![images taken with rolleiflex 2.8 images taken with rolleiflex 2.8](https://photographylife.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/1-Rolleiflex-2.8-FX-Camera-Review.jpg)
Again, this model was only sold in the US with a mere 1,250 models produced (versus 9,870 model 2.8 A cameras) given issues with post war supplies. 1952) with a new lens the 80mm f/2.8 Zeiss Biometar constructed with 5 elements. Supposedly, the construction of these Tessars was faulty and the Rolleiflex 2.8 A was a commercial flop for Franke & Heidecke which resulted in the creation of the Rolleiflex 2.8 B camera (Feb. One source* states that half of these cameras were returned to Franke & Heidecke as part of a recall. Only sold in the US, this camera with its fast Tessar lens was poorly recieved and was frequently cited as being soft. The camera that featured this lens is known as the Rolleiflex 2.8 A model. After producing many different models with continual upgrades, in December 1949, Franke & Heidecke introduced its first f/2.8 taking lens into a Rolleiflex, namely the 80mm Tessar 2.8 (of pre-war manufacture). That’s no ‘swirl’ in the out of focus top area in the background, but a small breeze making the leaves rustle.īoth images shot on modern Portra 400 film and scanned with an Imacon Photo with 1600dpi.The Rolleiflex Twin Lens Reflex Camera was basically an instant success from the time the first model reached the market in 1929. Contrast is equally low, but of course is easily fixed in post-processing on the computer.īiokor 3.5/75mm lens. But, the Tri-Lausar can be a very capable lens if clean and well-aligned! The shots I’ve seen from the Biokor and Cantor lenses on Beautyflexes look slightly different, they have more of a ‘pop’ in depth of field and sharpness in them. The Beautyflex and its Biokor and Cantor lenses are sometimes met with some dedain, and there is debate that the lenses were in fact identical to the Tri-Lausar lens on early Yashicas, another lens that had a reputation for being lousy. Earlier 2.8 models either had a bayonet on just the taking lens, or no bayonets at all. The bayonets take standard filters and hoods from a Rolleiflex, in the RIII diameter. This camera has bayonets on both the viewing and the taking lens.
![images taken with rolleiflex 2.8 images taken with rolleiflex 2.8](https://www.35mmc.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/2020-05-26-0001-1024x1024.jpg)
These cameras both have the same 75mm 3.5 Biokor lens that Taiyodo Kohki used in those days and design is identical. In the Netherlands, cameras branded ‘Fodorflex’ are frequently seen, and they are Beautyflexes that were ordered by the Rotterdam photographic company ‘Fodor’. The same company sold their cameras under different brand names, some of which were the names of the companies that commissioned the production of the cameras. They were made by a Japanese company called Taiyodo Kohki in the late fifties and early sixties. Very little is known on the Beautyflexes. I was lucky to purchase it online a while ago and was totally amazed when I finally found one in good working condition after looking for it for over a year.
![images taken with rolleiflex 2.8 images taken with rolleiflex 2.8](https://saopaulocamerastyle.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/0073-rolleiflex.jpg)
The Cantor lens on the Beautyflex 2.8 resembles the image quality of the Xenotar lenses on the Rolleiflex 2.8C. The Beautyflex 2.8 was the only TLR (twin Lens Reflex) camera ever to compete with the high-end Rolleiflex models of the 1950s and 1960s, the only non-Rolleiflex ever built that had a 2.8 lens.