Schneider vs Zeiss on TLR, and Price Range

[leo_djiwatampu]

1. On Rolleiflex TLRs, which lens gives better pic quality, Schneider

or Zeiss?

 

2. How about on Rolleiflex 6000 series?

 

3. What is the reasonable price range for Rolleiflex TLR 2.8 and 3.5

Planar/Xenotar, C to F? Or you can see this question as: How much

would you pay for these cameras?

 

4. If I'm not mistaken, the earlier Rolleiflex TLRs do not have their

lenses multicoated. What year or model did they start using

multicoat?

 

Thanks,

[andy m.]

As you will see in all of the previous Schneider vs Zeiss posts. there is no difference in sharpness, maybe some difference in nuances, i.e. contrast etc. but no big deal.

 

Rollei have been coating their lenses for a very long time. Certainly the later Automats c. 1950 (maybe much earlier, I don't have my reference book with me) had coated lenses, then through the 3.5/2.8C and onwards.

 

If you do a search, there is a lot of info available here. Mark Hansen (I think) posted a comprehensive summary of the various Rollei lenses in one of his posts. Well worth a look.

 

Correctly adjusted, these cameras are capable of stunning image quality. Inproperly adjusted, they can be very disappointing. It is always a good idea to check performance and have service done if needed.

 

Price depends on condition. You will be competing with collectors for mint examples. Prices can get very silly. Stick with clean, undented examples with unmarked optics. They are not too hard to find.

[douglas_green1]

I wouldn't even tell you to avoid a lens with some minor marks on the front element. I got a Rollei 2.8D with a Xenotar that has a rather ugly front element from cleaning marks. But the image quality appears to me to be unaffected by this, and is outstanding. Because of this ugly front element, I paid $200 for this camera, which is around half the price that the same camera in otherwise the same condition would sell for with a clean front element.

 

In general, I'd budget around $400-450 for a well functioning cosmetically decent 2.8C or D with a working meter, $350 or so without a working meter. For me personally, I'd also plan on spending another $250 for a full CLA from a knowledgeable Rollei technician, as well as the installation of a Maxwell focusing screen (if you forgo the Maxwell screen, figure $100-125 for just the CLA).

 

I believe that the 2.8F and 3.5F have multi-coated lenses, and the C and D are single-coated lenses. but I'm less certain of the F models. The GX models are definitely multi-coated lenses.

[leo_djiwatampu]

Well after looking for a post by Mark Hansen in the recent posts and couldn't find any. I went to the archive. No Lens category, so I figured probably in the Rollei category. Nothing by Mark. So, oh well, while I'm there, I looked into several posting, and whadaya know. Voila!

I think this is what Andrew was refering to:

 

<br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=005obW">LINK</a>

<br>Am I right?

 

<p>

"The GX models are definitely multi-coated lenses.

" - Douglas.

<br> Yes, but too bad they're very very expensive. I'd rather save some more and purchase Rollei 6000s.

 

<p>BTW, are Rollei 6000s w/ 80mm lens too heavy to carry around? I'm thinking of street photgraphy.

 

<p>Can anyone recommend good place for CLA on Rolleis?

[h._hillebrand]

None of the "old" Rolleiflexes (including the F model) had multicoating. The first Rollei

TLR with multicoating was the GX from the late 1980s. All previous models

definitely only had single coating.

 

Don't waste your time trying to figure out if Schneider or Zeiss is better. The

condition of the lens (and the overall condition of the camera) is WAY more important

than the brand name. Just keep in mind that a Schneider Xenotar is a more desirable

design than the older Xenar and that the Zeiss Planars are superior to the older

Tessars. You can see the difference at large apertures, but I bet you won't see a

difference between Schneider and Zeiss.

 

Regarding the 6000 series, there are a few nice pieces of Schneider glass that are

believed to be better (sometimes sharper, sometimes contrastier, sometimes larger

aperture) than their Zeiss counterparts. I don't know if this is true or if it has any

relevance in real-life photography, but generally the difference in prices may give you

a hint. Anyway, both Zeiss and Schneider are top notch.

[h._hillebrand]

<BTW, are Rollei 6000s w/ 80mm lens too heavy to carry around? I'm thinking of

street photgraphy.>

 

Well, it certainly depends on what you are used to. Some people would certainly tell

you that street photography is not a good idea with a medium format SLR due to the

mirror slap. I LOVE my TLR for street photography, but a SLR is rather heavy (although

you can get used to it, of course), noisy (mirror, motor) and delivers much better

results when put on top of a tripod. You can (after some practice) handhold 1/15

second with a TLR, but you can't with a 6000 or a Hasselblad. So a MF SLR would not

be my first choice for street - although it can be done. But as soon as you press down

the release button, people standing near you will turn around to see what you are

doing. With a TLR, I sometimes managed to put through a whole roll of film without

anybody noticing it.

[douglas_green1]

I own and use a Rollei 6006 and 6001, as well as 50mm, 80mm, 2X, and 250mm lenses. It's not that it's too heavy for street photography - it's that it's very obtrusive. These, like just about all Medium format SLRs, are LOUD cameras, and the lenses are very obvious from a distance. TLRs, in comparison, are virtually silent, and they do not stand out from a distance. As a result, when you use a TLR, you'll get one of two reactions - either you will be totally unnoticed by your subject matter, or they will be disarmed and curious about the old-fogey Grandpa-cam you are using. A pro-class MF SLR will definitely NOT garner either of these reactions, but rather, will convince everyone within 100 feet that there is a pro photographer on the loose.

[fwstutterheim]

I have listed a few good places for CLA right

<a href="http://www.stutterheim.nl/rollei/text_pages/rolleiflex_service.htm">

here</a>. Off course there are others. These repairers were recommended to

me.

[leo_djiwatampu]

Thanks for the link, Ferdi.

 

So, there's no quiet SLR MF even though it does not use motor?

I'm guessing Mamiya 7 is quiet since it's rangefinder. But the problem is the high key focusing. So it would be obvious who you're shooting on the street. Unless you want to do from-waist-shooting like a lot of the Leica street photographers do. Of course you need a lot of practice to do this and use wide angle for better coverage.

[photo5]

I have shot with both the Zeiss Tessar and Schneider Xenar and I have to say they are identical in quality. Also the Zeiss Planar and Schneider Xenotar are identical. Someone else said that the condition of the cameras and lenses are much more important and this is very true. I paid $120 at a swap meet for a Mint Rolleiflex X with Tessar lens, and later sold it for $300. Later I paid $225 for a Rolleiflex MX-EVS Type 2 and later sold it for $375. I paid $75 for a mint Rolleicord III and later it was stolen.

 

All TLR's gave me tremendous pleasure to use and I got many good images from them. I recently decided to get back in to the square format (after having shot 6x7 with an RB but didn't like the size and weight of the camera) and got in to Hasselblad instead of the Rollei TLR as the prices for a nice 2.8 Rollei TLR have eclipsed the prices of a nice 500cm. And I have the option to get another lens down the road which I can't do with a Rollei TLR.

 

Cheers,

[john_sparks1]

> So, there's no quiet SLR MF even though it does not use motor? I'm guessing Mamiya 7 is quiet since it's rangefinder.

 

Bronica SLR are fairly quiet for a MF SLR (no motor, well damped mirror and leaf shutter). I think they are quieter than a Hasselblad, but I haven't compared them side by side. Mamiya RB/RZ have a larger mirror are a little louder as I recall. Most other MF SLRs have either build in motors like the Rollei 6000 or have focal plane shutters or both so are louder.

 

The Mamiya 7 is almost silent. The leaf shutter is much quieter than the focal plane shutter in a Leica M. Most TLR's are similar to the Mamiya 7 in noise level.

[andy m.]

Leo,

 

I read your original post in a hurry, but yes, none of the older Rolleis have multi coated lenses. Single yes, multi, no. I don't feel that this is a big issue. Results speak for themselves and I have used too many different cameras, many with multi coated lenses. I still hold out that the Rolleis (even with single coated lenses) are brilliant tools. I understand from others that even the uncoated Tessar lenses of, for example, the "Old Standard" Rollei can make great images. Just look at some Early Robert Doisneau pics.

 

Leo, the Mark Hansen post I alluded to is exactly the one you found in your search. Photo.net is an amazing resource.

 

I have no personal experience of Rollei 6000s. Don't rule out the TLRs because of sigle coating. If you decide on the SLR route, also consider Hasselblad. Good luck,

 

Andrew

[nick roberts]

What you may notice between Zeiss and Schneider on the TLRs is a slight difference in microcontrast and a greater difference in colour balance; but both Xenotar and Planar are superb, and Tessar and Xenar very good. My favourite camera of all time is a 3.5F with the Xenotar, but as long as I had any one I would be happy for ever, I guess.

[kelly_flanigan1]

The Xenotar & Planar are better in the far corners than the 4 element Xenar & Tessar's. For groups shots; or industrial shots of machinery; where edge sharpness is needed; the better Xenotar & Planar yield sharper edges. For single Portraits; all four work well. The Planar F3.5 was available in the 75mm focal length; this slighty wider that 80mm view was liked by wedding photographers years ago. I used Xenars and Tessars in Rollei TLR of years; and later got a Rollie E3 with a Xenotar; for better edge sharpness. I also had to get a better enlarging lens; a Rodagon. I believe all Rolleiflex's models C, D, E, F were single coated; and the much later GX multucoated. <br><BR>There are some subtle differences between the Xenotar & Planar; but this would be swamped/hidden; if ones camera is not aligned. Many of the these cameras are real old today; and their current condition is the LARGEST variable to sort out; not the Xenotar/Planar debate. I would be happy with either lens; as long as the camera is aligned.

[kelly_flanigan1]

I got my E3 from Franks camera in Los Angeles about 2 + decades ago. I brought in a roll of film; loaded it in the camera; and shot several shots wide open at f2.8. I focused on a row of film boxes about 3 meters away. I also shot a few frames just outside their front door. Then I drove home; developed the film; to check the focus and frame spacing. I paid 500 bucks for mine 2 decades ago; abit more than the shutterbug ad sellers mean of about 400. I paid more because I physically was happy that I tested the camera I wanted; and all focusing and framing was perfect. Frank actually wanted 550 bucks for the camera only and no case. I got the camera and case for 500 bucks in cash; ie no credit card or checks. Cash will get you a better deal; if you are darn sure you know waht you are buying. <BR><BR>Typical problems to look at are focus errors; slow speeds sticking; film roller not triggering on film plus paper backing thickness.