Rollei SL35

[brett_rogers]

<p>Tony,<br>

great shots, but darn you, I want one now to quench my Rollei addiction!<br>

Stephen, the ZI Icarex was made in bayonet, subsequently M42. I believe it was more Voigtlander than Zeiss Ikon, although ZI had a hand in the Rollei SL series that ended badly, I believe? Towards the end times there was some to and fro-ing.</p>

[chuck_foreman1]

<p>Lovely Photos. Really nice color work! Itoo likes Blues a lot. But the best for me was The station shot! The lenses are first class. I too have lusted for those but the few that I came across were more Voigtl. and more electronic which made the mquestionable for the money! In face the Planar was the purchase the Voiglt was the accessorie! Do oyu have any other lenses. There was a Distagon too right? </p>

 

[JDMvW]

<p>Beautiful pictures with it. The Goulburn station almost looks like it is HO scale from that angle.<br>

The Rollei SL35 is another of the cameras whose design is in my category of "most beautiful SLRs".</p>

<p>It's also the only one that I haven't yet acquired an example of, darn you to heck!<br>

At least in other Rollei models like the Rollei 35, I always found the Singapore models to be just as good and often cheaper to acquire.</p>

 

[chansonbleu]

<p>Very nice camera and excellent images. I really like the the way it handles Ektar 100. Many years ago there was a used one on a shelf at a local camera shop. As I recall someone told me to stay clear of Rollie 35mm SLR's. After reading your post I wish I had not listened to him .</p>

[tony_lockerbie]

<p>Stephen, the Rollei's only came with the QBM byonet, and Brett is right about the Icarex, another very pretty camera, but like all the later cameras from the Zeiss/Voigtlander/Rollei conglomerate, was plagued by poor reliability, but blessed with fine optics.<br>

Chuck, I have several other lenses, a 35mm 2.8, 28mm 2.8, three 135's...a 135mm SK Tele-Xenar, 135mm F4 Tele-Tessar and a 135mm 2.8 Color-Dynarex. As you can guess the 135's come quite cheaply!<br>

The two wide angles and the 135mm 2.8 are made in Japan by Mamiya. I would love the 85mm Sonnar but the prices for these have gone through the roof!<br>

JDM, you do need one...but go for the SL as they are well made, including the Singapore models that like your 35S, seem just as well made.</p>

[brett_rogers]

<blockquote>

<p><em>Thanks Guys, Michael..the Brownie category seems to be the only option I have, anyone else noticed this?</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, confused the heck out of me last time I started a discussion.</p>

[Gus Lazzari]

<p>Talk about an odd chart on the 50mm f/1.8 Zeiss Planar (Pg 2 of <strong><em>Marc B</em></strong>.'s attachment)<br /> The center at f/4 is only <strong>acceptable</strong>? ; with the edge <strong>excellent</strong>?</p>

<p>Whatever you do, know that the Icarex design Rolleiflex SL35<strong>M</strong> (Not Tony's SL35, which BTW does have the thinnest lever) is my choice as the <strong>worst feel</strong> in advance/transport levers; like someone at the factory left metal shavings or sand inside the gears...</p>

[tony_lockerbie]

<p>Yes Gus, I noticed that too, they may have reversed the chart!</p>

[pensacolaphoto]

<p>I still have two SL35 bodies, but my SL2002 is dead.<br /> I love using QBM lenses on digital cameras, such as the Olympus QBM. The old Zeiss lenses are awesome in all aspects. I use the Zeiss 85/1.4 wide open since the aperture blades have broken, but the Distagon 35/1.4 is still intact. The 50mm lenses are awesome.</p>

<p>I recall there was a detailed article in Shutterbug Magazine by Bob Shell about the Rolleiflex 35m system as a cheaper way to get Zeiss lenses, compared with the Contax system, say.</p>

[pensacolaphoto]

<p>It could be that they compare the numbers to different numbers for the center and the edges.</p>