Yashica mat viewing lense f3.2 vs f2.8

[Benoitg]

Hi I was wondering if there was a marked difference in screen brightness between a viewing lens of f3.2 vs f2.8, I jumped in and bought a Yashica Mat with f3.2 before realising that f2.8 was available in the non g version.
Thanks Ben

 

[guangong]

Not much. Overall difference in condition between cameras would be more important.

 

[Ian C]

The difference between f/2.8 and f/3.2 is about 1/3rd of a stop. Essentially unnoticeable.

 

[Paul Howell]

I've had both, in the D, maybe in low light the 2.8 a bit better, otherwise nothing to spend money on. I think both the 2.8 and 3.2 on the matt use the same 4 element taking lens. With the D the 3.2 taking lens is a 3 element lens.

 

[Benoitg]

Not much. Overall difference in condition between cameras would be more important.

Thanks, that helps a lot

 

[Benoitg]

I've had both, in the D, maybe in low light the 2.8 a bit better, otherwise nothing to spend money on. I think both the 2.8 and 3.2 on the matt use the same 4 element taking lens. With the D the 3.2 taking lens is a 3 element lens.

Thank you for that, I guess the only thing I can compare it to was a Rolleiflex 2.8 I was shown, don’t know the model number but the screen looked really bright , don’t suppose youre familiar of why that might be, is it a Rolleiflex screen thing, as eventually I’d love to own one.

 

[Paul Howell]

While in the Air Force we had both a Rolleiflex and cord, the flex was the top of the line, it was very bright compared to my Yashica matt G 2.8, and the cord that the base lab had. Not sure how much of the brightness was due to the faster taking lens and how much is due to the focusing screen.

 

[Benoitg]

While in the Air Force we had both a Rolleiflex and cord, the flex was the top of the line, it was very bright compared to my Yashica matt G 2.8, and the cord that the base lab had. Not sure how much of the brightness was due to the faster taking lens and how much is due to the focusing screen.

Hi Paul
Sorry don’t mean to bother you but I don’t suppose you can remember which model Rollieflex you used in the Air Force, I’m currently researching Rollieflex models, their are so many out there it’s difficult to know which is the best option, especially since they can fetch quite a hefty price.

 

[Paul Howell]

Sorry, 50 going on 60 years is a long time, what I recall is that it was 2.8 Planar, don't recall the model. Lates 60s to early 70s, the Air Force moved from TLR to press tpe cameras in the early 80s, Graphic modular was replaced by the Konica 100 and 200. We had left over baby speeds and SuperGrafix as well. The Rollie was lightly used, I had been reassigned to a base level shop at Mather AFB. The shop superintendent was a civil servant, he kept the best gear locked up and only allowed E 5 and above to use. I was a E 5 I used it once or twice. In terms of image quaility, the Rollie of course beat my Yashica Matt wide open, but once at F4 both had good sharpness, while the Rollie had better contrast. The cord we had was used by all the staff, my Yashica, was as good as the cord.

If you are concerned about brightness I would look into a brighter focusing screen. I think there are screen made for the 124.

For Yashica Mat 124g TLR Camera Clear Bright Split Image Fresnel Focusing Screen | eBay

Find many great new & used options and get the best deals for For Yashica Mat 124g TLR Camera Clear Bright Split Image Fresnel Focusing Screen at the best online prices at eBay! Free shipping for many products!

www.ebay.com

 

[Benoitg]

Sorry, 50 going on 60 years is a long time, what I recall is that it was 2.8 Planar, don't recall the model. Lates 60s to early 70s, the Air Force moved from TLR to press tpe cameras in the early 80s, Graphic modular was replaced by the Konica 100 and 200. We had left over baby speeds and SuperGrafix as well. The Rollie was lightly used, I had been reassigned to a base level shop at Mather AFB. The shop superintendent was a civil servant, he kept the best gear locked up and only allowed E 5 and above to use. I was a E 5 I used it once or twice. In terms of image quaility, the Rollie of course beat my Yashica Matt wide open, but once at F4 both had good sharpness, while the Rollie had better contrast. The cord we had was used by all the staff, my Yashica, was as good as the cord.

If you are concerned about brightness I would look into a brighter focusing screen. I think there are screen made for the 124.

For Yashica Mat 124g TLR Camera Clear Bright Split Image Fresnel Focusing Screen | eBay

Find many great new & used options and get the best deals for For Yashica Mat 124g TLR Camera Clear Bright Split Image Fresnel Focusing Screen at the best online prices at eBay! Free shipping for many products!

www.ebay.com

Hi Paul
really fascinating to hear some of your Air Force photographic history, thank you for sharing that, I recognise the names of the later press cameras, amazing looking pieces of kit. I have a feeling their may be a price rise for Rolleiflex coming soon, mid September their is a major budget film release about the life of Lee Miller, called Lee, you probably may have heard of her she shot mainly with a Rolleiflex and as a war photographer she normally carried two in the field, she had quite a full life got discovered by chance and became a top mode , then war photographer and lover/muse of Man Ray who she also collaborated with.

 

[Paul Howell]

Rollies are great cameras, if you shoot in low light the 2.8 will serve you well. I still have a Yashica 124 and G, I use them when I want to travel light, my Mamiya Universal is pretty heavy, at my age not for a long hike, the Kowa Sl 66 is somewhere between. What I would think about is that 6X6 is really 6X45 if you print 8X10 5X7 and 11X14. For the price of a Rollie 2.8 in good to excellent condition you can put together a very nice Mamiya or Pentax 645 system.

 

[reddesert]

TLRs are all pretty old by now, some may have had brighter screens to begin with, some may have been worked on or had the screen replaced, and sometimes the viewing lens is dirty, or the viewing mirror is dusty, or the coating on the mirror is damaged. If the mirror is a problem there are people who sell new mirrors, they are not expensive, but you need to spend the time to calibrate the focus after working on mirror or screen.

 

[guangong]

I bought a lightly used Rollei 2.8F in early 1970s. Still going strong. The meter is off, but that could be a problem that could bebcorrected. A recent thread gave instructions for adjusting meter. There was a contemporary model made without a meter.
If it were me, I would activate my piggy bank and save up a later model Rollei. I’ve already had over 50 years use with mine.
When you hold a Rollei in your hands you can feel the difference in quality compared with other TLRs. Earlier I had a Minolta Autocord…no complaints about results, but focusing mechanism is delicate.

 

[RezaLoghme]

Unfortunately, I can only agree. Rollei nailed it, and a 2.8F or GX are probably the TLR "grail", whereas C330s, 125MAT are "workhorses". I have never seen a thread in a photo forum in which someone lusted for one of those, unless because of their low price.

 

[JPD]

The Yashicas have a fresnel viewing screen so it will be bright regardless of the taking lens.

The Rolleiflexes that came with a fresnel viewing screen were the F, E2, E3 and T models (and the Rolleicord VB). The earlier models came with groundglass that is dimmer but crisp to focus on. But it can always be replaced with a new bright screen.

The only Rolleiflexes I have trouble focusing are the very eary Rolleiflex Standard models, but that's due to the low-geared focusing mechanism. I have to turn the focus knob back and forth many times, but still not be sure if the focus is spot on. 50+ year old eyes don't help. I have the versions with 4,5, 3,8 and 3,5 Tessar, and the 3,5 one is almost mint, got a CLA by Rollei-Service, but these days it sits on a shelf. The model after that, the Rolleiflex Automat is a joy to use. Better built, the crank both winds the film and cocks the shutter, and it's very easy to focus.

I also have the 3,5F with a bright screen, and the Planar is superb. But it's heavier than the old Automat. I also have a 3,5 B (MX-EVS) that I used a lot, but now it needs a CLA (sticky shutter).

 

[JPD]

I bought a lightly used Rollei 2.8F in early 1970s. Still going strong. The meter is off, but that could be a problem that could bebcorrected. A recent thread gave instructions for adjusting meter. There was a contemporary model made without a meter.

The E2 and E3 could be bought without a meter, but it could have a meter of the older E type installed. A few 2,8F and 3,5F were sold without the meter, and it looks strange with the filter/exposure compensation knob still in place. But it has the ASA/DIN settings on it, so it could be used as a reminder.

 

[MattKing]

Unfortunately, I can only agree. Rollei nailed it, and a 2.8F or GX are probably the TLR "grail", whereas C330s, 125MAT are "workhorses". I have never seen a thread in a photo forum in which someone lusted for one of those, unless because of their low price.

Well - I certainly lusted after my C330 when it was new. Of course, I was much younger than .
They are great system cameras, and many, many, many photographers are very happy with them. In particular those of us who used them commercially.
I certainly preferred my C330 and lenses and accessories when I bought mine 45+ years ago. I was also selling Rollei products back then, so I had a choice. Over the years I expanded the system, added a C220 body, and used them a lot. I've shrunk the system back down a bit in the last few years but I certainly am glad I still have C330 - much more glad than I would be if I had foolishly gave its capability, flexibility and quality up for a near new or even older Rolleiflex.
Modern internet "noise" isn't a particularly good measure of what people who own and use their cameras think of them. It is a better measure of what is thought by people who don't own certain cameras, but think they might like to. That being said, there are lots of internet examples - both here on Photrio and otherwise - of people who love or long for Mamiya TLRs.
If you have a chance to use a bunch of cameras, those that suit your wants and needs will probably identify themselves. If not, it is risky to come to conclusions for yourself and for others based on the internet opinions of a few strangers.
Have fun with whatever you have and can use. And if you find learning about other options to be fun, that is good as well.
It is a long and interesting road, if you choose to travel it.
Used my C330 for this one:

Down and Up Again - Tynehead Park (MSA Gentle, Low, Slow Light)

• MattKing
• Dec 31, 2017
• 8

Another for the current MSA. This time looking from the forest, through an opening, to the...

 

[RezaLoghme]

The E2 and E3 could be bought without a meter, but it could have a meter of the older E type installed. A few 2,8F and 3,5F were sold without the meter, and it looks strange with the filter/exposure compensation knob still in place. But it has the ASA/DIN settings on it, so it could be used as a reminder.

THank you, did not know that.

 

[guangong]

Well - I certainly lusted after my C330 when it was new. Of course, I was much younger than .
They are great system cameras, and many, many, many photographers are very happy with them. In particular those of us who used them commercially.
I certainly preferred my C330 and lenses and accessories when I bought mine 45+ years ago. I was also selling Rollei products back then, so I had a choice. Over the years I expanded the system, added a C220 body, and used them a lot. I've shrunk the system back down a bit in the last few years but I certainly am glad I still have C330 - much more glad than I would be if I had foolishly gave its capability, flexibility and quality up for a near new or even older Rolleiflex.
Modern internet "noise" isn't a particularly good measure of what people who own and use their cameras think of them. It is a better measure of what is thought by people who don't own certain cameras, but think they might like to. That being said, there are lots of internet examples - both here on Photrio and otherwise - of people who love or long for Mamiya TLRs.
If you have a chance to use a bunch of cameras, those that suit your wants and needs will probably identify themselves. If not, it is risky to come to conclusions for yourself and for others based on the internet opinions of a few strangers.
Have fun with whatever you have and can use. And if you find learning about other options to be fun, that is good as well.
It is a long and interesting road, if you choose to travel it.
Used my C330 for this one:

Down and Up Again - Tynehead Park (MSA Gentle, Low, Slow Light)

• MattKing
• Dec 31, 2017
• 8

Another for the current MSA. This time looking from the forest, through an opening, to the...

Well said. At some point camera choice is quite personal, so there really isn’t a “best” camera that fits everyone. However, if there ever was a dependable workhorse TLR, that was Rollei. If interchangeable lenses are important the C330 was the best choice.

 

[RezaLoghme]

Well said. At some point camera choice is quite personal, so there really isn’t a “best” camera that fits everyone. However, if there ever was a dependable workhorse TLR, that was Rollei. If interchangeable lenses are important the C330 was the best choice.

Why would you chose a 6x6 TLR (with parallax error etc) over a 6x6SLR? In addition to being able to change lenses, most 6x6 SLR systems also have interchangeable film backs, and generally a much wider range of accessories.

And portability, often a reason to chose a Rolleicord over a 6x7 RZ, is a moot point when looking at the rather un-compact Mamiya C series (as noted by many reviewers).

 

[koraks]

Why would you chose a 6x6 TLR (with parallax error etc) over a 6x6SLR?

Less bulk and weight, usually. Quieter. No mirror shake, so generally easier to get blur-free exposures even at somewhat slow shutter speeds. Personal preference, too. For the type of documentary photography you're into presently, my personal choice would be a TLR over an SLR. Mind you, personal choice.

 

[RezaLoghme]

Less bulk and weight, usually. Quieter. No mirror shake, so generally easier to get blur-free exposures even at somewhat slow shutter speeds. Personal preference, too. For the type of documentary photography you're into presently, my personal choice would be a TLR over an SLR. Mind you, personal choice.

I am of course talking about like for like, so a 6x6 TLR with exchangable lenses with a 6x6 SLR with exchangable lenses.

Lets compare C330 with HB 500CM. Both with 80mm standard lenses:

C330: 1.7 Kilos (source Wikipedia, Pacific Rim Camera)
500CM: 1.5 Kilos (source Emulsive)

To compare the bulkiness of the Mamiya C330 and the Hasselblad 500 CM (both with 80mm lenses attached), let’s look at the dimensions you provided and consider the overall volume of each camera.

### Mamiya C330 Dimensions:
- **Width:** 122 mm
- **Height:** 168 mm
- **Depth:** 114 mm

### Hasselblad 500 CM Dimensions:
- **Length (with lens):** 170 mm
- **Width:** 110 mm
- **Height:** 110 mm

**Calculating the Volume:**

**1. Mamiya C330:**
- Volume = Width × Height × Depth
- Volume = 122 mm × 168 mm × 114 mm
- Volume ≈ 2,489,136 cubic mm

**2. Hasselblad 500 CM:**
- Volume = Length × Width × Height
- Volume = 170 mm × 110 mm × 110 mm
- Volume ≈ 2,085,000 cubic mm

**Comparison:**

- **Mamiya C330 Volume:** ~2,489,136 cubic mm
- **Hasselblad 500 CM Volume:** ~2,085,000 cubic mm

The Mamiya C330 is slightly bulkier than the Hasselblad 500 CM, with a greater overall volume. The C330 is larger in terms of height and depth, which contributes to its larger volume compared to the Hasselblad 500 CM.

So, in terms of bulkiness, the Mamiya C330 is bulkier than the Hasselblad 500 CM.

 

[koraks]

Lets compare C330 with HB 500CM

Doesn't have to be the big Mamiya though. Like for like in the sense of 6x6 can also be a relatively lightweight and small Yashica, for instance.

Again, usually. And personal preference, and all that. The Mamiya TLR's are relatively big, heavy and bulky, I understand. That offsets some of the things I mentioned, for sure.

 

[RezaLoghme]

I was replying to Guangong's post which stated " If interchangeable lenses are important the C330 was the best choice.".

And I argue: "If interchangeable lenses are important, a SLR system would beat the only TLR with that featue easily", as I have shown based on facts.

If someone believes that a 6x6TLR that is bigger than a smiliar-specced SLR is better for their intended purpose; that personal choice cannot be debated, its just a choice.

So: the C330 is not less bulkier and/or lighter than a 500CM, which offers similar functionality (incl. mirror lock-up to avoid camera shake) and surely equal image quality.

A TLR with integrated lenses, or a different film format, is smaller, obvisously.

 

[BrianShaw]

LOL... I was very happy with a lightweight Rolleicord until I started to desire interchangable lenses, then lusted over the Mamiya. One touch of the Mamiya, though, cured me of that lust and steered me to a Hasselblad.

(@RezaLoghme : that's a really great analysis!)