Rolleiflex TLR UV filter for lens protection

[ymc226]

This has been debated to death (filter vs cap) on the Leica User forums. Coming from 35mm cameras, I have never used a lens cap, just a UV or clear filter on my lenses. Having just got a TLR, I don't want to use the double Rollei cap as they do slow me down a tiny bit more so than the more conventional single lens set up.

Any issue with using a bay III to 43mm adapter on both viewing and taking lenses with UV filters attached? Would there be enough room for both? For my situation, I shoot at the beach almost exclusively so would either put a 0.9 or 1.8 ND filter on the taking lens most days anyways when using color film. When using B&W, I would likely use a yellow or orange + ND filter if needed per my aperture choice given the fastest shutter speed is 1/500.

 

[Dan Daniel]

Yes, there is an issue. On a 2.8 Bay III Rollei, there is not room for both an upper and lower filter. The two circles overlap.

My answer was to buy a cheapish Bay III clear glass filter for the upper/viewing lens. I ground away both the glass and the filter mount so that a filter on the lower lens would fit. If you are using a Bay III to 43mm on the bottom lens, you might have less grinding to do as the adapter might raise the lower filter above the upper one?

Rolleiflex Rolleicord Bay I Bay II Bay III UV Lens Filter Silver Black Ring New | eBay

Compatible SeriesRolleiflex\Rolleicord. will lead to the visual error. Hope you can understand! Filter EffectsClear. Filter Size15 mm. Filter ColorClear. Filter ShapeCircular. Mount FittingCokin.

www.ebay.com

 

[ymc226]

Thanks so much Dan. I just looked on eBay and found this Hong Kong seller which has the top filter already with the overlapping part removed. He is out of the Bay II version which I also need so I messaged him to ask if he will be restocking those.

 

[Dan Daniel]

Ah, that looks nice. Never fun having to grind glass with a Dremel!

Shooting on a beach, you'll probably want a lens hood. I made a cap for my Bay III hood so that I didn't have to mount and unmount it every time I took it out of my bag. I had access to a laser cutter when I made this cap. Now I would probably hand cut a thin plastic plate to cover the front and then put some foam on it to grab the inside edge of the hood.

Although it's a beautiful camera, those f/2.8 glass surface sitting right out on the front edge can be nerve racking. On a busy street or a sandy beach, covers on the lens work for me.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

I suspect most TLR shooters don’t bother with filters to protect the lenses. The filter adds two more surfaces to the light path. And the taking lens hood provides all the protection you need. If you drop the camera or bang it into a wall, the hood takes the impact.

 

[blee1996]

You don't need to protect the viewing lens, other than cosmetic resell reasons.

For taking lens, I also use Bay to thread adapter if I need to use filters. Modern filters might be better coated and cheaper/easier to fine. But most of the time, I just use the Bay III hood for all the protection it needs.

 

[JPD]

I would too use protection filters if I lived in a very sandy place like Santa Monica. For the taking lens I would use a UV or skylight filter of a good brand for colour, and perhaps a light yellow filter as standard for black and white.

 

[Steven Lee]

To me this is incredibly frustrating design flaw of Rolleiflexes. They are simply hostile to filters, because mounting a filter makes the lens cap useless. And I use filters all the time, either yellow/orange for B&W or simply UV to protect the taking lens from salty deposits when shooting near the ocean. Drives me nuts.

What I have settled on is a bay-to-threaded adapter, followed by a filter, followed by a single aftermarket lens cap on the taking lens. The silly Rolleiflex cap is never used. The drawbacks of this approach is that the viewing lens is never protected, and it's easy to forget the lens cap on. Mamiya TLRs are far superior in this regard.

 

[Two23]

I've never been a fan of filters. They aren't anywhere nearly as protective as a metal lens cap. If you think about it, if a filter breaks you suddenly have very sharp and hard edges of broken glass being forced inward towards your lens. I had damage to a modern Nikon lens caused by a broken filter. I got careless and wasn't using the lens cap while hiking.


Kent in SD

 

[Steven Lee]

@Two23 You are not thinking about them the right way. A filter is a must for older equipment with softer coatings when you frequently shoot in dirty air. I couldn't care less about a physical object hitting the front element (can't imagine this happening) but sand or salty water droplets suspended in the air are quite normal in coastal areas. When shooting any kind of action it's even worse. You'll find tiny bits of carbon brake pads on your front element when shooting a NASCAR race, or droplets of street food oil at festivals.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

@Two23 You are not thinking about them the right way. A filter is a must for older equipment with softer coatings when you frequently shoot in dirty air. I couldn't care less about a physical object hitting the front element (can't imagine this happening) but sand or salty water droplets suspended in the air are quite normal in coastal areas. When shooting any kind of action it's even worse. You'll find tiny bits of carbon brake pads on your front element when shooting a NASCAR race, or droplets of street food oil at festivals.

A must for shooting in dirty air? I’ve shot a dozen different Rolleiflexes and Rolleicords over the past four decades on the streets of Manhattan, on the beaches of Florida and Virginia, in the backwoods of Appalachia. I have never ever covered my lenses with filters. I always kept a hood on their taking lenses. Their lenses are as clear as the day I purchased them.

 

[Steven Lee]

@Rolleiflexible Four decades. Dozen! Sure. If you did what you said you did, it means your lenses were full of clean marks on the day you purchased them. You're also shooting handheld at half a second with tack sharp results, if I remember correctly?

 

[JPD]

I have never scratched a lens but have seen many Rolleis with "cleaning marks" probably from previous owners trying to clean the lenses from quartz (sand) dust. Yes, they were improperly "cleaned", but with a filter on it wouldn't have happened. It's true that a broken filter can harm the lens, but with a lens hood on the risk of breaking a filter on a Rollei TLR is minimal.

A filter on the lens means two extra glass surfaces, but a good filter will not have a big negative impact on the image quality, and it's up to the user if he or she finds the results acceptable or not. I can't recall ever looking at someone's photos and thinking that they were bad because they must have been taken with a UV/skylight filter.

 

[koraks]

If you did what you said you did

Here's a kind reminder from a moderator's perspective: suggesting that people are deliberately not telling the truth is a sure-fire way to take a thread into directions nobody ends up being happy about. Please discuss respectfully.

 

[guangong]

My experience with Rollei TLR cameras is limited to the 2.8F that I bought in 1973 and still use, so i don’t have the experience of many on this thread with multiple models, and can’t say anything about other models.
Filters serve a practical purpose in altering how film responds to light, so sometimes needed, sometimes not.
The best way to protect Rollei is the ingenious leather case, which allows ready access when top is removed. Keeping camera in lower part of case protects camera from unexpected bumps when hanging from neck. Never concerned about using filter to protect lens. My lenses remain free of any blemish.
I use filters with lens shade. For filter colors rarely used I have an adapter.
What I like about my Rollei is freedom from GAS...a pistol grip, prism finder, tripod quick release, a couple closeup lenses...that’s about it for available accessories. So a Rollei TLR can save money compared to all the goodies for 35mm.
My only regret...meter finally kaput. I did find its meter handy.
Incidentally, I have always found the folding lens cap quite handy. Haven’t lost mine in 50years. For other cameras I am the Johnny Appleseed of lens caps.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

@Rolleiflexible Four decades. Dozen! Sure. If you did what you said you did, it means your lenses were full of clean marks on the day you purchased them. You're also shooting handheld at half a second with tack sharp results, if I remember correctly?

Steven, I don't care if you believe me or not. I'm a 65-year-old lawyer, and my integrity in the court is unquestioned. But online, where people know you only by your words, reputations rise and fall on innuendo. I don't appreciate the suggestion that I am less than truthful.

For the benefit of the group, I am attaching a photo of the ten TLRs still in my possession. I shoot them hard -- all but two have Maxwell screens, and each has made multiple trips to Paul Ebel for repairs to shutters and film transports. (The original Rolleiflex sits on a shelf, and the Voigtlander Superb gets light use.) One of the Tele Rolleflexes has lens separation issues (a common problem for the camera, which is why I ended up with a second) but please feel free to visit and inspect the condition of the lenses and coatings. Their lenses (Tele aside) were, and still are, pristine. I might kill shutters and transports, but I am meticulous about keeping a hood on the taking lenses in use, and keeping my fingers off of them.

That's not a dozen. I gave away six or seven other Rolleiflexes over the years, to other photographers. Do I need to get receipts to prove this to you as well?

And if you cannot make a long exposure handheld, I suggest you learn. It's a tremendously valuable skill for a photographer. And it's pretty easy, if you have some modicum of self-awareness and self-control.

 

[Dan Daniel]

Here's a kind reminder from a moderator's perspective: suggesting that people are deliberately not telling the truth is a sure-fire way to take a thread into directions nobody ends up being happy about. Please discuss respectfully.

This flies in the face of what we all know is our duty as users of the internet:

Duty Calls

xkcd.com

The OP knew the danger of raising the topic and did it anyway. Seems he got what he wanted, an answer to his question.

 

[Steven Lee]

@Rolleiflexible I wanted to just make fun of your abilities but this came out wrong. I apologize. In my case I tend to replace UV filters due to cleaning marks on them within 5-7 years because I shoot a lot under adverse conditions. Glad you're not facing this problem. Sorry again!

 

[ymc226]

Yesterday, I went down to the beach to shoot around 7am. It was very cold (for SoCal) and very windy so not many people about and perfect for me as I prefer no-one in my photos. I run there every other day so know how crowded it gets. There were strong gusts which blew sand everywhere so I was glad I had a ND filter which was necessary on my freshly overhauled Nikon F loaded with Portra 160. The worse the weather, relatively speaking, the more opportunities for my type of photography.

I will be using a filter both for the viewing and taking lenses given my limited experience but I understand others will have different opinions.

 

[dave olson]

When I bought my Rollei 3.5F years ago I bought a UV for the taking lens and a clear for the viewing. As I recall I purchased them from B&H, NYC.

 

[ymc226]

Just a follow up. I received the UV lenses as well as a bay III to 43mm adapter. The UV filters attach to both lenses and allow concurrent use of the hood. Without the hood, the adapter also allows the UV on the viewing lens to stay in place. This method keeps not having lens caps on any of my cameras constant so I don't need to remember to take off the caps as it could cause issues on some of my rangefinders.

 

[ic-racer]

Your camera looks fantastic! Like new!

I have a similar philosophy. I could leave my UV filter and Lens Shade at home and carry the camera with the fancy dual-lenscap, or I could leave the lenscap at home and go out with the filter and the Lens Shade.

I pretty much leave the filter and shad on all the time.

 

[ymc226]

Yes, even with ASA 100 film, I invariably need a 3 stop ND filter and 6 stop if using ASA 400 speed film on most days I’m at the shore. It’s easier not to have lens caps and aloe have the ND filter attached or at least the UV filter on and ready to change out if needed.

 

[Dan Daniel]

Looks as if the top filter is notched and the bottom one not? Or is there a lower cut-out? Anyway, both filters look well made- are they?

I assume that whoever owns the Rollei logo these days is used to anyone with a laser cutter and applying their logo to all sorts of things

I'm with you and ic-racer. Having a TLR set up to use without fiddling with the cap and having to install filters in the field is much easier for me. And I like a lens hood as a bit of a bump shield for the taking lens.

 

[ymc226]

Yes, the bottom filter is notched at the bottom which allows both the lower UV filter and bay III->43mm adapter to fit. They all seem well machined, without any play and with a definite "lock" feeling when twisted into place. The packaging and Ebay ad states it uses Schott multicoated glass but I cannot say for sure. They are coming out with a re-designed version for bay II sizing which I would need for a 3.5F.