Differences between the Rolleiflex TLR models, mainly lenses..

[brian steinberger]

I'm very interested in a Rolleiflex TLR. I'm somewhat familiar with the different models but wanted some insight from those who have used each kind, mainly the difference in lenses.

My main options are:

The Rolleiflex 3.5 with either Xenotar, Tessar, or Planar
The Rolleiflex 2.8 with Planar and Xenotar

Am I missing any?

I'm leaning towards a 3.5 version since it will be cheaper. Can anyone please explain the differences between the Tessar, Xenotar, and Planar lenses?

Also, which models have an in camera meter?

Basically I think it's just the difference in lenses I'm wondering about. I'm a sucker for sharp lenses, but a lens with character would be fun for what I want to do with this camera too. Which lens of the 3 has the most "character?"

 

[36cm2]

I have a 2.8f planar. It was my pops. I love it. Just google your question and you'll find many answers easily. Short of it is that tessar is a step below the other two. Most say planar is best, but it's most likely a toss up with xenotar. 2.8 is pricier, 3.5 will do you just fine. If i were buying one i would look for a 3.5 planar or xenotar and be very happy with either. Key is pricing in a cla. These are old cameras, but great ones.

 

[tony lockerbie]

The Xenotars and Planars are 6 element lenses as opposed to the 4 element of the Tessar. Naturally you would expect a better performance from the 6 element lenses, especially wide open. To a point this is true, but the Tessar (especially the new version) punches well above it's weight.
I have a 3.5 F and a Rollei T with the Tessar and really can't see any difference between the two at middling apertures. If the choice was between a really clean T and a very used 3.5F I would certainly go for the T.
As for the Planar versus Xenotar, don't beleive all the hype around the Planar because the Xenotar is just as good. If you can find an affordable 3.5, don't sweat on which lens it has. BTW, there seems to be more of the Xenotar equipped Rolleis in the US for some reason.
The 2.8 Rollei really just gives you an extra stop over the 3.5 and usually comes at a premium which is a bit hard to justify....it looks really great though!

 

[36cm2]

Check these out:

http://haardt.net/rolleiflex.htm

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

http://www.freelists.org/post/rollei_list/xenotar-28f-vs-planar-28f,27

And my recommendation would be a clean 3.5F. Rollei's rock!

 

[brian steinberger]

Thanks guys, interesting links. Let's talk meters. Which models have meters? And are they all selenium type meters that may fail?

 

[36cm2]

Not sure which have them. F's do. All selenium, but if kept in dark should be fine. I use a pentax spotmeter with mine anyway. Watch what you buy, many will have taken off a nonfunctioning meter. Personally i wouldn't mind that at all, so long as a suitable cover cap is put in its place.

One thing you really might want to think about is changing out the screen for a maxwell. Much brighter. Very nice. Expensive, but nice.

Another thing is the never-ready cases many flexes came in. I've never used mine. Don't find them useful and they strike me as an invitation to fungus. Anyone else think this?

 

[dpurdy]

The best meters are in the GX or FX. Before that they are all are pretty much the same if they work. The difference is in how the coupling or not coupling works. The different ways they work aren't rocket science. The later models, E2, E3, F, GX and FX all have removable finders as does the T. That is useful if you think you might want to use a prism. I love the 90º prism. I have owned and used a T and both 3.5 and 2.8Fs as well as the FX, in Planar, Tessar and Xenotar. The amazing thing is that they all are capable of performing to indistinguishably high standards. The later HFT coating is better for flare control but a Tessar from a T is right there with the sharpness of the HFT coated Planar on the FX.

 

[Dan Daniel]

Your initial categories are a bit off. It is really Planar/Xenotar compared to Tessar/Xenar (the Schneider version of the Tessar). This is more important than the 3.5/2.8 difference. As has been said, the Planar/Xenotar lenses are more complex designs, and sharper wide open than Tessar/Xenar lenses. I personally find the Xenotar sharper than the Xenar at all stops, and I prefer the 'bite' of the Xenotar, but this is getting into areas where subjectivity and taste and sample variations and camera alignment all come together into a tangled mess.

The 3.5s, either Tessar-type or Planar-type, are lighter than the 2.8 Planar-types.

The best bang for the buck is probably a meterless Planar/Xenotar 3.5E, 'type 2' (before the removable focus hood). $500-800 maybe in prime condition, and you will never look back. The rolleiflex T's Tessar lens has a rep for being a step up from previous tessar versions, but the T has some design issues that bother some people.

I've noticed that this forum really doesn't discuss TLRs much. A place with repeated discussions of Rolleiflexes is the TLR forum at Rangefinder Forum-
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=108

Between 1952 and 1960 or so, Rollei turned out constant variations of models with ever changing little tweaks and features. For example, the 'E' series has maybe 10 variations when you deal with the type 1, 2, and 3 (plus a sub-variation of 2, I think) with and without meters and with 2.8 Xenotars and Planars and 3.5 Planars and Xenotars.

I have a 2.8C Xenotar because it has a 10-bladed aperture, but I recognize that my interest in 10 blades means things to me that it doesn't to others. I moved to this from a Xenar (and Minolta Autocord) because I was shooting wide open more and more and wanted better sharpness to the edges. For other people, this quality is either not important or counter to how they want their images to look.

The biggest potential problem I have heard of is the EV dials that cannot be uncoupled on some models (well, on some *variations* of some models). Beyond that, I would decide if you prefer Tessar/Xenar to Planar/Xenotar for basic look, especially at wider apertures. then how much you want to spend.

And remember, you are looking at cameras over 50 years old. Get something recently overhauled or be prepared to pay for an overhaul.

You know already that a TLR and you get along? Rolleis are nice but they aren't magic; they are still TLRs with all the quirks and limitations.

 

[ic-racer]

The lenses of all the Rollieflex cameras are excellent. They made a number of different models with varying features and pricing to target a broader consumer base.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

The condition of any particular Rolleiflex is more important than which lens particularly Xenotar vs Planar. I have 6-7 of them including Xenotar and Planars in both 2.8 and 3.5 versions, an old type Tessar, a Rolleicord Xenar and a Tele- with the Sonnar lens and they ALL are capable of fabulous results. Price in the cost of a good CLA.

 

[Shawn Dougherty]

Brain,
for what it's worth.... the sharpest medium format negatives I have ever made have been with my beloved "Rolleiflex T" that has a Ziess 75mm f3.5 Tessar Lens which I believe is single coated. I usually shoot it at f11 or f16. This is compared with negs made using Bronica SQ and Mamiya RB equipment ( I ALWAYS used the mirror up function with these so it should not be the SLR mirror factor). And I mean the best of the Rollei negatives are NOTICEABLY sharper using an 8x loupe.

I have a feeling you can't go wrong with a Rolleiflex. =P Have fun!

 

[BrianL]

I've shot a variety of Rolleiflexes over the years and agree there is such a minimal difference in the lenses as to not worry about them. I also agree the condition is more important. Buying acamera is a bit like getting married, the entry price is cheap compared to the maintenance. In this case, I am referring to the accessories. Bay I hoods, filters, etc. are fairly plentiful and almost a bargain compared to the Bay 2 and Bay 3 accessories. I decided on keeping a T as it has the later Tessar, is Bay I, has the removable hood, a quite bright view and, does not have the complex auto start mechanism of the other 'Flexes. The last seemed to be an issue for some as the film base got thinner and the mechanism did not work per reports being published. On the negative side is the EV lever shutter system vs the dual dials. It is a tradeoff as to which is better, I think it depends on whether one is used to using the EV system. The EV system lock can be modified and unlocked and as the aperature and shutter scales are ther, it will operate like any other 'Flex. I also like the shutter release placement of the T, just seems more natural.

The construction of the T is as sturdy as the others but are less expensive usually for camparable conditioned cameras and since most 'Fexes today need a cleaing there is more in the budget for that or accessories.

As for the meter in camera, while it is sought after, I prefer not to have it. It is faster than a handheld meter when it is strung on your neck and taking snapshots. but I prefer the handheld meters leaving me an option of an averaging or spot, reflective or incident. I tend to use a tripod so metering, then mounting it on the tripod and hitting the shutter and then dismounting it for another reading, etc. is too time conuming. Also, most of the selenium meters today need either repair or at least calibration and there are few techs it seems to do this.

 

[hidesert]

I agree, don't worry about which lens; they are all excellent. However, I have purchased 4 used Rolleis from Ebay and KEH. They ALL needed the lenses adjusted for focus. Fortunately I dabble in camera repair and can do this myself. Just be aware that your newly purchased Rollei, unless it had a recent CLA from a reputable repairman, might need an adjustment.

 

[Steve S]

Yes I know I am being pedantic, but there is also the Rolleiflex 2.8B which came with the 80mm f2.8 East German Biometar lens. I include this for completeness of your list. It is a Planar in all but name although depending on who you read there may be very slight design differences. Be that as it may, I can verify that it is an excellent lens in use as I have been lucky enough to own one of these for the last five years or so.

 

[Ian Grant]

Yes I know I am being pedantic, but there is also the Rolleiflex 2.8B which came with the 80mm f2.8 East German Biometar lens. I include this for completeness of your list. It is a Planar in all but name although depending on who you read there may be very slight design differences. Be that as it may, I can verify that it is an excellent lens in use as I have been lucky enough to own one of these for the last five years or so.

Some of the Tessar's were CZJ as well, and that includes some of the Optons which had to pass West German quality controls.

Ian

 

[jp498]

I've got a rolleiflex automat mx with the 75mm zeiss tessar 3.5. I couldn't ask for better really. It's a got a nice smoothness to the background and foreground and I find no fault with what is properly focused. The only thing I could wish of it would be higher shutter speeds, but that's the camera, not the lens. The bay-I filter size is common and inexpensive, and compatible with my Yashica TLR as well.

 

[Wilcoxson David L.]

I have a 2.8C with the Xenotar and of all the cameras I own, it's my favorite. I'm actually happy it dosen't have a meter as they're unreliable in cameras that age and I have a good hand held one. I second the suggestion to get the Maxwell screen. I had Harry Fleenor install one when he overhauled it and it really makes a difference. I also strongly agree having one overhauled by a competant repairman will make your jewel shine. Cheers.