The Rolleiflex T: Rollei's great success

[Eddie Vaughan]

Advice to prospective Rolleiflex TLR buyers often warns against the Rolleiflex T for reason that its lens and build quality were inferior to other Rollei models, including even some Rolleicords and the earlier Automat models. The T's Tessar lens is soft compared with the Planars and Xenotars on other Rolleiflex models, the critics usually point out, and there were also weaknesses in the camera;s construction due to cost-cutting measures and the use of plastic components. Some critics have gone further, claiming that Yashica and Minolta TLRs might be a better choice.

If we look at production figures for all Rolleiflex TLR models, such as are shown in the Rolleiclub TLR model history pages, then a different picture emerges. Beween 1958 and 1961, 127,000 Rolleiflex T cameras were produced, and this easily exceeds the production figures for the 3.5F (81,500 units) and 2.8F (82,800) models. If we take production figures as an indication of demand, and therefore also as a measure of a camera's success in the market, then there can be absolutely no doubt that the Rolleiflex T was the most successful Rolleiflex model ever produced. Still more revealing, more Rolleiflex T cameras were produced than the total number of Rolleiflex 2.8A, 2.8B, 2.8. 2.8D, and 2.8E models combined. These facts should give critics reason to pause before dismissing the Rolleiflex T as a relatively poor camera compared with other Rolleiflex models.

Admittedly, the customer is not always right, but the fact remains that the much maligned Rolleiflex T was then the strong preference among Rolleiflex buyers. This should count for something in present comparisons, and we should give the Rolleiflex T its due. It was the most successful Rolleiflex model ever. I have one, and I never hesitate to recommend it.

Eddie Vaughan

[rayhf]

Yes but, Eddie.........................

If my experience is anything to go by, I could only afford 'Cords when I first purchased a Rollei camera in my 20's (50 years ago). I always wanted a full-blooded 'Flex and then when I could afford one about 20 years ago, I went straight to a 2.8F. I now have a 3.5F. I believe that the T was a clever bit of marketing on the part of Rollei to satisfy the demand for more functionality at a lower price point that the full-blown lever wind models. I think it was inevitable that some of the engineering was simplified to achieve that and, perhaps, the T was not as durable as the top-of-the-range 'Flexes - but I agree that they were worthy of the manufacturer's name.

Ray

[Eddie Vaughan]

You are right, Ray, about price being an important factor in the success of the Rolleiflex T, and most likely also right to suggest that many buyers would have preferred a Rolleiflex 2.8F if they had been able to afford one. However, price does not lead us logically to conclude that the Rolleiflex T is a poor camera that should be avoided, which happens to be the advice that is so often given to prospective Rolleiflex buyers.

There will always be a large difference in price and sophistication between a Rolleiflex T and a Rolleiflex 2.8F. The Rolleiflex T was designed to be a cheaper than the F models, just as the simple Corolla was designed by Toyota to be cheaper than the Lexus. That is not to imply that the Corolla is therefore a poor choice. I believe the Corolla has been the best selling car in automotive history. The Rolleiflex T might be judged against other TLRs on the same criterion; it is easily the most successful model ever produced by Rollei.

There is one further point. Although I see frequent criticisms of its design weaknesses and cheap construction, I have not yet seen any evidence to prove that the Rolleiflex T has to be serviced or repaired more often than other Rolleiflex models. Have I missed something? Perhaps I have simply been lucky with my own.

Eddie Vaughan