what is the best rollei TLR to get?

what is the best rollei TLR to get? I am just getting into 120 film

and rolleiflex and rolleicords look fun and interesting. I am on a

limited budget and I was wondering what are the resonable rolleis?

Also what are the best ones and what are the ones to avoid?

I just picked up a Rolleicord 3 in decent shape for $112 on Ebay. Has the 3.5 Xenar taking lens. All camera functions seem to work well and most of all it is fun to shoot with. I wanted (still want) A Rolleiflex 2.8 planer in ex condition but will wait for the right one to come along. For some reason I actually feel like a real photographer when using the Rollei. :)

I picked up a couple of Automat Model 4's several years ago on eBay. They both have the f3.5 taking lens and were both built between 1951-1954. I was fortunate that they both function correctly with no additional expense to me for shutter speed errors or other mechanical troubles. One is a Zeiss Tessar that I bought from a hard-headed seller, and the other a Schneider Xenar that I bought from a very nice retired Kodak rep (his personal camera). I can see no appreciable difference between the two lenses- they're tack sharp.

 

At that time, I paid around $130 and 160 for them, respectively. Although others may tout the sharper image of the f2.8 Planars and Xenotars, I am no less than stunned at what my cameras will deliver. You can pay more if you like, and probably get fractionally sharper images with those newer models, but I don't see the need. The Automat 4's are among the first to have the X-sync, which allows electronic flash. They are also among the last models made without a meter, which is no problem for me as I use a handheld Minolta meter for accurate incident readings. Meters in the later Rolleis that came equipped with them are likely to have soured by now, and unless you want to spend money to repair them, they don't add much to the value of the camera. Even then, you are left with only a reflected light meter which, as its name implies, can only attempt to give you an 18 percent gray reading from your subject regardless of what it is. White snow, dark coal- they'll all come out middle grey. Contrast that to an incident meter reading which measures light falling on the subject- just as your eyes see it. Darks are dark, lights are light- you get the picture. (!)

 

If you manage to land a troublefree unit, you might need to consider a modernized ground glass conversion such as a Maxwell or Beattie. Being the tightwad I am, I haven't done this, and it is only a problem in low light situations. I just use a pair of reader glasses or a magnifying glass to fine tune the focus in this situation, and the results are great. I almost always use a tripod with cable release to get the utmost out of the cameras in terms of sharpness, so I do my action shooting with 35mm or digital. You will find that the Rollei will slow you down in a good way, and your enjoyment with the results will keep you coming back for more.

 

Rolleiflex gave the photographic community a real gift with these little workhorses. In field use, you'll find folks who understand the history of Rolleis will smile and pay you nice compliments. That adds something to the photographic experience that couldn't be had with a modern camera. Enjoy your new, old treasure.

 

Bob Brown

 

 

 

4

a 3.5F has always been my rollei of choice - any of the lenses are fine, the planar is the best. they are beautiful machines inside and out.

Using the word "affordable" and "Rolleiflex" in the same sentence usually points to the older, 4-element Tessar models or the later T's. The MX/MX-EVS units from the late 40s-early-50s can be had affordably, while still offering useful features like coated lenses and a factory installed flash sync port. The T's are more money, but, since they are slightly newer, usually can be found in better condition. Like the previous poster said, the 'Cords are an option too, but I have little experience with them. I've seen some fantastic results from those models though, so it seems best to keep your options open.

 

Ones to avoid? Unless you're collecting, the Magic won't bring much pleasure, and the first 2.8 (the A) had a factory lens recall, and the attachments are very difficult to find. Other than that, it's wide open.

 

For me, hunting, buying and then using Rolleiflex cameras has proven to be deeply rewarding, and career boosting. I routinely shoot magazine covers and features with my Rollei's. Good luck!

Sometimes you get lucky on the big auction site. Two months ago I managed to snag a 2.8D Planar for $250! The glass is perfect and all shutter speeds on--I guess I just happened to be on when the other bargain hunters were out on vacation.

Hello! Everyone,

I just start using+collecting Rollei TLR 6 months ago. It's been amazing using these cameras which I once looked down upon (it was a 2.8F which belonged to my dad but now has been kept by my bro). Now I own three Rollei TLR's. The first Rollei I bought myself is a Vb 'cord, of course comes with Xenar lens, the second one is a black T 'flex with Tessar lens. Both are very sharp, way sharper than my SQ 80/2.8 lenses (by Bronica) but not as sharp as my ETRc 75/2.8 which capable of producing stunning 16x20 enlargement, however, colorwise no Bronica lenses can match anyone from Rollei. From impression with the first two Rollei performances I later proceeded to acquire a beautiful 2.8D with Planar lens. I found that the 2.8 though performing better at wider apertures (2.8-5.6) and better built, is not my all-time favourite Rollei. Why? The 2.8 is heavier, not comfortable to carry around and to my surprise, less saturated in color reproduction. The accessories for 2.8 are always 2-3+ times more expensive. For me the most favourite Rollei TLR is my first Rollei, thge Vb 'cord. It is very light ( you must consider this weight factor when you add more accessory like hood, filter(s), pistol grip, prism, electronic flash, Rolleikin part or 645/16 frames adaptor kit (this is nice feature that cannot be found on any 'Flex). If your budget is rather limited or you want try the Rollei TLR way of photography the later versions of 'Cord should come up first. Look for a nice IV or Va, Vb 'cord and you'll never be sorry.

I agree with Chang. My first Rollei camera was a Rolleicord Vb with a 3,5 Xenar lens. Well build, light, handy and reliable. A joy to use. It had also a frame adapter kit that converts 6x6 into 6x4.5. Very nice and convenient feature unless you try to take vertical shoots!

 

Now I have a 3,5F and a 2,8GX. I use both, but with some bias towards the F. While I don't find any difference in lens performance, F?s shutter is just superb: smooth, quieter, it allows use speeds of 1/15 second handheld without problem, and the camera is lighter and better build.

I'd personally go for an Rolleiflex Automat if you can find one in your price range. The automatic film loading is a real boon. Alternatively, the second model of the RolleiMagic can be a steal because it has optional manual settings (shutter range from 1/30 - 1/500). The original RolleiMagic is best avoided because you have pretty well zero control over what's happening to the exposure. I've yet to find a Rollei that fails to give pleasing image quality, including the original 'Art Deco' Rolleicord.

The rolleicords are very good budget models with a super lens, and usually in good shape (the ones i've seen at least). I had one, mnodel V, with coated Xenar, sharp more than enough, i was very very pleased with its results. (Some freak robbed our house and took it, a month ago.) Has all the necessary features, knob winding and separate shutter cocking is not really a problem - you won't shoot car races with it, i guess. I think from model V on, it has the double exposure/no exposure -prevention - maybe model IV has it already,dunno. The screens are pretty dim but contrasty so still useable. The EVS coupled speed-aperture system is not as bad as some say.

<P>

Otherwise, rolleiflex automats are also good value for the money.

Most important in a 50 y old TLR is to have the focus properly aligned; a Planar/Xenotar lens with a minor misalignment will miserably fail next to a Tessar or Xenar that is well calibrated for correct focus. Be sure to buy a camera that has no dings *on the moving lens board* (which is usually a good indication of being dropped, and having the lens board brought out of whack resulting in focus problems).

<p>

Also, there's a post here about a nice Yashica D for sale. COnsider that too. It is as good as a Rolleicord in picture quality and should have a brighter (fresnel) focus screen; unless you want the name Rollei, it's a great alternative. I had one of those too (with denteed lens board but i repaired it); a 30x30 print of <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/2308828">this</a> shows what he can do.

<p>

Good luck. TLR's are pure fun.

Just about any 1952 or later "Rolleiflex" model will be fine. (The RolleiMagic was more of

an amateur camera and Rolleiflex T was the economy line; the so-called "Baby" Rolleis

made 4x4 images and took 127 film which is not readily available anymore.)

 

The ones with Xenar and Tessar taking lenses (4 elements) will do just about everything up

to 16 x 20 prints with no problems. [You are unlikely to encounter a Biotar lens as they

were made in very few numbers, but it good condition it's ok too.]

 

The Models to look for and spend the extra $$$ for are those 3.5 E's and F's with Xenotar

and Planar lenses (exact same lens formula) Xenotar by Schneider and Planar by Zeiss,

both companies still make top-of-the-line lenses today in Medium and Large Format

sizes.

 

There is virtually NO difference between the lenses in terms of quality other than that

which you might find from one Planar to another or one Xenotar to another. For a few

years Zeiss added a sixth element behind the lens, supposedly as a "field flatener" but

practical tests determined it was more "hype" than help. They later eliminated it as no

reviewers could find any significant optical differences.

 

All Rolleis need the focusing screen replaced with a modern fresnel type by Maxwell

(preferably) or Beattie. They cost about $125 and are self-installable on 3.5E-2 models

and up. (Any model with the two buttons aside the hood which allows you to remove it by

pressing the buttons and sliding the hood to the rear. )

 

Standard E models require expert installation of the replacement screen so you'll need to

pay a repair shop which has an optical bench.

 

Hopefully you can find an E or E-2 or later that has been in its leather case for 20+ years

just hanging in uncle Tim's closet and likely it will be in nearly new shape.

 

[i don't use cases myself, but most amateurs who could afford a high-end Rollei of the

mid-1950's to the end of the 1970s did and these usually protected them well from dust,

sunlight, etc.]

 

There is no question that the 3.5 models are much lighter and handier to use (and slightly

sharper when wide open even when comparing the same formula lenses.) A removeable

hood model gives you the option of adding a Rollei Prism for superb eye-level viewing for

another $150 to $225.

 

I have owned Rolleis since 1959 or '60 and recently as many as 10 at the same time. I just

sold 4 of them. Remember that when the E-model came out in 1956 it retailed for about

4-weeks pay for the "average" worker like a cop or firefighter. Compare it to any of

today's cameras using that as a benchmark and you can see that it was a "top line"

model--quite expensive-- and used by tens of thousands of professionals.

 

For about 15 years--early 1950's to introduction of the 2nd or 3rd generation Nikon SLR's

the Rollei just about replaced the 4x5 Speed Graphic as the "press camera" of the era.

 

Look carefully at the taking lens for fungus growth between the elements as a result of

poor storage. Test all the speeds by listening to them--they should run smoothly and if

so, can be adjusted later for accuracy if needed. Always wind the crank, cocking the

shutter, before setting 1/500th. That was Rollei's instruction book recommendation and if

you don't you will find it hard to go into 1/500th.

 

Meters add no real value and it is unlkely you would use the built-in selenium meter today

even if it is working correctly. If working there is no reason NOT to use them, just avoid

the tendency to point toward the sky when taking a reading as they measure a wide angle.

 

Good luck.

The word budget was mentioned. If you would opt for the late 1940s or early 1950 flexes

there is another point to consider. The tripod mount. To mount a Rolleiflex on a tripod

you will really need a Rolleifix adaptor. Early flexes cannot take a Rolleifix. The mount on a

Rolleiflex consist of a flat cylinder with the thread in the base. To take a Rolleifix the

cylinder needs a groove around the side. I would advise against buying a Rollei without the

groove unless you are absolutely sure you are not going to use a tripod. Good luck.

You might also consider a Minolta Autocord - excellent ergonomics and an exceptional lense. But look for one with a Citizen shutter - easier to service. And factor in about $150 for a CLA (I've heard that Paul Ebel is good. I used Ross Yerkes but don't recommend him because he distributes hate literature with every serviced camera).

 

Robert

The best Rollei to get is the one in the best condition at whatever the price you can afford and send it in for a CLA. You are better off with a good condition Tessar/Xenar than a poor condition Xenotar/Planar. Condition is paramount whether you get a 'cord or a 'flex. I personally prefer the 'flex. Good luck.

I have two--one from 1938 and another from 1946, both work superbly!(and there's nothing like telling someone it's 67 years old...or 59!)

Donald beat me to this one. With houses its location, location, location. IMO with TLR Rollei's its condition, condition, condition (mechanical and optical that is). While some seem to carry more prestige with collectors for pure picture taking prowess I can't believe you or I could see the difference in most photographs taken with any ten well cared for and maintained '50's + Rollei's shot at a moderate aperture. So stop worrying about best model. They are all good if working properly, again IMO. I'll pit my very mundane 1954 MVX f3.5 up against any of the pricey collectibles anyday as long as I can choose my aperture.

The Xenar is actually just as sharp as the Planar or Xenotar. This has been proven in countless lens test comparisons. The difference is that the Planar and Xenotar are faster lenses and the sharpness comes at wider apertures. With the Xenar, you have to stop down a bit more. The most important thing is to make sure you get a working camera since a CLA will set you back $100 plus.

"All Rolleis need the focusing screen replaced with a modern fresnel type by Maxwell (preferably) or Beattie."

 

I've always found the standard screens in any of the later cameras (E, F, T series as well as the Rolleicord VB and the much maligned Magic) perfectly adequate as delivered. I did fit an auxilliary fresnel lens to a 1950s Automat which gave quite an improvement over the plain ground glass but this wasn't an expensive thing at all. If memory serves it cost me 5GBP. If someone's on a budget, they could buy an awful lot of film for the price of one of those Maxwell or Beatie screens.

Most all the images shot in the history of the TLR were shot with stock screens. The bulk of replacement screen work being done today is for part time users. Here I used my stock screens 2 or 3 decades before the designer screens arrived. Now folks say they must be used; which is total BS. Often the internal just requires cleaning; or a recoat. When a bright screen is installed wrong; often folks have a focus problem. Before hackers mixed viewing and taking lenses; & before Ebay; & before the bright designer screens were marketed; most folks had ZERO focus missmatch errors. Now decades later collectors who shoot little pro work claim a "bright replacement screen is required"; this is BS. A stock clean Rolleicord IV with a Xenar is a fine PRO machine as is.

I'd recommend getting the cords, as my 2.8 F has recently had the film sensor/detector give out. Cost a bundle to fix. My GX on the other hand, works just fine, no need to worry about the film sensor/detector, as it doesn't have one. And if I am not mistaken, the cords don't either. One less moving part to worry about failing. And really unnecessary unless you can't line up the bright red/or black line with the arrows. regards

My first MF camera in the mid-60s was a 3.5F Planar and it was great in every way. I recommmend it if you want a Rollei. They tend to cost less than the 2.8F and all you lose is half an f-stop. In the 70s I went to Mamiya because of the interchangeable lenses. I think the C330 is actually the best all around TLR. Everything about them is good except they are heavy.

 

But today Rollei is very expensive and with you "just getting into 120" I would suggest you start out with more of a budget camera to see if you like TLRs. Some do, some don't. You gain some features and lose some. In the "old days" many people started with the Yashica model that eventually became the 124G.

The best Rollei to get is a Minolta Autocord ;-)

 

Cheap price, very well done and with a lens in pair with Rollei's

RE: Harvey Platter's post about stock Rollei screens; In 1965 I had the original screen in my 2.8E replaced with a "Rolleiclear" screen which IIRC was the then new screen used on E2 and F models. This was the first Rollei microprism bright screen and it was a considerable improvement over the 2.8E's original screen that, while quite usable, was rather dark in the corners. The '60s Rolleiclear screen may not be quite as bright as a Maxwell screen, but I don't think there's any compelling reason to replace it. Earlier screens, even early fresnel models, have some light fall-off in the corners, but saying that they HAVE to be replaced is an overstatement.

 

Bob Marvin

I have a cord V [think it is an a but may be a b] that I got used in

the second half of the 60's. I got a good deal because there was

a crack in the screen in one corner. Even so it worked well. In the

late 70's I gave it to a friend who wanted to try MF. He kept it for

15 or so years and then gave it back. He replaced the original

screen with a Maxwell [i think]. It is much brighter and even

brighter than my flex. He was a real stickler for the authenic. He

also gave me a real cord lens cover and hood and a pile of

original filters. :)

 

Art

Robert, I WASN'T saying the screens needed replacing - just quoting CPeter prior to refuting his rather sweeping statement.......