Rolleiflex 2.8 GX Planar — Is This Lens Any Better At Controlling Flare?

[stephen_mcateer]

I have an older Rollei — it's a 3.5 F Planar Type IV.

I like to shoot into the sun / against the light.

In these conditions, I see quite a bit of haze in the resulting photographs with this lens. (The lens is clean / free of haze etc.)

My old Hasselblad 501CM with the 80 CB Planar was miles better against the light.

So I'm wondering: is the 2.8 Planar on the Rollei GX any better / is it comparable to the Hassleblad / Zeiss Planar?

Thanks in advance.

[orsetto]

The lens in the GX has one less element than your white face 3.5F, and modern (circa 1989 anyway) HFT multicoating, so yes it would be somewhat comparable to your circa-1997 Hasselblad 80mm CB version in terms of flare resistance. It isn't a direct apples-to-apples comparison, however: the 'blad CB Planar has six elements vs five in the GX, has retrofocal optical modifications to clear the moving mirror, and performance is slightly less even across the frame vs the GX Planar (CB sharpness peaks more in the center and it has a hair more distortion vs other 'blad Planars and the TLR Planars). Its also more deeply recessed in its barrel vs the totally exposed TLR lens, which makes the larger deeper 'blad lens hood that much more effective. Subtle differences for most photographers, but they come up in forum discussions and may affect your use case.

There are other aspects to consider. 

Depending on the condition of your 3.5F, trading it in for a GX could cost from £400  to £1600. This is a substantial amount of money to risk unless you know for certain the GX lens will solve your exact problem: it might be as flare resistant to backlight as your Hasselblad CB Planar, or it may be only marginally better than your 3.5F. I would suggest you not trade in your 3.5F right away: if you want to try a GX, buy one from a specialty dealer that allows an trial/return period. If you like it, sell your 3.5F later to pay for it. If you don't feel the lens update is worth it, return the GX and enjoy the peace of mind that you tried the alternative. 

Also be aware the "modern" GX, FX, etc have quite polarizing reputations among Rolleiflex enthusiasts. While the price is commensurate with what classic Rolleiflex sold for back in the day, build quality is not exactly the same. Compromises in handling "feel" arose due the integral electronic meter couplings, variations across several possible leaf shutter implementations, strap hook location, and simplified body mechanics (no "automat" film loading feature: you manually line up arrows as with most other 120/220 cameras).

None of this is noticeable to the Rolleiflex newcomer who just wants a practical new-ish TLR with Planar lens and metering, but those who enjoy the mystique and operating feel of vintage Rolleiflex models often find the GX a bit disappointing to handle. Assuming you took the trouble to specifically seek out your rather scarce 3.5F IV, and didn't just stumble across it randomly, I'd hazard a guess you would miss those classic qualities if you switched to a GX. Whether the potential flare resistance of the newer HFT lens would be worth the possible tradeoffs is something you'd need to personally evaluate by testing a GX yourself:  you have very specific backlit shooting requirements.  Opinions of other photographers who shoot the GX can provide some data points, but your own experience with GX lens performance may differ significantly. Only way to know for certain is to test drive a GX.

Edited September 12, 2023 by orsetto

[stephen_mcateer]

@orsetto Thanks for that detailed information. Very helpful.

I like the 'Feel' of my current Rollei, the way it handles. I like the all-metal and glass construction too. The GX does look a bit more 'Plasticky', which is not a good thing.

Looking on eBay, I think a decent GX would probably cost me upwards of £3000. I'm not certain what my Type IV is worth — maybe £1500-ish at a guess, so a huge chunk of cash to find as you say.

It's probably not worth the outlay for me at this point, being realistic.

(I suppose I could always try to 'Dehaze' the backlit images in Photoshop…)

Cheers.

 

[orsetto]

Just to clarify, when people speak of the different "handling" or "build quality" of the GX/FX vs vintage Rolleiflex, they aren't talking about plastic parts or cheapened materials. The GX/FX don't have more plastic parts or use cheaper materials: they are very well made machines intended for the wealthy user/collector market. They are built about as well as their 35mm contemporaries made for the same market, the Leica M6 series.

But when compared directly to ancestors like your 3.5F, there are compromises in design made necessary by the passage of time, drastically reduced sales volume, modern meter grafted on, and supply chain variables for critical assemblies like the leaf shutter. And of course the overall appearance screams "1980s commemorative collectible" vs the more timeless art deco look of the vintage models.

The GX/FX body chassis is based on the simplified classic "midrange" Rolleiflex T model, which was an attempt to bridge the perceived market gap between the bare-bones Rolleicord and professional Rolleflex F series. Thats arguably a good mfrg choice: the simpler the mechanics, the more durable the camera, and by 1989 there was far less buyer demand for a faster-loading Rolleiflex (since news pros had long ago abandoned TLRs). Sacrificing the not-strictly-necessary automat loading feature made rebooting the Rolleiflex more practical for Rollei (and potentially more reliable for owners down the road). But dedicated Rollei enthusiasts tend to perceive the GX body as a "downgrade" from the esteemed F series.

Aside from appearance and loading, the biggest gripe hard-core Rolleiflex fans have with the GX/FX is shutter button responsiveness, shutter speed control feel, and shutter sound. The Compur shutter of the late 1980s isn't as butter-smooth or silent as older iterations, and when it was discontinued Rollei replaced it with Seiko and Copal alternatives in later versions of GX/FX. Given the very small sales volumes, the GX/FX were effectively "bespoke" cameras so there can be variations in operational feel from one example to another (even the earliest Compur shuttered GX version has sample variation). This led to the confusing conflicting owner reports on forums: some feel their GX/FX handles about as well as their vintage E or F, while others cannot stand them.

It depends how hyper-sensitive you are to things like shutter control smoothness, shutter firing sound, and shutter button feel/response. The GX/FX shutters, including the Compur, are a bit noisier and the Copal/Seiko variants can emit a "twang" totally alien to the classic-Rolleiflex-tuned ear. The shutter button response is not as precise or smooth: it incorporates the telltale two-stage meter switch detent common to most cameras of its era (if you're accustomed to using a Nikon FE/FM for 35mm you won't notice much difference in the GX/FX, if you've exclusively used a vintage Rolleiflex for all your photography you may actively loathe the GX/FX). One could argue these are important elements of the vintage Rollei experience, but secondary to the practical shooting advantages of the GX/FX (newer HFT lens, integrated electronic meter, brighter screen, lower chance of it needing an expensive rebuild or pricey screen upgrade before you can use it). Different Rolleiflex photographers will have different priorities: its really just the Leica M3 vs M6 debate scaled up to 6x6 TLRs.

One other point that may impact your decision is future service/repair options. Being newer (and typically unused shelf queens) means the GX/FX are far less likely to need an overhaul upon purchase. But going forward, you may have difficulty finding a competent tech capable of servicing a GX/FX without damaging it. Service for classic film cameras is becoming ever more niche and specialized as the venerable factory-trained techs die off without leaving a skilled protege behind, and as surviving techs age they tend to refuse service on newer models with quirky reboot designs, electronic meters and unpleasant surprises like epoxied screws in tight spots. 

Of course, theres no guarantee competent service for older masterpieces like 3.5F will still be available 20 years from now, either. Thats one reason I dramatically reduced my beloved Hasselblad kit: its not a question of "if" but "when" a 'blad piece will need skilled service, and I was unnerved by my excessive risk exposure with multiple lenses, backs and bodies. For 6x6 I now mostly use a late-model Mamiya C220F TLR with fantastic stock focus screen, 65mm, 105mm and 180mm lenses. As mechanically simple and robust as a TLR can be. Ditto the interchangeable lenses: no complex interlocking mechanisms, they're even simpler than view camera shutters, so any idiot with a screwdriver can repair the body film transport or lens shutters. But I do sometimes miss the undefinable buzz of shooting my Hassablad or Rolleiflex (and sometimes you just gotta use a Zeiss lens).

Edited September 12, 2023 by orsetto

[stephen_mcateer]

@orsetto Thanks for that excellent overview of the FX / GX history. I had no idea. Very interesting.

I had read elsewhere about the Shutter release 'Problems' with these cameras. It did put me off the idea of owning one I have to say.  

You also mention repairability, which is something to consider. As you say, there aren't many Rollei repairers to choose from (I'm in the UK). Hopefully this camera will last me a long time without needing more work though. It seems to work smoothly enough, and despite asking for opinion on the GX, I can't see me selling this Rollei. 

(Incidentally, I also have a Mamiya — a 330. I like this camera for the same reasons you like your 220 — simplicity, bulletproof build, and interchangeable lenses. It's also, of course a lot cheaper than a Rollei.)

Cheers.

[Niels - NHSN]

On 9/11/2023 at 7:27 PM, stephen_mcateer said:

I have an older Rollei — it's a 3.5 F Planar Type IV.

I like to shoot into the sun / against the light.

In these conditions, I see quite a bit of haze in the resulting photographs with this lens. (The lens is clean / free of haze etc.)

I’m not familiar with the specifics of type IV 3.5f or it’s specific lens properties, but I would think we are talking early 70’s?
If so, I hope you don’t mind if I challenge your assessment that it is clean/free of haze?

Unless you have had the lens competently CLA’d in recent years (or have  documentation of such) there may easily be evaporated minute deposits from shutter/aperture lubricants on inner lens surfaces: 40-50 years is a long time.

Shining a strong LED light through a vintage lens is not something I normally do or recommend because I know it will likely look terrible, and it doesn’t reflect normal use-case scenarios, but when you’re are actually admitting to photographing contre-jour, then the test makes sense.

Set to B and max aperture: Take the strongest light you own, or the sun.
Look from the back and shine from the front while moving the camera around to look at a dark area while the strong light passes through.

Does it look like there may be any deposits between the lens elements that could cause haze?

If so, maybe it may be worthwhile having the lens competently cleaned before you consider an upgrade.

 

Edited September 13, 2023 by Niels - NHSN

[stephen_mcateer]

7 hours ago, Niels - NHSN said:

Set to B and max aperture: Take the strongest light you own, or the sun.
Look from the back and shine from the front while moving the camera around to look at a dark area while the strong light passes through.

Thanks Niels. I shone the LED light on my phone through the lens a few weeks ago but couldn't see any obvious haze. I wasn't looking through it at a dark background though, and perhaps the phone light isn't really bright enough.

I just put a roll of film in it yesterday so for now I can't re-check it with a brighter light and so forth.

Once this roll is finished, I'll test it again and update this thread with my findings.

Actually, I got a set of negatives from a roll of Portra 400 back from the lab today. One of those pictures — of clothes peg — is contre-jour and it's not completely terrible (There's some lens flare in the centre. At least, I think it's flare…) 

The second one, of a couple of Poplars: I think I see a patch of lower contrast in the middle of this image but I'm not certain and it's pretty subtle if it's there at all. (NOTE: This shot wasn't against the light.)

Anyway,

Thanks again for the advice.

 

 

Edited September 13, 2023 by stephen_mcateer

[stephen_mcateer]

@orsetto @Niels - NHSN Another frame from this, the first roll of film I've put through this camera. That 'Smoke-ring'-like circle is maybe just characteristic of this lens. I don't know:

 

[Niels - NHSN]

The clothespin photo is difficult to comment on as I don't know exactly where the sun was, but I do see the obvious hot spot in the center.

The poplars are more problematic. I would not expect the obvious flare in the center of such a straight-forward photo from a clean 1970's Planar.

The last photo is taken under difficult circumstances where some flare should be expected, but I do subjectively think there is more flare than I would expect from a clean Planar of that vintage.

Seeing these photos, I certainly understand why you are not completely happy.

I would see if I could find a professional to take a look through the lens and get an assessment of how they see it. Just a competent repair tech, not necessary a Rollei specialist.

 

 

Edited September 15, 2023 by Niels - NHSN

[Niels - NHSN]

@stephen_mcateer A few more thoughts: What you have shown above looks almost as bad as what came out of my 1937 Rolleiflex Automat when I first got it. It was an uncoated pre-WW2 Tessar, mind you, and it was fairly easy to see when looking through the lens to my eyes at least.

I learned that I could easily unscrew the front group and thereby clean the optical surfaces on either side of the shutter/aperture - which took care of the problem.
For all the following Tessar Rolleis I have owned, cleaning those two glass surfaces became standard procedure and always yielded improvements.

I seem to recall that when I got my 3.5E (Planar) , the front group could turn without much force applied. I don't remember if I unscrewed it, but my first testing of the camera showed a more dire need for shutter service and it went out.
When it came back I could see no need for cleaning the lens (I would expect the repair tech would have cleaned those two surfaces anyway as they are on either side of the shutter - although it wasn't out for a CLA, more like the old fashioned "check and fix what is wrong").

I just checked now on the 3.5E and the front group is tight. I don't want to apply force to prove a point that I may be misremembering.

All I mean to say is that if you educate yourself and have a realistic assessment of your own DIY abilities you may be able to do something yourself. After all, the two surfaces mentioned are the most likely culprit.

 

Edited September 15, 2023 by Niels - NHSN

[stephen_mcateer]

@Niels - NHSN Thanks Niels. I think I would agree with you that this lens isn't performing as well as it probably should.

I'll look through it again, more closely this time, once I finish the roll of film I have in it.

I'm not really too confident about disassembling it with my limmited DIY skills and tools — I think if it does need a clean, I'll probably send it to a repairer.

Cost wouldn't be astronomical I hope and it's such a nice camera I don't mind spending a bit to improve it (Within reason).

Anyway, I might just try and shoot this film over the weekend so I can take a look at the lens again.

I'll update this thread if I find anything.

Cheers.

PS — The image of the clothes peg: I just remembered I had a Rolleinar close-up attachment on the camera for this one, so probably not a useful example.

 

Edited September 15, 2023 by stephen_mcateer

[stephen_mcateer]

@Niels - NHSN @orsetto Just to update this thread — I inspected the lens of this Rollei and it's not very clean after all.

I see what looks like (Maybe) finger grease on the front element and perhaps some haze somewhere in the inner elements but its difficult to say if that's the case or not. (I also see some dust but that's normal I think.)

I think my first step is to clean the front element of any grease that might be on there (Need to Google how to do that properly), then see if there is haze.

Not sure what I do if there is haze — send it to get cleaned? Is it possible to remove haze?

(Pics below.)

 

[Niels - NHSN]

As I hinted in an earlier post, evaporation of lubricants used in the shutter/aperture assembly may have deposited on the two optical surfaces on each side of the assembly.

It is very common on older lenses although there may be other causes and other surfaces affected.

Can it be removed?  Often yes, that is at least my experience with other lenses.

Some lenses have ultra soft coatings inside which may be affected by cleaning.

Sometimes haze may occur in the cement that glues lens elements together which is rarely economically feasible to remove.

As recently as yesterday I learned that a Rolleiflex Planar 3.5E2 I was looking at, had a-hard-to-spot separation issue.
According to the person I talked to, this a not uncommon issue with Carl Zeiss lenses during the transition from organic canadian balsam to the new synthetic materials used for gluing lens elements together. I have no idea if a separation issue would result in the issues you see in your photos.

Neither do I have the abilities to judge from your photos what may be the best way forward for your lens.
I personally would not hesitate to have a great camera such as yours professionally evaluated.

[stephen_mcateer]

@Niels - NHSN 

Niels — thanks for all of that information. Very useful.

It's difficult for me to tell where in the lens assembly the haze is exactly. (I realise the photos of the haze I posted aren't that great.)

3 hours ago, Niels - NHSN said:

Sometimes haze may occur in the cement that glues lens elements together

I hadn't heard of that problem.

3 hours ago, Niels - NHSN said:

As recently as yesterday I learned that a Rolleiflex Planar 3.5E2 I was looking at, had a-hard-to-spot separation issue.

The possibility that it might be separation hadn't occurred to me either.

3 hours ago, Niels - NHSN said:

I personally would not hesitate to have a great camera such as yours professionally evaluated.

Yes — I think I'll send it away and see what the repairer says. 

It's otherwise in almost-new condition. Besides which, I like this camera a lot.

Cheers.

[stephen_mcateer]

(Note: I did a quick review of this camera on my blog in case anyone is interested in seeing it. Link: https://stephenmcateer.com/2023/09/30/rolleiflex-3-5f-planar-quick-review/ )

[john_stockdale2]

I'm a long time Rolleiflex SL66 user, and a few years ago I bought a GX to use when the noise of the SL66, as lovely as it is to me, would be obtrusive.

I think the film loading is an improvement on the sensor loading of the earlier SL66 (similar to older Rollei TLRs) as they can get out of adjustment.

I like the meter as it's similar to that of the SL66SE.

However, the shutter button feel, mentioned above, is very disappointing.  I have gradually gained the skill necessary to use it, but I don't like it.  Plenty of other cameras with meters have the two-stage shutter button movement but none are as bad as this.

[stephen_mcateer]

4 hours ago, john_stockdale2 said:

However, the shutter button feel, mentioned above, is very disappointing.  I have gradually gained the skill necessary to use it, but I don't like it.  Plenty of other cameras with meters have the two-stage shutter button movement but none are as bad as this.

@john_stockdale2 Interesting., thanks John. I've heard that elsewhere too, including on this thread. I'm just going to stick with this 3.5F — it does everything I need.

[Niels - NHSN]

On 9/30/2023 at 7:30 PM, stephen_mcateer said:

The possibility that it might be separation hadn't occurred to me either.

I may have a chance to shoot with the mentioned 3.5E2 in the near future as I am a little curious as to what effect the separation may have. If I do, I will report here.

Normally separation is not too hard to spot, but in this case it almost looked like regular glass coating coming from the edges towards the center. It was the faintly defined edge where the separation stopped that gave the flaw away.

On closer inspection one could also see the separation had a slightly shifting color not unlike that of oil on water. In this case separation occurred inside the group in front of the shutter and covered about 60-70% of the surface.

[stephen_mcateer]

1 hour ago, Niels - NHSN said:

Normally separation is not too hard to spot, but in this case it almost looked like regular glass coating coming from the edges towards the center. It was the faintly defined edge where the separation stopped that gave the flaw away.

On closer inspection one could also see the separation had a slightly shifting color not unlike that of oil on water. In this case separation occurred inside the group in front of the shutter and covered about 60-70% of the surface.

Interesting. I don't think I've owned a lens that had separation, so I'm not sure I would know what to look for.

From what you say Niels, I suppose there will be glue holding the various elements of my own Rollei lens together, and if there is, how would someone go about cleaning haze from there? Does the glue have to be removed and re-applied? (I'm going to go & Google that.)

Thanks.

[Niels - NHSN]

1 hour ago, stephen_mcateer said:

Interesting. I don't think I've owned a lens that had separation, so I'm not sure I would know what to look for.

From what you say Niels, I suppose there will be glue holding the various elements of my own Rollei lens together, and if there is, how would someone go about cleaning haze from there? Does the glue have to be removed and re-applied? (I'm going to go & Google that.)

Thanks.

Not all lens elements in your lens are cemented together. You can clean the glass surfaces that faces air if you disassemble the lens. 

This is the schematics from the original planar patent.

You'll notice 2 groups of 2 lenses are glued together. Those are the problematic surfaces in case of separation or haze.

You can theoretically de-cement lenses and re-cement them, but it is rarely economically viable.

All the other surfaces can normally be cleaned.

[stephen_mcateer]

2 hours ago, Niels - NHSN said:

You can theoretically de-cement lenses and re-cement them, but it is rarely economically viable.

Ah. Okay. I wondered about that. Hopefully it'll be the surfaces that are open to air. I'll update this thread once I have the camera back.

[Niels - NHSN]

@stephen_mcateer I just posted a thread with examples from the affected Rolleiflex with separation. It does seem to perform quite good in the situations I choose to photograph: 

 

[stephen_mcateer]

On 10/25/2023 at 7:47 AM, Niels - NHSN said:

@stephen_mcateer I just posted a thread with examples from the affected Rolleiflex with separation. It does seem to perform quite good in the situations I choose to photograph: 

 

@Niels - NHSN Thanks Niels — will go & take look. As for my own Rollei, I got it back from the repairers and they managed to clean the haze off. The taking lens looks pretty clean to me. I now have some film in it. Will post results here for comparison / before & after cleaning.

[stephen_mcateer]

Follow-up to the above post: I had the lens of my Rollei cleaned. It seems to be better — the contrast looks better to me, though I've only put one roll of Portra through it.

I took a repeat shot of the light below, to compare before and after cleaning. I don't see any flare in the After shot. [Though the exposure wasn't the same, or at least there wasn't as much light in the sky. Not sure how much difference that wouldl make.]

Anyway, I'll keep assessing the results I get from this camera.

As an aside, 6x6 is my favourite format and I particularly like TLRs, [And the Planar 'Look'] so I think I'll keep this camera.

On another note, one picture I took [Below] was pretty badly out of focus, despite taking time when I shot it to make sure it was in focus. I'm not certain if the problem is my eyes, the lens maybe not having been reassembled correctly by the repairer, or the new focus screen I put in it.

Edited November 11, 2023 by stephen_mcateer
Additional issue

[Niels - NHSN]

Always nice when people come back with updates. Thanks.

The photo of the light certainly look much better now. It also appears to be in focus. If there was an issue with the lens reassembly I'd expect to see it in both shots? 

Have you done an infinity test with your new focusing screen?