Shopping for a Rolleiflex TLR

Hi everyone,

 

I am looking for a medium format camera to use in the street. It has to be 6x6, very quiet, reliable. I am used

to using my Hasselblad, but it's too noisy for the street and hard to use at slower speeds. I like the waist

level finder so I am thinking a Rollei TLR is the way to go.

 

However I was wondering - what is the best Rollei one can buy in the range of 1500$ maybe a little more. What are

the options of going wider than 80mm/75mm? Is the quality comparable to the Hasselblad?

 

Thanks!

You should be able to get a Rolleiflex 2.8F with Planar for this sort of budget. If you are happy to go for the f3.5 lens in either Planar or Xenotar versions you could spend even less. The quality is certainly comparable to the Hasselblad in my experience although the comparison range is wide as both marques go back to the mid 1950s<br>

The only realistic option for going wider than 80mm with a Rolleiflex is to buy a Rolleiflex Wide. These are still running at quite high prices but the 55mm Distagon is said to be very sharp. I have no personal experience of this camera however.<br>

I have no doubt that the Mamiya TLR will be suggested as it carries a range of good quality interchangeable lenses. A medium format rangefinder such as the Mamiya 7 II bears consideration..

1500 will get you a nice Rolleiflex. However it won't get you a nice Rolleiwide. That would cost you about triple.

 

The Rolleiflex optical quality holds up against Hasselblad so as long as the condition of the camera and the lenses is good you don't have to

worry about quality with A

Rolleiflex.

 

What about a Tele Rollei. I would think the 135mm lens would be good for street photography and the f4 Zeiss Sonnar lens

is outstanding. There is a great mint condition one on ebay right now that you could get for about that kind of money.

 

If you like to think of wide angle lenses then probably the 3.5F with the 75mm lens is better for you than the 2.8F with the

80mm lens. Both are oustanding. The 3.5F will cost less and have less expensive accessories.

 

The lens options on the F models are generally Schneider Xenotar or Zeiss Planar. They are of comparable quality and each

has fans that think one is better than the other but all kinds of precise testing will show that they are identical in quality. The

Xenotars tend to be a bit less expensive than the Planars.. though not so much as in the past. The myth of Planar

superiority has faded. I own both.

 

For your 1500 you should be able to get a near mint condition 3.5F with a cap, strap and lens shade and a close up

attachment.. called a Rolleinar.

 

Hopefully, if you are planning on using Ebay, you will make a bit of a study of it and be certain to get one in good condition.

If the camera has not been serviced or used much then you might have to take into consideration a CLA. But once a Rollei

is overhauled it is pretty much good for as long as you give it a lot of use. Rolleis thrive on being used.

 

Dennis Purdy

<p align="justify">

Hasselblad can also be used with a waist level finder :-) but you're right: TLR is lovely to work with, especially for street photography. There are several types of Rolleiflex TLRs. If you want to go light weighted, the 3.5 types are most suitable. Around 900 grams of weight. These are devided under 3.5 Tessar (four lenses) and 3.5 Planar (5 lenses, the later version sometimes 6 lenses). Tessar is fine but some says it doesn't reach the sharpness of Planar wide open, especially in the corners. f/8.0 onwards is comparable to Planar. The welknown and common 3.5 Tessar TLRs are Rolleiflex MX-EVS (3.5B) or Rolleiflex T. The price is about US$ 350 to $700 second hand. The 3.5 Planar are the Rolleiflexes 3.5C or 3.5E, 3.5E2, 3.5E3 and of course the most sought after, the 3.5F. The price varies from $400 to over $1.000.<br>

 

<br>Then you have the welknown 2.8 types. To me personally this is a big heavy cameras that only belong to studios. YMMV of course. The common 2.8 TLRs are 2.8A, 2.8B (with Zeiss Biometar 2.8, rare), 2.8C, 2.8E, 2.8F (the "sweetheart" of Rollei public). Price around $600 to $1.300. The Rolleiflex 2.8GX has TTL metering, but uses battery to feed the meter. Going price ca. $1.200 to $1.500.<br>

 

<br>There were a Rolleiflex Wide in the past. It has a 55mm lens. Price is exorbitant high, even second hand. The modern Rolleiflex Wide, with built-in TTL metering and 55mm lens, is also still in production for around $3.500 or so, new. Hope this helps.</p>

Perfect, thanks for you replies and suggestions. I am leaning towards the Rollei 3.5F, especially if it is smaller and lighter than the 2.8F. However will the 3.5 perform as good as the 2.8 lens at 3.5 and 4.0?

 

The Rolleiflex Wide is a tad more expensive than I can afford. I have also looked into the Mamiya 7, I even tried it once. It is a good camera but I'd prefer the square format and the waist level finder since I am already used to them.

 

In terms of noise will the Rolleiflex F be quieter than a Leica M6?

You'll find that certain attributes of a Rollei make street photography more difficult than with, say, a Leica: winding the

film takes longer (and two hands); you need to change film every 12 exposures; you don't get the depth of field with an

80 mm Planar or Xenotar that you do with a 35 mm summilux, let alone a 28 or 21. (Don't know where the Rolleiflex

Wide fits in.) In all, you can't be as spontaneous. Which doesn't mean you can't do stunning work--but it's a bit different.

I think you have to be more studied, more composed: less like Robert Frank or Cartier-Bresson and more like Walker

Evans. (Personally I'd give my eyeteeth to be 1% as good as any of them.) Whatever Rollei you buy, though, it would

be well worth your while to get a Maxwell focusing screen put in. You'll need the superior brightness in the changing

conditions you'll encounter on the street. Harry Fleenor at Oceanside Camera (www.rolleirepairs.com) keeps them in

stock; no doubt any number of others do too.

<p align="justify">

<TT>However will the 3.5 perform as good as the 2.8 lens at 3.5 and 4.0</TT><br>

<br>Many agreed that Zeiss Planar 3.5 used in the 3.5F is the best and the sharpest Planar ever made. It is claimed to be better than the 2.8 Planar in terms of sharpness.<p>

The 3.5 75mm lens will give you a little better depth of field, which might account for why some people think it is sharper. In

my own testing mania phase, trying to find the one Rollei a bit sharper than the others, I wouldn't agree that on a flat plane

the 3.5 is any sharper than the 2.8. I went through a lot of cameras but it is just my own user tests and not with high tech

testing equipment. I have never found a Rollei that was definitely sharper than the others. I probably went through 5 3.5Fs a

T with 3.5 Tessar a 2.8E2 Xenotar a 2.8F Xenotar, 2 2.8F Planars and a 2.8FX HFT coated planar and it is very remarkable

how absolutely exactly the same they are. Even now that I have resolved my manic obsession with finding the sharpest one by

having both, a 2.8F Xenotar and the 2.8FX Planar, every now and then I succomb to the need to know which is sharper

and they always tie. The slightest user error will make the other the winner. As to wide open, I think they are all pretty capable of

sharpness, but the critical nature of focusing with such a slight plane of focus makes for a lot of slight failures to get it sharp.

 

I think for you the 3.5 F with a Maxwell brightscreen is probably the best choice as it is very light and comfortable and easy

to hand hold and the shutter noise should be so light that it couldn't possibly be an issue.

How about something different but very wide and quiet?

It doesn't have TTL finder, it doesn't have range finder, but very wide...

Guess what? Hasselblad Super Wide C. It is wide, quiet, and small.

Since you have Hasselblad, so you know it well, right?

 

Well, maybe it will not work for you, but I enjoy using it for street photography with high ISO film and the lens stopped down...

 

Good luck!!

There really is no Rollei with a bad lens. I have and use the 2.8 Planar , but have shot with the Xenotar and Tessar and they are as sharp and contrasty as you would ever need. I second the Maxwell screen , it is the difference between night and day,especially indoors.

Hi Anastas,<br>

Just another thought regarding screens. If you wind up with a camera with user inter-changeable screens but do not want to pay the extra for a Maxwell or Beattie screen my recent experience with a Rolleflex T is worth knowing.<br>

The T model is a nice light weight camera for general use but my example was an early model and the screen was quite dim. I managed to pick up a modern screen from a Mamiya RZ brand new for £15 ($30) which I cut to a square using the existing Rollei screen as a template. The job was accomplished using a small fine bladed hacksaw to cut through the plastic. Obviously a degree of care is required at this stage to prevent accidental damage . I found that laying the screen on a soft cloth whilst cuuting was sufficient to avoid scratching. Once cut, it was easy to put the new screen in.<br>

This has made a huge difference to the brightness and the screen is now a real joy to use.

A Rolleiflex F 2.8 is a bit easier to focus (Maxwell screen is mandatory) but the 3.5 version is great too, and slightly more

portable. When I can afford some serious street shooting without much hurry, my favourite combo is the Hasselblad SWC

plus the Rolleiflex 2.8 F (with the Planar) loaded with Tri-X exposed between ISO 1000-1600 and developed in Acufine or

Diafine. This gives you a chance to work at smaller apertures without the risk of blur. The Planar is fantastic for B&W,

probably even better than the Hassy Planar, but you must avoid flare - keep the hood on at all times.

The F has the built in meter, which in my opinion was a travesty. I have a 2.8D that I am very happy with, though I agree that a modern focusing screen is almost mandatory. I say get a D or an E and a modern screen and digital light meter. You should be able to get a clean example for well under $1,000.

 

(despite the postscript I do not have a Rollei TLRs to sell at the moment)

 

Josh

 

 

www.jcohenphoto.com

 

Used Medium and Large Format camera specialists. Large selection of Mamiya and other brands and friendly knowledgeable advice.

Thanks again. You are all very helpful.

A have a question though: why the 2.8F would be easier to focus than the 3.5F. Isn't the taking lens the same in all models. And if I don't need the built-in meter (I always use a hand held meter) whats the advantage of getting the F versus the E or D?

 

Cheers,

Anastas

Yes I think that was a mistake. The 3.5F and 2.8F both use 2.8 focusing lenses so there isn't a difference except the length

of the lens. I don't think one is easier than the other for focus.

 

The reason to prefer an F (or even an E2 or E3) vs and E or older is that the finder is removable. So you can put on a prism

if you want. And it makes putting in a Maxwell or Beattie screen easier. Other wise no reason not to get an older one if it is

good shape. The lenses are just as good if they are scratch and haze and fungus free. The older Planars tended to have

more damageable coating than the Xenotars. Some people prefer the C for it's 9 or 10 bladed aperture. Don't worry about

the meter, it is good you use hand held.

Dennis

I was able to pick up a 3.5F Planar with a working meter that has been dead-on accurate. It is a great street candid camera, as the shutter is silent and you can pre-focus on a set distance. Many people have no idea what you are doing with that funny-looking box you are holding. I usually hold it in my left hand, left index finger on the shutter, and wait for the moments. :-)

I just picked up a Rolleiflex 2.8C on craigslist from the original owner with 80mm Planar. I just had it CLA'd and it is so sharp. For street though I would recommend against the tele. I shoot street mostly with an M6TTL and Elmarit28mm. The Rollei is the way to go. I thought about Hassy for 6x6 street but its way too noisy. I've handheld at 1/15th and it was sharp as well. My flickr stream has some recent pics from the camera at www.flickr.com/photos/gumanow.

I just picked up a Rolleiflex 2.8C on craigslist from the original owner with 80mm Planar. I just had it CLA'd and it is

so sharp. For street though I would recommend against the tele. I shoot street mostly with an M6TTL and

Elmarit28mm. The Rollei is the way to go. I thought about Hassy for 6x6 street but its way too noisy. I've handheld at

1/15th and it was sharp as well. My flickr stream has some recent pics from the camera. I'm gumanow on flickr.<div></div>

Thanks for that. Nice photos!

Another vote for the SWC (903 in my case). I use a wrist strap, leave the viewfinder at home, run 400 film and just point and shoot. Have also had great success with the Bronica RF645 whose vertical format and auto-exposure option are pluses. Like the SWC or Rollei, it's very quiet.

Hasselblad SWC, check out Lee Friedlanders photos from the past few years. He makes good use of the format. Too bad they're so darn expensive. If I had a spare $4500 laying around...