Danger: GAS and a Review of the Zeiss 40mm ƒ/4 Distagon CF FLE lens for Hasselblad (Oly 10)

Zeiss 40mm ƒ/4 lens with filter holder and 93mm UV filter in place

40mm Distagon ƒ/4 lens without filter holder

40mm Distagon lens mount. The slotted circle with a red arrow is the shutter cocking screw. The contacts were for the 200 series cameras (not used by my 501CM body)

The GAS Attack

Yes, yes, I know, I utterly lack discipline. I suffered an explosive bout of GAS (Gear Acquisition Syndrome) and bought an ultra-wide lens for my Hasselblad 501CM camera. I already owned a 50mm ƒ/4 Distagon lens, but sometimes I wanted to be closer or be right inside the scene and capture it. 

My 50mm lens provides a diagonal view similar to a 27mm in the 35mm format. This new 40 provides a 22mm view (note, the frame proportions are not the same, square versus rectangle, so these are approximations only). I have already learned that this 40 is hard to use and need to take advantage of its unusually wide view. 

Zeiss made four generations of 40mm lenses to fit Hasselblad V bodies. These are the mid-20th century mechanical bodies that use 120 film, usually for the 6×6 format. It is difficult to find production years, but this is an approximate summary of the 40mm lenses: 

Distagon 40mm ƒ/4 C with Bayonet 104 filter. This is a huge optic, computed in the 1960s. It was a pioneering retrofocus lens at the time. Single coat 1967-1973, multi-coated T* 1974-1982. These C lenses are said to be front heavy and hard to focus. Zeiss also made versions of this 40 for Rollei SL66 and Rollei SLX/6006.

Distagon ƒ/4 40 mm CF (FLE). Newly computer smaller lens with floating element, 93mm drop-in filters, 1982-1998.

Distagon ƒ/4 40 mm CFE (FLE). Newer style body (see the pictures above), 1998-2003.

Distagon ƒ/4 40 mm CFE (IF FLE). Internal focus, final 40mm model (rare and expensive), designed for use with digital backs, 2003-?

Hasselblad also offered a 38mm Biogon type of lens permanently mounted in a special body, the SWC. This is said to be the least distortion super wide lens. I was tempted but wanted a lens that would mount on my 501CM body and let me frame through the viewfinder. 

My 40mm CFE model accepts 93mm unthreaded filters, which are held in place by a retaining ring. These are the same concept as traditional series filters. But the 93mm units are rare, rare, rare. My lens came with a clear UV filter. Amazingly, I saw an orange 93 for sale at KEH and grabbed it instantly. Yellow and green 93s are unobtanium. If you buy a used 40mm lens, make sure that it includes the retaining ring/shade, the items that hold a 93 filter in place. 

Upper ring adjusts the internal floating element

My lens has an internal floating element, meaning one that can be shifted separately from the other elements. A focus dial lets the user select the subject distance. This is designed to improve optical quality for close-ups. Most of my pictures are of mid- or far distance, so I have only needed to adjust this extra setting a few times. The procedure for close subjects:

1. Focus on the intended subject.
2. Adjust the floating element ring to see the best sharpness across the frame.
3. Readjust the main focus ring. But it may not need to be moved at all.

Focus with ultra wide lenses can be tricky with any reflex camera. But with my Acute Matte viewfinder screen, focus pops in and out precisely. I do not know how the view would be with the older, dimmer Hasselblad screens. Minolta developed the technology for these screens, and Minolta camera viewfinders were known for being easy to use. As far as I know, new Acute Matte screens are no longer available, and used screens in good condition sell for around $500 now. Other companies offered brighter screens for the Hasselblad, (e.g., Beattie IntenScreen, BrightScreen) but the consensus is the Acute Mattes are the best. 

Fuji NPS 160

Cylinder man, Olympia Avenue, Olympia

Carpentry shop, alley between State and 4th Avenues, Olympia, Washington

Unused locomotive permanently (?) parked next to Deschutes Parkway SW near Capitol Lake

Black and White

Former Georgia Pacific Building, Capital Way, Olympia

The Seattle architectural firm of Naramore, Bain, Brady & Johanson designed this mid-Century modern building in 1952 for the Georgia Pacific plywood company. The architects made extensive use of plywood in the furnishings and construction. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife now occupies the building. 

West Bay dock on a gloomy afternoon

Summary

Well, I am happy with my new/old 40mm Distagon. Optically, this 40 is amazing. I see minimal light falloff at the corners of the frame, and the resolution is fine center to edge. I can focus it without hunting back and forth with both the 501's fold-up finder or the prism finder. This lens is wonderful with color film (stand by for more examples soon). 

It takes practice to use a lens this wide well. It helps to be right inside your scene. In the same way, I had to learn how to get the best effects from the ultra-wide 30mm lens on my friend's Hasselblad XPan panoramic camera. I also recently bought a 21mm Zeiss Biogon lens for the 35mm Leica - this will require a learning curve, too.

But this 40mm Hasselblad lens is a heavy chunk in my camera bag. I bought a small LowePro backpack to experiment carrying all this stuff. And I have yet to find 93mm yellow or green filters. 

More examples to follow. But no more equipment GAS. I promise.......

Optical Treasure: 1960s Jupiter-8 Lens from the Soviet Union

This will be a short review of my new/old Jupiter-8 50mm ƒ/2 lens from the Soviet Union. It was made for use on Soviet thread-mount cameras, like the FED, but uses almost the same 39mm thread as the original Leica bodies as well as most Japanese post-war rangefinder cameras.

Jupiter-8 lens mounted on my 1949-vintage Leica IIIC camera

Coated front element of Jupiter-8, probably 1962 construction (note: scratch-free and clear)

Many film photographers love the rendition from the classic Zeiss Sonnar 50mm ƒ/2 lens. Dr. Ludwig Bertele at Zeiss Ikon, the German optical giant, first formulated this lens in 1929. The name comes from the word “Sonne,” meaning Sun. Zeiss sold it with their magnificent Contax rangefinder camera in the 1930s and later. This competed with Ernst Leitz's popular Leica thread-mount cameras when equipped with their 5cm ƒ/2 Summar lens or the later 7-element ƒ/2 Summitar lens. 

After WWII, the Soviets packed up and moved remnants of the Zeiss factories, tools, machinery, glass, and technicians to the Soviet Union and painfully began to rebuild their home optical industry. They largely copied the Zeiss optical designs but made minor changes over the years and coated the glass surfaces to reduce flare. They renamed these new lenses Jupiter (ЮПИТЕР). The 50mm ƒ/2 version is the ЮПИТЕР-8. They produced these lenses from the early 1950s until about 1991, when the Soviet economy collapsed. The Jupiter-8 was the standard lens on many Zorki, FED, and Kiev cameras, which were made in the millions. The Soviet lenses had aluminum mounts instead of the superior brass/chrome mounts of the older German production. The Internet is full of detailed reviews of the Jupiter-8, so I will not repeat the same material. 

Recently, the Lomo company reintroduced the Jupiter-3, which is the 50mm ƒ/1.5 model. Note that Zeiss still sells a modern ƒ/1.5 Sonnar lens, an amazing testament to a long-lasting design (but the current lens is significantly different then the original).

Eighty years after the original design, photographers still like the way the Sonnar reveals details on film. Original 1930s and 1940s German examples are seriously expensive. As an alternative, I decided to try a Jupiter-8 and found one from a seller from Arizona. He said he bought it decades ago along with a set of Soviet thread-mount cameras. Arizona - that suggests dry and no fungus. This one was a Version 2 (design PT3060) from 1962 production (earlier is better for Soviet optics). The lens was clean and the coating almost perfect, but it was need of re-lubricating, as do almost all of these old Soviet optics; after all, they are 50+ years old. 

This lens uses a filter mount thread of 40.5mm. This was common for German lenses in the post-war era. I already had a 40.5mm Series VI filter adapter, allowing me to use my Series VI filters. Note that some Japanese lens makers used a filter diameter of 40.0mm for their ƒ/2 or ƒ/2.8 rangefinder lenses. Why did they do that? Was it to sell brand new filters and accessories to buyers of Japanese lenses? Yes, of course!

Here are some Jupiter examples, both when mounted on a digital camera and when used with film on my Leica IIIC and Leica M2 cameras.

Fuji Digital

I attached the Jupiter-8 to my Fuji X-E1 digital camera using a Leica thread mount-Fuji-X adapter. On all of these scenes, I set the Jupiter at ƒ/5.6 and mounted the camera on a tripod to eliminate vibration. This digital camera has an APS-size sensor, so a 50mm lens provides a field of view similar to a 75mm lens on a 35mm camera. Click any frame to expand to 1600 pixels wide.

 

Approaching storm, Kansas City Southern rail yard, Levee Street, Vicksburg (ƒ/5.6)

After the storm, Levee Street, Vicksburg

Kansas City Southern rail yard from the Yazoo Canal levee, ƒ/5.6

Washington Street view north

Pine Street cottages photographed from Belmont Street

Shed on Yazoo Canal levee (no longer extent)

Panatomic-X Film 

I loaded Kodak Panatomic-X film in my Leica IIIC. I thought it appropriate to expose an old-fashioned film in an old camera body mounting an old lens. The package proved to be compact and convenient to use, but I do wish the Jupiter had click-stops on the aperture control. I exposed the Panatomic-X at EI=20, so most photographs required a tripod. I used a Gossen Luna Pro Digital light meter in incident mode for most measurements.

Sondheimer, Louisiana (1/10 ƒ/11.5, medium yellow filter, tripod-mounted)

1101 N. Chestnut Street, Tallulah, Louisiana (1/10 ƒ/8.0)

PoBoy Don's, LA 602 east of Tallulah, Louisiana (1/100 ƒ/4.0, hand-held)

Footbridge from Avenue B over Stouts Bayou, Vicksburg, Feb. 15, 2021 (1/10 ƒ/11.5)

Acadia Place, Vicksburg, Feb. 15, 2021

Kansas City Southern rail tracks at Maloney Circle, Vicksburg National Military Park (1 sec. ƒ/16)

Fairground Street Bridge (¼ sec ƒ8; click to see 2400 pixels)

Fuji Acros 100 Film

Old bus, Moseley Gap Road, Vicksburg (¼ sec. ƒ/16)

Ford Fairlane, Mt. Alban Road, Vicksburg (1/10 sec. ƒ/11.5)

I also finished a roll of Fuji's superb Acros 100 film with the Jupiter-8 lens. Being an ISO 100 film, it is easier to use out in the field than the slow Panatomic-X film (but the examples above are tripod-mounted). 

Kodak BW400CN Film

Tripp's Store, Mount Carmel Road, Chapel Hill, North Carolina

Barn off Greensboro-Chapel Hill Road, Snow Camp, North Carolina (1/100 ƒ/11.5, yellow filter)

Greensboro-Chapel Hill Road, near Snow Camp, North Carolina

I have mixed feelings about Kodak BW400CN film. For these scenes, it worked well. At other times, it looks grainy and gritty. Possibly it does not age well. Regardless, I have used up my last three rolls and will not search for any more.

Leica M2

Farm, FM665 near Alice, Texas (Acros film, 1/60 ƒ/8, medium yellow filter)

I mounted the Jupiter-8 on my Leica M2 using a genuine Leitz thread-mount to M adapter. The fit is perfect, and the rangefinder shows infinity exactly when the lens is set at ∞. The lens is light and convenient, and I can mount Series VI filters using a Tiffen 40.5-VI mount. I like the "look," and the background is smooth. This may be the "bokeh" about which so many internet warriors argue. I guess I have sufficient bokeh..... 

Comments and Summary

 

This old Jupiter-8 is a nice lens, and I like the results on both a digital camera and on black and white film. I think it sings with film. I do not see any obvious barrel or pincushion distortion, and exposure is even across the frame. At apertures wider than ƒ/5.6, sharpness falls off at the corners. On the scale of web pictures, the falloff is barely visible. I do not see (or do not know what to look for) the unique Sonnar rendition in these examples, but my photography friend in the UK said the special magic is at ƒ/2. This Jupiter has less field curvature then my 1949 Leitz Summitar lens. 

The Jupiter has an aluminum body, which is conveniently light weight. The finish is not up to German or Japanese standards, but at least on my sample, the numbers are perfectly legible. No issues.

Many photographers have written about focus shift with Sonnar lenses. I have not seen it yet, but have not taken close-focus photographs at wide aperture. This lens and my Summitar both focus perfectly at infinity using the same Leica-Fuji X adapter on my Fuji X-E1. Therefore, I assume that the Jupiter-8 is correctly adjusted for infinity on a Leica thread-mount camera. Close-up, it may back focus a bit, but I will need to test some more (one day in my non-spare time). UPDATE: I sent it to Mr Brian Sweeney, a Soviet lens expert in the USA, for a cleaning and adjustment for correct focus on Leica cameras.

 

I have also used one of the superb 1960s Canon 50mm ƒ/1.4 lenses. The Canon was more uniform across the field and may have displayed marginally better resolution. The mechanical construction was much better, typical Japanese excellence and precision from the 1960s. Its downside for me was the size of the overall optic. It blocked too much of my viewfinder of my little Leica, and the auxiliary 50mm finder was clumsy. 

 

In summary, the Jupiter-8 lens works well and has a nice rendition on film and digital. It is conveniently compact. When I use my little IIIC camera, I just may end up taking both the Jupiter and Summitar 50mm lenses in my camera kit.

The Long View and some GAS: 250mm Sonnar Lens for the Hasselblad

Dear Readers, a confession: I suffered from GAS a few months ago. No, I did not eat baked beans or cabbage; I had Gear Acquisition Syndrome. All photographers suffer GAS to some degree or another, especially the ones who deny it! Last year, a friend let me use his 150mm Sonnar lens on a Hasselblad, and I enjoyed the longer reach compared to the 75-80mm lenses from past experience with my Rolleiflexes. Afterwards, while perusing eBay (a dangerous habit), I saw a 250 mm ƒ/5.6 Sonnar lens for $87, bid on it, and, amazingly, it was mine. So, for about $100 total, a magnificent Zeiss lens from the best of 1967 West German craftsmanship took up residence in my camera bag.

This is one of the chrome-plated units with single-coated glass, as opposed to the contemporary Zeiss T* multi-coating. Multi-coating has its greatest benefit in reducing flare in complicated wide-angle lenses, especially if they have large front elements, but usually has less noticeable effect with tele lenses. These Zeiss lenses were always built with baffles and edge paint on the elements to reduce flare, so they always performed well, even in glarey light.

But regardless of coating, you should always use a hood, and this is true for any lens. In this case, a Hasselblad Bay 50 hood cost half as much as the lens did. As the years go by, accessories become rare and the prices go way up. Decades ago, real camera stores often had drawers full of camera and lens fittings, filters, and accessories, often at reasonable price. Where have all these things gone? Were they mass disposed in dumpsters over the years or hoarded in cabinets of eBay customers?

The shutter speeds on this old-timer sounded good, although 1 sec. may have been a bit slow. But with some exercise, it smoothed out and appears to be fine as per correctly exposed negatives. The coating was pristine.

Clay Street, Vicksburg, Kodak Tri-X 400 film

Old Courthouse Museum, Vicksburg. The old Clay Street YMCA is on the right. Kodak Tri-X 400 film

Here are two examples taken with the 250mm Sonnar from the 4th floor of the Relax Inn in Vicksburg. The proprietor generously let me go to the balcony with my tripod. The light was misty, accounting for the soft contrast.

Washington Street view north, Vicksburg, Fomapan 100 film

Kansas City Southern (KCS) tracks view east from Mission 66 bridge, Vicksburg, Fomapan 100 film

Yes, it does occasionally snow in Vicksburg. We had two snowfalls this winter. It is such an unusual event, I could not resist recording the scene.

KCS tracks from Baldwin Ferry Road, Vicksburg. Fomapan 100 film

KCS tracks and rail yard from Washington Street, Vicksburg. Fomapan 100 film

So far, I have used the 250 lens on a tripod, thereby letting me stop down to f/8 or smaller. It is sharp, and contrasty - what is not to like? (To see more detail, click any picture to expand to 1600 pixels wide). Next bit of GAS: some Bayonet 50 filters, and maybe one of the 120mm lenses.

Hasselblad advertisement, Popular Photography, March 1981, p. 72.

UPDATE May 2021: The 250mm Sonnar continues to serve well. It is a spectacular lens.

Photographing Decay with the Rolleiflex Camera

Introduction

Dear Readers, in the previous article, I described the Leica cameras that served me well for decades. This article is about my Rolleiflex twin-lens reflex (TLR) cameras. I bought my first one in Houston, Texas, in 1980. I wanted to try medium format film and thought about a Hasselblad camera. Instead, I decided to buy a used Rolleiflex, use it for awhile, and then "move up" to the Hasselblad. Well, 25 years later, I was still using the Rolleiflex and never bothered with the 'blad. In the early 1980s, you could still buy a brand new Rolleiflex 2.8F from the New York vendors for about $2000. That was serious money in 1980, but afterwards, I, and many other photographers, wish they had bought one while they still could. Franke & Heidecke went bankrupt in 1981 and went through a series of reorganizations. Camera production continued at a low pace until about 2014.

This was my 1956-vintage Rolleiflex 3.5E (type 1) with a Schneider 75mm ƒ/3.5 Xenotar taking lens. A Rolleiflex used 120-size film (introduced by Kodak in 1903) and yielded 12 2¼×2¼-inch frames (actual size: 54×54mm). With the large film area and top-quality lenses, you could make beautiful large prints with long tonal range, clearly superior to 35mm.

Early-1960s Rolleiflex advertisement

Undated photograph of technicians in the Franke & Heidecke factory

Franke & Heidecke emphasized the finest craftsmanship and precision. Taking and viewing lenses were matched for exact focal length. Up through the 1960s, every camera was film-tested at the works.

Viewfinder

Why two lenses? This page from the instruction book may help. The lower lens projects the image on the film plane. The upper lens (a simpler optical design) projects the image to a mirror, and the user has the choice of looking down into the waist-lever finder, attaching a prism on top for eye-level viewing, or using several other viewing procedures (see the picture). These TLR designs were lighter and more rugged than cameras with a moving mirror (single-lens reflex models). Also, the TLR was quiet, so it was perfect for travel and street use. Models were not intimidated by a huge projecting cyclopean lens staring at them (digital SLR users with your macho penile zoom lenses: try to remember that and try to be a bit subtle). Note: the taking and viewing lenses must be matched in focal length perfectly. The technicians made sure of this in the factory.

Accessories

Franke & Heidecke made a large number of clever accessories for special applications, like taking close-ups (and, of course, to separate you from your cash). The owner manuals were detailed and described fundamentals of depth-of-field, focus, shutter speeds, and subject movement. Photographers were expected to be interested in optical and photographic fundamentals back then (hint to the Instagram and digital generation).

Everything for Rolleiflex was absolutely the best quality. Lenses were individually tested before installation in a body. Accessories fit in nice little leather cases.

Filters were anti-reflection coated and were loose-fit in their mounts to prevent stress warping. The two aluminum devices in the back row were close-up adapters called Rolleinars. The diopter went on the taking (lower) lens and a view converter went on the upper (viewing) lens. It adjusted the field of view to coincide perfectly with what would appear on film. These were the bayonet II size. Rollei made filters in Bay I, II, III, and IV for different models of cameras. Twinlensreflex.eu has one of the best organized lists of Rollei filter types and sizes.

This little leather case contained a hood, two Rolleinars, and 5 filters. Lens accessories were attached by a bayonet mount, so the operation was quick and positive. Today, most companies have reverted to screw-in filters, which are slower and more clumsy (but cheaper). The better Zeiss lenses still use bayonet filters.

This the quick release for use on a tripod. You pushed the lever down and the camera slid into the rails.

Rolleiwide lenses

Because the lens in a Rolleiflex was fixed, the company introduced a wide-angle camera with a 55mm ƒ/4 Zeiss Distagon lens in 1961. They also made a telephoto model with a 135mm ƒ/4 Zeiss Sonnar lens. The page above shows the wide camera and an interesting comparison of film sizes. The Rolleiflex could fit adapters to make exposures that were 6×4.5 size, but most people opted to use the full 6×6 size. This page is a scan from the 1961 catalogue from R.F. Hunter Ltd., London (from wheeldon.plus.com). The Rolleiwides were rare and now sell for serious prices at camera auctions. But, if you want one, you can buy a brand new wide for $5,575 from DHW-Fototechnik GmbH, marketed by Rolleiflex USA. Cool, I want one.

Standard Rolleiflex Lenses

Back to more ordinary models: this was my 1964 3.5F (type 3) with the Zeiss 5-element Planar lens. I bought it as a real beater in the early 1990s, but the lens was perfect and optical quality amazing. Even the selenium light meter worked, although I usually used an external hand-held meter. The wheels on either side of the lenses control aperture and shutter speed and are coupled to the light meter. The meter reading is seen in the plastic window next to the focus knob. Late 1960s and 1970s 3.5F models used a 6-element Planar lens or a 6-element Xenotar lens. Both were very similar (or equal) optically and most historians claim these had the same optical quality as the 5-element versions.

Rolleiflex lenses (courtesy Antiquecameras.net)

I used three Rolleiflex cameras over the years:

• 3.5E (type 1) - 75mm ƒ/3.5 Xenotar lens, serial 1782610 (approx. 1956, 5-element lens, with light meter)
• 3.5F (type 3) - 75mm ƒ/3.5 Planar lens, serial 2295813 (approx. 1964, 5-element lens, 120 film only)
• 3.5E (type 2) - 75mm ƒ/3.5 Xenotar lens, serial 1860157 (approx. 1957 or 1958, 5-element lens, no light meter)

The first two I stupidly sold when I thought digital would take over the photo world. But I missed the Rolleiflex and bought the last 3.5E in 2016. This proved to be the highest resolution of all three. All parts of its production chain must have been just perfect. I love this camera and it is fun to use.

Note: any Rolleiflex that you buy will need a cleaning and overhaul unless the seller can prove that it was overhauled recently. 

Film

This is an example of some of the film I used in my cameras. The Delta 100 is very fine-grain and shows amazing detail. I still regularly use long-discontinued Kodak Panatomic-X film, one of the finest black and white films ever made.

Newer Rollei Cameras

This was the 2.8GX from 1987-2000. It had a through-the-lens meter and multi-coated 80mm ƒ/2.8 lens (although the older ones did not suffer from flare problems). Nice machine.

Rollei also made the superb but expensive and complicated single-lens SL66 camera. The lenses were the finest available from Schneider and Zeiss. The SL66 was bulky and heavy, and most US photographers preferred the Hasselblad camera from Sweden. As of 2017, I am not sure if anyone can repair SL66 cameras. When photographers preferred a reflex-type of camera for studio use, many US photographers used the Mamiya RB67 or RZ67. These were large and bulky, but much less expensive than the SL66.

Examples

If you see my film-era photographs in a square format, they were taken with one of my Rolleiflexes. This is a residence room in the old YMCA on Clay Street in Vicksburg, Mississippi, taken on Panatomic-X film (I braced the camera on an old bench).

This is Cottage Grove in South Chicago. Wow, rough neighborhood (Tri-X Prof. film).

An old-fashioned railroad station in Axaia, western Peloponnese of Greece, Tri-X professional film (exp. at EI 250) with a green filter.

The Vicksburg trash clean-up crew, 2003

Rollei Photographers

Have you seen recent pictures of Hollywood royalty? Most paparazzi snaps of movie starlets are terrible because they are taken by tall men with huge digital cameras held at their eye level, so they are looking down at their shorter victims. In contrast, Rolleiflex portraits in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s gave a well-proportioned look to their subjects. Rather than the "tall guy using a eye-level digital SLR with a short lady" look, where her head is huge and feet diminish downwards, in a Rolleiflex portrait, the body was centered and evenly-proportioned. Tall men had a somewhat heroic look. Some recent micro 4/3 cameras have a folding LCD screen, and you can hold them at chest level, just like a Rolleiflex. I no longer have my Rolleiflexes, but I often set my digital cameras to the square format to emulate that viewpoint.

Marilyn Monroe (from Library of Congress)

Speaking of Hollywood royalty, here is Marilyn Monroe with her Rolleiflex. The photograph was taken by John Vachon in Canada in 1953. Look magazine donated the prints to the Library of Congress in 1971. Another interesting web page with many pictures of celebrities and their cameras is Vintage Everyday.

Elizabeth Taylor with her Rolleiflex

It looks like Elizabeth Taylor used one, as well.

OK, Matt Damon may be a bit too close to focus on Ben's tongue, but you get the idea. It's a tele Rolleiflex!

Fred Astaire is just the right distance from Audrey Hepburn in Funny Face (1957). This is a publicity still photograph. I do not remember the Leica being used in the movie, but in several scenes, he is wearing three Rolleiflexes.

Here we have 007 (Sean Connery) on the ferry boat on the Bosporus, asking the lovely Tatiana Romanova about the Lektor decoding machine. But his Rolleiflex is really a tiny tape recorder (miniaturization 1962 stye). This is a scene from the classic From Russia with Love (1962), the best Bond film.

Here is Ingrid Bergman near Mount Vesuvius, in a scene from Journey to Italy, a 1954 film directed by Roberto Rossellini.

Serious photographers still use the Rolleiflex. Kodak, Ilford, Foma, Fuji, and Shanghai make 120-size film. Until recently, you could still buy a brand new 2.8GX model with superb multi-coated lenses and a modern built-in light meter. Mike Johnston wrote about "The Last Rolleiflex" in The Online Photographer.

More examples

Old railroad pilings in Crosby, Mississippi (Kodak Panatomic-X film)

Road leading from gravel quarry off N. Washington Street, Vicksburg, Mississippi (Panatomic-X film)

Long-unused cement silos, Rte 3, Redwood, Mississippi (Panatomic-X film)

Flood debris, Eagle Lake (Panatomic-X film, Rolleiflex 3.5E Xenotar)

Update June 2016: I have been using black and white film more and more and bought another Rolleiflex. Of course I should have never sold my earlier ones, typical dumb decision. Some first tests with Tri-X film in Vicksburg are here (click the link). Prices for clean late-model Rolleiflexes are rising steeply as on 2016-2017. Filters and accessories are ofter hard to find.

Update March 2017: Some nice magazine covers from Shashin Kōgyō (写真工業), a monthly Japanese magazine about the photographic industry.

Addendum July 2019: Here is a famous lady with the gold-plated commemorative version of the wonderful and clever little Rollei 35 camera. Readers, you know the identity of this lady.....

Ur-Rollei 35 gold and lizard skin commemorative model