Why do people insist on hating the Rolleiflex 2.8GX so much?

[marc_james_small]

Roger

I would most strongly urge you to join the Rollei List and posit some of your thoughts there, as the membership of that List includes many thoughtful and knowledgeable souls who can respond to your thoughts better than I am able to do. First, I do own both a 2.8F and 2.8GX and use them interchangeably. Second, both Rollei and Zeiss state that there is no difference in performance between any version of the 2.8/80 Planar save for the better flare control provided by the multi-coatings on the GX's HFT optic. Third, "contrast" and "sharpness" are independent featurs: see Erwin Puts' website for discussion (he wrote the Leica Lens Compendium published by Hove). Fourth, there is no single "T*" or "HFT" process or, rather, the process is identical but the specific chemical bath used on a given lens is selected for that lens; at both Oberkochen and Braunschweig, multi-coating is a constantly evolving technology. Hence, you err when you suggest that Zeiss's T* is getting "long in the tooth", as it is identical to the Rollei HFT process save for the composition used on any given lens.

Marc

[roger_michel]

Marc -- I don't want to belabor these points in an already overlong thread, but . . . #1 I tried to make it clear that lower microcontrast (which a single coated lens inevitably will produce as compared to a MC version of the same lens) will not result in actual lower resolution, only APPARENT lower resolution. However, since APPARENT sharpness is presumably all we photographers actually care about, the phenomenon is VERY important to understand. No one, including Lord Irwin himself (who, kidding aside, does very fine work [although I don't agree with his conclusions about the new gigabyte film]), will dispute the fact that reducing microcontrast WILL ALWAYS MAKE A PHOTO LOOK LESS SHARP. The lower contrast shot might have better "tonality," "plasticity," "bokeh," or "[insert your own photo-mystical adjective," but it WON'T appear as sharp as an otherwise identical photo with higher microcontrast. I think it is important that the readers of the MFDF understand this point. But don't take my word for it -- do a little research (or experimentation). #2 No changes have been made in the T* coatings in at least seven or eight years. The HFT formula was refined as recently as this year. Perhaps Mr. Salomon could weigh in on this point.

[kornelius_j._fleischer]

Wait a minute! T* is almost permanently under further development here at Zeiss in Oberkochen. New optical glass types, new lens curvatures, the demands of certain aspheric surfaces, higher demands on resistance to abrasive effects, demands coming from all the various fields of optics where Zeiss is active in (microscopy, astronomy, cinematography, large screen data projection, night vision system, defence optics, to name just a few) keep our coating specialists permanently working on new developments.

[gene crumpler]

Standard industrial practice in any company that wants to remain in business. (Old process and QC engineer here)

[roger_michel]

If I am correct in inferring that Herr Fleischer is a Zeiss employee working at the plant in Germany, I stand corrected about the status of T* (but I still think HFT works better!). I got my information from the US tech support staff. Specifically, I inquired about the currency of the coating on a Zeiss/Hasselblad 100mm f3.5. I was told that there had been no change in the coating since early to mid '90s. Perhaps the info was specific to that lens. Apologies to fine craftspeople and engineers at Zeiss!!

[caliber_60]

I have both 3.5E and 2.8GX. 2.8GX has LED TTL metering. It's much better. Frankly, if you can not afford $3,000 for the GX, go with the older model. If price is not the problem, I don't think anybody would prefer old over the new one.

[ed_hoey]

I just purchased a Rolleiflex 2.8GX Edition (1929-1989) and am extremely happy with my purchase. I was a little apprehensive because of the reviews knocking this "collectible version" of the GX camera, or the GX camera itself. Having used the earlier Rollei TLRs, I knew the high quality of those, however after many experiences trying to find older ones in decent shape I started to look at the GX (Also, after adding the costs of a CLA and better screen I was looking at $1500 for a user camera). I paid $1975 for this mint 60 Jahre Rollei. REVIEW: Solidly built, meter right on, not plasticy like reported, bright screen, smooth precise focusing, very good finish to metal and aligator leather, all controls smooth, half clicks for f-stops, easy on/off clip system for strap, place to put film box end on back to remind what's in the camera, easy to read depth of field numbers (yellow on gray), and focus range numbers Meters and Feet, white and green, viewing sport finder, interchangeable hood and screen, magnifier, bright viewing screen, viewing screen meter LED's. ASA dial is perfect, can't imagine how it will go off setting as reported since it is very positive and clicks in, spool knobs don't stay up - I don't care, I don't see how that matters. Don't know what reviewers are talking about with difficult loading - this is the easiest MF camera to load I've ever used (have used Mamiya 645, Fuji Rangefinders, Hasselblad, Pentax 67, older Rollei TLRs, Rollei 6008). Put the spool in, pull the tab to the other spool, wind the crank to line up the arrows to the marks, close cover!! thats it. Try loading a Hasselblad someday just for fun. How is it not like the 60's and 70's F? The film crank seems not quite as buttery smooth, and I like the dark baffle system in the film chamber of the older Rollei's better than the foam of this model, but thats it. This is a much better camera to actually use to shoot pictures with than any Rollei I've ever used, except the Rollie 6008 SRC Prof. model which is awesome too. The only thing wrong is that this version of the GX is so gosh darn beautiful I've been treating it like a baby afraid to mark it up, I bought it as a user because of the low relative price compared to a new GX, I'll have to get over it unless I find a user regular GX to beat up!! You won't be sorry if you buy any of the GX's if they all operate like this one.

[dean_b.]

I'm glade Ed Hoey started this thread again. I don't know if the original contributors will drop by again, but I do wander how Roger Michel is doing these days with his GX.

 

The only TLR's I've ever owned are the Mamiya C33 and C330, with several lenses, at two separate times in my life. However, my dream camera has always been a Rollei 2.8F, but that soon changed to a 2.8GX. The only Rollei I've owned had a 75mm 3.5 Tessar. Not very sharp! A friend of mine who used to own a Rollei 2.8F was able to do some side by side comparison with a 2.8F Planar, and a 2.8F Xenotar. I have no idea what the specifics of his testing were, but his conclusion was that the Xenotar was not nearly as "sharp" a lens as the Planar. My guess is, that there are others who might take exception to that conclusion.

 

Even though the Rollei is not as flexible as my Mamiya's, I still wanted a Rollei for "Candid" photography. That is, moving around and taking pictures as they present themselves. I wanted to get the GX and put a prism finder on it. Get the largest micro prism screen that Rollei made for a bright easy to focus image. Additionally, I wanted the pistol grip, and a pair of Mutar Lenses. The 0.7 and the 1.5. These aren't as W/A and Tele as the Wide-Angle Rollei, or the Tele-Rollei, but they're good for the candid work I want to do. They're a bit expensive for ones in great condition, and I would assume there would be additional flare introduced, but I think with care, the advantages would offset the slight loss in quality. What I haven't verified is whether or not these Rollei Mutar's would fit on the GX. They did fit the 2.8F model.

 

Lastly, a fellow I knew in the military, showed me how to advance the film to the next frame by turning the wind lever only one-half turn. I would think this would be handy for the configuration I would like to set up. Anyone have experience with the Rollei/Prism Finder/Pistol Grip combo?

[vartan_grigorian]

I have a couple of questions about the Rolleiflex 2.8 GX.

 

1. Does it have a direct vision sportsfinder and is it possible to focus while using this finder (I believe some versions of the Rolleiflex had a small prism that allowed viewing part of the GG)?

 

2. Is the 2.8 GX or similar still manufactured?

 

I thought that I didn't like TLR's due to their seemingly awkward handling, but I'm beginning to warm to the idea. I have owned a Yashica TLR and have been playing with a Seagull recently. The idea of a compact, robust 6x6 camera appeals. The reason I ask about the sportsfinder is that I am relatively short and sometimes need the higher eyepoint afforded by the direct vision finder.

[roger_michel]

the gx does not have the built in reflex finder assembly in the folding wl finder (the sports finder as it is called). i simply swapped out the original gx folding wl and replaced it with a folding wl from an f that does have the sports finder assembly. all old rolleiflex parts (that i can think of) and accessories work on the gx. the machining is the same. the gx is still made (or at least still widely available new). rollei's newest tlr, the fx, is identical to the gx except that it has retro cosmetics -- old style leather, old style strap lugs, old style logo, etc. the cameras are the same in all important respects. the fx is not yet widely available outside of japan. eli kurland in nyc may have one or two for sale. for the best price on a new gx, call ken hansen in nyc -- 212-317-0923. ask for vico and tell him roger michel from cambridge mass says hello. i bought a gx a while back. it is probably my avorite all-around camera for my personal use (well, after my 6x10 anyway). the meter is superb and the lens is a major step up from all the Fs i have owned. don't let anyone tell you that coatings don't matter or that zeiss doesn't tweak its designs each year. i won't belabor a much debated point, but for the build quality (truly a tank), the quality of the two lenses you get, and the quality of the meter, this camera has to go into the "steal" catergory at $2200 -- at least when viewed in terms of value for money. show me another MF system that offers an all metal camera, a high quality lens and a meter for two grand -- woops, you can't!! a similarl blad package would be four grand. and the rollei is a better camera for many tasks in GENERAL photography. good luck!!

[roger_michel]

mutars will fit on the rolleiflex gx or fx. i bought a set at jessops classic camera recently.

[dodi]

I recently was able to buy a Rolleiflex 2.8GX (Newton edition of some sort) with a new Rolleiflex 45 degrees prism, filters and a Rolleifix for $1400. Camera is in new condition. Having taken pictures with my Rollei 3.5F often, I am curious to see the difference now. I was first looking for an older 2.8F, but given these are difficult to get under the $1000 range nowadays, I consider myself lucky having found the 2.8GX, with the added advantage of the TTL metering. I prefer Rollei TLR above the heavier 6x6 or 6x7 cameras. They work much faster, and are easy to make handheld shots with. I got rid of my Mamiya RZ67 and Hasselblad 500CM this year. I don't need interchangeable lenses that often.