Discussions: 43,587 | Messages: 586,932 | Members: 28,845 | Online: 238 | Chatroom: 0
User Name:  Password:
 

"That is called grain. It is supposed to be there." -Flotsam


 
APUG search    RSS MOBILE
Customize Sidebar
Gum-Silver Process
Author: Dwane
103 view(s)
Kodak D-19
Author: Tom Hoskinson
32 view(s)
Recognize this HCA recipe?
Author: craigclu
388 view(s)
Go Back   APUG > APUG English Forums > Equipment > Medium Format Cameras and Accessories > which rolleiflex twin lens reflex

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-15-2008, 05:35 PM   #11 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 18
Default

I have used a Rolleiflex T extensively from 1988 - 1993 moving to the 3,5f and then the Mamiya C330. The Rollei T was without doubt the most versatile as it was the lightest of them all and I could easily hold it in one hand after focussing and shoot away. Some of this work is being published locally and features many portraits I done using the Rollei T.
Ragtime Clown is offline   Reply With Quote Ignore this user Ignore this thread Ignore this forum
Old 07-16-2008, 11:08 AM   #12 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Columbia, MO
Posts: 13
Default

I have a Rolleiflex 2.8C with the Schneider lens. My wife gave it to me for my birthday about 15 years ago after I expressed an interest in getting one. She didn't know anything about them (still dosen't) but I really lucked out. Cosmeticlly, it's in good shape. I have no idea how much she paid for it but I invested about $150 USD in a CLA and a Maxwell screen. Mechanically flawless, and the lens is clean. It's probably my favorite camera and the one I grab most often.
Wilcoxson, David L. is offline   Reply With Quote Ignore this user Ignore this thread Ignore this forum
Old 07-16-2008, 01:09 PM   #13 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Portland OR USA
Posts: 739
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lindyhopper View Post
I am thinking of buying a twin lens rolleiflex, I am unsure which one to go for.
Assuming money isn't a problem..

2.8F Platin....F style camera with HFT coated Planar
2.8FX...........New camera with HFT coated Planar and upgraded meter
2.8F Aurum...Gold plated trim F body Xenotar lens
2.8F Xenotar or Planar 80mm lens
2.8GX Like the FX only older with different styling and different shutter.
3.5 F Xenotar or Planar 75mm lens
leaving the Rollei wide and Tele Rollei out of the discussion

The reason to get any other Rollei is either sentimental (you have owned it a long time or it was passed on from a family member) or because you don't want to pay for the latest, and you figure the optics are the same any way... unless they are hazy or scratched.

To me the one to have is a tie between the latest 2.8F Xenotar or the latest 2.8FX Planar.
dpurdy is online now   Reply With Quote Ignore this user Ignore this thread Ignore this forum
Old 07-16-2008, 03:08 PM   #14 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Ohio
Posts: 36
Default

I just purchased an old 2.8f. I sold a Hasselblad 500c system to get it, but I don't regret it. It has proven to be a very convenient camera that gives great results.
ts103706@ohio.edu is offline   Reply With Quote Ignore this user Ignore this thread Ignore this forum
Old 07-16-2008, 03:33 PM   #15 (permalink)
 
Rolleiflexible's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: New York City
Posts: 917
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dpurdy View Post
The reason to get any other Rollei is either sentimental (you have owned it a long time or it was passed on from a family member) or because you don't want to pay for the latest, and you figure the optics are the same any way... unless they are hazy or scratched.

Dennis, I disagree. The F- and G-series Rolleiflexes
all come with coupled light meters. I avoid them
because I prefer to meter myself with a separate
meter, and don't want a camera larded up with a
lot of stuff I never use. It's not a question of money.
The earlier models are better-suited for my purposes.

Sanders
__________________
Sanders McNew
My Flickr stream
Naked Portraits
Rolleiflexible is offline   Reply With Quote Ignore this user Ignore this thread Ignore this forum
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)

Old 07-16-2008, 04:10 PM   #16 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Portland OR USA
Posts: 739
Default

Larded up? Is that a typo or an interesting way of putting it? Like fattened I guess. Personally I wouldn't go for an older model because they lacked a meter. I don't use camera meters including the one in the FX. I have seen some people say they like the knob without the meter because it doesn't stick out so far. But the original poster asked a question that was interesting in it's simplicity and total lack of qualifications. Most every recommendation in these threads takes price into consideration as a high priority since most people say I want a camera for under 300 dollars or something. I tried to make a simple list of the top of the line.. which is what you would look for if you won the lottery. So... a Platin of course. Unless you prefer the Xenotar.
Dennis :-)
dpurdy is online now   Reply With Quote Ignore this user Ignore this thread Ignore this forum
Old 07-16-2008, 04:25 PM   #17 (permalink)
 
Rolleiflexible's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: New York City
Posts: 917
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dpurdy View Post
Larded up? Is that a typo or an interesting way of putting it? Like fattened I guess. Personally I wouldn't go for an older model because they lacked a meter. I don't use camera meters including the one in the FX. I have seen some people say they like the knob without the meter because it doesn't stick out so far. But the original poster asked a question that was interesting in it's simplicity and total lack of qualifications. Most every recommendation in these threads takes price into consideration as a high priority since most people say I want a camera for under 300 dollars or something. I tried to make a simple list of the top of the line.. which is what you would look for if you won the lottery. So... a Platin of course. Unless you prefer the Xenotar.
Dennis :-)
Larded, yes, as in stuffed with stuff. :-P

I am one of the people who doesn't like the
meter knob. My 3.5E came with a meter and
I had it removed because I didn't use the meter
and didn't like the knob sticking out.

Planar, Xenotar: It's all good. :-)

Sanders
__________________
Sanders McNew
My Flickr stream
Naked Portraits
Rolleiflexible is offline   Reply With Quote Ignore this user Ignore this thread Ignore this forum
Old 07-16-2008, 05:03 PM   #18 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Wirral, England.
Posts: 103
Default

I used the company's Rollei T for many years and photographed many weddings without any problems. I eventually bought my own Rollei 3.5F. I do prefer the Planar lens to the Tessar, though you might be hard pressed to notice, and I opted for the 3.5 over the 2.8 purely on price, with modern emulsions it was not a 'must have'. The built-in meter I find is a plus, not that I ALWAYS use it, particularly if you can find one with the incident light diffuser which is superb for reversal work. It makes it an excellent 'grab it and go' camera, as long as you don't forget the film, of course.
__________________
Seeking perfection.
Allan Swindles is offline   Reply With Quote Ignore this user Ignore this thread Ignore this forum
Old 07-17-2008, 08:10 AM   #19 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Columbia, MO
Posts: 13
Default

If I were in the market for another Rolleiflex, I'd look for one with the least automation possible. The camera's I use most often these days (Rolleiflex, RB67, Wisner 4X5) have absolutely no automation of any kind. If I need/want to use a meter, I have an old Minolta Autometer IVF that only needs one AA battery. Simple cameras like the above mentioned really allow me to concentrate on exposure and composition and not get distracted by the extraineous. My wife gave me a new digital P&S recently and while it's pretty good for happy snaps, the damn thing has more menu's and modes than I can count. The complication distracts from the creative process. Plus, it relies on some kind of special battery thats just not available everywhere. I don't know about anyone else, but for me, simple cameras carry the day.
Wilcoxson, David L. is offline   Reply With Quote Ignore this user Ignore this thread Ignore this forum
Old 07-17-2008, 04:45 PM   #20 (permalink)
 
eddym's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Puerto Rico
Posts: 1,015
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wilcoxson, David L. View Post
If I were in the market for another Rolleiflex, I'd look for one with the least automation possible.
I didn't know Rollei TLR's had ANY automation... unless you're referring to the automatic first frame roller in the 2.8F. I think they dropped that for the G series, didn't they?
But none of the have exposure automation, unless you count SCA flash adapters.
__________________
Eddy McDonald
www.fotoartes.com
Eschew defenestration!
eddym is offline   Reply With Quote Ignore this user Ignore this thread Ignore this forum
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

 


APUG.ORG Block Ads. (APUG Subscribers have the option of closing this block)
 

  Contact Us - Advertise on APUG - Archive - Top - Site Terms - Forum Rules  
    

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:54 AM.
  
All Content Copyright © 2002-2008 Photocentric Ltd.   Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO APUG.ORG is a division of Photocentric Ltd.
This site is best viewed with a resolution of 1280x1024 (or higher), we recommend using