Rolleiflex indecision...

hexiplex

hexiplex

Well-known
Local time
10:28 AM
Joined
Nov 20, 2010
Messages
293
Location
Sweden
View My Gallery
So, the time has come to find myself a birthday present, and really, I've already found three of them, but unfortunately, I'll only be able to afford one.

  • Rolleiflex 2.8 C Xenotar 80/2.8 great condition, with case - $1,186
  • Rolleiflex 3.5 MX-EVS Tessar 75/3.5 good condition, minor wear, recent service - $700
  • Rolleiflex 3,5 F Planar 75/3.5 good condition except missing plastic cover over lightmeter, with case - $600
  • Rolleiflex T Tessar 75/3.5 meter broken, normal wear - $550
  • Rolleiflex Automat X Tessar 75/3.5 - $390
  • Rolleicord V Xenar 75/3.5 "mint" in case, box and manual - $530

So, what to do? I am really lusting for the 2.8C, primarily because of the faster lens. I do feel it would be stretching my budget a bit too far though, but it is still within reach, which is terribly bothersome. Would I miss the 2.8 if I went with one of the cheaper, 3.5 alternatives? Would I loose ability to maintain a shallow DOF, or will the lens performance suffer any? The MX-EVS has caught my eye as the prime candidate behind the 2.8C, or heck, considering the price it's almost ahead of it. But I would welcome everyone to describe, or to illustrate with photographs the characteristics of the various lens offerings as well as share experience and advice.

Kind regards,

Soon to be birthday boy.
 
Last edited:
The 3.5F planar at $600 is a good price in this currnt market (quite good). You will definetly not miss the 1/2 stop of a 2.8 for DOF or otherwise. I would take it if you are serious. Sounds like you plan to use it wide open often. A planar or Xenotar are your very best choices.
 
2.8C is overpriced IMO (it's an older cameras with some design quirks such as locking tabs for aperture and shutter speed rings), but then I'm not after the collector quality and always buy the user cameras 🙂

If you do a lot of available light work though, a 2.8 lens is your best bet, but the Rolleiflex 3,5 F Planar being just a tad bit slower is expected to deliver sharper photos when stopped down (a superb machine for the landscapes). Great price btw. I have a 3.5E Planar which I love and a 2.8C Xenotar (very user-grade), which I haven't got used to yet.

There's plenty of information on the internet (make sure to read the user manuals to learn about the subtle differences between the models). You will also find some rave reviews of the Rolleiflex T or 3.5 MX-EVS Tessar - I fully agree with them, but you can't beat a 3.5 E or F for that sort of price.
 
f16sunshine said:
The 3.5F planar at $600 is a good price in this currnt market (quite good). You will definetly not miss the 1/2 stop of a 2.8 for DOF or otherwise. I would take it if you are serious. Sounds like you plan to use it wide open often. A planar or Xenotar are your very best choices.
Click to expand...

+1

The 3.5F offers better balace and handling than any 2.8, but the 2.8 is special in that it is the 2.8 Rollie with the extra aperture blades for smooth OOF.

My pick woulf be the 3.5F though.

Cal
 
All of the cameras on your list are really good and can take marvelous images in good hands. F/2.8 against f/3.5 is not a reason to buy a MF. You get shallow DOF at f/8 with a 6x6 camera. Another thing to remember is that you really need a lot of accessories like a lens hood and filters and such. Bay-1 accessories are easiest to find and least expensive. Bay-3 are the most expensive. Like 3 x the price. You do the math.
 
Moriturii said:
Why don't you get a Minolta Autocord?
Click to expand...

I've no idea of it's qualities, I am leaning (thats an understatement) towards Rolleiflex heavily mainly because of my experiences with the SL66 and the 80mm Planar. But please, do tell me about the strengths of the Autocord.

Hm, will indeed be using the camera wide open quite a lot, so the Planar on the 3.5F is looking more likely now, assuming it is sharper wide open than the others? And will the missing plastic over the meter matter much? I do intend to use an external meter, but internal metering is always nice to have.
 
I'd go for the 3.5F, maybe because I have it myself 🙂

I've seen every now and then those plastic meter cover spares available on eBay. I'm sure they could be found elsewhere as well.
 
Add me to the chorus advising the 3.5F. That's a great price as they are running close to $1000 these days.

And wow, that 2.8C and that MX-EVS are WAY overpriced. Stay away from those.
 
That price on the 2.8C is out of hand. Even though I have one and love it, it isn't worth more than a 3.5F. I can't say if the half stop would be an issue for you since I don't know how you shoot. I might have used 2.8 on three shots over 100 rolls? And none of them were keepers.

None of the other prices up there seem reasonable except for the 3.5F.

Get the 3.5F. Use the spare $500 for a new cover and a lens hood, etc.
 
Last edited:
Mablo said:
All of the cameras on your list are really good and can take marvelous images in good hands. F/2.8 against f/3.5 is not a reason to buy a MF. You get shallow DOF at f/8 with a 6x6 camera. Another thing to remember is that you really need a lot of accessories like a lens hood and filters and such. Bay-1 accessories are easiest to find and least expensive. Bay-3 are the most expensive. Like 3 x the price. You do the math.
Click to expand...

I agree with Mablo, based on my own experience. You will be surprised how much DOF you get with a MF camera. Taking portrait shots at f/2.8 is quite a challenge for example. You might rather opt for faster film than a faster lens if you are after shots in low light .
 
The 2.8C was the last one with beautiful round aperture and therefore some believe it produces a nicer Bokeh than the later Rollies. I had the 2.8C for many years, but when working quick I really missed the EVS, which was only introduced on as from the 2.8D, the one which is quite rare (I had an Ikoflex with EVS that's how I learned to appreciate it). Further if you want to use it inhouse with available light, go for the 2.8C.
 
Last edited:
Are all these from the same dealer?
Seems the 3.5F is the only sensibly priced item which leads me to think that there's more wrong with it than just the meter cover.
Be sure to shine a light through the lens on bulb and run a test roll to check the rollers and advance mechanism.

If it doesn't check out, consider your birthday as the day you start looking for a rollei. 🙂

Oh, happy b-day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

K
Rolleiflex 2.8E front panel removal - stuck
Replies
7
Views
593
kodachrome25
K
Velorum
TLR owner once again! Yashica 'A'
Replies
10
Views
932
Retro-Grouch
Retro-Grouch
C
What size filter for a 5 cm f/3.5 black and nickel Zeiss Tessar for Contax
Replies
17
Views
2K
Cascadilla
C
lxmike
Not a gambling man but I bought a Rolleiflex 2.8E, blind.
Replies
13
Views
2K
Bolo Kukus
B
gzisis69
Which digital camera with 28mm
2 3 4
Replies
60
Views
7K
Bolo Kukus
B
Back
Top Bottom