Eyeing a Rolleiflex...

[lutz]

Hi, having tried almost any kind of analogue camera in the past (but never any TLR) I would like to try a Rolleiflex.

Could you give me an introduction? Or point me to a comprehensive source?

As far as I have understood so far, there are just slight but maybe decisive differences between models, for instance 3.5 vs. 2.8 aperture lenses (Tessar vs. Planar?), EV-lock setting (or not), sports VF (or not)...

What to look out for when trying to find a sample? And what would be a reasonable price range for a optically and mechanically sound model?

Thanks for your input in advance!

Lutz

[AJG]

Look out for any evidence of having been dropped--if the lens board alignment is off you will probably never get sharpness from side to side.  Be prepared to spend a fair amount of money depending on condition and the particular model, especially if it has had a recent overhaul by one of the few Rollei guru repair specialists.  I am partial to Planar lenses (I have a 3.5 E with a Planar and a 2.8D with Schneider Xenotar) but any of the Rollei TLRs usually had top of the line lenses from the time when they were made.  I  much prefer the balance of the 3.5 versions in my hands since the 2.8 versions feel front heavy to me. The exception to this would be some Rolleicords with Zeiss Triotar lenses that were not Zeiss's finest hour in my opinion.  I have a Rolleicord I (the Art Deco version with brass plates instead of leather covering) with the Triotar and it is the least impressive vintage lens of many that I own.  If you're looking for soft and dreamy with lots of flare, the Triotar may be your lens.  The EV coupling is a nuisance, in my opinion, and I would avoid it if possible.  E series and later models will allow you to disable the EV coupling if you prefer.   Also, the selenium cell meters are usually not that accurate after 60+ years, and were pretty marginal to begin with except under fairly bright conditions. That said, Rolleiflex cameras are among my favorites.  When I first picked one up it just fit my hands and the controls felt logical and made sense without looking at a manual. I haven't had that experience with any other camera over 50 years of photography.

[ericphelps]

I can't really add anything to this discussion other than the memory of when I helped my father on photo jobs, setting up the lights, changing flash bulbs etc. But he had a Rollie, and it was to me the most beautiful instrument I'd ever seen. I carried it all over the house, focusing, setting up shots, pretending I knew what I was doing.

I thought then as now, that's how everything should be made, lovely knobs, levers, buttons and so many textures.

[lutz]

Thank you both for your precious input! I really appreciate the technical details and the memories connected to this type of camera. IMHO cameras are as much about their optical as their handling qualities, i.e. ergonomics. Some just *feel* right. So did the Leica M6 for me and previously the Olympus OM1.

[orsetto]

Possibly the best advice anyone can give you re purchasing a Rolleiflex: if you have no experience or knowledge of them whatsoever, don't go hunting for "bargains" or try to buy within a certain budget-minded price point. This almost always leads to regret, sometimes very expensive regret. Condition is EVERYTHING with a Rolleiflex, this cannot be emphasized enough: if you don't know what you're doing, resign yourself to paying the going market price for a good example from a reputable dealer with a warranty (preferably with a recent documented servicing). While better cheaper deals are certainly possible to the savvy-patient-expert buyer, generally you need to mentally file Rolleiflex in the same category as Leica rangefinders and Hasselblad SLRs (i.e., they are now playthings for the wealthy who can afford the upkeep, or lunatic enthusiasts like ourselves willing to roll the dice and risk going into hock).

All these classic European cameras with beautiful appearance, legendary optics and intricate engineering can plunge the unwary straight to financial ruin in short order. The repair cost to fix hidden defects or issues is excruciating, as is the wait time for a competent tech. And there is always potential for unpleasant surprises: if nothing else, Compur leaf shutters can drop dead overnight despite working perfectly the day before. Not to mention tampered lenses, misalignment, film transport issues, etc. So unless you stumble across a stupendous bargain worth having overhauled by a specialist tech, choose a Rolleiflex from a known good seller who will stand behind it as fully operational for a few months after purchase.

With that caveat out of the way...

AJG covered most of the basics above. There are myriad similar models to choose from, which can be very confusing to the uninitiated. And if you've never used a TLR before, it may not make sense to drop a ton of cash on a premium Rolleiflex only to discover you hate the handling or parallax inherent in the TLR concept. To get an initial feel for the TLR experience, consider starting with a much less expensive Rolleicord. Tho honestly a comparably-priced vintage Yashica or Minolta TLR would get you closer to the Rolleiflex feature set than a more spartan Rolleicord (which has its own charms, of course).

Short version: the most popular "starter" Rolleiflex is probably the later Automat variants, like MX-EVS, although these are more expensive now than a couple years ago. Figure $595 minimum for good condition from good seller with warranty. Beyond that, skys the limit: final run of model 3.5F starts at $900 and can zoom over $2000 for a pristine example with recent overhaul. Add several hundred more for the 2.8F.

Long version: You probably don't want to go earlier than the 1950s era unless you really know what to look for in prior models. The Tessar f/3.5 is the baseline performance optic: more Rolleiflex photos were taken with this lens than any of the others. Some Rolleiflex models were fitted with the Schneider Xenar instead of the Zeiss Tessar: its an exercise in hair splitting to tell them apart, so if you find a good deal on a Xenar don't hesitate. The simpler Triotar has its share of fans, but requires a practiced eye to get the most out of: Tessar/Xenar is the more versatile benchmark.

The Zeiss Planar (and Schneider Xenotar) improve on the Tessar/Xenar performance, but for many the difference is not as dramatic as the legend suggests. Used at f/8 at midrange to infinity distances, it would be difficult to detect a significant performance variance among any of these four lenses. The Planar/Xenotar reveal their advantages when shooting wider apertures at closer distances, for which they're better optimized than the Tessar/Xenar. if you don't shoot many face portraits or flower pics, and don't often shoot wide open at f/3.5, you can save a chunk of cash by opting for the Tessar/Xenar.

Re f/3.5 vs f/2.8: the primary difference is bragging rights and cost. Lens accessories (closeup kits, filters, caps, hoods) for the larger diameter f/2.8 are also harder to find and more expensive. Its nice to have the extra stop for very low light shooting, and the bulging 2.8 lens pair is that much more retro-distinctive, but realistically most Rolleiflex photographers survive quite happily with the f/3.5. There is no difference in viewfinder brightness, since the f/3.5 models employ f/2.8 viewing lenses.

The EV shutter/aperture control gimmick is a love it or hate it affair. More photographers hate it than love it, but you can get used to it quickly and its easier to work around on most Rolleiflex cameras than the more irksome implementation of Hasselblad. The sportsfinder is nice to have as an option in fast moving situations: Rollei's ingenious feature allowing you to check focus when using the sportsfinder is unique among TLRs.

The newer the Rolleiflex model, the more features and updates you'll get (removable WLF to permit mounting a prism finder, brighter and/or more easily changeable focus screen, selenium meter, etc).  Some models have one-off specific features, like the multiblade rounded iris of the Planar lens mounted in the 2.8C version.

[lutz]

Wow, Orsetto! I love the depth of your advice. That certainly gives me plenty to chew on...! :-)

[Niels - NHSN]

As usual, when @orsetto contributes to a thread, there is rarely a need to expand.

I will just echo the importance of seeking  out a healthy sample from the start, and not wasting time on seeking out a bargain. In my experience, true bargains are only to be found in estate sales where the price is often so low that you can justify to chance it.

I have personally enjoyed several more TLR's than is depicted below, but have now settled on a very late (early 1970's) somewhat rare "white face" model T (with Xenar lens) and a mid 1950's 3.5C with a Planar.  
Far left and right respectively in the photo below.

The 3.5C came from an estate sale and had the expected sluggish shutter from years of lack of use. After a bit of searching I was lucky to find an almost retired Rollei specialist in the Netherlands who didn't insist on a full rebuild, but would clean the shutter with a very fast turnaround and a with last-century-price-tag. (good luck on finding such a person).

The main usability issue of the older 'flexes is the very dark focusing screen IMO.
My model T has a modern screen which is a joy to use and until I replaced the one in the 3.5C, I simply couldn't enjoy the camera. It is only the later Rolleiflex models that allows quick user replacement, but with the right sized screwdriver and basic DIY skills it is also possible swap the older screens.

For the 3.5C i bought a Chinese screen off eBay that I had to sand down to the correct dimensions - if I were to do it again, I would just buy one from Rick Oleson : https://bright-screen.com

 

Edited June 15, 2023 by Niels - NHSN

[Niels - NHSN]

And I forgot:

I have found the site below a very useful resource of Rollei information.

https://twinlensreflex.eu

Their list of the (declining number of) European repair specialists in particular. The site admin appears to frequently keep the information up-to-date, which is rare for a static website these days.

Fortunately EU has more good repair alternatives than the US it seems, but many are retiring these years, and the younger generation of techs often only offers very costly overhauls or rebuilds.

I miss the old days where the repair tech would just "fix the problem" and didn't subscribe to the "Cult of the CLA"

 

 

Edited June 15, 2023 by Niels - NHSN

[lutz]

Hey Niels, that's excellent advice! Thank you, too for your insightful answers. Much appreciated! :-)

[SCL]

I'm taking a contrarian approach.  I was bitten by the Rolleiflex bug a number of years ago, and found a nice one at a decent price. At the same time I also found a good Yashicamat  and Ricoh Diacord. The price differential was significant so I wanted to compare all three, not only pricewise and performance wise but also featurewise. So I loaded up film and for several weeks shot all three. My conclusions were that the Rolleiflex seemed more substantial and definitely was more expensive, it's focusing screen wasn't as bright nor as clear as the others either, so I decided to cash it in. It was a tough call between the other two, as each had plusses and minuses - In the end, I found that I preferred the focusing mechanism/technique of the two racking arms of the Ricoh for speed and functionality vs the one knob of the Yashica. Eventually I got a new screen for it from Rick Oleson. Although I haven't shot with it since covid, it still remains a treasure among TLRs, and I've never regretted selling the Rolleiflex. As far as performance, the f/3.5 lens delivers excellent sharpness and contrast, and many of the Rolleiflex accessories fit just fine. So in your quest for a TLR I'd encourage you to look beyond the Rolleiflex as your first...there are a number of excellent alternatives out there (I still keep wondering if it is worthwhile for me to get a Mamiya C330 pro F - but so far I've managed to resist the temptation). Good luck in your ultimate decision, and have a lot of fun with it.

 

[orsetto]

So envious of Niels -NHSN: what a brace of Rolleis! SCL, too: *beautiful* Yashica and Diacord!

I love the Rolleiflex TLRs as much as anyone, but they can park a lot of cash in one place that might be spent in other ways if you aren't a dedicated Rolleiflex photographer. So (somewhat regretfully), I find myself in the contrarian camp with SCL. Over the years, I decided to compromise on Hasselblad as my 6x6 SLR (to get my Zeiss Planar fix) and the final Mamiya C220F for my daily driver TLR. The Mamiya won me over with its best-in-class stock focus screen, interchangeable lens options like the killer 180mm f/4.5 Super Tele, built-in closeup bellows, and intuitive twin focus knobs. But at twice the size/weight of the Rolleiflex/Yashica/Minolta/Ricoh, its an acquired taste for sure.

(Note to SCL: having owned both, I find the Mamiya C220 preferable to the more advanced C330. The auto parallax compensation and wind-coupled shutter cocking features of the 330 come at the cost of janky winding feel and even more weight. Also the auto-parallax indicator is a pain to adjust for each lens change: the fixed parallax lines in the 220 are actually faster and more intuitive. The big winding knob of the 220F is quick and butter smooth).

Rolleiflex can't be beat for the combination of portability and premium optics, as long as you tend to "see" in 75-80mm AOV, enjoy the standard TLR form factor, and perhaps will use it as your primary camera. Of course if you were lucky enough to acquire a Rolleiflex (or five) back in the days when prices were merely "collectible" instead of hipster-fueled, or simply have money to burn on extra cameras today, they're even harder to resist as an additional system. With the current craze for medium format film photography, alternative TLRs like Yashica, Minolta, Mamiya and Ricoh have shot up in pricing (so the stretch to a Rolleiflex may not be as daunting anymore).  Ten years ago you could pick up a nice Diacord for $29, a mint Yashica or Minolta for under a C note, or a clean Mamiya C220 with lens for $129. Sadly, them days is gone.

 

Edited June 15, 2023 by orsetto

[AJG]

A Rollei photo from a 1987 trip to Peru--shot on Kodachrome 64 in 120.  Kodachrome 120 was available for a few years in the late 1980's, but processing was a nightmare since all of it was processed  on the west coast and routinely took two weeks or more to come back for those of us in the eastern US, making it a non-starter for professional work.  This was made with a Rollei 3.5 E w/75 mm f/3.5 Zeiss Planar.  Theft was a major problem in Peru at the time, so I left my 35 mm cameras and lenses at home and wore this under my parka that I wore almost constantly since it was winter (August) when I was there. That is Spanish moss on the cactus, one of many anomalies that I saw there.

 

[lutz]

Thanks SCL, AJG and orsetto for your additional contributions. Choices, choices...! :-)

As far as I am concerned, going back to the Hasselblad 6x6 system is not an option. Too unwieldy. I'd rather tinker with a high quality, slo-pho alternative to the ubiquitous cell phone/P&S shooting. Certainly, a TLR is not exactly pocketable, LOL, but I like the idea of a neat and restricted package, with only the most basic of parameters to select from (aperture and shutter speed). For me, it promises a welcome challenge, entirely focusing on composition/decisive moment. And a 75/80mm field of view is what I feel very comfortable with.

[c_watson1]

Despite all the camera porn images posted, reality requires finding someone who can reliably service these relics. Their charges have to be added to purchase prices for reliably operable Rolleis in 2023. They're admittedly gems but little more than intriguing doorstops when they conk out for want of expert attention.

[Colin O]

I have a Rolleiflex 3.5F. Rolleiflexes are not the be-all-and-end-all camera that some GAS websites would have you believe. It's slow to use, and, I have to say, I find it hard to focus some times. (I've actually tried 3 different focusing screens in it - the original Rollei one, a Maxwell screen and finally an Oleson screen, which is probably my favourite.) Shock, horror, sometimes I miss autofocus and autoexposure. Also, the angle of view is sometimes too narrow for my liking, and you can't focus particularly close - around 3 feet minimum - without adding a fiddly Rolleinar close-up lens. Also, I've begun to notice more and more that my portraits have a "looking up" feel - by virtue of the way the Rolleiflex is held - which I need to do something about. Having said all that, I love the camera and use it all the time. I'll never get rid of it. Sometimes the view in the waist-level finder just looks magical. One thing that I love about it is that strangers will agree or even (rarely) request to be photographed when I'm using it, simply because of the camera's own charm. Mine dates from the late 60s and has never given me any mechanical trouble. I've never had it serviced.

I watched eBay listings on and off for years before buying mine. Generally the cheap ones are in bad shape, and the good ones are expensive. I ended up paying £800 for mine in 2017. I did my research by reading "The Classic Rollei" by John Phillips, which is an absolutely fantastic description of the brand through the years, but the book is unfortunately out of print. I would not buy one that has any dings or dents that indicate the camera was dropped or severely mishandled. Also I wouldn't buy one that had obvious lens issues - scratches, fungus, haze, etc.

Rolleiflex TLRs are all at least 50 years old (essentially), and they were all invariably high-quality cameras. Which model you go for is not as important as the condition of the exact one you buy. There was a significant advance made when coated lenses were introduced, so I personally wouldn't buy one from before the 1950s. (Can't remember off-hand when exactly coated lenses were introduced.) One thing that was important for me was to have a film advance lever, as opposed to a knob, but of course there are others for whom that wouldn't make any difference.

If you are looking at the later models, the Rolleiflex 2.8 and 3.5 models were aimed at professionals. The Rolleicord models were aimed at discerning amateurs, and the Rolleiflex T fitted in-between as a more affordable option than the top-end models. There are also more "exotic" models, like the Rollei Magic (with automatic exposure control), Tele-Rolleiflex and Wide-Angle Rolleiflex.

Model names are more logical than creative, i.e. as successive improved models were released, the model name for the 2.8 series just ran from "2.8A" to "2.8F". There were some idiosyncrasies in the 3.5 series, such as the "3.5E" sometimes being called the "3.5C" - possibly depending on territory? Rolleicord models use Roman numerals for successive models, the final one being the "Vb" (five b).

There are some online resources that have lots of good info. One of the best in my opinion is Ferdi Stutterheim's Rolleigraphy Users Site. Check out these ones too:

• Dante Stella - Rolleiflex 2.8F
• What to look for when buying a Rolleiflex By Harry Fleenor
• A Tip for Buying a Rolleiflex from photographs

And I also recommend this shortish instructional video from Hawaii Camera:

 

Edited June 21, 2023 by Colin O

[Colin O]

A couple of points worth adding to my previous post...

There were some changes made to certain models during their production run, which didn't warrant a new model name. For example, there are 3.5F cameras that have a 120/220 switch (not that 220 capability matters anymore), and some that don't. It's worth just bearing in mind if you see some small differences here and there, or if something is really critical for you. For fuller details though, you would really need to consult a book like the one I mentioned - "The Classic Rollei".

The other thing worth mentioning is about so-called "white face" Rolleis... Towards the end of the TLR era, Franke & Heidecke changed the faceplate on the cameras, to one that was predominantly white, with smaller writing. This is purely cosmetic. But, these models command a premium because they are newer (but still ~50 years old!) and additionally, by this time, it was only really collectors I would say who were buying the cameras - and so white face models should theoretically be in better condition. I specifically avoided a white face camera, because of the premium, not to mention I simply prefer the look of the older faceplate.

Here's a table showing the year of introduction of various models starting from 1949:

      |  "Pro" cameras     |  "Pro" cameras                  |  Intermediate model  |  "Amateur" cameras  |  Telephoto model  |  Wide-angle model
      |  with 80/2.8 lens  |  with 75/3.5 lens               |  with 75/3.5 lens    |  with 75/3.5 lens   |  with 135/4 lens  |  with 55/4 lens
      |                    |                                 |                      |                     |                   |
1949  |  Rolleiflex 2.8A   |  Rolleiflex 3.5 Automat X       |                      |                     |                   |
1950  |                    |                                 |                      |  Rolleicord III     |                   |
1951  |                    |  Rolleiflex 3.5 Automat MX      |                      |                     |                   |
1952  |  Rolleiflex 2.8B   |                                 |                      |                     |                   |
      |  Rolleiflex 2.8C   |                                 |                      |                     |                   |
1953  |                    |                                 |                      |  Rolleicord IV      |                   |
1954  |                    |  Rolleiflex 3.5 Automat MX-EVS  |                      |  Rolleicord V       |                   |
1955  |  Rolleiflex 2.8D   |                                 |                      |                     |                   |
1956  |  Rolleiflex 2.8E   |  Rolleiflex 3.5E                |                      |                     |                   |
1957  |                    |                                 |                      |  Rolleicord Va      |                   |
1958  |                    |  Rolleiflex 3.5F (Types 1 & 2)  |  Rolleiflex T        |                     |                   |
1959  |  Rolleiflex 2.8E2  |  Rolleiflex 3.5E2               |                      |                     |  Tele-Rolleiflex  |
1960  |  Rolleiflex 2.8F   |  Rolleiflex 3.5F (Type 3)       |                      |                     |                   |
1961  |                    |  Rolleiflex 3.5E3               |                      |                     |                   |  Wide-Angle Rolleiflex
1962  |  Rolleiflex 2.8E3  |                                 |                      |  Rolleicord Vb      |                   |

[robert_ante]

Just want to emphasize the importance of buying from a reputable dealer. This is key.! And will save you money.

I bought my 2.8F used in 1973. After 50+ years of use, it’s been one of my cheapest cameras to own. I have one crucial bit of advice: make sure you also get a fitted leather case for your camera. These cameras are heavy, with plenty of inertia if they bump into something. While holding infant, my cased Rollei dropped from chest height on to asphalt parking lot. Rattle, rattle. Turned out only damage was shearing of the little pin that holds clasp to close camera. These cameras are rugged, but get a case. The Rollei cases do not impede using camera. Other than a lubrication, this has been my only service for all these years.

Oh, yes. The meter at long last is kaput. But a handheld meter or calculator is a better choice anyway.

 

[polka]

On 6/15/2023 at 11:12 AM, Niels - NHSN said:

As usual, when @orsetto contributes to a thread, there is rarely a need to expand.

I will just echo the importance of seeking  out a healthy sample from the start, and not wasting time on seeking out a bargain. In my experience, true bargains are only to be found in estate sales where the price is often so low that you can justify to chance it.

I have personally enjoyed several more TLR's than is depicted below, but have now settled on a very late (early 1970's) somewhat rare "white face" model T (with Xenar lens) and a mid 1950's 3.5C with a Planar.  
Far left and right respectively in the photo below.

The 3.5C came from an estate sale and had the expected sluggish shutter from years of lack of use. After a bit of searching I was lucky to find an almost retired Rollei specialist in the Netherlands who didn't insist on a full rebuild, but would clean the shutter with a very fast turnaround and a with last-century-price-tag. (good luck on finding such a person).

The main usability issue of the older 'flexes is the very dark focusing screen IMO.
My model T has a modern screen which is a joy to use and until I replaced the one in the 3.5C, I simply couldn't enjoy the camera. It is only the later Rolleiflex models that allows quick user replacement, but with the right sized screwdriver and basic DIY skills it is also possible swap the older screens.

For the 3.5C i bought a Chinese screen off eBay that I had to sand down to the correct dimensions - if I were to do it again, I would just buy one from Rick Oleson : https://bright-screen.com

 

I selected (a long time ago) a rolleiflex T like the one at left, because you could switch between 6x6 and 645. I used it 6x6 with negatives and 645 for slides (landscape oriented) because I found it most convenient for slide shows. After, I found a rolleikin device to use 135 film for portraits : because vertical framing and its 75mm  was IMO an ideal portrait little tele lens. Besides, although there is not a big difference between 75mm and 80mm rolleiflex lenses, I personnally prefer the 75mm perspective framing.

POLKa

[jc1305us]

I currently own 2 rolleiflexes, and have owned 2 more, so I feel like I know of what I speak. Get the best model you can afford. That means, for me, the later versions ( i.e. 3.5F, or 2.8F) The E series are excellent too. Few things, check the condition closely. Many have lived hard lives and show it. Exterior condition was a factor for me. Planar, Xenotar, doesn't make a difference to me. For a solid 3.5f, expect to pay $750-$1000. For a 2.8f, expect between $850-$1200. Check the focus screen, as they do get clouded up. Get a NOS Rollei screen on eBay if needed, or spend a lot on a Oleson screen. Shutter speeds are also critical, obviously. Many will come with a case, and I suggest you use it. Other than that, buy the seller! Be careful, and don't buy any camera on eBay unless the seller accepts returns. You will, however, have an amazing camera that takes AMAZING photos! Good luck! 

[conrad_hoffman]

I've never owned a Rollei but stood next to one once. I've always loved TLRs and shot many yearbook photos back in high school with a Yashica 124. IMO, the 124 is a far better looking camera than the later 124-G. The lenses left little to be desired and the images would blow away any 35mm. I've had a couple Mamiya C series and still have a 330C with a few lenses. IMHO, the chrome shutter lenses aren't that great, but the later black ones are. One big problem with the Mamiyas is they made the lenses out of some kind of fungus candy. It's a huge issue and you rarely find an old one without damage, often severe. Less of an issue with the later ones, but always do a penlight test. I love the flexibility of the Mamiya TLRs but also consider them as having more in common with machine tools like a lathe or mill, then a small precision instrument! They're quirky.

A big thing with TLRs is your eyesight. Back in HS I had no problem focusing in dim light or shooting sports. FWIW, the local news photographer shot sports with a Rollei. Today, after cataract surgery, my eyesight is excellent, but to use a TLR successfully I need either my computer glasses or the right strength bifocal. It's way harder than I remember from HS, though most things are!

Ideally, have any TLR checked on an autocollimator to be sure the focus on the film agrees with the focus on the screen. Putting a ground glass at the film plane is only a rough check and may not be adequate at wide open aperture.

What I really wanted back in the day was a Minolta Autocord CdS III, but it just wasn't in the budget. The Minolta lenses are really excellent.

Edited July 17, 2023 by conrad_hoffman