[rollei_list] Re: Why Rollei T?

  • From: Jerry Lehrer <jerryleh@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 12:57:11 -0800

Peter,

I agree with you completely on the T vs. 220 issue.  I had one of the last
ones made, a whiteface with Xenar lens, and it it only had a 12/16
counter.  It could not be converted because it never had the feeler
system which could be "fooled" by the strap hanger switch.

Evans is wrong on that, but it is not the first time.

Jerry

"Peter K." wrote:

> I had inquired forever about the Rollei T and 220. Evans is completely
> wrong. The T does not have a 220 capability. To validate this, I wrote
> Herr Prochnow some time back and he replied:
>
> "The Rolleiflex T was never made for film 220."
>
> I saved the email and still have it, so I a, 100% certain on this. I
> know no one that has a Rollei T with 220 capability, and you cannot
> add a 220 switch as you can on the Rollei 3.5 or 2.8 Planar/Xenotar
> TLRs.
>
> Peter K
>
> On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 09:54:34 -0500, Jan Decher <Jan.Decher@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Bob:
> >=20
> > Why a Rollei T and not a 3.5F?   Do you prefer the characteristics of
> > the 3.5 Tessar over the Xenotar/Planar for portraits?
> > I also noticed in A. Evans' book that the T is much lighter (36 oz)
> > than the 3.5 F(44 oz),  has only Bay I filter mount and (type 3) is 220
> > capable.
> > Great features. I will start looking for one.
> > Jan
> >=20
> > On Tuesday, March 29, 2005, at 02:02 AM, FreeLists Mailing List Manager
> > wrote:
> > > Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 07:39:44 -0500
> > > From: Bob Shell <bob@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Using only one camera would be like eating the same thing for all three
> > > meals seven days a week.  I have a Rollei T and 6008i in medium format.
> > >   In 35mm I have a Rollei QZ35T.
> >=20
> >=20
>
> --=20
> Peter K
> =D3=BF=D5=AC


Other related posts: