Rolleiflex & Yashicamat.

[Russ - SVP]

It's no longer made, so some would consider it a waste of a roll.

Sage advice.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

The Rollei is the better lens. Stopped down it's as sharp as a Planar and it handles flare better than the Yashica. ...

A hearsay enters the fray? All of it is little else, especially given age and condition of either one, even more so the Rollei one. And when I see "stopped down is as good as ..." I have an issue. While Planar has its own cult status no matter how it fairs to competitors, same goes for Tessar. Technically both so different, they simply cannot be compared to one another, yet age comes in the way and one Tessar could be visibly better than some Planar example, which proves nothing. How the one in here performs against anything else goes the same way. So it is not a sound advise to shoot down Yashica's Yashinon because it does not have Rollei name on it.

What is that 75 over 80 superiority? Hard to get going on this one. No to mention in this case a minuscule difference in angle of view to begin with, not worth attention at all.

And I won't even start on that Yashica flair "bombshell" news. These things have stopped many from buying one, such a well performing camera, so long as it was cared for.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I had three Mats and just two Cords. Yashinons just sharp and nothing else.

 

[Paul Howell]

The bottom line in terms for sharpness is can: a lens resolve 200 LPMM which what TMAX 100 resolves, and has sufficient contrast to show say the 10 Zones of the zone system. In my experience the Yahinons when used with a lens hoods are pretty good with flare. Has anyone an example of a Yashinon flaring in normal shooting conditions? Unless you are shooting microfiche film what difference does it make that a Rollie Zeiss lens can resolve maybe 250 LPMM? Some claim that Zeiss or other German lens have better micro contrast, if so how is it measured? On the Rolli side the lens coating might be better in terms of color.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

The bottom line in terms for sharpness is can: a lens resolve 200 LPMM which what TMAX 100 resolves, and has sufficient contrast to show say the 10 Zones of the zone system. In my experience the Yahinons when used with a lens hoods are pretty good with flare. Has anyone an example of a Yashinon flaring in normal shooting conditions? Unless you are shooting microfiche film what difference does it make that a Rollie Zeiss lens can resolve maybe 250 LPMM? Some claim that Zeiss or other German lens have better micro contrast, if so how is it measured? On the Rolli side the lens coating might be better in terms of color.

I'm old school and LPMMs remind me now of nothing but digital chat about something that has nothing to do with image quality (outside lab that is). Others will disagree, will see all kinds of superiority ghosts and that typically only after knowing/reading about a few extra lines of resolving ability of a lens that projects image on a film, which then gets processed with all the processing perks affecting outcome in every imaginable way, then (sticking to analog) things get further compounded/convoluted in the darkroom. None of the steps are lab perfect, and that is assuming the lab did the lens testing right to begin with.

I'd never shoot a frame in a Tangor if I paid any attention to this kind of stuff. Do I ever see a difference between one of my Yashicas and the Planar in the Rolleiflex? Sometimes yes, but that is more of a perception of viewed scene than lens' performance in technical terms.

 

[Dali]

To the OP... Tempest in a teapot.

You have both cameras. Run a test by shooting the exact same scene at the same time, Print from both negatives and keep one camera depending on the print you like the most. Any other consideration is irrelevant.

 

[Ian Grant]

The bottom line in terms for sharpness is can: a lens resolve 200 LPMM which what TMAX 100 resolves, and has sufficient contrast to show say the 10 Zones of the zone system. In my experience the Yahinons when used with a lens hoods are pretty good with flare. Has anyone an example of a Yashinon flaring in normal shooting conditions? Unless you are shooting microfiche film what difference does it make that a Rollie Zeiss lens can resolve maybe 250 LPMM? Some claim that Zeiss or other German lens have better micro contrast, if so how is it measured? On the Rolli side the lens coating might be better in terms of color.

The Yashinon on my Yashicamat 124 doesn't flare under normal conditions, have I suffered something like flare ? well yes a couple of times in a few hundred rolls of film and when you'd least expect it.

This was an overcast morning and a shot of canon balls in the moat of Rhodos Castle (Greece). It was dull f5.6 and the sky in the distance starting to brighten significantly so there's quite a bit of burning in. It's not lens flare it's internal reflections off the black paint.

I've used the Yashicamat in conditions where the Zoom lenses on my Canon DSLR will flare and had no problems same goes for my coated (pre MC) LF lenses (no flare), So yes extremely rarely there may be an issue but it's so unusual I've not bothered going out of my way to add internal flocking which would prevent it happening again.

Ian

 

[Paul Howell]

I have shot about the same number of rolls between my 124 and D, maybe I have seen a few times the same internal reflection, and like Ian never bothered to flock either. With a Rolli or Mamiya 330 doubt you would ever see it. The only MF Camera I have that flare is an issue is a Kodak Tourist, not if it single or or multi coated lens.

 

[Paul Ozzello]

A hearsay enters the fray? All of it is little else, especially given age and condition of either one, even more so the Rollei one. And when I see "stopped down is as good as ..." I have an issue. While Planar has its own cult status no matter how it fairs to competitors, same goes for Tessar. Technically both so different, they simply cannot be compared to one another, yet age comes in the way and one Tessar could be visibly better than some Planar example, which proves nothing. How the one in here performs against anything else goes the same way. So it is not a sound advise to shoot down Yashica's Yashinon because it does not have Rollei name on it.

What is that 75 over 80 superiority? Hard to get going on this one. No to mention in this case a minuscule difference in angle of view to begin with, not worth attention at all.

And I won't even start on that Yashica flair "bombshell" news. These things have stopped many from buying one, such a well performing camera, so long as it was cared for.

I don't think anyone said the Yashica was a bad camera, it’s a very good one. But typically (not always) Made in Germany is technically superior to made in Japan - it won’t make you a better photographer but yes the Rollei label on the camera indicates a superior precision instrument.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

I don't think anyone said the Yashica was a bad camera, it’s a very good one. But typically (not always) Made in Germany is technically superior to made in Japan - it won’t make you a better photographer but yes the Rollei label on the camera indicates a superior precision instrument.

Actually there was at least one comment referring to how crudely 635 is made, which must have been some really abused example of one as 635 in same park as rest of the Mats, form D on actually. But this particular post I made was regarding the lens quality and purported convergence in quality once one is stopped down - Tessar stopped down as sharp as Planar) - which is such a load of baloney.

And again, when things get this old, what once was a case for a new equipment, frequently no longer applies and the exact opposite could be true. I don't want to under emphasize the quality difference between TLRs from Rollei factory vs. Yashica. I have the 3.5F with Planar and several Yashicas from still brand new and simple A to 124. There are differences and surely 3.5 F is in a different league to begin with (also bought it in like new condition back in 2002). Yashica provides long term enjoyment nevertheless and any bad experiences with them is with a bad/abused example, not the model itself nor its built quality.

 

[Paul Howell]

What could be an issue for long term use is availability of repair and maintenance. I had my 124 CLA about 10 years ago at my local repair shop, last year I called to see about a CLA for my D, told they no longer work on Yashicas, but still work on Mamiya and Rollie.

 

[Paul Ozzello]

Tessar stopped down as sharp as Planar) - which is such a load of baloney.

And in the very center the Tessar is actually sharper than the Planar.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

And in the very center the Tessar is actually sharper than the Planar.

And I have a pinhole that is sharper even in the corners.

 

[Paul Ozzello]

And I have a pinhole that is sharper even in the corners.

Everyday feels like April 1st.

 

[neilt3]

And I have a pinhole that is sharper even in the corners.

In which case you have a broken camera that some clot had probably had apart and put back together wrong .
If it's in this condition then it is not a valid comparison .
Drive your car over the best lens you have have and it's junk .
That doesn't mean all of those design of lenses in the world are junk by design , it's just yours !

I use a Yashica 124g , the 635 , Minolta Autocords , Rolleicords , Mamiya TLRs , all seem to have just fine image quality to me , and are mostly comparable .
Price also comes into it to manage your expectations , a camera that was several time the price of a competeter should be better built for professional use etc , it doesn't mean the cheaper one isn't capable of good images .

I also have some Lubital and other brand TLRs , which while having character are in a different league , a much lower one !

 

[Deleted member 88956]

In which case you have a broken camera that some clot had probably had apart and put back together wrong .
If it's in this condition then it is not a valid comparison .
Drive your car over the best lens you have have and it's junk .
That doesn't mean all of those design of lenses in the world are junk by design , it's just yours !

I use a Yashica 124g , the 635 , Minolta Autocords , Rolleicords , Mamiya TLRs , all seem to have just fine image quality to me , and are mostly comparable .
Price also comes into it to manage your expectations , a camera that was several time the price of a competeter should be better built for professional use etc , it doesn't mean the cheaper one isn't capable of good images .

I also have some Lubital and other brand TLRs , which while having character are in a different league , a much lower one !

I don't think you've read what I was replying to (and all that preceded it)

 

[NB23]

You live and die with a Rolleiflex.

 

[Chrismat]

The flare issue with Yashicas usually has nothing to with the lens, the problem is light not being properly absorbed internally. If you find that you are having flare issues, flocking the inside of the camera makes a big difference. Obviously one should still use a lens shade.

 

[Randy Stewart]

About 25 years ago, I was crazed to buy a TLR. Being tight with the camera store next to my office, I was able to borrow several to compare along with a couple I already owned. I subjected all to a standard lens resolution test chart shot on film. All but one TLR has a 4 element Tessar-type lens. The results, sharpest to least:

Minolta Autocord: Sharpest lens by clear margin if not greatly so. All generations of Autocords used the same lens. For those with the breakable focus tab, someone is 3-D printing them and selling on ebay.

Rollei Rolleicord with Tessar: Very good, close to the Autocord.

Ricoh Diacord: Good but less sharp than the Rolleicord/Tessar. A real sleeper and great user at cheap price.

Yashicamat 124G: Considerably less sharp than other cameras. No where near worth the prices sought for them at the time, and this model was almost new. From the Yashica 12 on, all of these models had the same Tessar copy lens; some earlier models have that lens, and some have an even worse 3 element lens. I've briefly owned two over the years and would not waste my money on one.

Rolleiflex 3.5F: Tested for comparison to the lesser cameras/lenses above, being considered for purchase by me. Terrible - It seems someone had adjusted the alignment between taking lens and focusing lens, which were no longer aligned. throwing out the focus. (And why the owner who did not understand the problem wanted to sell it quickly.)

 

[GRHazelton]

I have a Yashica 124g, a Minolta Autocord with the meter, and an IkoFlex, the model of which I can't recall, we're out of town and the cameras are 300 miles away! Speaking about the user experience of the three (I can't afford a Rolleiflex of any sort!) the Autocord is the winner. Its ergonomics are superior; focus and shutter are handled by one hand, the other advances the film. Next comes the Yashica. Classic Rollei model, sans auto film sensing. As with the Autocord, one must align arrows on the backing paper with marks on the camera before auto film advance is enabled. Hardly a difficult task! The Ikoflex, despite its wonderful build quality and excellent Zeiss Tessar lens (the model for the 3.5 Rollei and the Autocord) is hampered by an excruciating film loading experience, and IFIRC manual shutter cocking. What were they thinking!

 

[Dan Daniel]

Minolta Autocord: Sharpest lens by clear margin if not greatly so. All generations of Autocords used the same lens. For those with the breakable focus tab, someone is 3-D printing them and selling on ebay.

The Autocord levers on Ebay appear to be machined, not printed. It does appear to be a direct drop-in if they have located the set screws properly.

Karl Bryan offers a replacement lever. And I do also. Karl uses a late modification design Minolta had, screwing a stainless steel lever to the helical collar. I machine a lever from aluminum and bolt it directly to the helical. Both ways are quite strong and should be the last time you worry about the Autocord levers.

 

[campy51]

I just purchased another Autocord but this one has the meter and looks in very good condition.

 

[kevs]

<snipped>
Yashicamat 124G: Considerably less sharp than other cameras. No where near worth the prices sought for them at the time, and this model was almost new. From the Yashica 12 on, all of these models had the same Tessar copy lens; some earlier models have that lens, and some have an even worse 3 element lens. I've briefly owned two over the years and would not waste my money on one.
<snipped>

That's not my experience with the 124G, which I find has a nice, sharp lens, even into the corners. I bought mine as a student in 2004 for £140 and it did me well. I made some nice images with it and I still use it occasionally. It's true the triplet Yashikor on my 635 (I've had that about 30 years now -- can't even remember how much I paid for it) isn't as sharp at the edges, and there's that odd swirly bokeh, but one would hardly expect Rollieflex quality from a triplet. I certainly don't consider either camera to have been a waste of money, but YMMV.

P.S. I hope you used a tripod for your lens tests. It's the sharpest lens you'll ever buy!

 

[Dan Daniel]

That's not my experience with the 124G, which I find has a nice, sharp lens, even into the corners. I bought mine as a student in 2004 for £140 and it did me well. I made some nice images with it and I still use it occasionally.

With any old camera, condition is critical. YashicaMats were made in huge quantities. They simply are not as well made as Rolleis (or Autocords)(but still made well before anyone jumps). And the lens is not made with the same consistency of smaller manufacturers like Minolta or Zeiss (meaning Rollei-specific lenses which had good quality control). With the taking lens aligned to the film plane and the viewing lens synced to the taking lens focus, very good cameras. Many have been used in schools, police departments, weddings, etc., and will show all sorts of variations.

The Autocord lens is excellent. But the Auocord lens mounting and focus system is also part of why I think people see consistently good results. The large helical and the way the lens board, focus system, and body connect- you pretty well need to break the castings to be out of alignment. And the chance for drift between taking and viewing lenses is less than other designs.

 

[Pioneer]

Have a Rolleiflex, sold a Yashica Mat and I love my Ikoflex. Guess which gets used the most. Never owned the other cameras mentioned here and really have had no reason to.

That said, I am sure they are all fine cameras when working correctly. These old TLR cameras are a very personal thing for me and so, if I have an interest, I always try them out myself. I have always loved my old Ikoflex because it is light and the screen is very easy for me to see. It seems to snap in and out of focus just a little faster and a little more accurately, perhaps the fresnel is just more matched to me and my eyesight. It doesn't feel quite as well built as my Rollei but it has not failed me so far. I just had it serviced and adjusted in 2019 so I would suspect that it is probably good for another 10 years or so.

Advice given to me on this site has always been honest and freely given and I always appreciate hearing others viewpoints. But it has always reflected the advisor's personal likes and dislikes developed through their own experiences. There is nothing wrong with that but your own experience is always best.

In other words, what you buy and use should be what you personally like. I will say one thing though, everyone who enjoys using film cameras should try out a TLR at least once in their life. It is truly a unique experience.