Yashica Mat 124G or Rolleiflex 2.8C?

[campy51]

I have been busy buying this week and have a couple of interesting situations. I picked up a Rolleiflex 2.8C that's in very good mechanical condition but the cosmetics are so so. The hood has a lot of missing paint but works perfect. All the shutters seem fine and everything is smooth. The focusing inner ring is no longer black but looks like brass color but darker. The Yashica Mat 124G is mint and came with a case that's almost mint, a wide angle lens attachment as well as the close up attachments and hood. The Rolleiflex also came with a Bessa R3A with a 40mm f1.4 and a R2A with a 35mmf2.5.
I would like to keep one but not sure which one. Would these be of equal value or is the Rolleiflex still worth more even in this condition.

 

[Dan Daniel]

Put a roll of film through both. If there are mechanical issues with the Rolleiflex, will repair push its price out of your range? Short of that, the Rolleiflex is such a better camera than the YashciaMat, in so so so many ways, I'd keep it.

The coloring on the focus knob is typical. I'm not certain but I think Rollei used anodizing or some other blacking method that fades.

 

[railwayman3]

I have a Yashice 124G which I bought new many years ago....it has worked fine and the results are still all that I could require. OTOH, had funds allowed at the time, I would have bought a Rollei, for (perceived?) quality and the accessories available then.
If buying secondhand now, the choice would obviously be down to condition and price, and Dan Daniel's advice above is totally sound.

 

[guangong]

From personal experience, Rolleis are almost indestructible. As Dan suggested, put a roll through each first. There is a reason Rolleiflex cost much more when new...more expensive high grade materials.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Hot tip when using a 2.8C - there's a quirk to the shutter - when changing the speed to or from 1/250th or 1/500th, you need to do it with the shutter NOT cocked. There were special "overdrive" springs on the shutter for the C to power the fastest speeds, and if the shutter is cocked when you engage them, you can break the overdrive springs. Also, remember with the C that you have to push the little chrome tabs behind the shutter/aperture wheels to change them. Whatever you decide, do factor in the cost of a good CLA for the 2.8C - it will absolutely be worth it in the long run, but unless you have documentation that it has been done in the last four-five years, assume it needs it. It should run you somewhere in the $300 range.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

Also, keep in mind that Rolleiflex would have a higher resell value than Yashica.

 

[removedacct1]

Somewhat tangential to the OPs question, but perhaps applicable:
I once owned a very nice Rolleiflex 3.5 Xenotar and a Minolta Autocord. Both were in very good condition and both were fully functional. However, after using both for several years, I came to the conclusion that the Rolleiflex - though mechanically superior to the Autocord - delivered significantly softer negatives than the Autocord, and so I sold the Rolleiflex. I have no regrets. The Rollei was worth 3X what the Autocord is, but that's not relevant to me. What matters more is the negatives I got from the cameras, and for my needs, the Autocord's Rokkor lens performed far better.
Sometimes, the Rolleis only have the advantage of being prestige devices with better resale value, but many other TLRs are just as good or sometimes better in terms of their optics.

 

[Dan Daniel]

Somewhat tangential to the OPs question, but perhaps applicable:
Rolleiflex 3.5 Xenotar and a Minolta Autocord. , I came to the conclusion that the Rolleiflex - though mechanically superior to the Autocord - delivered significantly softer negatives than the Autocord

That's too bad. I've had a few Xenotars and they can be great lenses. I've also used a few Rokkors in Autocords, even refurbish and sell them on a regular basis because I think they are a great camera, but I would never say that the Rokkor is significantly sharper than a Xenotar. You had a bad copy, or something else was wrong with the camera.

What matters more is the negatives I got from the cameras, and for my needs, the Autocord's Rokkor lens performed far better.

And yes, this is the key. If any camera is giving you what you want, it is the right camera for you. If the YashicaMat 124g gives the OP what he wants more than the Rolleiflex, good for him! Go shoot...

 

[campy51]

I paid the same price price for both. I do have a roll in each that I will use to compare, but not sure when I can shoot and develop before going on vacation. I don't want to take both of these with me since I will have my digital with me.

 

[warden]

Don't decide before seeing negatives or you're just guessing. The quality of my Yashica camera body is clearly below a Rollei but damn the Yashica lens is fine.

 

[Paul Howell]

If both were equal in terms of past use I would bet on the Rollei, but if it's a beatter and was used by a pro then a 124 in good shape would get my nod. In terms of lens, I've made a lot of money with my 124 and D. I've had art directors look at transparencies and swear they were looking at a Hassy slides.

 

[Dan Daniel]

OP- forgot to mention- those auxillary lenses that came with the YashicaMat? Cr*p all in all. Do some testing before you shoot anything important to see if they will give you what you want, but expect vignetting and smearing.

 

[Chrismat]

I've had Rolleiflexes, Autocords and Yashicas, and they are all great if the the focusing lens and taking lens are properly collimated. The only problem that I have had with earlier Yashicas is flare, and the source was not the lens but the film chamber between the lens and the film plane. A simple cure is to flock the film chamber using flocking material used for telescopes, although I have heard that by the time the 124Gs were marketed, Yashica had improved the baffles.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I had Rolleicord and YM 124G. After I printed from both it was no question which one to keep.
But later on, I kept only M4-2 and R2M.

 

[albireo]

I have had a Yashicamat 124G for little less than a year. It's a good tool, but nothing special in my opinion. It has a lot of plastic in critical areas, and the winding crank failed on me over the last two months. I even sent it to Mark Hama for a CLA. He cleaned the lens and apparently collimated it so I'm reasonably sure this is performing well.

But my main point is: I got a Rolleicord Va II two weeks ago. The lens on the Rolleicord (a Xenar) produces noticeably sharper negatives than the one on the 124G, not to mention the Rolleicord feels much better built.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I have had a Yashicamat 124G for little less than a year. It's a good tool, but nothing special in my opinion. It has a lot of plastic in critical areas, and the winding crank failed on me over the last two months. I even sent it to Mark Hama for a CLA. He cleaned the lens and apparently collimated it so I'm reasonably sure this is performing well.

But my main point is: I got a Rolleicord Va II two weeks ago. The lens on the Rolleicord (a Xenar) produces noticeably sharper negatives than the one on the 124G, not to mention the Rolleicord feels much better built.

If your Xenar is "noticeably" sharper than the Yashinon I'd then say you have a very good Xenar and a poor Yashinon. Your use of the word "apparently" above also might have something to do with the performance of the Yashinon. Was it collimated for sure? I have a "like new" 124G that my brother-in-law bought new and only ran four rolls of film through that delivers all I need. I also have six Rolleiflex cameras at present. All with Xenotars and Planars and have owned several more, including Rolleicords. Plus, I have owned several Minolta Autocords. Build wise the Rolleis are better, with the Autocord next and the Yashicas close to the Autocord. Now, which do I prefer? The Autocord! It's just so much easier to handle and use it's not funny. Oh, and would I be worried about the quality or output of the Rokkor? Absolutely not. I own one Autocord beater and it works near perfect. If I could fine a mint Autocord with the later Rokkor lens at a reasonable price I'd buy it. The only reason I have so many Rollei's is that I got them cheap for various reasons and fixed them up to sell, but just haven't got around to it yet. Folks get gun shy of the Autocords due to the focusing lever breakage, but now you can by 3D made replacement, I have replaced the levers on several Autocords years ago when you could still get the parts from Minolta and while it's not a job for a 10 year old kid the above average tinker can get it done. Yes, the Autocord in good working order is really a first class, professional class camera. That's just my "humble" take on this comparison. So I'd say as to the OP's choice of Yashica vs Rollei? Keep whichever one works well mechanically and take pictures that you like. I always put mechanical shape far above cosmetics. That's just me of course. JohnW

 

[albireo]

Hi, you raise valid points and I would love to try an Autocord. Unfortunately, where I live autocords are as rare as hen's teeth and the only way to source one would be to order from Japan and incur in significant VAT+custom surcharges. Yashica 124G and Rolleicord on the other hand can easily be sourced locally.

 

[bvy]

I would love to see a side-by-side of prints from the 124G vs. the Rollei, where the Rollei lens allegedly outperforms the 124G. It's not a challenge or me being contrary -- I'm truly curious.

 

[Dan Daniel]

I would love to see a side-by-side of prints from the 124G vs. the Rollei, where the Rollei lens allegedly outperforms the 124G. It's not a challenge or me being contrary -- I'm truly curious.

Well, nothing to see here but some numbers, here you go-
http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/MF_testing.html
Something seems off in the Yashinon numbers, dropping at the center at the middle apertures.Look at the Tessar numbers for a better sample?
There are so many factors that go into how a lens 'looks' that most of this gets pretty silly, more so on the internet. And we need to remember that almost all the lenses we are talking about here were made on somewhat primitive grinding machines, etc., at least compared to what can be done these days. Sample variation is a real issue, as is mounting and alignment and collimation.

There comes point where you need to simply use a camera, decide if it has the look and feel you want, and get on with it.... All of the cameras and lenses mentioned in this thread will give very good results.

 

[DWThomas]

There comes point where you need to simply use a camera, decide if it has the look and feel you want, and get on with it.... All of the cameras and lenses mentioned in this thread will give very good results.

I think that's a good summary! I bought a 124G in very nice cosmetic and optical condition a few years back, have put about 40 rolls of fim through it and been very pleased with what I got. Outside on a cold day last November, I noted the shutter release button was a tad sluggish in popping back out after an exposure, so I treated it to a CLA from Mark Hama (its Christmas present! ). Now the mechanics are smooth as a whistle, and the meter is even working (which it hadn't been). If I need really critical MF performance I have a Bronica SQ-A and an assortment of Zenzanon PS lenses.

The 124G has become my go-to camera when I want to be serious, but not overburdened. So far my total investment in it is probably not much more than a CLA of a Rolleiflex. While I wouldn't mind having a Rollei product, I have a bit of trouble justifying it to myself economically. (There's a fair number of photos from the 124G in my gallery here.)

 

[John Wiegerink]

Well, nothing to see here but some numbers, here you go-
http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/MF_testing.html
Something seems off in the Yashinon numbers, dropping at the center at the middle apertures.Look at the Tessar numbers for a better sample?
There are so many factors that go into how a lens 'looks' that most of this gets pretty silly, more so on the internet. And we need to remember that almost all the lenses we are talking about here were made on somewhat primitive grinding machines, etc., at least compared to what can be done these days. Sample variation is a real issue, as is mounting and alignment and collimation.

There comes point where you need to simply use a camera, decide if it has the look and feel you want, and get on with it.... All of the cameras and lenses mentioned in this thread will give very good results.

Dan,
You said a very truthful mouthful. A good example of what you say is lenses for 35mm interchangeable lens cameras. Many folks tryout three or four copies of the same lens just to find one that stands out. Are the other two or three copies bad that he /she let go? No, but sometimes one copy is just a bit better than the rest. I've seen folks on this site say a certain camera/lenses was terrible and other folks can't understand a comment like that since they might have the same setup and find no problems with it at all. I never make a comment as to good or bad for a lens, camera, film or process unless I've tried it myself. When I do try it and comment one way or the other I make note of the fact that that is "my experience or my opinion. YMMV! JohnW

 

[TheRook]

Determine which camera is most comfortable for you. Consider factors such as, which one is easiest to focus, which one has the most ergonomic position of shutter release, easiest scale to read, etc.
The more comfortable a camera is to operate, the more enjoyable it will be for you. Although often overlooked, ergonomics and ease of operation are important. A camera which makes you struggle to get a good shot is no fun and is counter-productive to that you want to accomplish.

 

[chris0202]

124G is a nice user with tessar type lens, while 2.8C is a 10 blade gaussian type lens. They are totally different. If you could, pick rollei.

 

[removedacct1]

That's too bad. I've had a few Xenotars and they can be great lenses. I've also used a few Rokkors in Autocords, even refurbish and sell them on a regular basis because I think they are a great camera, but I would never say that the Rokkor is significantly sharper than a Xenotar. You had a bad copy, or something else was wrong with the camera.

Pretty sure there was nothing wrong with the camera: Harry Fleenor did a complete servicing on it shortly after I acquired it. I honestly believe I got a fairly poor example of the Xenotar lens, and IIRC, Harry said something about it being "an okay lens", but not the best of its kind.

 

[removed account4]

I have been busy buying this week and have a couple of interesting situations. I picked up a Rolleiflex 2.8C that's in very good mechanical condition but the cosmetics are so so. The hood has a lot of missing paint but works perfect. All the shutters seem fine and everything is smooth. The focusing inner ring is no longer black but looks like brass color but darker. The Yashica Mat 124G is mint and came with a case that's almost mint, a wide angle lens attachment as well as the close up attachments and hood. The Rolleiflex also came with a Bessa R3A with a 40mm f1.4 and a R2A with a 35mmf2.5.
I would like to keep one but not sure which one. Would these be of equal value or is the Rolleiflex still worth more even in this condition.
View attachment 203945 View attachment 203948 View attachment 203946 View attachment 203947

hi campy51
when you put a roll of film in each one
and shoot the roll which feel better to you
which do you not mind if it gets scuffed or dinged
which is easier to hold and focus and when you get the film back
which negatives do you like better ?
one thing to remember is if it doesn't feel good you won't use it.
i had a mat124G and loved it sold it when i ran out of $$ and regretted it for years
ps. sometimes the drive train ( or so i have heard ) in the yashica can
be wonky ... if yours feelsgood you have nothing to worry about ..

have fun !