Jump to content

Rolleiflex Lens Variants


carlos_prado2

Recommended Posts

<p>Hello</p>

<p>I am interested in buying a Rolleiflex.</p>

<p>However, I found two different MTF charts - one for the older Rolleiflex 2.8F and one for the newer Rolleiflex GX - that show a considerable difference in lens performance, especially at wide-open apertures of 2.8, between these two cameras.<br>

Many people claim that the only difference between these two cameras is the addition of the HFT coating to the newer GX variant.</p>

<p>However, I find it hard to believe that the MTF chart of the Rolleiflex GX could be improved so much by the addition of HFT coatings.</p>

<p>I am even more skeptical that the addition of HFT coating could be responsible for the performance increase, since it only really comes into effect when the lens is aimed towards a large light source. Other than these extreme conditions, HFT does not have so much effect.</p>

<p>I am more inclined to think that the 80mm Planar formula was changed/upgraded at some point. </p>

<p>Could someone confirm unequivocally, one way or the other, if the 80mm Planar lens formula is exactly the same for the Rolleiflex cameras: 2.8F, 2.8GX, 2.8FX, 2.8FX-N.</p>

<p>Or, was the Planar lens changed/upgraded at some point.</p>

<p>I have attached the MTF charts I mentioned.</p>

<p>Thank you all in advance for your help and input.</p>

<p>Carlos</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Carlos, I don't think you will ever get documents or unequivocal proof of this information. All you are going to get is anecdotal accounts. There is still a company making these most recent models and you could try to communicate with them: info@dhw-fototechnik.de</p>

<p>This is a response they gave to the question "is the S-Apogon the same as the Planar"</p>

<p><em>We are not allowed to use the name Planar. Therefore, we have changed the name in S-Apogon. The material and the resolution of the lenses is still the same. Best regards Reiner</em></p>

<p>even that is not an unequivocal statement. </p>

<p>When the FX first came out there was a lot of internet talk about how it seemed to be better wide open than before and that perhaps some design change had bee made. Personally I don't believe so. I think it was more that shooting wide open had become more popular and people were getting better at it and perhaps the very tight tensioner in the FX held the film a bit flatter.</p>

<p>I can give you lots of personal anecdotal experiences with the lenses because I have been personally testing the various Rolleis for many years. However anything I say will bring up someone else who's experience is different. As you have undoubtedly done lost of google research about the Rolleis and lenses you know there are endless discussions about Xenotar vs Planar vs Tessar vs Xenar and there are lots of people who absolutely favor one over the other. The thing I have found in my quest for the Holy Grail best of the best Rollei lens is that the performance difference and variance is so slight that the most amazing thing is just how consistent the lens quality is and how strict the quality control over the years has been.</p>

<p>These are my few conclusions after all my carefully controlled user tests.. which means on heavy tripods with all sorts of situations from newspaper taped to a wall to any number of real life situations. With and without optical flat glass backs and plate backs. All lens options from models T, 3.5F, 2.8E2, 2.8F, and 2.8FX.:</p>

<p>The single coated Planar and Xenotar have exact same sharpness.<br>

The single coated Planar has slightly more flare than the single coated Xenotar.<br>

The HFT coated Planar has slightly less flare than the single coated Xenotar.<br>

The 3.5 xenotar and Planar lenses seem to be slightly sharper at very distant infinity focus than the 2.8s.</p>

<p>All of my testings have been done in "side by side" comparison with more than one camera at a time. To this day I have a very late 2957xxx White Face 2.8F with the Xenotar and the 2.8FX with the HFT Planar and both in perfect condition. As I can't really justify owning both I have done stupidly obsessive side by side testing with these cameras trying to find which is better and after 5 years of it I still can't determine it absolutely. In real life user tests the greatest variance is the user myself. It is difficult with the focusing screens and magnifiers to absolutely focus on something and get it perfectly right every time.\</p>

<p>The truth to me is that it is all over thinking, over complicating, and over stressing the importance of the sharpness. The lenses are sharp. Maybe in some situations even too sharp. They give beautiful tonality and presence of image. And the cameras are fantastic to use if you like using a TLR. I always use mine with the 90 degree prism because it orients the image correctly and is easier to focus.<br>

Dennis</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I have run tests at all f stops. It is important to run f2.8 tests to determine if the lenses are aligned correctly. One focus that is supposed to be set is infinity. Having the lenses as close to the body as it is possible should be infinity focus. However when I first got my brand new FX I found that I had focus out just a bit to get infinity. I sent it right to a repairman and he agreed that the lenses were set to "focus through infinity" so he fixed it and now with the lenses all the way in, infinity is in focus. I only a week ago got back from Harry Fleenor my 2.8F from service and first thing I did was test f2.8. I shot at infinity and minimum focus and in between all at f2.8 and everything was perfect. That Xenotar is very sharp at 2.8 as is the Planar if you manage to get them perfectly focused. The problem is that the depth of field is so slight that it is easy to miss focus. <br>

Dennis</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I am not sure how to read those charts and what is the dotted line vs the solid line.<br>

One difference is in the scale of the charts making it hard to visually compare.<br>

It looks to me like the F lens wide open has a higher rating at it's top on all three levels than the GX lens.<br>

The GX looks to have tested a little better at 5.6 on the lower level. <br>

I don't know who did these tests and charts or what procedure they used.<br>

Though on the scale of a chart you see large gaps and lines but at a user level in the lens I think these differences are probably microscopic.<br>

Dennis</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>If the house was on fire and I could only grab 1 and they were the same distance from the door I would grab the FX because it is more valuable. Funny as it seems you wouldn't believe how much time I have wasted stressing over which I should sell. The FX is functionally flawless and my F has a bit too stiff focus but now a brand new transport from mr Fleenor. I make more focusing errors with the FX because the stock FX screen is very indistinct and I got a Maxwell to replace it like I have on my F but the Maxwell on the FX is for some reason not as good as the one on the F. It has a hard to see split image.. as well as very dim grid lines. Actually I can focus with the F off axis better with the old stock Rollei screen however I opt for the brightness of the Maxwell. </p>

<p>Bottom line I guess today I would keep the FX.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like your F better.<br>Simply because it is closer to the old stuff. I will get stick for this, but i can't make sense of a 'modern' version of the obsolete TLR concept. I appreciate the role Rollei TLRs played in the history of photography. But that role ended 50 - 60 years ago. So i'll treasure my personal favourite Rollei from the 1950s (Automat - K4B), but can't warm up to an FX.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>It is not obsolete unless you are saying that all film cameras are obsolete. The Rolleiflex tlr is still in wide spread use. Maybe not in the professional numbers from the 50 and 60s but it is still viable and still made new and still bought new. By definition not obsolete. The specific design of a camera that views like an SLR and shoots like a range finder can't be beat for many people like myself who use them. The fact that it is not the number one camera chosen by photographers doesn't make it obsolete. It won't be obsolete until film stops being available and people stop using them.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea to have through the lens viewing and a fast working camera needing another, reflex viewing camera put on top of a mirrorless taking camera is obsolete, Dennis.<br>That idea was a brilliant one in the days when reflex cameras were large things with a ditto mirror that needed to be swung out of the way manually. But after a decade or three, the TLR concept became a solution to a problem that no longer existed. Since, roughly, the 1940s, there is no reason to put one camera on top of another.<br>The Rolleiflex TLRs are a well made, practical (because of the switch to, a then small size, film), therefor succesful, and hence classic embodiment of that concept. But "by definition": obsolete.<br><br>What also made them (TLRs in general) obsolete was not just that there was another perfectly usable solution (quick swing mirrors), but in that a solution that removed the limitations of the TLR design. Easy use of different focal lengths. true through the lens viewing. Ability to extend the photographic capabilities of the camera. Compared to what came since, TLRs fully deserve to be called one trick ponies. (And it's not as if Rollei themselves acknowledged that, both by offering tele and wide versions of the TLR, and by jumping on the SLR-train that was leaving the TLR behind.)<br><br>That people still enjoy them doesn't change that. I'm sure there are people who still enjoy using, say, those large Graflex SLRs; examples of what posed the problem the Rolleiflex was the solution for.<br>People have a taste for old and obsolete things. And why not? Doesn't make those things they like with a passion any less a thing of the past.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Carlos -</p>

<p>Good questions, but at a certain point, there are diminishing returns on the inquiry. Both are good - they are a bit different. I had a GX and used if happily for several years, but using less film, chose to sell it and kept my dad's D, which he got new in the 1950s. I really like the D shutter - very sweet, and didn't care for the notchiness of the GX shutter, which made slower than 1/30 handheld not viable, altho the built in meter was convenient. A new screen in the D made it more usable.<br>

That said - I have several keeper shots from the GX that are still favored. If I were to get another, the FW is appealing.<br>

With any of these, the quality of these lenses is remarkable. A well scanned 6x6 neg can make a lovely 40" sq print as good as anything out there. Each version has its own strength, but all are good. <br>

Geoff</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Obsolete is a strange way of judging the value of a concept. Vinyl never completely disappeared and is appreciated by audiophiles, while paper never vanished in the paperless office. <br>

For a silent, mirrorless waist level finder type camera, there still is a valid use. Niche, that's for sure. Not for reasons of nostalgia though. I never had a TLR, tried one, and found it suits me and if I can take one camera it's not the dslr, or the slr MF, both of which are great, but my 2.8C or 2.8F. <br>

It's niche with a real functionality, and for that reason it has evidently not fallen into disuse.</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are judging the concept from an amateur's (in the literal sense of the word: someone who likes a certian thing) point of view. If you look at it from the photographic history point of view, you would see that the TLR concept was invented to provide a solution to a specific problem: how to have through the lens viewing and still be able to react to a "photo opportunity" as quickly as when using a rangefinder or such.<br><br>SLRs existed and solved the first part, but with no way to move the mirror out of the way quickly, did not provide the second part of the problem. So the solution was to use two cameras, one tho see through, the other to take pictures with, one stacked on top of the other as close as possible (because using two separate cameras did some 'harm' to the TTL-viewing aspect.).<br>It was a very succesful solution too, until, that it, some better solution was found. A solution that did not come with side disadvantages (such as parallax, and the ones i mentioned earlier). That better solution was helped along quite a bit by the move to smaller film formats, making it a lot easier to construct fast moving swing mirrors. But even for Rollei-format (6x6) cameras the solution worked (see machines like the SL66).<br>Meanwhile, the Rollei TLR had conquered the world. And deservedly so. And many people still like those cameras even today. But there is no denying that the camera concept is obsolete. It is the embodiment of a solution to a problem that has been solved better.<br><br>Hence so very few TLRs being made since the 1950s-1960s, with the ones being made, being made to cater for the amateurs of TLR cameras per se and those who hadn't caught on yet that there were more versatile cameras on offer.<br><br>That niche you talk about has been filled by many other, more 'modern' cameras. Silent mirrorless cameras? The world is awash with those. Most of them take batteries to power (among other things) a large display on the back (and most of them offer artificial sounds to make everyone aware of their presence. But you can switch those off.) So even for that niche, Willem, the TLR-solution is an obsolete thing from a very distant past.<br><br>That, of course, doesn't mean that you can't still like (and use) them. We certainly can (and i'm using a Rollei TLR for a project myself right now. In large part, i must admit, because the TLR is a concept offering limited possibilities, which suits my project well.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I know the history, don't need the lecture. There is not a single view that is true. Obsolete means "No longer practised or used; outmoded, out of date". The first part is untrue, the second part is true.<br>

In many ways the bicycle was outmoded by motorised transport. In many regions it is indeed, but elsewhere it is not—it has retained its value albeit in a changed world. Same with TLRs.<br>

For all the advantages of SLR, there are downsides too. Mirror movement. Weight. Usually no waist level finder. Of course there are cameras which have one bit or another. Sometimes a pragmatic or contextual choice means that you settle on a type of camera regardless of the solutions it was meant to bring to the history of cameras or irrespective of more versatile choices which I do not personally need. I do not glorify the TLR and do not hesitate to use something else. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any SLR, or view camera, offers "true" TTL viewing, Willem.<br>I have explained why the TLR concept is obsolete. It is as obsolete as a street lantern lighter's long stick with a wick. A bicycle (as in your example) offers a still very relevant means of transport that can't be replaced by motor cycles. The problem the TLR was a solution to has been solved in a much better way. Just as lighting street lanterns each day is. That better way obsoleted the TLR.<br><br>Of course there are also disadvantages to the SLR concept.<br>Weight (as if putting an extra camera on top of ... [etc.]) is not one of them.<br>Nor is the finder system: there is nothing in either concept that dictates what style of viewfinder is used. people's preference was what made the prism the thing that prevailed.<br>Mirror movement is not a problem either. (It is often mentioned as a reason why an SLR would not be as handholdabe as a TLR. But it's bogus. The movement caused by a moving mirror is many orders of magnitude smaller than the movement of even the steadiest hand.)<br>I know and appreciate that many people still like to use their TLRs. But you can't say the TLR solution is not obsolete and claim that that is not a bit 'partisan'. ;-)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>Any SLR, or view camera, offers "true" TTL viewing</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Wow, really?<br>

Anyway, this discussion is futile. I maintain, sometimes a pragmatic or contextual choice means that you settle on a type of camera regardless of the solutions it was meant to bring to the history of cameras or irrespective of potentially more versatile choices. Just as some people still use field cameras. End of story. I'll leave you to it. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

<p>So the OP was about the difference between the F and the GX TLR cameras, and is now told they are both obsolete? <br>

Seems a tad opinionated.... they are not state-of-the-art, surely, but they still do their intended job well and function adequately. I'm wondering about the term "obsolete" - is a camera that is out of date no longer valid for use? That's a pretty harsh criteria and would place many photographic endeavors into this less-than-beloved category. If a TTL using roll film is obsolete, then what does that say about large format view cameras, polaroids, alternative printing processes, and any user of film, etc? <br>

A process may not be the easiest, most current, or even the most practical, but I'd submit if it does its intended purpose, then it should be considered valid technique. The OP wasn't looking for a comparison to the newest, rather just a comparison of two admittedly old school cameras. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geoff,<br>What the term obsolete means has been explained, and it's not "useless", or "not valid for use".<br><br>View cameras still perform the function they were invented for, with nothing else being available that does the job, hence are not obsolete. Even though most people rather distort images using Photoshop or some other 'apps' than use a view camera.<br>Polaroid is indeed obsolete, because life preview and chimping has taken its place, doing a better job (lots more like the final result, much faster, less messy and infinitely cheaper). Hence 'Polaroid' has just about disappeared, almost as completely as TLRs have.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...