FX stock screen is pretty bright but I found it a little difficult to focus so I had Fleenor replace it with a Maxwell screen which I also have in my F. The FX screen which is the same as a GX screen is a little smaller than an F screen and wouldn't be useable. My Maxwell screens both have split image but the FX one is a little faint and hard to see by comparison to the F Maxwell screen. The Maxwell screens are brighter than the FX stock screen.

 

[Maximus966]

Thanks all for the feedback!

 

[retina_restoration]

I'd suggest condition is more important than the exact model

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.

 

[OAPOli]

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.

Here's a convenient table for the Rolleis.

Serial numbers Post-War Rolleiflex 3.5 cameras

Serial Numbers of post-war Rolleiflex 3.5 Twin Lens Reflex cameras

tlr.rolleigraphy.eu