What's the [advantage of later Rolleiflex models over earlier ones]

chris00nj · Mar 31, 2010

I have a Rolleiflex Automat, with a Zeiss Tessar 75/3.5 which I like, that I got for two bills.

I see later models online that go for much much more.They are all auto loading, with stellar lenses, same shutter, etc, with few noticeable differences. A Rolleiflex 3.5F may have an outdated meter and a f/3.5 Planar instead of the Tessar and it goes for a $1000+. A Rolleiflex 2.8F gives you an added 2/3 of a stop for $2000.

What drives the added cost?

Due to GAS, I'm always thinking about "upgrading" I can't understand any benefit of the extra $$$ for the later models. Is it all just scarcity?

(In comparison to the Leica world, there are specific advantages of the M camera over the screwmount.)

jochen · Mar 31, 2010

Hello,
the prices of Rolleiflexes are dictated mainly by collectors and enthusiasts and not by their practical performance. The classic 4-element Tessar has a sligthly curved field, but at f/8 the sharpness in the corners is very good too. I'd suggest that you keep your Automat and grade it up with a new focussing screen, the benefit for you is better than a Planar lens. Maxwell and Beattie screens are top but very expensive. A cut to size screen from a RB 67 is cheaper but maybe you have to adjust the focus.

photobum · Mar 31, 2010

I have a f/3.5 F with the Xenotar lens. It's the same thing as the Planar except made by Schneider. The collectors like the Planar so it's priced higher. BFD, no one could tell which shot what.

I like the 3.5 over the 2.8 because it's lighter and carrying it is what it's all about. As Jochen said the Tessar is said to work best stopped down a bit. That's the only "advantage" a Planar or Xenotar has.

With some money to burn a brighter screen is a good move, then buy lots of film and shoot it. Don't fall into the camera/lens envy trap. The Tessar is a classic design lens that everyone has copied at one time or another. There is nothing wrong with one. Go wear it out.

BTW, the sharpest 150mm lens I ever had in L/F was a Schneider Xenar. This tiny lens is awesome. A basic Tessar design, so not much coverage. But sharp enough to slice your eye open.

JPD · Mar 31, 2010

I have used many Rollei TLR:s for years, and agree with the replies above. The Planar and Xenotar performs little better in the corners at larger apertures than the Tessar and Xenar. My 3,5F with Planar performs best at 5,6-8 and my 3,5 B ("MX-EVS") with Tessar is best at 8-11.

If you buy another Rollei TLR, even if it's a 1930's Rolleicord, you can easily fall into the GAS spiral and want many more - plus the accessories. Then the inflation starts. Your "trusted ol' Rollei" becomes "one of my many Rolleis".

chris00nj · Mar 31, 2010

Thanks for the replies. I'm trying to avoid any more GAS. The price jump between models certainly helps tame it. Of course, then I move into other cameras. Now I'm also looking at a MF folder, like a Super Ikonta.

I like the Tessar, even wide open. Center sharpness is fantastic. I have mostly shot portraits with it, so I haven't notice corner sharpness.

Wide open, Fuji 800Z:

I also appreciate the mod who changed the title. I hit submit without noticing I hadn't finished the title and there isn't a way to modify.

Tim Gray · Mar 31, 2010

I thought one of the reasons the F's (maybe the E's too?) go for more money is that they have more easily replaced screens?

JPD · Mar 31, 2010

Nice.

Superb corner sharpness is often not needed, as the important subject to be photographed seldom is in the corners, and we usually stop down a bit anyway.

Taken with a Rolleicord II from 1939 with Triotar at f:4.

http://www.fotosidan.se/gallery/viewlarge.htm?ID=1062207&target=_blank

dpurdy · Mar 31, 2010

If you don't need or want a prism then there is no advantage. Some people think the 2.8C has better bokeh due to the rounder iris. I have gone through a lot of Rolleis and am convinced that the quality control was so tight that you can't find a clunker or an extra special lens. They are all extra special. Condition is the main thing. Unless you really want to use a prism... which I do.
Dennis

Ian Grant · Mar 31, 2010

There will be advantages of Multicoated Xenotars or Planars over older plain coated versions, how much of an advantage depends on your photography.

ian

dpurdy · Mar 31, 2010

I don't think there was ever a multi coated Xenotar on the TLR. I have an FX with the multi coated Planar and an F with the Xenotar and am having a really difficult time finding any difference. Maybe in color there would be more difference but I shoot only black and white with these cameras.
Dennis

mhanc · Mar 31, 2010

At close distances, I have to pay very close attention to focus as it is very easy for me to get it wrong -- I have oldish eyes and the original screen on my 1959 Type-I 3.5F Planar. I also find that the sweet spot for sharpness is pretty much f5.6 to f8. Other than that, lens performance is superb. I have other cameras with Tessars [Contaflex and Contax] and sharpness is also outstanding.

I also have g.a.s. for the Rolleiflex cameras -- not because I want different lenses, etc. but because they are such great and iconic cameras and I really, really, really like using mine. So far I have resisted but I can only hold out so long...

Loren Sattler · Mar 31, 2010

Chris, I use several medium format cameras including a Mamiya C330, a 1930's Zeizz Ikonta (6x9 folder) and a Rolleicord IV (1954 or so). My favorite carry around camera is the Rolleicord. It is light and simple and produces excellent b&w negatives. It has a more modern screen than the original dark one. They are all fun though and I am always looking for something else to play with.

Slixtiesix · Apr 1, 2010

The biggest advantage for me is the removable hood. Makes replacing the screen easier. Other differences should be minute. Planar/Xenotar will be a tad better at wider apertures. As long as your Automat has some coating applied, the difference will be very small, as the F-Models also had single coating.

tony lockerbie · Apr 1, 2010

Having both the Rollei T and a 3.5 F of roughly the same vintage, I can say that the Tessar is just as good as the Planar at normal apertures. As has been mentioned, the Planar is slightly better at wider apertures, that's all.
I have a couple of earlier Automats, one with a coated lens, the other uncoated. Although these are sharp enough, there is noticeably less "bite" than the later re-computed Tessar on the T. If your main consideration is colour, then get the latest that you can afford, if mostly B&W, then the older versions can be just as good.
BTW, the later Rolleicords with the Xenar lens performs just as well as the Rollei T. The viewfinder is somewhat inferior though.

chris00nj · Apr 1, 2010

Thanks for the input. I think I'll stick with my Automat and be very happy.

I'm liking medium format, so I'll be looking for a Super Ikonta A or Super Ikonta III instead.

Andy38 · Apr 1, 2010

You'll be happy with your Automat !

Between Super Ikonta's A and III, the III is much easier to use : the A has two finders, one to focus, the other to see; the III has one, greatest and brightest, to focus and see.

mrisney · Apr 2, 2010

Any experiences with the GX/FX ? I am thinking about getting one. I actually like the idea of the meter. They aren't AE are they ?

dpurdy · Apr 2, 2010

mrisney, I am in Portland and I have an FX. You want to meet up and give it a look and maybe a quick try?

The meter is good and it even does flash metering but no it is not AE. You have to turn the dials.
Dennis.... in North Portland.

mrisney · Apr 2, 2010

dpurdy said:
mrisney, I am in Portland and I have an FX. You want to meet up and give it a look and maybe a quick try?

The meter is good and it even does flash metering but no it is not AE. You have to turn the dials.
Dennis.... in North Portland.

That would be great, I am currently using my Mamiya 6, which I like. But it's a bit contrasty, in some ways I like it, some say that it is almost cartoon-y

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mrisney/

But back to Rollei's - I have been thinking about getting a GX or an FX, for a softer more natural look, I had a C-220, and I added a Voigtlander VC Meter II to it, but its a pain, I would rather have a meter built in . I would like to check it out, PM me, that would be great,

Thanks

Marc

dpurdy · Apr 2, 2010

Wow you have a ton of stuff on flickr. All color it seems. I am not sure you will find the HFT coated Planar to be much lower contrast than the Mamiya 6 lens.

tessar · Apr 2, 2010

JPD, that's an excellent August Sander-style portrait. I like those old three-element lenses too.

What's the [advantage of later Rolleiflex models over earlier ones]

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency