Best Rollei?

[amanda_b__kentucky_]

I know this is probably going to start a big argument but here

goes...I am looking to buy a Rollei TLR and am hoping for some advice

on which model would be best for the money. I currently have an old

Ricohflex, which I have fun shooting, but I would like to move into a

little higher end camera (but hopefully without a high end price!). I

am combing the flea markets and e-bay, but am not really sure what to

look for. Any advice?

 

Thanks,

Amanda

[michael schub]

Amanda,

Rolleis are so wonderful I doubt there will be a fight. Having had most of the later ones I would say you couldn't go wrong with a 3,5F. That said the only post-war Rollei I have is a Rolleicord IV with a 3.5 Xenar - not as good as the Planar or Xenator on the 3.5F but pretty darn good. With a modern screen you can't beat the price of any of the late Rolleicords - lots of bang for the buck. Enjoy

[jorn ake]

The Ricohflex is plenty fine, but if you want to move up, first you have to decide how much you want to spend & what you want from the camera. For me, I would like a faster lens (this means f2.8) the more modern designed body but still the older Xenotar lens & I don't need a meter in the camera, so I have been watching and waiting for a nice price on a 2.8C with a Xenotar lens. That means I am looking somewhere in the $500 price range. But really, the only camera to avoid in the Rolleiflex line is the original which uses 117 film. Sam Liu shoots the hxxx out of a Rolleiflex Standard, as demonstrated here on this forum. Mike Kovacs (right Mike? that was you, wasn't it?) has recommended the Rolleiflex MX-EVS Automats as the best buy in the line. Those cameras all can be gotten for under $200. And this doesn't even get into the battle between Rolleicord Vb and Rolleiflex T users - Vbs can fluctuate between $250 and $500 while Rolleiflex T prices can get kind of crazy due to collectable values. So to sum up, consider whether you want faster lens, easily changeable focus screens, wider range of shutter speeds, a particular type of lens, a meter, left or right focusing knob, old, new, beaten, blue, etc.

 

And check here for all the details:

 

http://www.rolleiclub.com/rollei/tlr/index.htm

[jorn ake]

And this is also a fun page to consult.

 

http://www.mediajoy.com/en/cla_came/r_history/index.html#c1

[jay_capodiferro]

I second the MX-EVS, which I purchased last year on the bay for only $110 in excellent condition.

[david_m]

A fast taking lens is unimportant in a TLR because you view through the viewing lens not the taking lens. It is somewhat useful to have an F2.8 viewing lens. You don't need a Rolleiflex to go up a step (that would be <b>two</b> steps), a Rolleicord is just as good or a Ricoh Diacord, Minolta Autocord, or Yashicamat. Some Yashicamats have an F2.8 viewing lens. Zeiss Ikoflex is another good choice. You will find the results from any good 4-element lens almost indistiguishable from a Rollei Planar or Xenotar. This has been proven in numerous lens comparisons. Of course, if money is no object, go for the Rolleiflex. All important though is to make sure whatever you buy works and is in good adjustment otherwise you will spend a lot to have it overhauled.

[jonathan_brewer1]

The best Rollei FOR THE MONEY is the Minolta Autocord!!!!.............check this camera out, I own 2, talk to other folks about its magic, I got one off e-bay recently that ended up being what the guy said it was brand new(everythings shiny-film guidrails pristine for a lot less than what's been mentioned for the Rolleiflex.

 

The Autocords Rokkor lens has a 3D contrasty quality that at times makes you think can climb into the frame into the picture, the Rolleiflex TLR is legendary and my hat's off to this legend, but the Autocord is in the ballpark of these cameras, no offence to the Rollei.

[daryl_jorud1]

Whatever Rollei you decide to buy, be certain it is in top operating condition. CLA's on Rolleis are best left to only the most experienced technicians, and will cost $200-$300 or more depending upon what needs attention. If at all possible, inspect the camera personally to make sure the taking lens is clean and free of defects and to try out all the functions. Doing so will save you $$. Any Rollei that uses 120 film that is in top condition will serve you well. All lenses are first rate, including the tessars and xenars. 2.8 models will be somewhat heavier, not a problem unless you are toting it around your neck with a thin strap for over an hour. Late models will have a brighter viewing screen, but brighter after-market screens are readily available. Most often, I shoot with my MX with Xenar lens and accessory large focusing knob. The controls are all silky smooth and the xenar lens is absolutely razor sharp. The added Maxwell screen makes focusing a pleasure. When I need more speed, I take the 2.8C. Two years ago, Marflex restored a Rolleimagic II for me. It works perfectly and is a joy to use, contrary to what some detractors may say. I treat it carefully and it doesn't let me down. It has autoexposure, so just focus and shoot away!

 

If you are not totally set on a Rollei yet, you may wish to ponder acquiring a Minolta Autocord, another superb TLR, with a Rokkor lens rivaling anything on the Rollei. Or, search until you can find the indestructable Kalloflex. Built to withstand a nuclear blast and reliable as can be. Exquisite lens and ergonomics that allow operation with one hand!

[douglas_green1]

How about a Brand New Rolleiwide TLR with a 50mm Schneider Super Angulon? If not the best, surely the most expensive when bought new.

[thanz]

I recently bought a 3.5F with 75mm planar, pretty expensive but well worth the cost. I

was worried about the 3.5 vs. the 2.8, it really has not been a problem for me. Good

luck, keep us posted.

 

Todd

[jorn ake]

Well I am not sure that a 2.8 taking lens is unimportant when considering a TLR - it might be more of a preference than a necessity but not unimportant - but David M's point is well taken re: the viewing lens. Part of the popularity of the Rolleiflex T & Rolleiflex 3.5's over Rolleicord Vb's is the 2.8 viewing lens that brings more light. The Vb has a 3.5(or is it 3.2?) viewing lens. And while I think the points about image quality are also well taken - the Lance Armstrong rule applies to cameras too - Rolleiflexes have a different feel mechanically (perhaps best captured by Daryl's comments re: silky smoothness) that you may find you prefer. So preference again. Find a store that has some in stock and go do some hands on comparisons. You might prefer a fully functioning one too.

[rustys pics]

I've owned five Rolleis over the years, and a Minolta Autocord. I've used the automat with 3.5

schneider, and the "T" model with a 3.5 Tessar is nice too. But the best hands down is a

Rollei with the 2.8 Zeiss Planar. This lens is fully the equal of modern T* coated Hasselblad

Zeiss optics. I think it's better because it does not have the biting contrast of the modern

lens. It's no slouch in the sharpness department though. Be prepared to pay quite a bit for

one of these in good condition. I have the E2 model with no meter. Light, fast and with a

brightscreen you'll never need another medium format camera.

 

You can probably find a beater like I did fairly cheap.

[mike_elek]

I really like the later Rolleis, but the price you pay (aside from dollars) is weight. I think the C-F models tipped the scales at about four pounds.

 

The earlier Rolleiflex Automats with the Tessar and Xenar lenses are really fine cameras.

 

I have a very early Rolleicord (although not the art deco model), and the construction seems somewhat lightweight compared with the Rollei.

 

I've had up to four of the Rolleiflex models (three Tessars and a Xenar), and all were really nice cameras. I'm down to two at the moment, as I've been focusing lately on the Ikoflex -- a somewhat temperamental camera with some nice features.

 

I'd probably start with a Rolleiflex Automat (Tessar or Xenar) and then work with that for a bit before moving up to the later letter models (C-F are the most affordable).

 

The only downside of the Automats is a somewhat dim screen, but it's not really been much of a problem for me.

 

I don't like the EV models. For me, I find it aggravating when the aperture and shutter speed dials are linked.

[sliu]

I have played with three Rolleiflex cameras: my own $120 1932 old standard model

621, a $600 3.5E2 in B&H and my friend Al's $65 Rolleicord III, which he got this

afternoon and I have shot two rolls for him (I will

post the result tomorrow). I would say that I don't like that 3.5E2 at all, especially the

Fresnel screen, bright but hard to focus. The Rolleicord feels OK, but not as good as

Rolleiflex.

 

I have made some good photographs with quite a few TLRs and made some good

photos in the last two months: Seagull, Yashica A, Kinaflex, Ricohflex, Rolleicord,

Rolleiflex, however, regardless the images they produced, my personal favorite are

still the two I own (Kinaflex and Rolleiflex).

 

I don't know which is true, I like them because I own them or I own them because I

like them ;-)

[kaiblanke]

As the other said there is no bad buy in 120's Rolleis if you choose a clean example. All of them have their strengths and weaknesses: I sold an Automat1 earlier this year since I also have a 2.8e and a 3.5e, but I somehow think now that this was the wrong decision.

<p>

The earlier models (up to the MVX-ES) are much lighter than the 3.5 Planars / Xenotars and the 2.8 models are even heavier. Some people like light meters, others do not care; generally using an incident meter gives you better results and saves alot money when buying the camera.

<p>

If you plan on buying accessories, stick to the Bay I / Tessar cameras, esp. Rolleinars are about 5 times the price for Bay II and Bay III versions (Planar / Xenotar lenses). The Tessar-equipped ones are also cheaper, and from f5.6 / f8 on the results are quite indistinguishable.<div></div>

[kerkko_kehravuo]

Amanda,

 

I am shure you will be happy with any Rollei: Flex, Cord, new or old. They all are so good, just slightly different nature with each type. Buy more than just one!

 

Kerkko K.

[h._p.]

Going from my personal experience over the years, the nicest Rollieflex is the 2.8E2 (or the even rarer E3). I've owned and extensively used a 1956 Automat, 2 Rolleiflex Ts, a RolleiMagic, a 3.5F and a TeleRollei, as well as the E2 which is my current TLR. I also had the use of a 2.8F.

 

The Automat is a lovely camera if you get it fitted with a bright screen, otherwise it's not really that much fun to use. The T is not so well put together as you might expect: I had the shutter speed setting go on one and the wind failed on the other. The RolleiMagic is a surprisingly nice camera if you can live with auto-exposure only (the later model had limited manual control). The 3.5F is pleasant but I found that the meter wasn't as useful as a hand held and the needle cover is easily cracked. The TeleRollei was brilliant (it's basically an E2 with 135mm lenses) and I still regret selling it on!

 

The above is simply my personal experience and that of others will certainly vary.<div></div>

[santiago_montenegro]

IMHO, the best would be a 3.5F, but the best for the money is a tie between 2.8C and Baby Grey :) Beware: professional photographers of yore knew the 2.8C was the best value, so most are heavily used, far beyond your average E or F.

[bacsa]

Kai Blanke wrote: <i>"I sold an Automat1 earlier this year since I also have a 2.8e and a 3.5e, but I somehow think now that this was the wrong decision. "</i><p>

Too bad, Kai, because you will NEVER get it back from me :)) By the way it is an automat 2. I have just used it for some half-formal portraits of an indian friend of mine; he was a bit worried that I use the oldest camera I have (1937-38?) but the results are excellent. And, though it's uncoated tessar, it can do very well with colour film, even with slides.<div></div>

[bacsa]

By the way, I could get an 1959 model 2.8E for 350 euro, that's say 400$. Is that a good offer? Do these 'flexes have the brighter screen (fresnel or not) than the older ones? Because that's the only drawback of the old Automat I have: it's almost impossible to see the edge/corner of the screen, unless the subject is bright and the camera is in darkness. Which is almost never the case...

 

So i'd love to have a second TLR, which is maybe heavier and bigger but more useable in low light situations. (Just another excuse to get a second TLR, i guess.))

[amanda_b__kentucky_]

Thanks to everyone for the recommendations so far. I definitely love my Ricohflex, but would like to expand into a better range of shutter speeds. I think I would like to start out with an older Rollei rather than a newer model - there is something about really old cameras that I love - but I want to be sure that I find one that takes 120 film. I have a separate meter, so I can live without the meter on the camera. I have not ruled out a Minolta Autocord either, if I should come up on one, as I have heard lots of good things about them as well. Again thanks for the advice, it is all very helpful (and endlessly fascinating!).

 

Amanda

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

Rolleis are very nice cameras, but the Minolta Autocord is an excellent value and is just as good as many of the Rolleis. But I will admit that I'd be happy to trade my Autocord for a Rollei that sports a Zeiss Planar lens. But, hey, I'm a bit of a Zeiss freak.

 

If you go with an Autocord, buy one with a Citizen shutter. And don't forget that it may very well need a CLA, so factor in another $100 - $150 on top of the price of the camera.

 

Robert

[kaiblanke]

Csab,

<p>

I paid around EUR 300 for my 3.5e and 2.8e on eBay (Germany) in a used, but nice and working condition. If you go for one without a meter (or a nonworking one) they even might be a bit cheaper (around 270 EUR). 2.8c models are also great, but at least as pricey as the 2.8e ones (300-350 EUR), so I would go for the latter (all prices are eBay prices, add 50%+ for store prices).

<p>

Nice to see that the Automat is put to good use, it is really a nice camera, but the planar-lust is another thing to be satisfied :) IMHO the screens in the c,d and e models are a bit brighter, but not a great jump like up to the latest screens like the ones used on the GX and 600x models. Nevertheless it is always time for a new TLR ... has anyone a baby rollei and wants to trade it for other gear?

[donald_brewster]

As always, condition, condition, condition more important than model. Planar or Xenotar doesn't matter (though Xenar and Tessar OK if stopped down). Spend on the CLA once you pick one up. My favorite is the 3.5E or F because of the balance in my hand. The 2.8 always seemed front heavy to me. Good hunting.

[paul s]

Life is short. Buy the Rollei.

 

If you stay with an f3.5 lens your filters and lens hoods may be easier to find. Check out the viewfinder if you can before you buy and see if it is adequately bright for your needs. OPtherwise you may want to opt for an aftermarket bright screen.

 

-Paul