Help with Rolleiflex Automat Soft Test Pictures

<p>I ran two rolls of test films on a newly bought Rolleiflex Automat mx-mvs with Tessar 75mm f/3.5. It is my first time using a manual light meter with selenium cells that give a reading on foot candles. I think I underexpose in most of the shots and many also appear off on focus</p>

<p><img src="http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5128/5241925429_b9b5a98f77_z.jpg" alt="" width="425" height="640" /><br /> The two rolls are in 100 ISO with Fuji Acros and Ilford Delta 100. I shot mostly in f/5.6 and some in f/4.0. Shutter ran from 1/30 sec to 1/125 sec and I was hand holding all the shots. Link <strong><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/hin_man/sets/72157625546810562/detail/">my Flickr set with those test pictures</a></strong></p>

<p>I do need help on the following questions</p>

<ul>

<li>Do the soft pictures appear normal for a Tessar lens? I examine both lens and both seem clean other than cleaning marks</li>

<li>In a number of shots, my focus seem to be in front and off-focus. The original focusing screen appear very dim especially under the shadow. I find focusing to be a guess work. I hope I can improve with practice. Any practical means on improving focusing without changing the default screen -- I ran low budget on my hobby.</li>

<li>The lens seems prone to flare, and I have since added a 3rd party compatible lens hood, I will use it next</li>

<li>Should I try 400 ISO film and try to stop down to f/8.0 and smaller?</li>

<li>Is hand-holding a cause of the soft pictures? I am not so sure but I will try it next with tripod</li>

<li>How can one be sure that TLR viewing lens and taking lens are in alignment? With my own observations, both lens seem to move quite consistently from infinity to closest distance. Any practical means in testing the focus?</li>

</ul>

<p>Here are some test pictures:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/hin_man/sets/72157625546810562/detail/"><img src="http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5042/5240365590_487e71337a_z.jpg" alt="" /></a></p>

<p><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/hin_man/sets/72157625546810562/detail/"><img src="http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5161/5239801509_47164a068e_z.jpg" alt="" /></a></p>

<p><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/hin_man/sets/72157625546810562/detail/"><img src="http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5249/5239811959_48d4264dc3_z.jpg" alt="" /></a></p>

<p><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/hin_man/sets/72157625546810562/detail/"><img src="http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5161/5240369890_005a5da707_z.jpg" alt="" width="633" height="640" /></a></p>

<p>Most happen to be very dreamy which is a nice quality but I do prefer better sharpness especially on the subject. And here is a picture of my Rolleiflex</p>

<p><img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4142/5058345542_966dba74e2_z.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Looks like a lens element is reversed. Or even missing. The results are certainly not normal.</p>

<p>Bueh, thanks for the comment. How can I tell if a lens element is missing or reversed? If I examine the taking lens, what signs should I pay attention to. I use Bulb mode and examine the taking lens from behind, I do see cleaning marks clearly from the back but I don't observe something like separation of element like a rainbow peeling of layer on the taking lens. I obviously need more clues to examine. Thanks for the help.</p>

<p>Not normal at all. I've read that sometimes unscrupulous sellers switch viewing or taking lenses. Since these are factory matched the result is likely to be a camera that looks good but cannot be adjusted to focus properly.I HOPE that isn't the problem with your Rollei.</p>

<p>You have what I'd call a Rhollga...<br>

If you're lucky, it might be only a mistake done after cleaning the lenses, they weren't put back properly, I had this problem with a 3.5 E once and my camera doctor put them back correctly. I 'd ask a specialist if I were you. Good luck.</p>

<p>I agree with the above. This is not typical Tessar performance. Whether it's coated or uncoated, I've found the 75/3.5 Tessars on Rolleiflexes to be very sharp throughout most of the frame and into the corners, even at wide apertures. In my experience, under average lighting conditions, they are not very prone to lens flare ( but a hood is good protection , both from extraneous light sources and for the front glass itself).<br />A reversed element might produce the sharp center, dreamy and swirly corners your photos represent. However, I question the fact that you seem to achieve infinity focus on distant objects.<br />I would believe that it is more likely a swapped lens from a camera of dubious qualities by a person or persons of equally questionable lineage. I hope I'm worng.<br />The only way to find out is to get your spanner wrench and start unscrewing the retaining rings to get to the bottom of this mystery. Or take it to a competent repair shop in your area.</p>

<p>I'm afraid I've never seen anything like that from a Tessar, Hin. I'd consult a reputable repairer, without delay. Love the old GE meter, BTW!</p>

<p>Thanks for all the valuable inputs. I bought it through ebay and the seller noted the item passed down from his father. I am fortunate NOT to bid up for a high price but under $200 and it goes with the GE light meter. </p>

<p>The viewing lens is Heidosmat 75mm f/2.8 seem to match in spec with the taking lens with Zeiss opton Tessar 75mm f/3.5. I am not sure if it is coated. I think my copy is one of the <a href="http://www.siufai.dds.nl/Rolleiflex35X.htm">Rolleiflex Automat MX</a></p>

<p>I will try to take some pictures of the taking lens from the front and back of the Tessar lens and update this thread. Again, thanks for the help! </p>

<p>In search for a picture on Tessar cell that is sold as parts, I see this item on <a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=290487972658">Tessar Lens Cell as Parts</a> in ebay which consists of two components in the front and back for the taking lens and I may be missing the rear element as mentioned by few of you. Darn It! </p>

<p>Hin - take it to a repairer with no delay, this camera is too valuable to let it sit dead. As others have mentioned, this appears to be a reversed rear cell or missing altogether. Good luck.</p>

<p>Definitely something very wrong, the Opton Tessar is quite a sharp lens. You might look for a parts camera that could donate a lens; the Zeiss Ikoflex IIa used the same lens and might be obtainable cheaper than a Rolleiflex. Postwar Automats with either the Tessar or Xenar lens would also be good donors, and I think the Xenar that went into the later Rolleicords would fit too. All perform similarly. Even if you have to pay more than you'd like, you can re-sell the camera for parts and get some of your money back that way....</p>

<p>Do NOT go for that "as parts" lens - it's full of fungus. </p>

<p>Hi Hin Man,</p>

<p>Mr Oleson is the man with all the answers- and something is not right with your lens. One quick way to test is to press a piece of ground glass against the film rails. If you do not have a piece of ground glass, you can use a piece of clear plastic (like a CD case) with some translucent tape on it (like Scotch brand tape). Put the taped side of the plastic nearest the lens, then see if you can focus onto the plastic. My guess is this image will also look very soft. I have the exact same camera and my pictures are very sharp- and here is a quick and dirty photo of what the inside of the taking lens should look like. You should have a lens between the film and the aperture blades/shutter mechanisms. Make sure the two retaining rings in there are tight, you may have a loose ring and the lens is sitting at an angle.</p>

<p>Good Luck,</p>

<p>Matt<br /><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y118/mstott/rolleiflex%20automat%20K4A/rolleilens.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="700" /></p>

<p>Shame I sold a parts Rollei a couple of weeks ago for under $100, Hin. But I'll vouch for the efficacy of the Ikoflex swap. The Opton in the few I've had is a swell lens .... and complete and clean they'll most definitely NOT produce photos like the ones in your sample.</p>

<p>Here's a link to an earlier post last year. Mind you, the sample pics on grainy, expired 3200 film do not do this lens justice. The Opton Tessar really shines with slooow, fine-grain stuff like Pan F . <a href="../classic-cameras-forum/00VEc0">http://www.photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00VEc0</a><br>

<br />If you don't feel comfortable scouring the auction site for a viable donor, by all means do not hesitiate to contact Krikor Maralian in Elmwood Park, NJ. He's THE Rollei repair guy here on the East Coast. I live nearby and have personally dropped off several Rolleiflexes for minor repairs and CLA's, too. <a href="http://www.krimarphoto.com/contact_us.htm">http://www.krimarphoto.com/contact_us.htm</a><br />You can also trust the guys at Essex Camera, aka <a href="http://www.camerarepair.com">www.camerarepair.com</a>. <br />Once you get the lens situation corrected, you'll feel like you left a clapped-out Trabant for a finely-tuned Mercedes 300 SL gullwing coupe.</p>

<p><strong>You guys are so awesome.</strong> And Matt, thanks in particular for the picture on the back of the taking lens. After I got home, I did examine the taking lens and I do find the rear element that sits between the aperture blades and the film plane.</p>

<p>What I noticed further is another thing that I might have overlooked and my stupidity might be the sole culprit in causing the dreamy pictures. <strong>It may have something to do with the wrong setting on the film pressure plate.</strong> There are two visible settings for 6x6 2 1/4" on one side while there is another setting for 24x36 for the 135 film with extra accessories as an adapter. I was amateur with this and thinking that sliding the film plate to cover the 6x6 side is the correct setting, I go online and re-read the <a href="http://www.cameramanuals.org/rolleiflex/rolleiflex_automat.pdf">film plate instruction in one of the user manual</a> (page 6), I should slide it the other way to make the 6x6 and 2 1/4" wordings visible -- what was I thinking. Perhaps, that was my own silly mistake in sliding the pressure plate in the wrong way. Can that be the problem? I am quite loss with my own silly mistakes. But I am not too sure.</p>

<p>In re-examining my <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/hin_man/sets/72157625546810562/detail/">test pictures</a>, most have the top portion more dreamy than the bottom portion such as these two</p>

<p><img src="http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5169/5239799499_195ef6d640_z.jpg" alt="" width="633" height="640" /></p>

<p>The bottom part is sharper than the top<br /> <img src="http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5246/5239809795_1afb68a6fa_z.jpg" alt="" /><br /> <br /> and I surely hope it is a pressure plate setting problem.</p>

<p>I have a local repair person and I will visit him to ask about CLA and I think this camera needs and worths my investment.</p>

<p>I've shot tons of rolls in my 3.5E Planar before realizing the pressure plate was in the "wrong" position (!)... never had out-of-focus or film flatness issues to complain about. <br>

There's too many circular swirls in the unsharp areas of your photos... definite give-away that there's some optical abnormality (reversed, missing, or inferior lens) .</p>

<p>But, hey, take advantage of it while you can. Chalk it up to a serendipitous accident , a learning experience, and an opportunity to utilize the potential of the camera in its current state. It has a certain Petzval look, so think 19th Century and run with it.<br>

Go to sleep tonight, think about how to exploit the "dreamy" characteristics , and wake up with fresh ideas and subject matter to shoot... color and black and white. Post results here, of course, and make a class presentation.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Gabor, I think you are right as I see the pressure plate stay about the same distance for the two settings. Darn it! I thought that was the easy problem to diagnose. I actually loaded up another roll of Fuji Acros ready to test with the correct pressure plate setting in sliding the plate up</p>

<p>Correct setting for 6x6<br>

<img src="http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5082/5244533544_c66bb5956c.jpg" alt="" width="332" height="500" /> </p>

<p>Wrong setting that I used in the test roll<br>

<img src="http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5242/5243936595_210319428d.jpg" alt="" width="353" height="470" /></p>

<p>And I did two shots on the rear element of the taking lens. With my untrained eyes, they look normal. I don't know if they are reversed or have the wrong sitting in an angle. It does show slight scratches and signs around the rings that may suggest replacement or cleaning done before. </p>

<p>The circular openings in all apertures are just a beauty in these rolleiflex TLR.<br>

<img src="http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5043/5244588054_e1ef9cbce5_z.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5244/5244581112_65bff1f5a7_z.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="640" /></p>

<p>And I highly appreciate Matt's suggestion in using a CD plastic box with scotch tape to mimic a ground glass for testing the focus. I will do the test after my test roll of film. And the local place for repair has the pricing more than my camera is worth but I will drop by for inquiry -- <a href="http://www.ictcamera.com/Services/Services.html">http://www.ictcamera.com/Services/Services.html</a></p>

<p>I suspect it's the lens, as well. The seller took it apart to clean it, remove fungus or something, and put it back together wrong. I have an identical camera, here's a test shot I took when I got it (wide-open, hand-held at 1/4):</p><div></div>

<p>I have one of these cameras and I found that hand held with 100 ASA film was hard to get good shots. When I tried 400 ASA with this large neg. the pictures came out great. I guess my hands were not steady enough with 100. Try a faster film and the depth of field will be greater. Also looks like you need a lens shade also.<br>

Joe</p>

<p>Hin -- I think those last pictures tell the story. Someone has been into that lens before, and it's possible that the reassembly was incorrect.</p>

<p>However -- I once had a Tessar which took blurry pictures like these, and it turned out that the middle, air-spaced element (which is concave front and back) had worked loose. It was not completely loose, but it was loose enough to blur the pictures. See <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tessar">here </a>for a diagram of a Tessar.</p>

<p>It is interesting the variation between the top and bottom of the photos. Would the situation of a reversal result in non-symmetrical results like these? Just curious. I remember when I was researching my first Rolleicord purchase that a common problem is that the focusing plane can be off significantly. I am by no means an expert on what that means, but thought to contribute that bit of info and as the 'team' if this perhaps could be a contributing factor? i do know that when I sent my Rollei in for CLA, in addition to the work, the focusing plane as I recall was adjusted..not that I know what exactly would have been wrong as I sent if off directly upon receipt. Good luck! Let us know!</p>

<p>Good luck with the camera. It certainly looks like the lens and film are not parallel- your images look like they were taken with a view camera with some severe tilt and swing.</p>

<p>You might consider telling people you have the only Rolleiflex with a tilt/shift lens.</p>

<p>Hopefully the lens board plane has not been knocked out of alignment, they are a bear to re-align (at least for me). Check the lens tightness- and that the lenses appear to be screwed in straight.</p>

<p>here is an image from my speed graphic with the front standard fully tilted back, just to give an idea of what an out-of-alignment lens will look like with blur. Only the blur was intentional in this photo. Notice that only the center section is sharp:</p>

<p><a title="rachel-polaroid21-2 by matt_pants, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4015/4698034014_93b502bacd.jpg" alt="rachel-polaroid21-2" width="500" height="390" /></a></p>

<p>IF you determine that the lens has to be replaced with one from a "donor" camera it is imperative that you replace BOTH the taking and viewing lenses so that you'll have a matched set. If those two lenses aren't matched the camera can only be adjusted to focus properly at one distance. Let's hope that the lens is merely assembled incorrectly, or there's some other simple fix.</p>

<p>Any good repairer of manual cameras should be able to sort this out. If you're in the US, I'd recommend Carol Flutot, since she can also check out the shutter.</p>

 

<p>Well, if the outer surfaces of the taking lens are convex then they are installed correctly. That leaves only the inner double-concave element? It's either inverted or simply loose, as Donnie suggested. </p>

 

 

<p>I see the diagram from Tessar in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tessar">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tessar</a><br>

<br /> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tessar"><img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7a/Tessar.png/200px-Tessar.png" alt="" width="200" height="131" /></a></p>

<p>I may understand the diagram wrong as it does not look double concave to me on the rear. According to wikipedia</p>

<blockquote>

<p>A Tessar comprises four elements in three groups, one positive <a title="Crown glass (optics)" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_glass_%28optics%29">crown glass</a> element at the front, one negative <a title="Flint glass" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flint_glass">flint glass</a> element at the center and a negative plano-concave flint glass element cemented with a <strong>positive convex crown glass element at the rear </strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>but I honestly don't know if the Zeiss Tessar 75mm f/3.5 share the same optical diagram as in the wikipedia.</p>

<p>And to check for loose ring or even possible DIY inverting the lens rear element for trial, I am thinking of lens spanner, would this look right to you</p>

<ol>

<li><a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=200542105092">http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=200542105092</a> for inner ring</li>

<li><a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=200546140272">http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=200546140272</a> for outer ring</li>

</ol>

<p>I am not handy man but having the right tool may help to diagnose the problems.</p>