rolliflex, which one?..

my mamiya c330 is a wonderful piece of art.. with bag and three

lenses it weighs more than my crown 4x5 outfit.. great for

portraits, landscapes from the car etc.. i would like a lightweight

medium to pack around like on vacation.. i was reading some old

posts and looks like ive come up with rolliflex d, e, f,.. planar

or xenotar,.. 3.5 or 2.8, or any combination fo these.. am i on the

right track??.. or woould it be ok to start out with a cheaper

yashicamat 124g, or minolta autocord?.. are either of the later even

in the same class of photo producing quality of the roliflexes ive

mentioned?? the shots im getting with the mamiya 330 are fine for a

comparison that i would be looking for. i know these are some tough

questions.. thanks dave..

Dave,

I have used Rolleiflexes with 2.8 Planar and 2.8 Xenotar lenses, and I find both having super sharp lenses in addition to providing a very nice color palets. I recently added a few 3.5 models to my small collection to see if they provide different results. From what I have seen myself and what I have read on photo.net it is not the model or lens type that is important but the condition of the lens and the camera. A clean TLR will provide you with a taking sharp lens. I love carrying a Rolleiflex TLR with me on my travel. It is not heavy and haviong just one lens (in square format) allows you to focus on better composition. Another plus for the Rolleiflexes is the quiet shutter. You can barely hear the camera when using it. Quality of construction is top grade. Some people start with Rolleicords, but I would spend a little more and get a 2.8 or 3.5 model in clean condition. Meter is unimportant in my opinion.

The Rolleiflexes are very sturdy camera and can be somewhat heavy, especially the lettered models (A-F). I think the earlier Automats are slightly lighter in weight, and performance is quite good. The Rolleicords have either a Triotar or a very sharp Xenar and seem to be a bit lighter still.

 

I've seen some very nice photos from the Yashica and Minolta TLRs.

Nothing beats a 3.5F with Planar, nothing, nothing, nothing.

Red,

 

Why do you say that?

 

From the webpages I've read, the 2.8F Planar had the highest resolution at center/middle/edge at all apertures. NOTHING beat the 2.8F, as far as resolution. Granted, the human eye probably can't tell the difference between 2.8F Planar and any of the other Rolleiflexes...but still, better is better...

 

Also, on some of the Rollei boards, I have heard it said that the Xenotar offers more contrast than the Planar...and on one on any of the boards disagreed...

how heavy is a rolliflex d e f,? i hope it isnt any where near as heavy as a c330?. if it is i would rather go with something lighter.. its tough trying to decide on something when you cant handle it.. thanks for all of your input.. forums bring up multiple answeres to questions/problems for multiple people, and with a little trial and error,its a great way to find out what works for an individual.. dave..

Dave,

 

I've seen them listed anywhere from 1000g to 1300g. BTW...I'm also looking at getting a Rolleiflex...decisions decisions!

C330 with 80mm lense has 1700 g, the newer "s" weights less, so it will not be much over 1300 g^^

The 2.8F with meter weights 500g less than the C330 with the 80mm lens. The 3.5F is about 50gr lighter than the 2.8F.

 

If you want a lightweight pack around camera than take a look at the Rolleicord Vb. It weights less than 1 kg, sharp Xenar lens, is cheap, takes cheap Bay I filters and hood and has brighter screen than the older Automats.

 

Siu Fai

Red couldn't be more wrong. One with a Xenotar does! ;)

 

Seriously, I've got Rollei TLRs with f3.5 and f2.8 Xenotars, f3.5 and f2.8 Planars, f3.8, f3.5 and f2.8 Tessars, f3.5 Xenar and f3.8 Triotar. I also have a few other TLRs, including a 124G. IMVHO, the Planar and particularly Xenotar lensed Rolleis are unbeale.tab

I am new today to photo.net, but not new to photography and specially not new to Rolleiflexes. Red IS right. Nothing beats a 3.5F Planar. Nothing, Nothing. The Xenotars are great too, but let's face it. It's not a Zeiss.

I have a 3.5E planar. I love it. Before it came along I could never decide what camera went with me when travelling; now the choice is easy.

I will unload a few 2.8 and 3.5 models in a couple of weeks. Having too many cameras is not good ... in my opinion.

If you're looking for a lightweight TLR among the various Rolleis, I'd probably give a good look at a Rolleicord with a Xenar lens. That's probably your best value, unless you get a good deal on a clean Rolleiflex Automat with either the same Xenar or Tessar for under $200.

 

Once you stop down to f/8 or smaller, the Xenar will give you very sharp negatives.

As I understand it, the 2.8 was developed to give greater sharpness in the corners and edges of the image than you could get from the 3.5

I wonder how many actually shoot wide open? I don't because I want depth of field in my images. The larger negative size requires a longer lens, say 75mm. The longer lens requires more stopping down to get the same depth of field as in 35mm photography, usually two stops more. So, the alleged advantage of the 2.8 over the 3.5 disappears for me given how I shoot. The best advice I got when I was starting with Rollies was to buy the one in the best condition I could find and start shooting. Now some models of Rollies have a coupling between the aperture and the shutter speed, called the EVS system, which changes one as the other is changed. Some people like that system; others don't. I despised it enough that I sold a Rollie to get rid of it. You asked about the Automat. I compared negatives between an Automat and a Rollie where the film, the scene, the shutter speed, the aperture, and the development were all the same. Under a 4x loupe, I could not distinguish between the negatives. Tri-X, f8, 1/125 sec., iso 400, developed in D-76.

For the Xenotar fans...in what way is the Xenotar better than the Planar? I saw a l/mm lens test...and the Planar's had better edge to edge resolution. Was that a fluke test? Or are you guys talking color/contrast/bokeh that makes the Xenotar better?

 

Also, I've noticed several of you prefer the 3.5 lens over the 2.8 lens (for both Planar and Xenotar). Why is that? The same lens test mentioned above seems to show that the 2.8's have better resolutions at MOST of the f-stops they have in common.

 

Just curious...

3.5 Rolleis are cheaper than 2.8 ones, so the first ones are better value for money. As was

pointed out by David most of us stop down anyway to smaller apertures than 3.5 let alone

2.8. The difference between Xenotar and Planar, well, it's a waste of space to talk about

that. Don't worry, be happy!

Lens measured performance on film will vary due to the film flatness; which frame on the roll; how long the film sat in the "taking" position before exposure. Then there is the problem of missaligned; missfocusing cameras. Then there is the problem of folks always wanting to swap out to newer screens; and not even checking the focus. Lenses also vary from serial number to serial number in performance. There there is the duffus factor of Kilroy swaping out lens elements from two junkers; to make a perfect cosmetic looking TLR for Ebay; that miss-tracks in focusing. Add 50 years of usage too; and you get a hodgepodge of results in the population of TLR's. It is bizzare that folks worry more about Xenotar versus Planar; than if the camera is aligned. It does no good to get a great lens on a bastard TLR that missfocuses.<BR><BR> The Rolleicord IV and E3 I have are equally as sharp in the central core; and they are aligned well. At the very far edges; the Xenotar is sharper than my Xenar; in a critical print. For single portraits; this makes NO difference. For a large group photo; the Xenotar on mine is sharper at the edges. This can be seen on a 11x14 or 16x20; and is difficult on a 8x10 or smaller. I used both in wedding photography in the 1970's; and often couldnt tell which camera shot which set of negatives. I placed a small notch in the film gate of the Rolleicord IV; to tell them apart. This is blackened with a technical pen. <BR><BR>Contrast is often lower with a lens that folks like to clean all the time. This fetish ruins alot of decent lenses.

In wedding work; the 75mm F3.5 Planar/Xenotar is coveted; for its slightly wider angular coverage; and less weight. In the 1970's these cost more than a F2.8 model; on the used market; if the TLR was in great shape.

<i>I will unload a few 2.8 and 3.5 models in a couple of weeks</i><BR>

<BR>

Hey Raid, I'll take them. I'll pay for shipping. The least I can do to provide some humanitarian service against camera sprawl (I like to contain them in my place). ;)

The 3.5F Rollei is smaller and lighter than the 2.8 and better contrast too. I never shoot wide open, so who cares about 2/3rd of a stop and with that super quiet and smooth shutter and ease of release one can hand hold at 1/30th (unless you can't).

I've owned and used all variations of the Rolleiflex--3.5, 2.8, Planar and Xenotar--from

the E-model to the final 12/24 F models (by Franke&Heidecke) since the late 1950's. There

is no appreciable difference that I can see, at least up to 18 x 20 prints.

 

The Schneider Xenotar was Rolleis first choice for its top class lens on the C model about

1952 or so. When demand grew faster than Schneider could produce lenses, they turned

to Zeiss for Planar lenses as well. (Both are essentially the very same lens formula.)

 

When the Planar was introduced in America (about 1958) Zeiss had a strong advertising

and Public Relations program going and camera dealers were "pushing" the Planar so that

it didn't get an "inferior" reputation and was supported by the hype in the photo

magazines of the time. [This is when Zeiss was pushing Super Ikonta's, the last of the

Contax, Contaflexes, etc.] So, combined with the advertising blitz for Zeiss cameras, the

Planar took on a certain "cache" which had nothing to do with performance.

 

Both the Xenotar and Planar were 5-element lenses of the same outstanding design

(originating I believe prior to 1920 but not mass produced at that time due to cost.) What

little I know about optics is that there is more abberation correction choices for the lens

designer with the odd number of elements 3, 5, 7 etc. except for some reason the 4-

element Tessar design works remarkably well for its type.

 

Later, in the early 60's Zeiss added a sixth element to the 3.5 Planar for a few years as a

"field flatener"--placed as the final element in the lens group. Independent testers finally

agreed that it did NOTHING to add to the lens performance, except put another

obstruction in the light path, but it didn't "hurt" performance either.

 

The ultimate answer is not in the name but in the design.

 

Both companies make excellent lenses and nobody has ever been able to state

unequivocally that one is "better" than the other at all times.

 

How large are you making your prints? If you are shooting transparencies and digitizing

them with very high-end equipment (such as a Tango drum scanner and printing with a

Lightjet laser or a Chromira LED system) you'll still see no appreciable difference in 30X40

prints from either lens. Do you need to go larger--that's a $400 print from a pro lab.

 

For what it's worth, NASA used a Xenotar lens in 1967 to take photos of the moon's

surface from an Apollo spacecraft to see if they could determine whether it was firm or

powdery before attempting a landing there in 1969.

 

Personally, I had a Xenotar FIRST (and still have it on a Rollei E from 1958) so I am partial

to the Xenotar since I have made some very huge B&W conventional prints with it. I just

haven't gone as large with the Planar but I am convinced that it will hold up well. (I use

Planars on my Hasseblads.)

 

It is a matter of whatever is available at the price you want to pay at the time you want to

buy, assuming "condition" of the lenses and cameras are the same.

 

If buying a used Rollei, find one in a leather case that has been hanging in somebody's

closet for 25 years. It will probably be like new. [Three years ago I did buy a NEW one, still

in the original box with the outer cardboard protective sleeve and price sticker on it--a

2.8F.] Yes, I had to pay more than the price sticker!

 

Good luck. Remember, Public Relations and Advertising were the only difference originally;

internally its the same lens formula produced by excellent companies.

 

The 3.5 Rolleis are easy to carry and use compared to the Mamiya C330. The Mamiya

originally was half the price of a Rollei and it is like carrying a lead weight with angles and

edges that catch on jackets and shirts. Interchangeable lenses, yes, but you'll need a

shoulder bag for them, they weigh a ton, and aren't quick change like a 35mm lens.

When my Mamiya C330 kit gets to be a bit much to carry, I find that switching to my Mamiya C220 with just one lens and the waistlevel finder makes a big difference

Thought about a shirt-pocket folder like a Perkeo?