pensacolaphoto Posted November 24, 2002 Share Posted November 24, 2002 Hello,I have just purchased a rather hard to find Tele Rolleiflex TLR. If anyone here is a user of such a camera, please give me your advices,and let me know whether I need to get some close-up Rolleinars to be able to make use of this camera for portrait photography. The other question is addressed to those who collect or keep track of collectible cameras. How much is a Tele TLR worth these days? Thanks. Raid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob loxley Posted November 24, 2002 Share Posted November 24, 2002 <P>Minimum focus distance is not very near for doing tight portraits, necessitating close-up lenses or cropping. <P>See <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=001Bbn">this thread</a>. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerry_lehrer Posted November 24, 2002 Share Posted November 24, 2002 RW As I have said in the referred thread, the Tele Rollei is essentially useless as a portrait camera. The Rolleinar .35 and .7 degrade the image. 3 meters is too far for head and shoulder shots without the Rolleinars. Let the collectors have them. Rolleiflex may be re-issuing the Tele as they did the Rolleiwide. Unless it can focus much closer without supplementary lenses, they won't have me as a buyer again. Jerry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nick roberts Posted November 25, 2002 Share Posted November 25, 2002 Rollei are indeed apparantly resurrecting the Tele'Flex next year. But I have no further details - and agree that unless it focuses quite a bit nearer, it's pretty pointless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelly_flanigan1 Posted November 25, 2002 Share Posted November 25, 2002 the Camera is worth alot of money Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_eban Posted November 25, 2002 Share Posted November 25, 2002 For portraits the 0.35 rolleinar is ideal. Degrade the image? Well, yes - I suppose it must. However, with a tripod and slightly stopped down, I can see no practical degradation in a 20x24 print versus my 120 macro planar on the hasselblad. That said, areas of critical detail for my portraits are likely to be in the golden third of the frame rather than right on the edge where you might see the most fall-off in quality. I find it a lovely quick easy camera to use and because there is no mirror black-out, ideal for portraits. As to price - condition is everything. USD750 for a real user, USD2000 MIB perhaps... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patric_dahl_n Posted November 25, 2002 Share Posted November 25, 2002 I used my Tele Rolleiflex for portraits with good results though I have to crop the negatives. I sold the camera however, since I didn't use it much. My Rollei's with normal lenses work just as good, as long as I don't get too close for portraits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fwstutterheim Posted November 25, 2002 Share Posted November 25, 2002 Raid, Mininum focus distance is 2.60 meter. This will give you head and schoulders portaits. You will need the Rolleinar for tight head shots, otherwise you will have to crop. Value around Eur/USD 1500 depending on market conditions, region and buying or selling. Ferdi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pensacolaphoto Posted November 25, 2002 Author Share Posted November 25, 2002 Hello All, Thanks for your input. I am still waiting for the Tele Rolleiflex to arrive. Once I try it out, I will make up my mind whether to keep it or sell it to a collector. If it is "useless" as a portrait lens, then it has limited use. Raid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patric_dahl_n Posted November 26, 2002 Share Posted November 26, 2002 It surely takes sharp pictures, so instead of only use it as a portrait camera at f:4-5,6 you can use it for landscapes and group shots too. I sometimes wish I still had mine. :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_alpert1 Posted November 27, 2002 Share Posted November 27, 2002 Before you take what has been said in this thread too seriously, you might try using the camera. The TeleRolleiflex 135mm Sonnar is a fine very sharp long lens. One of the Rolleinars (I forget which) is on a hinge, so it can be swung out of the way easily while still attached to the camera. I use this camera sometimes for landscape photography, when it is too cold to set up a view camera and I need a moderately long lens. It works like a charm. I suggest that you replace the viewing screen with a much brighter Maxwell screen. Also, some earlier TeleRolleiflex cameras had problems with separation of the lens elements. In later years, this problem was corrected. When your camera arrives, you should check to make sure that the lens is clear. Otherwise, the camera is very straight-forward in design and simple to operate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pensacolaphoto Posted November 27, 2002 Author Share Posted November 27, 2002 Hi Michael, The camera description had this : "The mains lens shows some delamination around the edges(about 2mm in from the edges". What excatly does this mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luc_desjardins Posted November 28, 2002 Share Posted November 28, 2002 Raid, The sonnar 135mm on you tele is like 65mm in 35 format...it depend on your style. I shoot almost all my work with two even harder to find Rollei-wides (55mm Distagon)...but this is my personal style. You might want to check out Theo's site <www.collectcamera.com> great site for Rollei TLR suff...he has two Tele's for sale right now...I think for around 2,000 to 2,500 USD...also many other hard to find item for Rollei TLR, including Rolleinars. You may want to consider sending your camera to Bill Maxwell in Decatur Georgia, he made two new focussing screens for my Rollei-wides and they are amazingly bright..it is a must,you wont regret it. Oh BTW...if anybody is knowing of Bay IV filters or Lens Shade for a Rollei-wide, I'm always in the market. Regards Luc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luc_desjardins Posted November 28, 2002 Share Posted November 28, 2002 Sorry I wasnt reading the other replys before I answered. Also when you get the camera check the following: the winding crank is smooth, check for fungus in the body and lens, check the accuracy of the shutter,check that the back closes properly and there is no twisting to the body itself,pressure plate should be smooth and not bended. One very convenient accesorie for any of Rollei TLR is the Rolleifix quik release mounting. anyway it is a beautiful lens...i thought buy one but is just isnt a focul length I use. Luc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerry_lehrer Posted November 29, 2002 Share Posted November 29, 2002 RW Your slight (2mm) separation will turn into a large separation in a very short time. Of course John vanStelton of Focal Point in Colorado can re-cement the lenses. It just adds to the cost. Somehow I hink you should have asked those questions BEFORE you bought the Tele, not after. Jerry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pensacolaphoto Posted November 30, 2002 Author Share Posted November 30, 2002 Well, I got the camera for a good price, so adding some cost for CLA and so on will still keep the total cost reasonable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_byrd1 Posted January 18, 2003 Share Posted January 18, 2003 A Tele-Rollei would be great for glamour photography--glamour stuff is usually full-length or 3/4 length, and the 135mm lens would give you that conveniently. It would also give you a shallow depth of field, which is useful in glamour. I'm hoping Rollei will put a 150 or 165mm on the new tele model to make it better for head shots; but even if not, I will save up my pennies to get one. BTW, I just put a glamour shot in my photo.net portfolio that was made with a Rollei 3.5F. It's captioned "cornered." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caliber_60 Posted July 21, 2003 Share Posted July 21, 2003 I am going to the camera store to test a Tele-Rollei before I buy. I am going to shoot a roll of film to test. What setting should I do to complete the test? What physical items should I exam carefully? How do you exam lens separation ? I have never see one. Thanks, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pensacolaphoto Posted July 21, 2003 Author Share Posted July 21, 2003 Hi, Lens separation can be detected visually by looking at the front of the taking lens. There would be a rainbow /brownish coloring around the edge of the lens. I would test the camera wide open (at 4.0) and at other apertures too. Check the speeds for accuracy. Use a slow speed film and use a tripod to check how good the lens is. It may be worth it to take the Rollei to a camera repairman for a $30 inspection since the Tele Rolleiflex is rather expensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harold_glit Posted September 20, 2003 Share Posted September 20, 2003 Hello Raid, It's september 2003 . I don't know if you will get this message but I found a lot of the answers posted moot and useless. A tele rolleiflex was never intended to be a full system capable of very tight portraits But if you want the quality of medium format when shooting portraits, you only have two choices : the tele rollei and the mamyia 7 (or 6) with a 150 mm and the rollei tele is much better built and much more reliable. I know I own both of them The rollei tele has two versions ( usually referred as version 1 and 2) the version 2 more recent is more valuable chiefly because it allows the use of 220 film, very valuable since it improves film flatness and allows to make 24 pictures instead of 12 on a camera which is not really quick loading as for the crap comments about the degradation of the quality , i wonder if jerry and the others have shot enough rolls with the tele rollei while it is true that any glass surface in front of the lens inherently degrades picture quality ( as does the uv filter that those guys have probably stuck on their 35 mmcameras) the rolleinar attachments for the rollei tele are of great quality I have used extensively mamyia 7 ( a lousy camera with great lenses) a pentax 6X7, contax 645 system, pentax 645 and found out that the picture quality of the rollei tele ( even with the rolleinar) is unsurpassed by those much more expensive, heavier systems if you get that rollei tele , use it and make pictures , you will be happy with it also the square format is great to compose portraits Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pensacolaphoto Posted September 20, 2003 Author Share Posted September 20, 2003 Hello Harold,I got the Tele-Rolleiflex (TYpe I), and it is (as you stated) a camera with an extremely sharp taking lens. In fact, I use a Rolleiflex 2.8D at the same shoot with the Tele Rolleiflex, and this pair of cameras gives me what I need for a portrait shoot outdoors. The colors come out beautiful and B&W film is also exceptional. I still need to find the appropriate Rolleinars for close-up photos with the Tele Rolleiflex.The Rollei TLR cameras are built very tough and I have not needed any repairs/adjustments so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harold_glit Posted September 20, 2003 Share Posted September 20, 2003 Hello raid, it's harold again. I am glad you got the rolleis.reading your message , I thought I give you some help finding the rolleinars for tele rollei. last february , I dropped my rollei tele from my bag on concrete floor. the camera was fine but it broke my rolleinar attachment on it. I was worried because everyone had told me how difficult it was to fine this accessory, it turns out that it is not so difficult after all. a rolleinar 0.35 very clean can be found for $175 to $250 on several websites of several camera stores I have both rolleinar attacments for the tele the 0.35 and the 0.70. i use the 0.35 all the time> I don't think I have ever used the 0.70 I suggest that you start by the 0.35. it is more logical since you would not want to reach the minimum focus on your camera at 9 feet , not being able to focus until 4 feet and then being to focus again from 4'6" to 3'. Unless you do macro work on a tripod , I do not think you will ever need the 0.70 here are some websites you can probably find the 0.35 pacificrimcamera.com kenmarcamera.com brooklyncamera.com kohscamera.com good luck harold Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now