Anyone familiar with Rolleiflex?

hrooo2002

hrooo2002

Suspended / Banned
Messages
45
Name
Bo
Edit My Images
Yes
Hello guys, as English is not my native language, just forgive me if I said anything really stupid language wise.

I am now very keen to buy a Rolleiflex camera. But really struggle which one to choose. f/2.8 is my aim. My concern on f/3.5 is indoor shootings. Maybe the f number is not enough in that case?

So the question is which 2.8? There are lots of choice online: 2.8D, 2.8e, 2.8e2, 2.8e3, 2.8f, 2.8 white face, 2.8gx, 2.8fx. Which one would you recommend as a budget of £1500? And any good second hand camera shops recommended?

Thanks very much for your suggestions!
 
Bo, welcome to Talk Photography. This is probably best in the Film & Conventional forum, where we usually discuss such topics (this forum is mostly people bickering about ISO :P).

I'll answer properly later today, but your budget buys you a very clean Rolleiflex - pretty much all the models you mentioned, except maybe the FX/GX.
 
freecom2 said:
Bo, welcome to Talk Photography. This is probably best in the Film & Conventional forum, where we usually discuss such topics (this forum is mostly people bickering about ISO :P).

I'll answer properly later today, but your budget buys you a very clean Rolleiflex - pretty much all the models you mentioned, except maybe the FX/GX.
Click to expand...


Thanks a lot for the reply indeed! And any idea about Xenotar vs Planar? Cheers!
 
cambsno said:
At that budget you can probably buy any!

I have a Rolleicord VA, has a 3,5 lens and I love it. There are some good dealers that you can buy from, just do a google search. I got mine here http://www.collectablecameras.com/ but this place has some too - http://www.vintageclassiccamera.com/

There was or is one on the forum here for sale.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the information. I have check those two stores but unfortunately they don't have any at this moment. As I am new to the forum, I don't have the access to the trade/sale part. If possible, would you check if there is one for sale in the forum please? Thanks again!
 
My slightly more substantial answer.

f/2.8 vs. f/3.5 for indoor shooting... the difference is there, but not huge. Even with fast film, both of them are relatively slow and depth of field starts getting seriously shallow at that point. I use my 3.5F in low light and it's okay, but focusing screens also limit what you can do as well.

Xenotar vs. Planar? Planar's seem to have a higher second-hand value, and they are perceived by a few to be better - but the prevailing opinion (and my opinion) is that there is no real difference between the two. I'd take a clean Xenotar for several hundred £ less than the equivalent clean Planar any day of the week. You also see less Xenotars with the classic Carl Zeiss balsam separation (a lot of Planar lenses suffer from these problems now).

Your budget buys you almost anything you want, but I wouldn't buy a minty collector. I'd buy a clean copy of a 2.8E (but only the later ones with the removable waist level viewfinder - easier to change focusing screens) or 2.8F, which should cost no more than £700-800, get it CLA'd (clean, lube, adjust) by a repairman such as Brian Mickleboro - only if necessary - and you should have £500+ change from your budget.

White face? Only of interest to collectors. Doesn't shoot any better than a non-white face model. FX/GX? Probably out of your price range. Light meters are very often dead on a lot of Rolleiflex's, if you want a working one you are limiting your selection significantly (bear in mind most F models are ~55 years old - and the E's are even older). Lots of people just use a handheld meter. The selenium meters are not particularly sensitive anyway, and useless in low light.

The film sensing mechanism in the film transport mechanism is quite susceptible to misalignment - not the end of the world, but in general buying from a reputable dealer is not a bad idea with such an expensive camera.
 
Just to add to the above, if you're shooting film indoors, you're pretty much reliant on some additional lighting.

What we expect from DSLRs was never really an option with film, so the 3.5 or 2.8 lens shouldn't make much real world difference.
 
^^ that said, of all the medium format cameras, a Rolleiflex is one of the best low light medium format cameras. Quite easy to handhold it down to 1/8s (it's very stable if you tense it slightly around a neck strap), and there are several B&W films that will push easily and reliably to ISO1600.
 
freecom2 said:
My slightly more substantial answer.

f/2.8 vs. f/3.5 for indoor shooting... the difference is there, but not huge. Even with fast film, both of them are relatively slow and depth of field starts getting seriously shallow at that point. I use my 3.5F in low light and it's okay, but focusing screens also limit what you can do as well.

Xenotar vs. Planar? Planar's seem to have a higher second-hand value, and they are perceived by a few to be better - but the prevailing opinion (and my opinion) is that there is no real difference between the two. I'd take a clean Xenotar for several hundred £ less than the equivalent clean Planar any day of the week. You also see less Xenotars with the classic Carl Zeiss balsam separation (a lot of Planar lenses suffer from these problems now).

Your budget buys you almost anything you want, but I wouldn't buy a minty collector. I'd buy a clean copy of a 2.8E (but only the later ones with the removable waist level viewfinder - easier to change focusing screens) or 2.8F, which should cost no more than £700-800, get it CLA'd (clean, lube, adjust) by a repairman such as Brian Mickleboro - only if necessary - and you should have £500+ change from your budget.

White face? Only of interest to collectors. Doesn't shoot any better than a non-white face model. FX/GX? Probably out of your price range. Light meters are very often dead on a lot of Rolleiflex's, if you want a working one you are limiting your selection significantly (bear in mind most F models are ~55 years old - and the E's are even older). Lots of people just use a handheld meter. The selenium meters are not particularly sensitive anyway, and useless in low light.

The film sensing mechanism in the film transport mechanism is quite susceptible to misalignment - not the end of the world, but in general buying from a reputable dealer is not a bad idea with such an expensive camera.
Click to expand...

Thanks indeed for all the information. To sum up, I probably would get a 2.8e3 or 2.8f. Any lens would suit my need.

However it is really hard to find a 2.8e3 now. I have checked lots of second-hand dealer online. Even hard to find a good condition 2.8f. So if anyone sees a good one, please give me a pm. Thanks a lot!
 
Phil V said:
Just to add to the above, if you're shooting film indoors, you're pretty much reliant on some additional lighting.

What we expect from DSLRs was never really an option with film, so the 3.5 or 2.8 lens shouldn't make much real world difference.
Click to expand...


Thanks for telling me. I just thought 2.8 would give me more capability to shoot indoors. But a good condition 3.5 is of interest as well.
 
Rollei's tend to turn up occasionally, there usually aren't hundreds of them floating around for sale all at once.

MWClassic tends to have a couple every few weeks, always worth keeping an eye on them there. Aperture tends to have quite a few in, but their prices are usually a tad high. Peter Loy is also worth keeping an eye on.

2.8E3s are relatively rare, less of them were manufactured.
 
I have used most models up to the 3.5F and 2.8F with and without meters.
I have used both Xenotars and Planars and my "Luck" has always shown the planar to be the better lens.
I would not bother with a meter version... even when new they were not that good. not as good as the hand held Gossen meters who made them. Today most are failing.

I would look for a rollei pentaprism but like the planar lens it can suffer from balsam failure.

Very many of these cameras were used professionally so can be very heavily used ( many dozens of films a week) So look for a pristine one that has not been tarted up.

Amateur ones often have lovely cameras in well worn cases... more carried than used.
"Most professionals only stored the camera in its case." as you have to remove it to change films.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
I have used most models up to the 3.5F and 2.8F with and without meters.
I have used both Xenotars and Planars and my "Luck" has always shown the planar to be the better lens.
I would not bother with a meter version... even when new they were not that good. not as good as the hand held Gossen meters who made them. Today most are failing.

I would look for a rollei pentaprism but like the planar lens it can suffer from balsam failure.

Very many of these cameras were used professionally so can be very heavily used ( many dozens of films a week) So look for a pristine one that has not been tarted up.

Amateur ones often have lovely cameras in well worn cases... more carried than used.
"Most professionals only stored the camera in its case." as you have to remove it to change films.
Click to expand...

Then it would be luck for me to get one from amateurs. Thanks for the information.
 
Pristine, underused 50 year old film cameras come with their own problems - little use is not necessarily a good thing. The used examples that suffer from balsam separation often tend to be those which were hardly touched, since they end up being stored for longer periods of time in inappropriate conditions.

As for the Planar/Xenotar thing, I doubt people would be able to differentiate in a blind test.
 
freecom2 said:
Xenotar vs. Planar? Planar's seem to have a higher second-hand value, and they are perceived by a few to be better - but the prevailing opinion (and my opinion) is that there is no real difference between the two. I'd take a clean Xenotar for several hundred £ less than the equivalent clean Planar any day of the week
Click to expand...

Me too. I have a Rolleicord with a Xenar lens and it is possibly the sharpest lens I own. Of my seventy cameras, this would be the one I would keep if I could only have one.

I also have a Rolleiflex with a Tessar lens but I prefer the Rolleicord.


Steve.
 
freecom2 said:
Pristine, underused 50 year old film cameras come with their own problems - little use is not necessarily a good thing. The used examples that suffer from balsam separation often tend to be those which were hardly touched, since they end up being stored for longer periods of time in inappropriate conditions.

As for the Planar/Xenotar thing, I doubt people would be able to differentiate in a blind test.
Click to expand...

Underused cameras tend to seize up and simply need a service, then are good as new.

My first Rollei was a new Rolleicord V bought in 1956 The Xenar on it was fair to middling I soon changed it for a new Rolleiflex (xmv) with a fantastic 3.5 Tessar.

The Xenar Tessar lenses do differ quite a lot.... some of the tessars came from East Germany, and there seems to be a quality control issue and difference in coating. However some are incredibly fine lenses.
The worst lens I ever had was the xenar on the 4x4 baby rolleiflex that I bought in the early 60's, it was plain unsharp and no use at all for making the super slides I bought it for.
 
Last edited:
The Xenar that I used on a Rolleicord Vb was absolutely brilliant - besides, I was talking Planar vs. Xenotar, not Xenar vs. Tessar (an entirely different debate altogether).

Besides, with most medium format film work being scanned rather than enlarged, I maintain that any difference would not be correctly discerned in a blind test. Accurate focusing and choice of film/developer probably make far more difference, especially between the Planar and Xenotar.

The mechanical parts tend to seize up, but I specifically mentioned things like balsam separation - things which are much more difficult to resolve, sometimes impossible to resolve (and no repairman can fix - you have to send it to an optical re-cementing specialist). The shutters tend to do much better with occasional exercising as well.
 
Just a note - the new stock on MW Classic goes to a separate page every Friday, rather than that Rollei page specifically.

Those are all the usual good sites to keep an eye on :)
 
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top