Which Rolleiflex/cord?

I'm looking at maybe getting a older Rollei TLR, after reading a lot about their

ability to produce sharp handheld shots. Unfortunatly they were produced in a

bewildering variation of models and prices are all over the map. So, which

models do people recommend as the strong performers? A built in meter is

not a 'must'.

 

Thanks,

 

feli

I have an early Automat Rolleiflex (the model just before flash sync was added) and a Rolleicord III. They both have Schneider Xenar 75mm/3.5 lenses and were made between 1952 and 1954. The 'Flex has a nice substantial feel to it and the handcrank is nice, but the 'Cord with it's fewer moving parts is the one that I feel more comfortable using. With an older camera, simpler means fewer things to fail.

 

If you get an older one, try to update the focusing screen either with a late Rollei upgrade or one of the aftermarket screens. They won't take sharp pictures if you can't focus them.

 

-Paul

The best classic Rolleis are the 3.5F and 2.8F 'Flexes, with either the Zeiss Planar or Schneider Xenotar lenses. They're also the most expensive. If you're not bothered about a meter, then the various E models (or even a C or D) are well worth a look, with the same lenses. Alternatively, the various 'Flex T models are good performers, with the Schneider Xenar or Zeiss Tessar. The other 'Flexes worth considering are the Automats, again with the Tessar. The Rolleicord V series are the best bet among the 'Cords, although anything from a III onwards is very usable. The Vb is superb. All these have the Xenar.

My personal preference among the lenses is for the 3.5 Xenotar, and I would personally rate the Schneider lenses better than the Zeiss in each case - but the difference is tiny, it's more to do with colour reproduction than sharpness, and there are many who disagree with me. Screens aren't bright, and they're only easily replaceable on the later models - that's the 'Cord Vb, and 'Flex F and some Es - oh, and some Ts. if you want to buy one for serious use, don't buy a mint one of anything. They're for collectors, and go for silly money. A fully working, but obviously used model will go for a much lower price - which is why prices are everywhere. Oh, and cases and straps are VERY pricey separately! Ideally, examine the camera thoroughly before buying. Slow speeds can be sticky, check lenses are undamaged, focus hood isn't broken, mirror is in good condition, and run a test film through it to ensure the film transport is in working order. It's worth it for what is one of the finest cameras ever made.

I have owned and used many Rolleiflex and Rolleicord cameras. They are fine units. My major problem was with the lack of brightness of the viewing screen and the excessively high prices plus the need for repairs.

 

I would like to make two suggestions:

 

1. Also consider a Minolta Autocord...a III or a IV. Very nice and the coated Rokkor lens is awesome. Look for one in as-new condition.

 

2. Also consider a Yashica-Mat 124 with a coated Yashinon Lens: Extraordinarily sharp. The 124G is very good, but is overpriced on the used market, and the Yashica Mat 124 is all metal. The 124G has too much plastic and the winding crank is noisy. I currently have a Yashica 635 (similar to a Yashica D) with a 3 element Yashikor lens...no image sharpness problems at all. You might want to consider a Yashica D or 635.

 

One other advantage with the Minoltas and Yashicas is that you will save between $100 to $200 on the used market. A good Yashica D or 635 will cost around $100+/-!!! A fine Yashica-Mat 124 about $150, and the same for a Minolta Autocord.

 

Think about it!

 

I mention these because after years of playing with many varieties, and repairing a few, I find that the Minolta and the Yashica will equal the image quality of the same era as the early Rolleiflex and Rolleicord but have much brighter viewing screens.

Hello. I have a ~50 year old Automat and a newish GX. The Automat is so-called because it senses the start of the film so that you don't have to line up marks (this is not a big deal at all). I second (or third) the opinion that an Automat-era Rollei is a good choice for a first Rolleiflex. Mine has a Zeiss Tessar f/3.5. Tessars, or their Schneider equivalents, are fine lenses, particularly when stopped down a bit. I would suggest avoiding the three-element Triotars and similar. Planars are better when wide open, but will cost vastly more. While the meter in my GX is top-notch, I personally would prefer an older Rollei to have no meter at all, since the old selenium cell meters were never very accurate by today's standards, and have likely gotten "tired" by now. Personally, I would prefer a Rolleiflex to a Rolleicord, which were budget models. So, my short answer is to get an f/3.5 Tessar or Xenar lens, and you should be fine. By the way, I want to say something important about viewing screens: DO NOT REPLACE IT! Keep your Rollei original, and someone 50 years from now will thank you! Besides that, the newer Fresnel screens are not easier to focus. Indeed, they are much harder to focus, though they are easier to frame. They are not even really brighter, except in the corners. In my opinion, any Fresnel ("bright") screen is only usable if it has a split-prism focusing aid. Instead, keep your Rollei original, and do what photographers have done for generations: focus using the magnifier built into virtually every Rollei ever made. Cheers!

Like Todd I also used and use a lot of Rolleiflex and Rolleicord cameras. Tessars and Xenars are very good, Planars and Xenotars a little bit better wide open. You would be hard pressed to find differences from f8 to f16. Try to select for condition. It's better to have a near mint Rolleicord Vb with coated Xenar than a 2.8F with scratches and cleaning marks.

Personally I prefer f3.5 Planars/Xenotars/Tessars to f2.8 ones, they are not so prone to flare - only the 2.8GX is really excellent here.

I too prefer the original screen in the newer Rolleiflex/Rolleicord models to the new screens. Grepmat says it - they are better to focus but a little bit harder to frame.

And I also agree - look for other options. Todd says it.

You might pick up a copy of "The Collectors Guide to Rollei Cameras" by Arthur Evans, which lists out the models and their features pretty comprehensively.

 

The best deals in my opinion are the 1951-1958 Rolleiflex 3.5MX series cameras. The MX-EVS (Type 2) has nearly all the modern features, including provision for double exposure, and usually is findable for under $400 in VG to EXC condition.

 

Any camera that old could use a CLA, most likely, and I'd recommend adding a modern focusing screen like the Maxwell Bright Matte Grid for best focusing and viewing.

 

Godfrey

The late Rolleicord Vb has brighter view finder than earlier ones. I have one that was made in the 1970's. I believe the later Rolleicord Vb has "Rollei Werke" labeled on the lens, rather than "Franke and Heikel". Since this late model Rolleicord Vb is lighter, much cheaper, and the view finder is bright enough, I'd say this is the most practical choice. Furthermore, it is easier to find lens hood and other misc items for xenar/tessar lens.

The Xenotar/Planars are sharper in the far corners than the Xenar/Tessars. A good 6 element enlarging lens is required to show the difference in a 11x14 or 16x20 print. For Portraits this unsharpness at the edges doesnt matter. For industrial shots of machinery; aerial photos; group photos; the Xenotar/Planar will yield better corner sharpness. The Xenar/Tessar's are only 4 element lenses; and are extremely sharp on axis; way off axis at the edges; their performance suffers. This degradation has been studied and documented for the last 100 years of the Tessars existance. When I "moved up" from my Xenar/Tessar models and got a Xenotar; I HAD to get a better enlarging lens to utilize the superior corner performance during printing. <BR><BR>The Xenar/Tessar's are great lenses; and are very sharp. The Xenar/Tessar models are alot lighter in weight than the Xenotar/Tessar models. In most applications the "better corners" will not be noticeable. For industial applications; the better corner performance of the Xenotar/Planar will be seen. I took a Rolliecord IV with a 75mm F3.5 and shot some aerial photography at 1/500 @ F8 to F11. The corners and half way out were super; but all the corners were only fair.

I have a collection of 'cord III, IV, 'flex 2.8F and Yashicamat 124G. All my Rolleis have Schneider lenses. My favorites are the two 'cords and the 124G as far as the handling goes. Picture quality when stopped down to f5.6-f16 is superb. The 2.8F is just a bit on the heavy side for me for every day use. The 'cords are exteremly light (throw in the backpack and go, you won't notice it's there!) and simple to use as long as you remember to advance to the next frame right after shooting so you won't accidentally do double exposures. Having the focusing knob and the film advance knob on the same side of these older 'cords makes it a lot easier to handle - your left hand holds the camera all the time while you do everything else with your right hand. The only problem with these older 'cords is that dim focusing screen, but Beattie has a replacement screen for it.

 

One little advice about these older cameras: make sure you inspect the mirror before purchase. A lot of them tend to loose their reflective surfaces after so many years.

 

Second little advice: I've found the Stroboframe for Medium Format cameras at $65 to be a major help in handholding these cameras with or without the flast, and it also places the flash in the proper location in front of the waistlevel finder and away from your head. The cork part of the Stroboframe is wide enough to cover the bottom of the camera and the 4 little legs on the corners, and it is also a major help in positioning the camera on a tripod without damaging the film back. You cannot use Rolleifix with early 50's 'cords/'flexes. And I find it not to be so ergonomic for me with my 2.8F - the Rolleifix stays at home all the time.

1. If price is at all an issue (and I don't deny that the Rolleiflexes win the cachet contest hands down!), indeed a Minolta Autocord or Yashica Mat is a reasonable alternative. With the Yashicas, the main thing (aside from condition) is to get one with the Yashinon 80mm f/3.5 taking lens. Also, the last cameras (124G's) are said not to be as durable as some of the earlier ones. Also, the 124G's and even at least some 124's have 5-bladed apertures, while the older ones (like my Mat EM) have 10-bladed ones. How much difference does that make? I'm sure some will debate it. Very nice Yashicas can be had starting under $100, and Minoltas just a little more.

 

2. With the Rolleis (never owned one, did shop them), to me the obvious divide is the Planar/Xenotar-lensed models (Rolleiflex C, D, E, and F) versus the Tessar/Xenar-lensed models (of those with coatings, the Rolleiflex T and some older models, plus the Rolleicord III, IV, and V models). You might get a decent Rolleicord III for under $100, but some 2.8F's in comparable condition might be $700.

My first Rollei was a model with a 3.5f Xenar not bad since most of my stuff was shot with flash. The next one I owned was a 3.5F with a Planar. Used that camera to death .Worked for a commercial studio that did a lot of conventions etc. in the late 1960s. Did lots of grip & grins,in fact this studio did a lot of work for VP Hubert Humphrey when he was running for president in 1968. We would shoot buisness or union leaders shaking his hand in front of the VP seal. Neg color with an on camera stobe & slave. Next Rollei was a model that was perhaps an model C.When I was in Germany in 1969 I had Rollei convert it to take a prism. .Sold it and got a 3.5f with a Xenotar.Used it and the Planar when I was self employed,shot many a wedding on them.By the way Monte Zucker used them in the seventies when he was doing weddings in the Washington D.C. area. I would say if you can aford a 3.5f with a Xenotar of Planar that would be the way to go they all accept the prism which is nice(if you can afford one)Now a warning Heinz Grasoff (sp) A great Rollei repairman who was trained at Rollei say beware of the first version Planar with the 3.5f Not sure if its called series one or what but they are almost impossible to fix or will cost very much to repair. If you can find a Rollei E2 or E3 for less than the 3.5F grab it.It's about the same camera minus the meter.

The 75mm F3.5 Planar model was used by a friend to shoot weddings; the liked the slightly wider 75mm lens. <BR><BR>Many time the viewfinders are dim because the reflex mirror is dusty<BR><BR>Dont get too hung up on the lens issue if you are shooting photos of people. My ancient 1937 Rolleiflex Standard with uncoated Zeiss Tessar shoots fine photos of people.

A few months ago I was faced with the same dilemma, I bought a Yashica D TLR with the 4-element Yashinon lens. I believe the viewing screen is as bright as you can get without purchasing a third party screen. The camera is all metal & appears very well constructed.

 

I used it a week ago for the first time at work. We needed some photographs of a large machine the company I work for makes. These were needed for trade show posters. I shot the photos outside against a black background using a tripod & the new 100ASA Agfa slide film. The results were outstanding. I am not a pro photographer, but I ended up with the job by default, because no one else in the company knows a shutter from a pizza, and we did not have the time to call in a pro. By the way the camera came with a leather case, was in excellent condition, and only cost $69.00 off Ebay.

 

Most people don�t know that Yashica made a few Model D cameras with the better Yashinon lens, so they sell for less. If the seller doesn�t say what the lens is in the listing, thats good, ask. You will be the only one who knows, and get a nice camera for cheap. That's what I did.

I just wanted to say thanks to everyone for their input. I'll sort through the

information and we'll see what happens.

 

 

thanks.

 

feli

One nice thing about the later model Rolleiflexes (except the T) is the flip down mirror and eyepiece lens that lets you use the sportsfinder at eye level and still focus on the ground glass by moving your eye down a hair to the eyepiece lens. I found one of these hoods used for a few dollars and mounted it on my Rollei T.

For fast shooting with flash on camera the sportsfinder is the way to go. I shot hundreds of weddings using the sportsfinder, setting the distance on the knob before I had the new hood. 10 feet for ful lengths, 7 feet for 3/4 poses, 5 feet for portraits.

I have owned 2 Rolleis, an early 2.8F Planar and an earlier 2.8C Xenotar, the latter I just sold because it was in better cosmetic condition. I had both CLA'd by reputable Rollei technicians and I installed Beattie intenscreens in both (though I kept the OEM screens in case some collector was more interested in originality than functionality). I can highly recommend any of the 2.8 (or 3.5) Planar or Xenotar models. The biggest issue is condition of the glass and if the focusing standard has been whaked out of alignment. Figure any will need a shutter and transport clean and lube if it hasn't been done in the past 5-10 years.

I like to add a piece to Dave Redmann's comment #1 on the Yashicamat's baldes. Going with less iris blades on their newer lineups is a decision making process I accept from the cheaper Yashica, but I have no clue why Rollei would do this: my older, cheaper Rolleicord III and IV's have 10-bladed iris, while my newer and much more expensive Rolleiflex 2.8F has a 5-bladed iris. I presonally prefer the 10 blades over the 5 myself.

 

As for the Rolleiflex 3.5 line up with Zeiss lenses, I recall having read it somewhere that due to some stocking errors some of the front and rear lens elements were incorrectly matched on a big batch of these. Rollei recalled and tried to fix the problem, but as it is with the recall notices, not all of them got turned in to get fixed. There are some still out there with mismatched optics, and are fairly collectable, but may not be the best user cameras for us photographers.