Rollei TLR

[frank_philcox1]

I am new to MF. Today I tried out a Rollei TLR with a 3.5 Tessar 75

mm lens. I shot a roll of 120 film. It was quite easy apart from the

sun sneaking in and bleaching out the waist level viewfinder. I

brought the roll for processing and look forward to seeing the

results tomorrow. I will likely buy the camera as it is in very nice

shape but I have some reservations. The first is that I read

somewhere that the tessar lens is not as sharp as the Zeiss planar. I

read that it was soft up to f8 or so. The viewfinder is bright enough

(I compared it to another model without the fressnal (sp.??) screen

and there was a marked difference in clarity). The price for the

camera is $ 490.00. Is this reasonable? Are there other issues with

this camera that will drive me to distraction if I buy it? I know I'm

not talking about alot of dough here. Hell, I've spent more money

picking up the tab for dinner. Nevertheless, it is $490.00 bucks that

I could put toward a Fuji rangefinder or Bronica MF slr system or a

new Chinese made Mamiya 645 E.

 

Any input would be appreciated. Thanks in advance.

 

Frank Philcox

[terrestrikon]

If you want sharp in a Rolleiflex what you want is the 3.5 Xenotar. It's quite sharp, sharper compared to most MF lenses made today.

[stan_blevins]

Frank, I have a Rolleicord Vb and love it. Light, easy, wonderful big 6x6 (or 6x4.5) negatives and slides. It has a Xenar lens which is very sharp. The Tessar may not be as sharp. Whether the camera you are looking at is worth $490 depends on the model, condition, etc. You don't state any of that, so it is difficult to say. If it is a Rolleiflex T, then $490 is near top dollar and it needs to be really nice. If it is an older Rollei, then $490 may be high. Hope this helps.

[norman_trabulus1]

$490 sounds high for a Tessar model. That said, while Tessars are said not to be as sharp as Planars and Xenotars wide open, most of the softness seen wide or nearly wide open is due to limited depth of field, applicable to Planars and Xenotars as well. Variations from camera to camera, and from lens to lens, due to 40 or more years of use, are more significant than differences between lens types. Some people, myself included, prefer the look of the Tessar/Xenar images over Planar (I have both Tessar and Planar). Others say such "bokeh" differences are insignificant or silly. You are wise to shoot test rolls before buying, and make up your own mind.

[mel_brown1]

Frank, can't say whether you got a reasonable deal, but if it's a late model, it could well be worth the price. Do you know which model it is? Check its s/n against one of these lists:

http://www.rolleirepairs.com/models.htm or http://home.worldonline.dk/rongsted/Rolleisn.htm

 

Let me try to put one little thing into better perspective, at least as I see it. A Tessar is a quite respectable lens. It had a fine reputation from the 1930s through the 1970s or so. There are better lenses, of course, but not so much better as to make you dislike a Tessar 3.5. I think that, in general, you would be chasing after an extra 2% or so of improvement. When's the last time you looked at a 16x20 gallery print and said, "That must have been shot with a Tessar, at f/4?" I know I can't look back on any of my photos and discern from their quality which aperture I used.

 

All lenses are sharper when stopped down 2 or 3 steps, and all are sharper in the center than at the edges. Two identical lenses with consecutive serial numbers can vary enough to be measured, and even noticed by the sharp-eyed. Some lenses are much more prone to flare than are others. Those are limits we must accept and work with.

 

True, the Tessar is not known for its performance at f/5.6 or wider. So try to shoot it at f/8 or f/11 whenever possible. Still, I bet you would have to look really hard to find any softness objectionable. The reduced grain of MF prints will make up for many sins of the lens.

 

Probably the only film that will make lens defects noticeable is Tech Pan, so if that is your chosen film, get the best lens you can afford. Otherwise, It think a Tessar will deliver what most of us want. The three things that will most improve the technical quality of your photos are the use of a tripod, a good lens shade, and a cable release.

 

I don't mean to say it's wrong to seek out the best lens. If you want Sonnar quality, get one on a 'Blad (or a 135mm lens on a Koni Omega). I'm just saying that a Tessar is likely a better lens than I am a photographer, so most folks aren't going to notice which lens I use! For a good lesson in humility, get a couple of old British Journal Photographic Almanacs, from the 1930s or 1940s, or spend a few hours in your public library perusing old photographic annuals and books. I am always amazed at the gorgeous photos folks made 50 or 70 years ago by folks with much lesser equipment than we take for granted today.

[bill_dewberry]

At this price, there are only two lenses to consider, a planar or

xenotar. If the price were 250, then this would be a reasonable

choice, just not a preferred choice.

[Rob F.]

I think all the comments were valid. But Bill Dewberry summed it up well: the price is too high for only a Tessar. The Tessar is actually a good lens. I doubt you'd see the difference between it and a Planar or Xenotar unless you use a tripod. The differences are only visible at wider apertures, too. At f/8, I don't think you'd see it. But this isn't the last Rollei in the world. If you want to spend in the $500 range, I'd hold out for a Planar or Xenotar.

[john_elder1]

I have both a tessar and a xenotar Rollei TLR. Shooting both on a tripod at f8 or smaller I can't tell the difference. 490 might be high depending on condition. But the rest of the responses are forgetting to consider the fresnel screen worth 120 new. If the roll you shot today looks good tomorrow; no spacing problems, no transport problems, and you really like the camera go for it. I love both of my Rolleis. When I REALLY like a camera a get a back up, hence 2 TLRs. I had to shoot the Tessar for an assignment last spring and I doubt if any human could tell the difference between the Tessar and the xenotar. They are both great. There have been many famous lens that used the Tessar design.

[angus_bromide]

Don't let anyone run down the 3.5 Tessar, it's a fantastic lens. We have a Rollei 3.5 with a Tessar and I've scrutinized Kodachromes we put through it (can't do that anymore sadly) and the results were staggering.

 

The 2.8 Tessars were not nearly as good -- the Tessar formula doesn't like going wider than 3.5. The 2.8 is still a decent lens but it doesn't approach the 3.5. (The only TLR I know of that used a 2.8 Tessar was the pre-war Ikoflex III.)

 

To put this into perspective (albeit in a different format, but the principles hold), one of the most highly regarded, sharpest lenses ever made was the 55mm 3.5 Micro Nikkor. Remarkable lens. And it was a Tessar formula.

[angus_bromide]

BTW the Minolta Autocords were another fantastic TLR that used a top-notch Tessar lens. You can often pick them up for much less than a Rollei in comparable condition, and if you do get one, you'll never want to part with it. The downside is that it doesn't have the automatic film-start rollers that Rollei used (so you need to line up the start arrows before you close the back and start winding -- it's automatic once you do that), but on the other hand, it has a flat film path, unlike the Rollei (and most other TLRs other than the Mamiya C series). That means that the film starts at the top, feeds straight across the film gate and then bends after the film gate, before it hits the takeup spool. This frees you from worries about having the film buckle after sitting in the camera for a half hour or so mid-roll.

[nolan woodbury]

Getting back to the question at hand: Is $490 too much for a nice Rolleiflex 3.5 with a Tessar? Judging from your comments Frank no, it certainly isn't. Consider you get a pretty good deal on a Tessar-'Mat for say, $175 or so. Add in a $150 CLA and another buck-ina-quarter for a bright screen and you are right back up there. Don't forget shipping, and waiting around for it to arrive. Skipping that hassle is worth good money alone. You even have the luxury of testing it first. Sounds good.

 

Planar/Tessar/Xenotar/Xenar...the TLR debate for the ages. I'll just say this; Paul Ebel, respected camera repairman and lens expert (and he really is, believe me) has often told me the Tessar was as good as any lens -for sharpness- fitted to a Rollei TLR, and does a damn fine job on color rendition and contrast with modern chromes as well. These days, it's better to shop for condition then lens brand -or speed- for that matter. It sounds like you want the camera Frank, so buy it. I'm sure you won't regret it. Oh, and Frank? I love Italian food, in case you're making dinner plans...

[mediumformat]

Frank,

 

I bought a grey Rolleiflex T type 1 (no meter) about six months ago. It has the 3.5 Tessar, and is in between the Rolleicords and the more expensive Planars/Xenotars. I paid $260 for mine, which I consider a superior deal considering the camera is in perfect working order, lenses are flawless, and cosmetics are about 8+.

 

I really love using this camera. I have shot several beautiful rolls of Provia 100F with this and was impressed with the results. Unfortunately I don't have any of these scanned to show at this time, but I totally agree with other posters - you will not be able to tell the difference between the Tessar and Planar/Xenotar at F8 and smaller. At wider apertures, like f4, the few shots of Tri-X I have taken have turned out beautifully. The Tessar is a fantastic portrait lens, and has it's own signature look. I look forward to many years of enjoyment with the Rolleiflex.

[patric_dahl_n]

My 2,8F with Planar is *not* sharp at 2,8. Maybe the unsharpness is more even than my cameras with the Tessar though. :-P The Tessar has better contrast than the Planar. The 3,5 Planar is contrastier and sharper than the 2,8. Xenotar contrastier than Planar.

[tariq_gibran]

I think that $490 is high. You could buy 3 or 4 nice Rolleicords

for that amount with the same Tessar lens. I have carried a

xenar lensed Rolleicord with me for the past 15 years. During

that time, I have also had a Rolleiflex 3.5 F with the Planar lens

and also a Hasselblad system as well as many other cameras.

The Rolleiflex with the Planar was very sharp but so is my

Rolleicord with the xenar. One thing I really did not like about the

Rolleiflex was that it just Weighed too much - much more than

the Rolleicord and probably the same as the Hassie with an 80

Planar attached. This made me less likely to carry it around

everywhere I went - which I do with the Cord. I also must say that

while the Planar is sharp, I did not like the look of the out of focus

areas compared to the xenar. The Xenar has that soft, warm out

of focus quality but is still very sharp where it should be. The

Planar had more of a cold, hard point like out of focus quality.

This is something I noticed right off when printing. I think the

Xenar(and probably Tessars) were indeed some of the best

lenses made.

[angus_bromide]

<i>I think the Xenar(and probably Tessars) were indeed some of the best lenses made.</i>

<p>

They really are fantastic optics, and are extremely underappreciated. I don't mind the bad rap they get, because it makes them affordable. Sooner or later people will figure it out, and then the prices will go up. I've seen it happen with everything from Yashicamats (used to be dirt cheap) to food (I remember being able to buy stuff like mussels and okra on the cheap because they were considered "poor folks food", and then when the yuppies discovered how good they are, they became trendy, and the prices zoomed right up.)

[peder_mansson]

I´m having a look, tomorrow, at a Rolleiflex 3,5 Xenotar made in 1980!

I thought all Flexes from 1980 were 2,8s??

Apparently it is in mint condition, one owner, case as new, filters etc. Price will be around USD 350.

Any last minute comments?

[peder_mansson]

I´m having a look, tomorrow, at a Rolleiflex with a Xenotar 3,5 lens, manufactured in 1980! I thought all Flexes had a 2,8 by 1980??

Apparently it is in mint condition, one owner, case as new, filters etc. Price will be about USD 350.

Any comments???