TLR for a Trip - Rolleiflex, Autocord, etc?

[corposant]

I am going to Europe for a trip in the fall and I am pondering getting a TLR. I have used a Hasselblad and I enjoy WLF shooting. I don't think my Mamiya 7 will really help me much in getting people comfortable having their picture taking or being discreet.

I am not really somebody who is bound to buying something that's "collectible," but I obviously would like great image quality. I'm more Planar than Tessar. I'd also like to be able to use it with my studio gear when I get back, so a PC connection would be great. I was looking at a 2.8E, but I am thinking it may save me money to get a 3.5, since I doubt I'd ever be in a situation where the half stop would make a difference.

So I am curious what people would recommend. I looked a bit for an Autocord, but they are kind of difficult to find. I think I'd probably prefer 80mm over 75mm anyway. I am not sure what an Automat is, but in my own research those seem to be popular.

 

[frank]

The 75f3.5 planar is killer.

 

[Pioneer]

Most TLRs will produce really good photographs. Most of them, not all of course, use 120 film after all.

The Automat was Rolleflexes system to automatically count frames. Works nice but there were other options as well.

A lot will depend on the lens you are interested in. If an f3.5 Tessar style will work then there are bunches to choose from. I am partial to my Yashica Mat and my Ikoflexes because they were quite inexpensive yet produce great pictures. Since I'm not yet willing to pay out the cash for a new Rolleiflex these fit my Scot tendencies pretty well.

You mention wanting an 80mm lens which probably puts you in Rolleiflex 2.8 territory.

The Rolleiflex has the best reputation for bulletproof design and reliability, but most of the affordable ones are getting long in the tooth and would require a good overhaul to be considered top notch again.

 

[Kyon Thinh]

If you want to have 80mm lens, get the 2.8C seems to be good without paying a hand and a leg. Of course make sure it works well without anything going to break. I use 2.8C and it is a fine machine, I also have a 3.5E as well.

 

[snapguy]

get

If you're going to blow the photos up to only, say, 16x20, buy a Yashicamat. It's a fabulous camera and I used it professionally for many years. If you're going to blow up the photos to barn size, buy a Rolleiflex. I used one professionally for many years and the Yashicamat is just as sharp, but the Rolleiflex negatives are richer and deeper. But in the "smaller" prints you won't see the difference.
Why not get a Habbelblad since you are used to it. A Hassey with an 80mm lens is pretty handy. I used one professionally for a few years.

 

[grahamp]

I can't see that the 75mm vs. 80mm makes much practical difference as far as focal length goes.

I favour either my YashicaMat (3.5 Yashinon) or a rangefinder for travel. In fact I have put the YashicaMat into checked luggage as a backup camera on occasion. Condition is probably the most critical issue once you are into 4 element or better lens territory. I wouldn't turn away a good late Rolleicord even with the secondary shutter cocking if it was in good functional condition.

But if you want a 2.8C and can afford it, go for it. I doubt that you would be disappointed

 

[elekm]

If you consider one with a Tessar, you should also consider the Xenar, which gives near-identical results. Probably indistinguishable when viewed side by side.

There are enough cameras out there that there is no reason to buy one that isn't working correctly.

Also, the Automats weigh less than the later cameras. It won't mean much at first, but over time, you'll be glad to have a lighter-weight camera.

There also are the Zeiss Ikon Ikoflex cameras, but there were so many models, and each of them looked and operated differently. Note than the premium lens on the Ikoflex was a Tessar. It never had a Planar.

 

[corposant]

75mm is fine, but I really would prefer a Planar to a Tessar. I will occasionally drum scan so I think I could potentially print bigger than 16x20 (you never know, but it'd be nice to have the flexibility).

 

[Maris]

If I were going on a long trip and relying on my TLR to produce pictures I'd take a Mamiya with a selection of lenses. If a shutter fails I'm not out of business, I just change lenses.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

Any will do, just get the best you can afford and make sure it has a complete overhaul and CLA before you go. Even with that said bring a back up too. I say this with experience.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

A 2.8C in good condition is getting hard to find, and the 2.8C has quirks with setting the shutter speed and the shutter/aperture lock controls that make it slower to operate than later models. I have a pair of 2.8Es that I took with me to Paris in October last year. They make fantastic travel cameras and I highly recommend them. You won't be disappointed by them and you can't go wrong. Other cameras may be just as good in the long run, but one of the things you'll miss out on with something else is the "Rollei Social" factor as I call it: people will see you with the camera and initiate (friendly!) conversations that you wouldn't otherwise have with any other camera. A vintage Rollei twin lens will bring out a feeling of nostalgic camaraderie in people, and they'll tell you great stories. The only other cameras I have that are more social are my large and ultra-large format cameras. But those will make people stop and have twenty-minute chats with you about the camera, how old it is, can you still get film for it, and why you're using it. It becomes all about the camera, and while that can be fun to educate people, it gets tedious especially if you're trying to take a time-sensitive photo.

If you want to see results from the Rollei in action on the road, take a look at my gallery here - (there was a url link here which no longer exists) - almost everything on the first seven pages except the Mono Lake shots and the nudes were done with the Rollei. Everything from France was.

 

[jp498]

I've had a Yashica and three Rolleis. There is a social factor as is mentioned about the "Rolleiflex" label, just like a corvette sports car or harley motorcycle has a social aspect some of it's competitors don't have. It's iconic and people know it's cool even if they don't want to own one.

I've had an automat 3.5 tessar, rolleicord, and 2.8a. The early-mid 50's era (and earlier) cameras have a rounder aperture, which makes for nicer Bokeh. Some non-Rollei camera do well in this regard too. The 2.8a is much heavier camera, and is slightly front-heavy, liking to tip over toward the lenses. The Automat and rolleicod are well balanced. I'm a big fan of the tessar. Sure the planar might have an advantage, particularly wide open, on monster prints which I don't do. I just barely have room for 16x20 trays in the darkroom, and my Epson v700 doesn't begin to approach the detail the tessar is capable of. I think a tripod would be more helpful than upgrading rolleiflexes if you're after detail.

Whatever you get, use it for a while to make sure it's reliable and not needing work.

 

[smolk]

the 2.8C has quirks with setting the shutter speed and the shutter/aperture lock controls that make it slower to operate than later models.

The 2.8C does not lock aperture and shutter speed, the 2.8D and 2.8E do.
Moreover, the 2.8C has a 10-bladed aperture lacking on every later model (which have 5).
The main downsides of the 2.8C are: the plastic locks of release button and flash cable, which are less durable then the metal ones for later models;
a non-removable viewfinder, which was introduced with the 2.8E2;
strap lugs which are not yet of the scissor type (introduced with the 2.8E).
Otherwise, a fantastically capable camera.
A 2.8E2 would also be really great. But with all of these models, condition is most important.

If you do not want Tessar, presumable because of sharpness, only the Xenotar is a match (if not more) for the Planar.
Yet next to my 2.8C I now use an MPP Microflex with Micronar 77.5mm (Taylor and Hobson) lens for its OOF rendering. Sharpness is very good, if perhaps not beating the Planar/Xenotar, but it is a 5 element 4 group lens unlike most other TLRs which are Tessar copies. Still, I had the 2.8F Planar and sold it, not because it was not good, but because I preferred my 2.8C pictures and got more money for the 2.8F.

My experience with the Rolleis is that people react very positively to the camera on the street. A TLR more than an SLR. I have only received positive comments, in plenitude. And it is so silent! With a good strap, it is easy to handhold with slow speeds as well.
I cannot comment on the 3.5 models. Tests I have seen suggest the 2.8 ones are sharper, but the difference is minimal and depending on condition/sample variation.
Screen brightness is important to consider too. I ended up replacing all original Rollei screens (MX [sold], 2.8C, 2.8F [sold]).
But there is no doubt that the Rolleiflex TLR is a great camera to use on a trip to Europe.

 

[mwdake]

The 2.8C does not lock aperture and shutter speed, the 2.8D and 2.8E do

I think TheFlyingCamera was referring to those pesky knurled rings around the shutter and aperture controls that you have to push in while turning the said controls.

I have a 2.8C with Xenar and I love it but if I could change one thing it would be to remove those rings around the shutter and aperture controls and the shutter depress lock which always seems to be locked even though I never set it locked.

 

[jon koss]

Fantastic guidance. Two well-tuned TLR's will not take much space but will provide a simple and reliable kit. Be sure to take a couple of filters with you too. Don't turn up your nose at a Rolleicord with a coated Xenar. Punches well above its weight. Just wind on the instant you have made the exposure lol!

J

Any will do, just get the best you can afford and make sure it has a complete overhaul and CLA before you go. Even with that said bring a back up too. I say this with experience.

 

[Tom1956]

This is 2014 and cameras are very much a time-dependent item. The smartest play is whichever one has the most known accurate shutter speed. Not to mention lens condition. All other items in their construction being equal, the shutter and the light meter are really everything. Everything else is just creature comfort. If you're going on a long trip and once you get there, you'll remember and take confidence that the meter gave the right setting and the shutter executed it, on and in time.

 

[corposant]

Hmm, I guess I need to find somebody to sell me an E or and F Planar/Xenotar...

 

[Ian Grant]

I take a Yashicamat 124 on my travels, I've made some great images with it and I'm not remotely concerned that it's maximum aperture if f3.5 rather than f2.8. While in the UK I also use a Rolleiflex 3.5E2 but it's mint and I'd like to keep it that way so for general tatting around I now use an Automat or sometimes an MPP Microcord.

In the past I had a Mamiya system, a C3 and a C33 and lenses, but actually like using a TLR with a fixed lens as it makes me think harder, I think it's sub-conscious though as it seems intuitive. I did spend over a decade using an M3 Leica and one lens before getting (or rather using) the first recent TLR.

Ian

 

[Urmonas]

The choice between a Planar and Tessar comes down to what shooting you are doing. If you plan to do a lot of lens wide open shots then get the Planar / Xenotar (both very good). If you plan to mostly do stopped down shots the Tessar/Xenar will be the better performer (fewer elements = less light reflection at surfaces).

With the Rolleis, the 3.5 compared to the 2.8 is slightly lighter, and has Bay 1 size filters / shades which are much easier to find, and much less expensive. In use you will not notice much difference. The viewfinder is slightly less bright. As others have mentioned the key thing to look for is good operating condition, or allow for an overhaul in your budget + the time it will take.

If the Tessar/Xenar is match for your needs, it does open up the door to alternatives. There are the Rolleicords (a bit smaller and lighter than a 'flex, but slower to use). Then many other manufacturers made nice cameras with Tessar type lenses.

Personally I travel with a Rollei. It will not dissapoint you.

 

[Paul in Arizona]

I have both a 3.5E and a recently acquired 2.8C. The 2.8 was one of those 'why not' decisions because i saw a really nice one at a decent price.
As to image quality I see no differences. The one little irritation with the C is the bar that has to be depressed when changing speed or f stop. That took a little getting used to.
For the 3.5 vs 2.8 I think there is no realistic reason to pay extra for the faster lens. Back when ASA 64 was pretty hot stuff that extra partial stop may have mattered. Not today. Other than the good price on my 2.8C I would be just as happy with a 3.5.
I've watched F prices driven up by collectors and those are on the crazy side now. Not worth the money to me unless you are a collector or want to use a prism.
I have no personal experience with the Japanese competition but could imagine getting one for use in rough conditions or if I was concerned about theft. A YashicaMat or others like it could be an inexpensive and almost expendable companion to the Rollei.

 

[Pioneer]

I certainly agree that f2.8 vs f3.5 is hardly worth the additional cost unless you really feel you need the Planar lens.

 

[Bob Marvin]

I've been using a 2.8E for many years [I bought it used c. 1962]. It's a wonderful travel camera. A 3.5E is just as good for most purposes but, I think, Bay II filters and hoods for the 3.5 are harder to find than Bay II ones for the 2.8 models.

Two observations:

Don't pass on a camera with a Xenotar [mine has one]. Xenotars and Planars are equal in quality.
Unless you are ABSOLUTELY certain that the camera has been properly CLAed very recently has this done well before your trip.

 

[ntenny]

I certainly agree that f2.8 vs f3.5 is hardly worth the additional cost unless you really feel you need the Planar lens.

The later 3.5 Rolleiflexen had Planar/Xenotar lenses; I think those are the ones most posters are referring to.

The OP was pretty clear about preferring to avoid the Tessar/Xenar models---personally, I agree that they're outstanding performers and underappreciated, but I've also shot both flavors of Rollei cameras pretty extensively and I find the differences to be quite real, especially in color.

-NT

 

[dpurdy]

A 2.8F is my travel camera. I can carry it in a smallish lowepro bag with room for film and accessories as well as a perfect pocket for pass port and airline tickets.
It is quiet and non threatening and shootable hand held especially with a 400 speed film. Regarding 75mm vs 80mm they do have a different feel to them. The 5mm makes a difference. The shorter lens is has more dynamic lines and greater depth of field. I personally am more comfortable with the 80mm which always gives me the view I thought I was going to get when looking in the camera. With the 75mm lens I am always surprised that the distance is farther away than I thought. If you don't need a prism then you don't need an F but if you are going to use it in your studio on your return you might find you like the prism.
Dennis

 

[Pioneer]

I obviously didn't pick up on that. Thanks for clarifying Nathan.

But even with that cleared up I still am not sure I understand it. I certainly appreciate that there are differences between a Planar/Xenotar or a Tessar/Xenar lens but, having used both myself, I personally prefer the look of the Tessar. I think people are drawn in by the numbers rather than the image quality.

However, they are all beautiful cameras, and a true delight to work with, so if the additional cost and bulk of the Planar trips your boat then enjoy yourself.