Says:I recently bought a very nice Rolleiflex with an f / 3.5 Carl Zeiss lens, probably made in the 60s. I am very pleased with the camera.
Rolleiflex t tlr forum - serial number 200, serial numbers and post-war, 000 1922. Not to offer a very nice rolleiflex tlr model range from 1952-53. Can anyone tell me if that's any help him find each serial numbers and photo stands, 999. Nov 22, 2016. Strangely, I can't find any sign of a serial number on the camera. The horizontal face on top of the Rolleiflex nameplate is where I would expect to find it, but that only has the usual letters DBP and DBGM, with no sign of a serial number. The lens is Planar number 3480995 but I haven't found any literature.
I don’t know much about middle format cameras and I would like to know what you think about this camera. How good is the lens compared to other TLR lenses? How good is it compared to the lenses often used on Hasselblad cameras?2:11AM, 29 April 2009 PDTfew purpose deleted says:It won't be as sharp overall as a Planar. At lower apertures it will be softer at the edges.
It should perform best at f/11.Hasselblad lenses will be more complex and higher quality than Tessar designs. They are typically Planars, Sonnars, Biogons and the like. However, you should get great results out of your Rolleiflex. Most TLR lenses out there are Tessars, and cheaper, older ones are probably triplets. I think you've got a good 'un, and it's a Zeiss!Originally posted ages ago.few purpose edited this topic ages ago.says:I find Zeiss lenses have a special quality that only realy stands out when I compare picture with non-Zeiss. Torrent intervista col vampiro cast de. Even though other makes might be the same confiuguration as the Tessar, they give a different result.
I know this sounds vague, but for me it is very real. I just adore all my Zeiss lenses, including the uncoated Tessar on my Super Ikonta.ages agosays:The Tessar was the standard of the world at the time it was used in most Rolleiflexes - Hasselblads used them too. The Planar is an improved design, but the Tessar has nothing to apologize for.ages agosays:Thanks! What does uncoated mean? Does it have anything to do with how good colors get? Do you think that my Rolleiflex lens is coated - made in the 60:ies?ages agosays:Coating basically allows the light to pass through the lens from lens element to lens element with less diffusion, reflexions and light loss, thus improving the image projected on the film, there are whole books on the subject.If your Rolleiflex is indeed made in the sixties and not older the optics will be coated.
If you use the hood the uncoated lenses will not give you any problems either. You can even get the nice vintage flare in photos taken against the light, something which is very difficult to get with modern multi coated optics.ages agosays:Zeiss started coating their lenses after the second world war, using the single coating technique. The only uncoated tessars that Rollei used after the war, was the 2,8 Tessar which was constructed before the war.So the chances are that your Tessar is a lovely single coated version.Tessars were a big improvement over the older triplets as far as chromatic aberrations were concerned.
This of course was improving the sharpness also. But chromatic aberrations are visible only wide open when the whole surface of the lens had to be used, past f/5,6 the difference is becoming less visible.So the difference between your lens and the Hasselblad (Tessar Vs Planar design) is the further correction of chromatic aberrations when used wide open. Past f/5.6 you will not see any difference between them.Having said that, the difference is less obvious than you might think if you compare two pictures, especially having the price difference in mind.PanOriginally posted ages ago.Pan Giannakis edited this topic ages ago.says:The f/2.8 Tessar is coated too. I think only a small number of early X-synch f/3.5s from the 1940s were uncoated after the war.ages agosays:Yes, i correct, the 2.8 version of tessar was coated.
The only uncoated tessars are the early f/4.5 and f/3.5 (before war).ages agosays:I think not long after they started coating the lenses, they started color-correcting them too. So sometimes if you buy an old camera you'll see some of the lenses marked like 'Color-Yashinon' or 'Color-Skopar', etc. Supposedly the ones with this mark would be able to focus all the colors on the same plane, whereas the ones without it would focus different colors in different planes, making the image look fuzzy on a black & white shot or leading to color fringing on color shots.ages agosays:Rolleiflex/Tessar esoterica: Pan is correct that the 80mm f/2.8 Tessar used in the first Rolleiflex 2.8A was originally produced before the war and originally uncoated.
These were lenses that Zeiss had manufactured before the war for use in its top-of-the-line Ikoflex III.After the war, for production of the Rolleiflex 2.8A, Zeiss sent its leftover stock of uncoated 80mm Jena Tessars for coating. Unfortunately, as legend has it, some significant number of these Tessars became mismatched during the coating process. The performance of these mismatched lenses was in many cases so poor that customers returned them. Rollei replaced the bad lenses with new production from the Zeiss Opton workshop, and the second production run of the 2.8A was sourced entirely with Opton Tessars.Although the mismatched lens debacle caused an enduring stain upon the reputation of all 80mm f/2.8 Tessars, the good ones from the Opton run can be very very sweet:Back on topic: never mind the esoterica, Tessars are fantastic.
Rolleiflex Planar Serial Numbers
Click to expand. You, my friend, just earned yourself a free cup of coffee from me!Catch is, you'll have to visit Phoenix some day to have it.OK, back to the Rollie now. A 3.5E with Planar sold on eBay for $475 some time ago. Another one did not sell at $455 (in less perfect shape). Yours seems in much better condition, judging from the pics, than any of the two above so I'm going to go on a limb here and price it between $550 and $600.
If you have other accessories with it, such as lens shades, you could actually ask for sure about $600, and get it! IMHO you should hang on to it, you'll always regret selling it, that is if you plan to sell it.
Rolleiflex Sl66 Serial Numbers
Trust me, I've sold many a camera like yours that I now regret selling. Put some BW film in it, go shooting and be prepared to see some of the most incredible negatives! Go have fun with it!