Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,331   Posts: 1,537,238   Online: 896
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 19 of 19
  1. #11
    ic-racer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Midwest USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,195
    If you just want a picture of the camera, I have a Rolleiflex brochure from around 1972 that has a nice full color spread with an awesome close up picture showing a TELE, with prism, Rolleinars in place and the pistol grip. I could scan the pictue if you are interested. At the time they no longer made the WIDE, and that TELE was their top-of-the-line TLR.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    42
    Actually, that'd be great. So far the thing has been a ghost.

  3. #13
    ic-racer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Midwest USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,195
    This is older than my brochure but it has a nice color picture. See page 6:
    http://www.cameramanuals.org/rolleif...cc_1961-62.pdf

    Here is the TELE manual:
    http://www.cameramanuals.org/rolleif...iflex_tele.pdf

  4. #14
    dpurdy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Portland OR USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,044
    Images
    38
    If you manage to acquire one I think it will make you one of a very small group in the world. It was hard enough to get to examine it's sibling the 2.8FX before buying. In fact it was impossible and the first time I ever saw one was after I had bought it. I still have the only one I have ever seen in person.

    I can tell you that the new FX of the same vintage as the Tele you are seeking is a beautiful camera and the HFT coatings do make a difference. The lenses have less flare and more contrast. The focus and film transport on mine (which would be the same on the Tele) are the smoothest and most effortless of any Rollei I have ever had.

    That said, with the price difference between and old version Tele and a new version Tele and the amount of value you are liable to lose once you open the new box, I might give the old version a try first and see for sure that I like it.
    Dennis

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    42
    ic-racer, thanks for the links, but I can't for the life of me open them. Tried everything.

    dpurdy, thanks for your comments (thankfully I'm not the only one that buys cameras sight unseen). Here's a question for you: If I decided to get an "ordinary" Rollieflex, should I get the 2.8f or the expensive 2.8fx? I'm asking on the basis of quality - some things I've read said not to get the fx because of inferior build quality.

  6. #16
    dpurdy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Portland OR USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,044
    Images
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by Bokeh Guy View Post
    dpurdy, thanks for your comments (thankfully I'm not the only one that buys cameras sight unseen). Here's a question for you: If I decided to get an "ordinary" Rollieflex, should I get the 2.8f or the expensive 2.8fx? I'm asking on the basis of quality - some things I've read said not to get the fx because of inferior build quality.
    My opinion is that the lessor quality of the newer FX is a myth. I have both a late model 2.8F (Xenotar) and the FX (HFT coated Planar). The new camera doesn't have a self timer and it doesn't have the auto film sensor. I prefer to line up the arrows on the new camera to trusting the auto film sensor on the old model because the new camera has never failed and the older one has run right through several rolls. I would like to have a self timer but I guess I can buy one that screws into the cable socket. The bodies are the same and you can put the F back door on the FX. The focus is much smoother and easier on the newer camera and I have had the older one rebuilt by Harry Fleenor. Both cameras seem very solid however the brown leather on the FX is more damageable than the leatherette on the old camera. Optically the new camera is better but by such a small margin it is really not an issue. The new camera has a much better meter system. Makes no difference to me as I use a handheld and don't even keep a battery in the FX.

    I really have to say that the difference in picture quality is not enough to justify the expense of the new camera vs the old. I would buy a really nice condition F and have it completely refurbished by one of the top guys. Then spend the money you have left over on film. I like my FX better than my F but I bought it when they were less expensive than now and I used inheritance money. I also personally like a camera that feels like a new camera rather than an old one. Also I like having a rare camera.
    Dennis

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    42
    Dennis,

    Thanks for the comments. I currently have a Hasselblad FE system, but have been angling for the Rollieflexes. With the cost of the FE stuff, I should do all right with the Flexes.

    One question is your thoughts on the draw on the Xenotar v. the HTF Planar. I imagine that they are virtually the same on sharpness, but what is the difference in character?

    I have a hunch that I'll be getting an F or FX before I see a new version of the Tele.

  8. #18
    dpurdy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Portland OR USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,044
    Images
    38
    Planar vs Xenotar is such a classic argument. If I weigh in on it someone will counter what I say. However. In my little world, I have been pretty obsessive in my side by side testing and my experience is that the single coated Planar is slightly less contrasty and is a little more flare prone than the single coated Xenotar. The HFT coated Planar is slightly contrastier and a little less flare prone than the single coated Xenotar. As to sharpness it is so close that using them as a photographer with camera on a tripod I can't see a difference even at the greatest enlargement possible on my enlarger and examining the images through a grain focuser.

    Any difference can be chalked up as user error or wishful thinking. That said, it seems to me that the Planar images seem to have a little more presence on the print. Put a gun to my head and I would say it is my wishful thinking.

    Dennis

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    42
    Dennis,

    Thanks for your opinion. I looked at the FXs and, frankly, they are pretty expensive nowadays. I'm looking at a few Fs with the Xenotars. I figure that I can always sell one of those if and when a new tele version is found. By the way, I think I may go the way of McNew on the tele. Lots of midnight oil the last couple of nights.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin