Thinking about a TLR.. few questions

[Ian Grant]

Not sure f5.6 is the best aperture for a Tessar/Xenar, more like f11/f16, although the Yashinons and Rokkors are more modern designs and you might find f8 is ok at a push, but it depernmds what you shoot. For landscapes f16 is best with 4 element lenses.

Ian

 

[Scruff McGruff]

Even my Yashica 12 (41 years old) has a reliable meter, though it was initially busted due to battery corrosion. The thing about the Yashica meters (I believe they were all a similar design, not sure though) is that they average a pretty large area, so you should be mindful of this limitation when your composition includes a lot of sky. I have no idea whether the Rollei meters are more center-weighted or not.

 

[dougjgreen]

Not sure f5.6 is the best aperture for a Tessar/Xenar, more like f11/f16, although the Yashinons and Rokkors are more modern designs and you might find f8 is ok at a push, but it depernmds what you shoot. For landscapes f16 is best with 4 element lenses.

Ian

Most of the field is quite sharp by f5.6 on a good Tessar, (of which the Yashinons and Rokkors on TLRs are) other than the extreme corners of the frame, and those too are quite sharp by f8. F16 is definitely not quite as good as f8, due to diffraction effects.

 

[brian steinberger]

I do have a spot meter to meter, but kind of takes away from the spontaneous shooting I would like to use the camera for, so finding one with a somewhat reliable meter would be nice. I've seemed to narrow it down the the Rolleiflex's, the Autocord, and the Yashica. As for the Rolleiflex's, are the 2.8 versions heavier than the 3.5 versions? Any differences in the cameras themselves other than the 1/2 stop of aperture?

I'm still stuck on the close focusing. This is important to me, but I've ruled out the Mamiya's because of weight and not having the need to change lenses. Can anyone with either a Rolleiflex 2.8 or 3.5, Autocord, or Yashica confirm how close the lens focuses?

 

[Phillip P. Dimor]

I used this older woman's Rolleicord once. It was really quite good. I'm not sure if it was just a lucky sample or if they are all 'that good' but it's lens was sharp and buttery smooth. It was solidly built and of a small size, easy to use.

The woman had purchased it in the 70s from a portrait photographer. She had her portrait taken and said to the photographer something along the lines of 'What a beautiful camera!' and the photographer replied that it was for sale.

 

[Ian Grant]

Most of the field is quite sharp by f5.6 on a good Tessar, (of which the Yashinons and Rokkors on TLRs are) other than the extreme corners of the frame, and those too are quite sharp by f8. F16 is definitely not quite as good as f8, due to diffraction effects.

I beg to differ

f11/f16 are excellent no drop off in quality That's from years of practical experience.

Ian

 

[Chazzy]

I beg to differ

f11/f16 are excellent no drop off in quality That's from years of practical experience.

Ian

That's about where I've experienced that my Tessar-clone on my Koni-Omega is sharpest, but I can't say that I complain about its performance at wider apertures. Wide open the softness lends itself to portraits.

 

[brian steinberger]

Wide open the softness lends itself to portraits.

This is kind of what I'm after!

 

[Ian Grant]

Charles, likewise I do use my Tessar type lenses at wider apertures but taking the drop in sharpness into the eaquation, but for critical work it's usually f16, diffraction limits f22.

Ian

 

[JRJacobs]

Rolleiflex's, are the 2.8 versions heavier than the 3.5 versions? Any differences in the cameras themselves other than the 1/2 stop of aperture?

I'm still stuck on the close focusing. This is important to me, but I've ruled out the Mamiya's because of weight and not having the need to change lenses. Can anyone with either a Rolleiflex 2.8 or 3.5, Autocord, or Yashica confirm how close the lens focuses?

Brian -

Yes, the 2.8 versions are heavier. Not by a huge amount, but noticable. No difference in 3.5 vs. 2.8 provided they are both Planar or Xenotar models. Many of the Rolleiflexes were made with 3.5 Tessars, however - those are different.

I have owned Rolleiflex (many models), Autocords, and 2 Yashica-Mats. They all focus no closer than 3 feet. Even if they did, you would be having serious parallax problems at that point. Using the close up lens sets correct the parallax and allow you to focus very closely. They are not a pain to carry - they are the size of a filter and attach the same way.

BTW - after all the TLR's I have owned, the only one I kept was my Ricohmatic 225. A nice camera similar to an Autocord.

 

[JRJacobs]

Not sure f5.6 is the best aperture for a Tessar/Xenar, more like f11/f16, although the Yashinons and Rokkors are more modern designs and you might find f8 is ok at a push, but it depernmds what you shoot. For landscapes f16 is best with 4 element lenses.

Ian

Ian - Yashinons and Rokkors are not more modern design - they are a Tessar design, based on the original Tessar.

Tessar best range is from 5.6 - 11. Diffraction effects degrade performance at f/16 and above.

 

[brian steinberger]

Brian -

Yes, the 2.8 versions are heavier. Not by a huge amount, but noticable. No difference in 3.5 vs. 2.8 provided they are both Planar or Xenotar models. Many of the Rolleiflexes were made with 3.5 Tessars, however - those are different.

I have owned Rolleiflex (many models), Autocords, and 2 Yashica-Mats. They all focus no closer than 3 feet. Even if they did, you would be having serious parallax problems at that point. Using the close up lens sets correct the parallax and allow you to focus very closely. They are not a pain to carry - they are the size of a filter and attach the same way.

BTW - after all the TLR's I have owned, the only one I kept was my Ricohmatic 225. A nice camera similar to an Autocord.

This is very helpful. Thank you!

 

[GJA]

I have had some limited experiance with the Yashica Mat 124G. It was a great camera to use, but you cant change the lens. It fit your requirements (although im not sure about the exact distance of close focus probably a little under a meter maybe three feet).

They also seem very cheap, but do a little research they came with several varieties of lens, some ok and some excellent.

 

[tac]

For what it's worth, I have Mamiya C's, Rolleiflex, Rolleicords, and Yashicas. I never bought a Y 124 or 124G because of the discontinued 1.3v mercury cells. The Flexes are easily the nicest, but expensive. My second favorite, and the ones that I use 90% of the time, are the Yashica-Mats. The EM and LM are also nice, no batteries for the meters, which s*ck anyway. I use a hand meter, always. Yashinon lens, only. I have hand-carried the Mamiya, but now use it as a studio camera only. I never found an Autocord or a Ricoh worth buying, but I'm still looking! Good Luck to you in you quest!

 

[GGardner]

A contrarian opinion

Now, I love my Rollei TLR for many things, but I wouldn't use it for every photographic task, and I'm afraid I must be a bit contrarian here.

You say you want to shoot close up, and at f/2.8, which leaves you with very little depth of field (maybe an inch?) Even with a bright screen, I find it takes me some time to focus, which is fine if both me and my subject are stationary. However, if either (or both) are moving, getting critical focus quickly is really hard. Yes, I've seen lots of older photos taken by masters with their TLRs, but they are just better than I am.

This isn't a specific problem with Rolleis, I would think all TLRs have this problem.

 

[Paul Sorensen]

I'm still stuck on the close focusing. This is important to me, but I've ruled out the Mamiya's because of weight and not having the need to change lenses. Can anyone with either a Rolleiflex 2.8 or 3.5, Autocord, or Yashica confirm how close the lens focuses?

My Rolleiflex 3.5 Automat focuses to about 3 feet. I do not have the closeup set. The closeup set (Rolleinar) can get a little pricy, especially for a 2.8 flex. Actually, all filters and accessories can be expensive for the 2.8.

Also, I found recently that the Yashicas are kind of expensive now, and I went ahead and got a Rolleiflex instead for not much more money. Of course, a newer Rolleiflex and especially an f2.8 version will cost a lot more. I got a 3.5 Automat MX with a Tessar for a little under $250 in really nice condition.

 

[Ian Grant]

My Yashicamat 124 focuses to approx 1 metre/3ft.

As Paul says accessories for TLR's can be very pricey, even simple things like lens caps, filters etc. If you shop round then Minolta's and Yashica's can still be found at excellent prices and a good one may well be better than a cheap Rolleiflex?cord. They often all sell for over-inflated prices on Ebay, but dealer prices can be more realistic and can include a 3-6 moth warranty which is useful.

Ian

 

[JPD]

As Paul says accessories for TLR's can be very pricey, even simple things like lens caps, filters etc.

True, but the accessories for Bayonet I are generally cheaper than for Bay II and III.

 

[Ian Grant]

True, but the accessories for Bayonet I are generally cheaper than for Bay II and III.

Not a lot Have you tried buying any lately, some lens caps are priced almost as high as cameras !!!

Ian

 

[Laurent]

Don't buy from ePrey... I got my Bay1 Rolleinars for about €30 each (mint, in case with 'manual' and original leather pouch)

 

[mablo]

I'm using a Rolleicord V with f/3.5 Xenar. The lens is just great. Rolleicords are much lighter than *flexes in general. I'm using Yashica filters which are usually cheaper than Rollei ones, I also have a cheap Chinese bay 1 --> 52mm adaptor. I've found a seller on evil bay who offers plastic bay 1 lens caps for a few dollars each.

 

[Matus Kalisky]

That's about where I've experienced that my Tessar-clone on my Koni-Omega is sharpest, but I can't say that I complain about its performance at wider apertures. Wide open the softness lends itself to portraits.

I can only second to the performance of the Tessar on the Rolleilfex T.

See (there was a url link here which no longer exists) thread for an example shot at f4.

On top of that - I find the Rolleiflex T to be a very nice compromise between rather heavy Rolleiflex F and rather simple and light Rolleicords. The Rolleiflex T weights just bellow 1kg without the leader case.

I also find the exposure index scale on the Rolleiflex T very helpful. I just set my tiny Digisix meter to requested ISO and can directly use the Exposure Index without even looking at the shutter - f stop combinations, as I choose these on the camera with a single lever.

 

[elekm]

While TLRs are great and can be versatile cameras, I don't think they (except for the Mamiyas) are the best tool for the job if close-up shooting is important.

It can be done, but it's not nearly as simple as using a medium format SLR.

I think it really is about using the best tool (camera) for what you want to do.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

While TLRs are great and can be versatile cameras, I don't think they (except for the Mamiyas) are the best tool for the job if close-up shooting is important.

It can be done, but it's not nearly as simple as using a medium format SLR.

I think it really is about using the best tool (camera) for what you want to do.

I don't understand why you say a TLR
is "not nearly as simple" as an SLR for
close-up portraits. I shoot close-ups
with Rolleiflexes all the time for my
portrait series -- I'm attaching one I
shot yesterday. An SLR would not have
made this any easier or simpler to
photograph. Explain, please?

 

[brian steinberger]

Sanders, this is the type of "close up" work I would like to do. Which lens did you use for this shot? and how close were you focused? Great photo.