Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Classic Film RangeFinders & Other Classics > TLR Forum - Twin Lens Reflex

TLR Forum - Twin Lens Reflex another alternative to the dreaded SLR way of seeing, this forum for all format TLR cameras

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Old 04-19-2018   #41
Swift1
Registered User
 
Swift1's Avatar
 
Swift1 is offline
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Talent, Oregon.
Posts: 1,836
Quote:
Originally Posted by x-ray View Post
On my 2.8D there's a button on the aperture wheel that pushes in and if you twist it while depressing it it uncouples the aperture and shutter speed. I'd forgotten that because I leave it disengaged.
I believe that's the same as the 2.8E, 3.5E, and MX EVS


Quote:
Originally Posted by raid View Post
I thought that the E has a removable finder but no meter, while the F has removable hood and meter. I may have gotten it wrong. There is also a 2.8E2 and 2.8E3.
I think the F/E2/E3 were sold concurrently, and were the first models with the newer style removable folding focusing hood and user changeable focus screens.
__________________
Colton

If you're gonna shoot, shoot, don't talk. The Ugly
My Flickr
My Website
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-19-2018   #42
Greyscale
Registered User
 
Greyscale's Avatar
 
Greyscale is offline
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Fort Dodge Iowa
Age: 59
Posts: 4,567
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beemermark View Post
f16 sunshine, are you sure you don't have the E model?

I double checked my memory by looking at Arthur Evans "Collectors Guide to Rollei Cameras". Always been my authoritative source when it doubt. The lock/unlock looks like the 2.8E model in his book. And the difference between the D and E was predominantly (only?) the lock/unlock switch. The 2.8E model started at 1,621,000.
The viewfinder on the D is identical to the C, it was redesigned for the E and became removable on the later variants. The Tele and Wide cameras are built on the late E (removable viewfinder) chassis.

The EV linkage was offered first on the MX-EVS Automat, I think, although this may have been released concurrently with the 2.8D. On the former camera, there were three different versions of the shutter/aperture lock/unlock, v 1 had no unlock, the user would hold one dial while turning the other for independent operation, v 2, the user would depress a button in the center of the aperture dial to unlock, while v 3 replaced this button with a dial to allow the user to disable the linkage. The user manual for the 2.8D posted on Mike Butkus’s website gives instructions for the second type of lock, but both photographic and anecdotal information show no proof that this type of lock ever existed on a 2.8D in the real world. So either the early run of the 2.8D cameras had the push button lock and are rare, or they printed the incorrect information in the user’s manual that Butkus used.
__________________
my flickr

My RFF Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-19-2018   #43
f16sunshine
Moderator
 
f16sunshine's Avatar
 
f16sunshine is offline
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Seattle
Age: 51
Posts: 6,258
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beemermark View Post
f16 sunshine, are you sure you don't have the E model?

I double checked my memory by looking at Arthur Evans "Collectors Guide to Rollei Cameras". Always been my authoritative source when it doubt. The lock/unlock looks like the 2.8E model in his book. And the difference between the D and E was predominantly (only?) the lock/unlock switch. The 2.8E model started at 1,621,000.
The one in the image above is serial #16012xx.
It's the 4th D I've owned all have had the same evs.
There are some mystery Rollei models out there.
__________________
Andy
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-19-2018   #44
Sarcophilus Harrisii
Brett Rogers
 
Sarcophilus Harrisii is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,574
Quote:
Originally Posted by css9450 View Post
His purchase, not mine... I was just curious what led him to consider the D in particular.
Whoops. Sorry about that!
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-20-2018   #45
x-ray
Registered User
 
x-ray's Avatar
 
x-ray is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tennessee USA
Age: 70
Posts: 4,621
Swift1 I had a type 2 MX-EVS in college in the 60's and it had the push in and twist button for uncoupling the shutter speed / aperture on the aperture wheel. I understand the type 1 could not be uncoupled. I don't know who thought coupling the shutter speeds and aperture was a good idea but I find it very annoying. IMO the T was the most annoying.

I had an E in the 70's but can't remember which model or how the aperture was setup.

I've not owned a C but have noticed a number of them have broken sync connector locks and shutter release locks. It's my understanding this parts are plastic and some have broken over the decades. Someone with a C might want to comment. Also I believe the C had smaller shutter / aperture wheels, not that this matters.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-20-2018   #46
roscoetuff
Registered User
 
roscoetuff is offline
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Washington DC
Age: 62
Posts: 518
Very helpful discussion. THank you!

Andy: That's a beautiful copy... lens looks clear and clean. Got to admit I'm a little curious how it is that you've come across four copies... a matter of pushing for the right one, or something else? I've been known to keep a back-up copy of a favorite camera ...maybe a lesser version, but something that can carry the same lenses and pretty much produce the same work. So I get the idea. But if you don't mind saying what it was that drove the process from one to the next, that might be helpful in looking over a copy when the time comes in my case. THanks!

Everyone: Looks like a sunny weekend with great color! Get out there and shoot (I'll be cooped up in the office all day here, but maybe you can have fun!).
__________________
-JW Mersereau ("Skip")

"Go out looking for one thing, and that's all you'll ever find." Robert J. Flaherty, Cinematographer
"If a day goes by without my doing something related to photography, it's as though I've neglected something essential to my existence, as though I had forgotten to wake up." Richard Avedon, Photographer
“There’s nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept.” Ansel Adams
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-20-2018   #47
Range-rover
Registered User
 
Range-rover is offline
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 2,142
Quote:
Originally Posted by x-ray View Post
Swift1 I had a type 2 MX-EVS in college in the 60's and it had the push in and twist button for uncoupling the shutter speed / aperture on the aperture wheel. I understand the type 1 could not be uncoupled. I don't know who thought coupling the shutter speeds and aperture was a good idea but I find it very annoying. IMO the T was the most annoying.

I had an E in the 70's but can't remember which model or how the aperture was setup.

I've not owned a C but have noticed a number of them have broken sync connector locks and shutter release locks. It's my understanding this parts are plastic and some have broken over the decades. Someone with a C might want to comment. Also I believe the C had smaller shutter / aperture wheels, not that this matters.
I have one and the controls are smaller and have locks, but I like the
way it works, just push in and change. the locking tabs are plastic so
extra care is needed that you don't abuse these little guy's.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-20-2018   #48
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 30,373
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swift1 View Post
I believe that's the same as the 2.8E, 3.5E, and MX EVS




I think the F/E2/E3 were sold concurrently, and were the first models with the newer style removable folding focusing hood and user changeable focus screens.
Yes, I think that you are right here. I am basic when it comes to photography, so the F and the E2 were not really needed, and they were sold easily for a good amount each. The 2.8D remained my workhorse for MF.
__________________
- Raid

________________
Top 12 Images;

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffg...n.php?cid=7007

http://raid.smugmug.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-20-2018   #49
roscoetuff
Registered User
 
roscoetuff is offline
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Washington DC
Age: 62
Posts: 518
Wait... "remained" as in past tense? Not shooting film/MF anymore? or was that just a slip of the keyboard?
__________________
-JW Mersereau ("Skip")

"Go out looking for one thing, and that's all you'll ever find." Robert J. Flaherty, Cinematographer
"If a day goes by without my doing something related to photography, it's as though I've neglected something essential to my existence, as though I had forgotten to wake up." Richard Avedon, Photographer
“There’s nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept.” Ansel Adams
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-20-2018   #50
Swift1
Registered User
 
Swift1's Avatar
 
Swift1 is offline
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Talent, Oregon.
Posts: 1,836
Quote:
Originally Posted by x-ray View Post
Swift1 I had a type 2 MX-EVS in college in the 60's and it had the push in and twist button for uncoupling the shutter speed / aperture on the aperture wheel. I understand the type 1 could not be uncoupled. I don't know who thought coupling the shutter speeds and aperture was a good idea but I find it very annoying. IMO the T was the most annoying.

I had an E in the 70's but can't remember which model or how the aperture was setup.

I've not owned a C but have noticed a number of them have broken sync connector locks and shutter release locks. It's my understanding this parts are plastic and some have broken over the decades. Someone with a C might want to comment. Also I believe the C had smaller shutter / aperture wheels, not that this matters.
I currently have a 39 Automat, a 55 2.8C, and a Type 1 3.5F.
The 2.8 has locks, and the dials are (I think) smaller than the ones on the F. The shutter button lock and sync port lock are plastic. I have often wondered if some 2.8C owners maybe purposely removed the shutter button lock. On my C, the shutter lock moves very easily, and it's really easy to accidentally lock the shutter. I have missed a few shots because of this, and had to learn to check the lock before every shot.
I bought my 2.8C a few years ago for $350. It's a little rough around the edges, but it has a clean Planar, and works (mostly) perfectly. The viewfinder magnifier is of an odd design, and on my 2.8C the magnifier falls out fairly often, and I have to carefully put it back in.
Despite it's quirks, my C has become one of my all time favorite cameras.
__________________
Colton

If you're gonna shoot, shoot, don't talk. The Ugly
My Flickr
My Website
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-20-2018   #51
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 30,373
Quote:
Originally Posted by roscoetuff View Post
Wait... "remained" as in past tense? Not shooting film/MF anymore? or was that just a slip of the keyboard?
It was worded correctly; the camera remained [it did not vanish] my workhorse ...
__________________
- Raid

________________
Top 12 Images;

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffg...n.php?cid=7007

http://raid.smugmug.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-20-2018   #52
Range-rover
Registered User
 
Range-rover is offline
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 2,142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swift1 View Post
I currently have a 39 Automat, a 55 2.8C, and a Type 1 3.5F.
The 2.8 has locks, and the dials are (I think) smaller than the ones on the F. The shutter button lock and sync port lock are plastic. I have often wondered if some 2.8C owners maybe purposely removed the shutter button lock. On my C, the shutter lock moves very easily, and it's really easy to accidentally lock the shutter. I have missed a few shots because of this, and had to learn to check the lock before every shot.
I bought my 2.8C a few years ago for $350. It's a little rough around the edges, but it has a clean Planar, and works (mostly) perfectly. The viewfinder magnifier is of an odd design, and on my 2.8C the magnifier falls out fairly often, and I have to carefully put it back in.
Despite it's quirks, my C has become one of my all time favorite cameras.
I agree with Swift1, I have a 2.8C and really love it, after a bit of work on it,
it's working good and the Xenotar is sharp. the magnifier was loose on mine
and the part where it swing's up I put a drop of Lock-tight and it stay's in
position now, the magnifier part does move a bit loose as well but I just
took it off and bend the two arms in slightly and it's a little better now.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-20-2018   #53
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 30,373
Who would be a good repair person for a CLA job at a manageable cost?
__________________
- Raid

________________
Top 12 Images;

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffg...n.php?cid=7007

http://raid.smugmug.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-23-2018   #54
roscoetuff
Registered User
 
roscoetuff is offline
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Washington DC
Age: 62
Posts: 518
Harry Fleenor's price is running $400 but he terms it a rebuild more than a CLA. His backlog is 4.5 months (as of this morning), but I understand (indirectly) that some folks have paid an additional nominal fee for a "rush" - if the standard wait is too long.

FWIW, I'm going to look at the 3.5E's that don't have meters, too. I know it's "slower", but I'm more of an F4 to F8 normal kind of guy anyway... and F11 if outside. Have an inquiry in to Jimmy Koh on lenses of a couple of his offerings between his ebay list and his website list... and yes, they seem to be different cameras on each. So the update on where I am with this... is basically following the advice here to get the "best camera" and not worry so much about the specific models C,D,E and/or F. I'd prefer to pay for manual and not have manual the result of a busted meter that would just clutter things up.. and there seem to be plenty of the busted meter variety ("Don't know if the meter works...."). A dude might have preferences... but then you have to run that through what's available in the marketplace.
__________________
-JW Mersereau ("Skip")

"Go out looking for one thing, and that's all you'll ever find." Robert J. Flaherty, Cinematographer
"If a day goes by without my doing something related to photography, it's as though I've neglected something essential to my existence, as though I had forgotten to wake up." Richard Avedon, Photographer
“There’s nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept.” Ansel Adams
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-23-2018   #55
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 30,373
This is useful information:

https://rolleigraphy.org/repair.php#usa
__________________
- Raid

________________
Top 12 Images;

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffg...n.php?cid=7007

http://raid.smugmug.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-23-2018   #56
x-ray
Registered User
 
x-ray's Avatar
 
x-ray is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tennessee USA
Age: 70
Posts: 4,621
I've owned a lot of Rolleis over the years and after thinking about it I don't have a favorite. The only one I didn't really care for was the T and that was due to the funky cross coupling and not anything to do with quality.

For some reason the Rolleicord is overlooked. I used my dad's in highschool into college and then bought a nice MX-EVS model 2 which I kept for quite a few years. The one i had was the Tessar version. I've been tempted several times to sell both mybFband D and buy a minty MX-EVS 2 but then what would I gain, nothing but some cash.

I liked my dad's Rolleicord V. A few years ago I bought one for $50 including a mint Rollei hood. It had some superficial fungus internally in the lens and the shutter was gummy. I cleaned the inner elements myself and there was no damage. After exercising the shutter some it started working properly and never had a problem. I put a Chinese screen in it and made some excellent images with it. The lens was quite sharp and the camera was noticably lighter.

I'm no sure what possessed me to sell it but I did. Last year I was strolling with my wife through an antique store and noticed a case that appeared to be a Rollei case. Sure enough it was a 3.5f Model 3 with a Planar. It appeared to be a mess and I got it for $75. I invested a little over $400 in a cla and cleaned it up and now have a beautiful and perfectly functioning 3.5f.

Really between the 2.8 D Xenotar and the 3.5f Planar, I'd probably sell the 2.8 D and keep the 3.5 f. Reasons, 3.5 is plenty fast for 99% of my shooting and I feel the Planar is a touch better. It may just be me but I've owned several Planars on my Hasselblad, Lnhof Technikas and other cameras and really like the rendering. In reality in a side by side comparison I probably couldn't tell the difference but psychologically I favor the Planar. Actually I most lukely can't tell images made with the MX-EVS and Rolleicord vs the D or F side by side.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-23-2018   #57
roscoetuff
Registered User
 
roscoetuff is offline
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Washington DC
Age: 62
Posts: 518
I have a Plannar 80mm on a Rollei 6008 that is very sweet. They're great lenses. But then, virtually all Zeiss's post-1950 lenses are. I have a Novar 75mm on a Zeiss Super Ikonta III that's a bit soft, but every other Zeiss I've used is a joy. Zero complaints. Fuji's digital glass... as good as some find it, never grabbed me quite the same way.
__________________
-JW Mersereau ("Skip")

"Go out looking for one thing, and that's all you'll ever find." Robert J. Flaherty, Cinematographer
"If a day goes by without my doing something related to photography, it's as though I've neglected something essential to my existence, as though I had forgotten to wake up." Richard Avedon, Photographer
“There’s nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept.” Ansel Adams
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-23-2018   #58
Greyscale
Registered User
 
Greyscale's Avatar
 
Greyscale is offline
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Fort Dodge Iowa
Age: 59
Posts: 4,567
I have more Rolleiflex and Rolleicord cameras than I care to admit to. I find the Planar and Xenotar to be virtually identical as far as image quality goes, and I bet that if one were to print identical images, shot at f5.6 or smaller, from a Xenar, Tessar, Planar, and Xenotar, anyone would be hard-pressed to assign the correct lens to the correct photo. In fact, I think that the Rollei with the sharpest lens in my collection is an MX-EVS with a Xenar lens. I would suggest not to worry that you do or don’t have the “best” Rolleiflex, because really, the are all damn fine cameras. The attached image was taken with my worst Rolleiflex, a battered old K4/50 Automat with no slow speeds and a very hazy Opton Tessar lens. Even a bad Rolleiflex can produce fine images.

What you need to look for that is more important than a model name or a number is that the camera is mechanically sound, that the back fits tightly, and that it shows no sign of impact damage to the front of the camera. A little dust, a little haze, some minor scratches to the lens coating, are really not all that consequential.

__________________
my flickr

My RFF Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-23-2018   #59
roscoetuff
Registered User
 
roscoetuff is offline
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Washington DC
Age: 62
Posts: 518
Great shot Greyscale. Really love the tonality in the hood and chrome together. Also like the fellow in the cap on the other side who might have a year or two on me.

When I wrote "best camera", I was quoting the advice given. I tend to like clean, clear lenses... unscratched, unbroken, fungus, separation and haze free etc. but yes, even those can take great pictures (so long as flare isn't an issue) in many cases. I have plenty of cameras that aren't perfect, but I will admit to have had a number of lenses serviced by Henry Scherer (Contax CY Zeiss). I'm not after collector quality but a good shooter with a good lens. You list some Rollei specifics like the mechanics, back fit, etc. that aren't usually a worry, but make sense for cameras this age. Thanks!
__________________
-JW Mersereau ("Skip")

"Go out looking for one thing, and that's all you'll ever find." Robert J. Flaherty, Cinematographer
"If a day goes by without my doing something related to photography, it's as though I've neglected something essential to my existence, as though I had forgotten to wake up." Richard Avedon, Photographer
“There’s nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept.” Ansel Adams
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-23-2018   #60
Range-rover
Registered User
 
Range-rover is offline
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 2,142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyscale View Post
I have more Rolleiflex and Rolleicord cameras than I care to admit to. I find the Planar and Xenotar to be virtually identical as far as image quality goes, and I bet that if one were to print identical images, shot at f5.6 or smaller, from a Xenar, Tessar, Planar, and Xenotar, anyone would be hard-pressed to assign the correct lens to the correct photo. In fact, I think that the Rollei with the sharpest lens in my collection is an MX-EVS with a Xenar lens. I would suggest not to worry that you do or don’t have the “best” Rolleiflex, because really, the are all damn fine cameras. The attached image was taken with my worst Rolleiflex, a battered old K4/50 Automat with no slow speeds and a very hazy Opton Tessar lens. Even a bad Rolleiflex can produce fine images.

What you need to look for that is more important than a model name or a number is that the camera is mechanically sound, that the back fits tightly, and that it shows no sign of impact damage to the front of the camera. A little dust, a little haze, some minor scratches to the lens coating, are really not all that consequential.
Great shot, I agree with your statement above and scratches on the front element, I have the 2.8C and I got it at a good deal. It does
have share of scratches and when I received my pictures back I was amazed of the way the pictures came out just great!
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-23-2018   #61
Greyscale
Registered User
 
Greyscale's Avatar
 
Greyscale is offline
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Fort Dodge Iowa
Age: 59
Posts: 4,567
Quote:
Originally Posted by Range-rover View Post
Great shot, I agree with your statement above and scratches on the front element, I have the 2.8C and I got it at a good deal. It does
have share of scratches and when I received my pictures back I was amazed of the way the pictures came out just great!
I don't think that there are many 2.8Cs without "cleaning marks". I don't know if that is because the coating was softer on that lens or not. Finding a pristine one is like finding a clean collapsible Summicron LTM lens.
__________________
my flickr

My RFF Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-23-2018   #62
Range-rover
Registered User
 
Range-rover is offline
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 2,142
And the prices for mint ones are getting up there, not like the F's but getting there.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-24-2018   #63
roscoetuff
Registered User
 
roscoetuff is offline
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Washington DC
Age: 62
Posts: 518
And because of that, the prices for some of the dogs are getting up there, too!
__________________
-JW Mersereau ("Skip")

"Go out looking for one thing, and that's all you'll ever find." Robert J. Flaherty, Cinematographer
"If a day goes by without my doing something related to photography, it's as though I've neglected something essential to my existence, as though I had forgotten to wake up." Richard Avedon, Photographer
“There’s nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept.” Ansel Adams
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-24-2018   #64
roscoetuff
Registered User
 
roscoetuff is offline
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Washington DC
Age: 62
Posts: 518
I am now looking closely at meterless 3.5E models (and 2.8E's for that matter, too, but they mostly have meters). When there's a meter, I tend to use it rather than my hand helds, and the latter have never let me down while camera meters... cough, cough... can work if you really know them and use them right. Anyway... why pay for something that seems often to be described as "registers light".... so I'd skip it.

Love the 2.8C's and 2.8D's... but there are some good arguments for 3.5E's from Harry Fleenor, too. Love for you folks to tell me to avoid these as it'd make my life pretty simple. Jimmy Koh's has a 2.8D, 2.8C and a 3.5F. There's also a decent 3.5E out there that I've asked some the seller a lot of questions about and we'll see what comes back. That one's in the $600 range...

Thoughts? "Stick with Koh's no matter what!" Love to hear that, too. I'm all ears.
__________________
-JW Mersereau ("Skip")

"Go out looking for one thing, and that's all you'll ever find." Robert J. Flaherty, Cinematographer
"If a day goes by without my doing something related to photography, it's as though I've neglected something essential to my existence, as though I had forgotten to wake up." Richard Avedon, Photographer
“There’s nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept.” Ansel Adams
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-24-2018   #65
karateisland
Registered User
 
karateisland's Avatar
 
karateisland is offline
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Portland, Maine
Posts: 169
For whatever it's worth, I bought a 2.8D from Jimmy Koh and that thing is aces
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-24-2018   #66
Greyscale
Registered User
 
Greyscale's Avatar
 
Greyscale is offline
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Fort Dodge Iowa
Age: 59
Posts: 4,567
You need to decide how much money that one little f stop is worth to you. When I shoot the 2.8E, there is a part of me that always wants to shoot it wide open whether it makes sense to or not, because I paid for that f stop, dang it.

Have I ever really, really needed an F2.8 lens on a TLR? Not really. More often or not I grab the 3.5f or the MX-EVS (the MX-EVS with the Rolleilux light meter is a killer combination, with the EV system, it is almost a point and shoot). But if I spent more time in dim places, the 2.8 might be my favorite choice. You won’t hit the real sweet spot of the lens until you step it down to 5.6 or beyond, regardless of choice of lens.

The accessories are cheaper for a bay 2 camera, and much, much cheaper for a bay 1, if cost is a consideration.
__________________
my flickr

My RFF Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-24-2018   #67
sreed2006
Registered User
 
sreed2006's Avatar
 
sreed2006 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Memphis, TN
Posts: 967
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyscale View Post
I don't think that there are many 2.8Cs without "cleaning marks". I don't know if that is because the coating was softer on that lens or not. Finding a pristine one is like finding a clean collapsible Summicron LTM lens.
I am a lucky guy, then. I have a 2.8C with lenses that look brand new. The springs that hold the viewfinder magnifier, however, have popped a rivet and don't hold the magnifying glass anymore. That's a bummer.
__________________
Sid

My favorite question is "What does this button do?"
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-24-2018   #68
roscoetuff
Registered User
 
roscoetuff is offline
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Washington DC
Age: 62
Posts: 518
Actually, the point is that I don't need a 2.8 and the 3.5 is fine. Shooting a Zeiss Super Ikonta 3.6 and I almost never gasp for another 1/2 stop. Meter? At lower light levels, it's typically not as useful as a hand held anyway. So the 3.5's are on the table. Haven't really thought of the MX-EVS because... well everyone pushes the Rolleiflexes. Higher end, etc.

Thanks!
__________________
-JW Mersereau ("Skip")

"Go out looking for one thing, and that's all you'll ever find." Robert J. Flaherty, Cinematographer
"If a day goes by without my doing something related to photography, it's as though I've neglected something essential to my existence, as though I had forgotten to wake up." Richard Avedon, Photographer
“There’s nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept.” Ansel Adams
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-24-2018   #69
Sarcophilus Harrisii
Brett Rogers
 
Sarcophilus Harrisii is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,574
Quote:
Originally Posted by roscoetuff View Post
Actually, the point is that I don't need a 2.8 and the 3.5 is fine. Shooting a Zeiss Super Ikonta 3.6 and I almost never gasp for another 1/2 stop. Meter? At lower light levels, it's typically not as useful as a hand held anyway. So the 3.5's are on the table. Haven't really thought of the MX-EVS because... well everyone pushes the Rolleiflexes. Higher end, etc.

Thanks!
An Automat is a Rolleiflex. MX-EVS or otherwise. The 2.8s are 80mm focal length. 3.5s are 75mm. Perhaps consider your preference there, too. There’s not a lot of difference, but there is a difference. If you’re open to f/3.5 models perhaps you should not disregard the Rolleicord models either. Some of the Automats used the exact same lens they were fitted with. Later Xenotar or Planar Rolleiflexes will give you sharper edges wide open. Whether that actually matters in the real world or not for you, is going to depend on what you shoot, how you shoot it and, perhaps, how big you like to print. The Rolleicords are lighter, though, so for people who like to do some hiking, for instance, this could be a plus, also the slightly wider coverage of the 75mm lens for landscape imaging.

Apart from the Rolleimagic models (and even the second type has a few fans) it’s hard to buy a bad model Rollei. By all means consider the one which might be your first preference, but don’t be so focused on a particular type or lens specification that you pass up an excellent prospect of some other type.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-24-2018   #70
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
 
Pherdinand's Avatar
 
Pherdinand is offline
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: by the river called the Gender
Age: 42
Posts: 7,819
" Prices for TLR's in "good shape"... where the lenses don't admittedly have issues, seem to be creeping up "

well
without doing any research myself, this implies that there are many 2.8d xenotars with a problem lens. This means there's something systematically wrong with 2.8D xenotars. This means the ones that have no issue should not be priced up, these should be priced down as the chance they also will develop problems is greater than, say, 2.8F planars.
This is purely based on logic.
Not on camera love, and not on buyers remorse (nor the opposite of buyers remorse, whatever that is called).
__________________
Happy New Year, Happy New Continent!
eye contact eye
My RFF Foolery
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-25-2018   #71
Greyscale
Registered User
 
Greyscale's Avatar
 
Greyscale is offline
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Fort Dodge Iowa
Age: 59
Posts: 4,567
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pherdinand View Post
" Prices for TLR's in "good shape"... where the lenses don't admittedly have issues, seem to be creeping up "

well
without doing any research myself, this implies that there are many 2.8d xenotars with a problem lens. This means there's something systematically wrong with 2.8D xenotars. This means the ones that have no issue should not be priced up, these should be priced down as the chance they also will develop problems is greater than, say, 2.8F planars.
This is purely based on logic.
Not on camera love, and not on buyers remorse (nor the opposite of buyers remorse, whatever that is called).
The "problem" is that they are 65 years old. And many have seen rough service or neglect.
__________________
my flickr

My RFF Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-25-2018   #72
Range-rover
Registered User
 
Range-rover is offline
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 2,142
I've seen a few on ebay lately and the lens looks great, I guess it's how they were
handled though the years, using a tie or other ways of how not to clean a lens!
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-25-2018   #73
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 30,373
I once bought a 3.5F from an ebay dealer in Egypt! By the time the cameraarrived to Pensacola, the film advance level was cooked and di not work at all. I sent the camera to Eddy Smolov in NYC to repair it, which he did after a few months. The camera has been functioning very smoothly since then.

My 2.8D was bought locally from a very experienved camera repairman in Pensacola. It was his own camera, so he did a great CLA on it, after which I bought it from him.

The Tele was bought online and it feel rock solid and it functions beautifully even though the taking lens has some stuff [maybe a separation?] at the edges that I left alone and it never expanded and shows no effect in the images.

My Automat works very well too. It sports a Tessar taking lens. I once used the 2.8D for some portraits of a friend with his family, and I had the Automat with me as a back-up camera for back-up shots. It turned out that my 2.8D (which I had with me on a trip to Japan) had a mirror moving so that what appeared to be "in focus" was in fact out out of focus. All images (color) were soft with the 2.8D but the images (B&W) from the Automat where sharp.

.
__________________
- Raid

________________
Top 12 Images;

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffg...n.php?cid=7007

http://raid.smugmug.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-25-2018   #74
Range-rover
Registered User
 
Range-rover is offline
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 2,142
You have a nice collection there Raid.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-25-2018   #75
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 30,373
Yes, I use them all, but not as often as I maybe should be doing. I got them many years ago when the prices were much lower than they are today. My last TLR purchase was a 2.8C that definitely needs a good CLA to get the aperture/speed wheels moving more smoothly again. This one has a Xenotar while the other had Planar taking lenses (except the Tessar in the Automat).
__________________
- Raid

________________
Top 12 Images;

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffg...n.php?cid=7007

http://raid.smugmug.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-25-2018   #76
Swift1
Registered User
 
Swift1's Avatar
 
Swift1 is offline
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Talent, Oregon.
Posts: 1,836
Assuming it's working properly, and the lens is decently clean, you can't really go wrong with any of the different Rolleiflex models...

This was taken with a 1939 Automat RF111A with uncoated Tessar.


Untitled by Colton Allen, on Flickr
__________________
Colton

If you're gonna shoot, shoot, don't talk. The Ugly
My Flickr
My Website
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-25-2018   #77
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 30,373
Just beautiful, Colton.
__________________
- Raid

________________
Top 12 Images;

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffg...n.php?cid=7007

http://raid.smugmug.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-25-2018   #78
Range-rover
Registered User
 
Range-rover is offline
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 2,142
Quote:
Originally Posted by raid View Post
Yes, I use them all, but not as often as I maybe should be doing. I got them many years ago when the prices were much lower than they are today. My last TLR purchase was a 2.8C that definitely needs a good CLA to get the aperture/speed wheels moving more smoothly again. This one has a Xenotar while the other had Planar taking lenses (except the Tessar in the Automat).
Did you see any difference between the Planar or the Xenotar?
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-25-2018   #79
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 30,373
I have not used the 2.8C yet since I got the camera with the focus/aperture wheels stuck. I doubt it very much that the Xenotar will differ from the Planar. The number of aperture blades "may" have a small impact on the bokeh [maybe not].
__________________
- Raid

________________
Top 12 Images;

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffg...n.php?cid=7007

http://raid.smugmug.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-25-2018   #80
roscoetuff
Registered User
 
roscoetuff is offline
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Washington DC
Age: 62
Posts: 518
Okay... drank the Kool-aid, skipped the toga party, tye dye and all that. Just "clicked" a Rolleiflex 3.5E Xenotar that looks to be in clean condition. Tried Jimmy Koh (and he is a good man btw) but someone else snagged the one I wanted first. Went to another source I've been aware of for some years, but never bought from. He gives 30-day returns and I see he's quite careful... hesitating to accept my "Make Offer" without confirming "defects" with me first. That's rare, and to his credit.

So we'll see how it turns out. Thanks to everyone for their contributed assistance! I'll have to locate the usual: 1) Yellow filter, 2) UV filter for color, 3) Lens hood and maybe a 4) Close-up lens. Bay II are supposed to be cheap(er), but Rollei is like Leica where this means... filet mignon and 6 ounces vs. 8 ounces.
__________________
-JW Mersereau ("Skip")

"Go out looking for one thing, and that's all you'll ever find." Robert J. Flaherty, Cinematographer
"If a day goes by without my doing something related to photography, it's as though I've neglected something essential to my existence, as though I had forgotten to wake up." Richard Avedon, Photographer
“There’s nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept.” Ansel Adams
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 20:12.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.