Whats the sharpest moderatly priced twin lens

[troyammons]

I am interested in possibly picking up a twin lens camera to play

around with.

 

I am think I have read one of the Yashicas or maybe one of the

Minoltas was good but not sure which. I will use it mostly with

color film.

 

Is there a twin lens site for good general info ??

[pensacolaphoto]

Get a clean Rolleicord. Its Tessar lens is very sharp when stopped down to 5.6.

[jordan_w.]

http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/tlr.html

[ben conover]

I bought a Rolleicord 5 with extras, filters, close up lenses, and all the original instructions from ebay for $180. It has a sharp lens, it is light, and very well made.

 

A more versatile set up is the Mamiya C3 which has bellows focus and interchangable lenses, very sharp too. A little heavier though.

 

Yashica 124G is reputed to be sharp, light, and cheap.

 

Cheers.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Many of these TLR's are old; some missaligned; some with bent standards; a few with mixed taking/viewing lenses. What matters really is using a camera that focuses correctly. A fine pro shot can be made with a Yashica; Mamiya; rolleicord or flex; a Kodak. MANY of the classical Bettie Page images were shot with a Kodak TLR; by Bunny Yeager; before she got a Rollie. Here I have a Rolleicord IV; Rolleiflex Standard & E3; and Mamiya C3. Some of the best portraits I have made were with the ancient uncoated Tessar; in the Rolleiflex standard. With MY IV with 75mm Xenar and E3 with F2.8 Xenotar; they are about the same in sharpness in the central core; with the Xenotar better in the corners at the faster f stops.

[douglas_green1]

The Rokkor lens on the Autocords is slightly better than the Rollei Tessars and Xenars, IMHO

[rich815]

Another vote for a Rolleicord. Wonderfully sharp stopped down a couple stops. Unbeatable build quality vs similarly priced used TLRs.

[richard jepsen]

For the following reasons you should only consider a 1954 or newer Rollei.

 

1. Build quality.

2. Value.

3. Availability of accessories.

 

 

Additionally, the 1954-1956 Rolleiflex 3.5 MX-EVS has the F Deckel Synchro-Compur shutter, f/3.5/75mm Tessar lens which may offer sligtly higher center contrast at f/8-11 vs a f/2.8 Planar/Xenotar. The Planar/Xenotar provides improved image quality at f/5.6 and below.

 

Any well maintained Rolleiflex with screen upgrade & lens shade is a superior B&W picture taker.

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

Look for a nice Minolta Autocord with a Citizen shutter (easier to service).

 

Robert

[fewellp]

The rollei is a nice camera, be prepared to spend some $ on the camera and

then on a good CLA. My vote is for the mamiya C220, if you get the latest

additon it will use the same screens as the C300s, and you can send the

screen to bill maxwell to have it hi-luxed. They focus super close and have a

multitude of inexpensive super sharp glass available. My rollei 2.8E total cost

with screen up grade and Harry Fleenor rebuild and various accessories

comes in around $900 total, my C330s and C220f with all the glass from a

55mm, 65mm, 80mm, 105ds, 135mm and 180super along with hoods,

chimney finder, eye level finder, various filters, pelican case, and paramender

CLA and shutter maintance on all the glass comes in around $800. I like the

images from both cameras. The mamiya lives on a tripod, and the rollei gets

hand held. The mamiya offers a lot of versatility for very little money and the

accessories are reasonable. I think the C220 offers the most for the dollars

and is an easy system to expand for future needs. Good luck, Phillip

[m_elek]

Rolleicords never came with a Tessar -- only either the Triotar or Schneider-Kreuznach Xenar. I would think that any Rolleicord with a Tessar has undergone a lens transplant.

 

The Xenar is pretty much the same lens as the Tessar, and I agree that it's a great lens. And I also agree that the Rolleicord is an excellent choice, and that no matter which camera you buy, it will need to be serviced, unless someone else already has done it ... correctly, of course.

[raymond_tai]

I used a Yashica 124G to learn photography. It is very easy to use with an accurate built-in meter. The lens is pretty good. I have a Rolleicord now and think the Xenar is much better than the lens on the 124G. If you are looking for a walk around camera and shoot handheld I would recommend the 124G but if you plan to put it on a tripod and stop it down then the Rolleicord with the Xenar is the better camera.

[michael_linn]

I have a nice old Rolleicord III that I bought for $25 a few years ago knowing it would need a CLA. Got that done and it's a pleasure to use- except when I'm having an ADD moment and forget to wind- and get a double exposure.

 

If you are new to TLR's I would suggest you consider a Yashicamat 124G which has the convenience of a Rolleiflex (at a much lower cost) and an excellent lens. It also has a light meter, which isn't too great (and requires a battery adaptor) but it's a better meter than any of the others already mentioned. The 124G will also likely be decades newer than the Rolleis, Minoltas, etc.

[dave_redmann]

How moderately priced do you mean? Under $100 US? Under $300 US? Under $500 US? And what is the appeal of the TLR?<P>

 

Well, here are my thoughts. Traditional TLR's can produce very nice pictures while being relatively simple, sturdy, lightweight, and cheap.<P>

 

At the low end, it's hard to beat a Yashica Mat; they're easy to find, cheap, relatively easy to get repaired or CLA'd, and quite good optically, provided you stop down to at least f/5.6, and preferably f/8 or f/11. The Yashica 6x6 TLR's come in two basic boxes, the original type (Mat, Mat LM, Mat EM, I think) and the later type (I think that's the 24, 12, 124, and 124G). All are supposed to be about the same optically, which means that the condition of the lenses and camera box (especially the focusing mechanism) means more than the model. The newest ones are the 124G's, but they may be less durable due to increased use of plastic parts, are ugly, and seem to cost an unreasonable premium. I bought a Mat EM for about $65 on eBay and spent about $80 for a CLA and minor repairs; it works great and can take very nice pictures.<P>

 

The Minolta Autocords are supposedly slightly sharper than the Yashicas. However, the Minoltas are <I>comparatively</I> rare and seem to fetch a premium. If you find a nice one for $100, great, but I can't see spending $250 on one.<P>

 

I have no idea why so many people recommend the Mamiya C220, C330, etc. interchangeable-lens TLR's. Their weight and bulk are a lot more than that of most other TLR's, and for the price of a decent body and lens, you could probably get a decent medium format SLR that was no bigger or heavier but was more versatile.<P>

 

With Rolleicords, you seem to be paying a lot for the Rollei name. On the other hand, if you can stretch to $350 to $500, and are willing to shop patiently (on eBay etc.), you can probably find a decent-working-condition Rolleiflex with a Xenotar (or perhaps Planar) lens that should produce better pictures, especially wide-open, than the Xenars and Tessars on the Rolleicords and lesser Rolleiflexes and various similar lenses on the Yashicas and Minoltas (to say nothing of the Triotars on the early Rolleicords).

[richard jepsen]

Quick check on Ebay. ROLLEIFLEX MX-EVS TLR with 3.5 ZEISS TESSAR!

Beautiful Rollei, twin lens, vintage, 3.5 ca. 1950's Item number: 7549428165

 

In my experience if shooting color film the optics on the C-220/C330 will produce a slight blue shift. The MX-EVS may not be any better.

[h._p.]

"I have no idea why so many people recommend the Mamiya C220, C330, etc. interchangeable-lens TLR's."

 

Because they're exceptionally capable cameras which give lens interchangeability at very low cost.

[mag_miksch]

Dave wrote:<br><br>

...I have no idea why so many people recommend the Mamiya C220, C330, etc. interchangeable-lens TLR's....<br>

<br>

Use one and you will know.<br><br>

Some modells of the Mamyia C series have been build up to 1994, so the coating of the lenses is much more advanced and you can find them in very good condition without need of repair or CLA^^<br>

[dennis_oconnor3]

I haven't an idea why anyone would want several C220/330 bodies and one each of the available focal length lenses... Unless it was to have interchangeable lenses, interchangeable bodies preloaded with different films, and built like a rock dependability...

 

My original C220 body has been in continuous use since the 1960's (the camera shop and the shop keeper who sold it to me are both long gone into the ground, but the camera lives on)

 

Would I do it all over again from scratch? Who knows... Certainly Zeiss glass for the Hassy has better LPM, etc... The Bronica MF systems have more attachments, etc.. The Pentax MF system is classy (and expensive)... But I do know that bang for the buck the Mamiya TLR has been the clear winner for me for over 40 years...

 

denny

[bob_the_builder1]

I wouldnt bother with anytdhing other than a Rolleiflex for a TLR - you can pick up a 3.5e

for around $250 - $350 which is moderate pricing as far as MF goes, without dropping

into the bargain basement bin of the Yashicas or Minoltas, etc. etc. At the end of the day

you are going to spend way more on film and prints over time than on the camera, so get

the best you can afford. If you want to spend a bit more you can get a 3.5f for $350 -

$750. As with the 3.5e you can get good deals on "user" kit, i.e. that is not in pristine

collectors condition cosmetically, but works fine and has clean lenses. For upwards of

about $650 you can get the 2.8f (or about $400 the 2.8c, d, e) which offer even better

bang for the buck (although 3.5 fans may disagree with me). The Rolleiflex T is another

one to look out for, but with its Tessar lens is not as sharp widse open as the Planar or

Xenotar equipped 3.5's and 2.8's.

[35mmdelux]

I owned a Rollie 3.5 which rendered gorgeous tones. Also owned Mamiya C220 and C330 and various Hassie V cameras. Besides the Hassie, the best fotos I ever took were with the Mamiya C220 and a 65mm lens. Not really heavy, but a little more than the Rollie. All things being even, I'd suggest the C220 as a starting point. BTW interchangeable lenses of the C220 is a great feature.

[pavelp]

<i>I have no idea why so many people recommend the Mamiya C220, C330, etc. interchangeable-lens TLR's. </i><br><br>

 

I actually do not understand it either. Anytime I take Mamiya Twin out to streets, every pretty lady wants to be photographed with it and that distracts me from photographing decaying buildings, weathered street signs and coroded trashcans.

[douglas_green1]

Bob the Builder, I'll tell you why. I happen to own a Yashica Mat 124, and a Rolleiflex 2.8E III, with a Xenotar. There is no question that the Rollei, with the Xenotar, is a superior lens, and very noticeably so at any f-stops wider than f8. But, the Yashica Mat 124 is much lighter, and it handles better. I use them both, but the Yashica's ergonomics are clearly superior. And considering that it cost me less than 1/3 of what the Rolleiflex cost, it's a heck of a deal.

[rich815]

Douglas, as an owner of a Rolleiflex 2.8E now and a Rolleicord in the past, plus a couple of Seagull TLRs and a Lubitel in the past (and I've handled a few Yashicamats and Autocords), I'm wondering just what it is that makes the "Yashica's ergonomics....clearly superior"? These are fairly simple cameras with fairly simple controls. I can see how one might think one feels better in the hand for personal reasons (weight and balance, perhaps) but that would be quite subjective. But "clearly superior"?

[richard jepsen]

The best thing about a C220/330 is ability to change focal lengths and bellows extension for close up work. A drawback is refinement, weight, and parallax, especially with close focus. The C220 unlike the C330 does not have the moving bar at the top of the focus screen to adjust for parallax but one can use a paramender 2 for tripod work. Rollei TLR's auto adjust for parallax, are mechanical perfection similar to Leica and offer exceptional image quality.

[douglas_green1]

Why is the Yashica ergonomically superior? Other than the lighter weight of the Yashica, the main thing is that the light meter is fully coupled and the meter needle is easily visible while holding the camera the normal viewing position, while the Rollei meter uses EV values, which need to be converted to shutter/f-stop combos. If one was not using the meter, they would be ergonomically similar, but the Yashica is quite easy to use the meter directly, just like any 35mm match-needle camera.