Rollei TLR 6x6 Info Needed

[Aoresteen]

<p>I'm considering getting a Rollei 6x6 TLR. While I can tell you anything you might want to know about the Baby 4x4 Rolleis, I'm totally lost when it come s to the 6x6 models.</p>

<p>Here's what I'm looking for:</p>

<p>2.8 Planar lens<br>

220 film capacity<br>

Ability to put a +2 or +2.5 diopter correction lens in the WLF magnifier.<br>

No light meter needed.</p>

<p>My budget is $1200 plus $500 for an overhaul & Maxwell screen</p>

<p>I think some 2.8F models did not have light meters. So guys, & gals, which models should I look for?</p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

<p> </p>

[verivorax]

<p>I believe most Rollei 2.8s can be modded for 220. I'm not sure about a diopter, but you could retrofit something or have something made (worth it for such a nice camera! :D). In that case, you can run with any 2.8C or later (assuming you're particular to the Planar, including the Xenotar would widen your selection). Some are biased towards the 10-blade iris on the C.. I have a D/Xenotar and I love it.<br>

You should be able to find something easily within your range. Then you'll have extra for a full set of Rolleinaars (otherwise they have a poor close-focus ability), a Rolleifix, and any other fun accessories you might need/want.<br>

Good luck in your search! I had quite a few hits in the buy/sell on photo.net, but they all came days after I completed an *bay auction! d'oh!</p>

[Aoresteen]

<p>Jeremy, I'll consider the Xenotar. Thanks!</p>

<p>Vin, that is EXACLY what I was looking for but my Google skills were lacking. Thanks!!</p>

<p>Tony</p>

[d_purdy]

<p>They did make diopters for the WLFs, I have +1s on mine. It is possible that Harry Fleenor or other repair persons might have them and it is possible that the diopter is available new. I know that the same magnifier lens will fit the new FX finder as well as the old F finder. I have an old one in my FX WLF. The F WLF has another magnifier to use for focusing with the sports finder window up and they made diopters for that as well.<br>

There are 2 types of 220 switches that can be installed. One has the 12/24 button by the film counter. The other is a little button up by the strap hanger. The one by the strap hanger does not count the frames for you and it is less expensive than the 12/24.<br>

The Xenotar is every bit as good as the Planar. I obsessively tested a bunch of them before I finally gave up trying to find a difference. <br>

It is an exciting time to have a good budget and a desire for a Rolleiflex. Enjoy.<br>

Dennis</p>

[evan_dong1]

<p>Anthony,<br>

The diopters for the Rolleiflex is a stock item. I have several -2 in all 5 of my WLF.<br>

Now I was not sure of the C model having 10 blade iris. With that iris configuration, i guess that the images would hae a smooth transitition in their bokeh.<br>

The oldest and the first of my Rolleiflex TLR, (YES, it is quite addictive, isn't it!!) is a 2.8 D Planar. The images from this Rolleiflex when compared to my later 2.8E3 and F, are like Night and Day. Don't rule out the 3.5, but it appears that you like the 2.8. Again, either the Planar or Xenotar will be fine and don't see any difference to tell them apart.<br>

a 2.8D or 2.8E would be fine if youdon't mind the 5 blade iris. Otherwise, you would have to search out a 2.8C model.</p>

<p>I have on my 2.8E3, a custom brass lever to switch it form 12 to 24 exposures. It doesn't work with the counter, so you would have to know the last remaining 12 shots. Harry Fleenor installs these 12/24 options into any Rolleiflex. Jut to save you some money, jusy think how many 220 film are currently available.</p>

<p> </p>

[Aoresteen]

<p>Evan,<br>

Thanks for you info!</p>

<p>Just for clarity, are you saying that the pictures from your 2.8D Planar are WORSE than those from your 2.8E3 & F?</p>

<p>For 220 I use Kodak TXP, the only 220 B&W film left.</p>

[evan_dong1]

<p>NO!! The Rolleiflex, i would guess that each version is an improvement over the previous released TLR.<br>

The Rolleiflex 2.8D Planar that I have, thends to give me a a 1950's Look. Especially in the separation between Foregorund and background. It creates a background image into a "Dreamy" like soft, but yet sharp image. Most probably its the boke effect I'm speaking of. My other 2.8 F Type 2 and 2.8E3 has more distinct color saturation look over that of the 2.8 D. Maybe its the new multicoating or the the coating is different then that of the 2.8D. Its similar to my 3.5T in color rendition.<br>

I would not trade any of my Rolleiflex TLR and I love the 2.8D for how it renders.</p>

<p>Evan</p>

<p> </p>

[verivorax]

<p>Evan: I like your characterization of the 2.8D's image.. definitely in the "dreamy" category - something about the saturation and contrast. <br>

I suppose it's something to do with the lens-coating technology of the day. I have a Walzflex 3.5 of similar age, and it exhibits more of that dreaminess (but none of the Rollei sharpness and tactaile joy).<br>

I would love to have another Rollei to compare it to, but there are other collections which deserve attention (and money).</p>

[evan_dong1]

<p>Jeremy,</p>

<p>The Rolleiflex invokes so many levesl of tonality with each version. I have the 2.8 D Planar, 2.8E3 Xenotar, and (2) 2.8F Planar. I also have a 3.5 T and a MV-EVS 3.5 Xenar. Each of these Rolleiflex has their own unique characteristic and look.Their signature in Color images and B & W, are all unique and are not similar whe compared to each other.<br>

For an inexpensive way into the world of TLR, the Mamiya 220 and 33 TLR are the absolute top for wedding photograhpers at one point. They were the only TLR that had interchangable lenses. I seen some great work done on those cameras.</p>

<p> </p>

[hubert_seremak]

<p>You might like this page maybe:</p>

<p>http://www.rolleiclub.com/cameras/tlr/info/index.shtml</p>

<p>Do not bother checking quality of images from C, D, E or F versions for 100 times in google :) Unless this is Planar or Xenotar ALL of them will be awesome, of course, given that you are good photograher :)))</p>

<p>good luck!</p>