Peter_S
Peter_S
Hello!
I am close to investing into a Rolleiflex. After some research I narrowed it down to 2.8C and 2.8E. I mainly intend to use the camera alongside my M6 on travels and some mountain trips. My typical photography is landscape but also culture, people and some low-light (hence the 2.8) applications. It should be rugged, reliable, and work well in cold temperatures. I do not need a meter, I meter externally anyways.
The first two things I would like to know:
- the 2.8C is lighter than the 2.8E, correct? That is the main draw to the 2.8C.
- Any differences in handling the cameras in respect to changing film, handling with gloves, shooting with gloves?
- both take 28.5mm slip-on filters?
An other issue is the screen. As far as I understood, the 2.8E screen is better - how much better? I assume I will use the original screen for a while to see if a TLR works for me, then replace the screen with a brighter screen...lots of users seem to think this is a good idea regardless of which model.
I am tempted to get a split-screen focus screen, as I am very accustomed to and comfortable with RF-focusing, and it appears to be quicker. I think (?) that the replacement of screens is easier on the 2.8E than 2.8C, to the point that one would not have to send it in. Correct, or would I need to send it in anyways (I do not know yet who would do that in Austria or Germany, but I am sure it can be done).
On the other hand, the 2.8E screen may be just fine and more rugged, saving me any modifications. I know this will be subjective.
Pricewise - a metered (Heavier?) 2.8E would cost me about 60 Euros more than a 2.8C. Condition of both seems good, both are from good dealers.
Any input is appreciated!
Best,
Peter
I am close to investing into a Rolleiflex. After some research I narrowed it down to 2.8C and 2.8E. I mainly intend to use the camera alongside my M6 on travels and some mountain trips. My typical photography is landscape but also culture, people and some low-light (hence the 2.8) applications. It should be rugged, reliable, and work well in cold temperatures. I do not need a meter, I meter externally anyways.
The first two things I would like to know:
- the 2.8C is lighter than the 2.8E, correct? That is the main draw to the 2.8C.
- Any differences in handling the cameras in respect to changing film, handling with gloves, shooting with gloves?
- both take 28.5mm slip-on filters?
An other issue is the screen. As far as I understood, the 2.8E screen is better - how much better? I assume I will use the original screen for a while to see if a TLR works for me, then replace the screen with a brighter screen...lots of users seem to think this is a good idea regardless of which model.
I am tempted to get a split-screen focus screen, as I am very accustomed to and comfortable with RF-focusing, and it appears to be quicker. I think (?) that the replacement of screens is easier on the 2.8E than 2.8C, to the point that one would not have to send it in. Correct, or would I need to send it in anyways (I do not know yet who would do that in Austria or Germany, but I am sure it can be done).
On the other hand, the 2.8E screen may be just fine and more rugged, saving me any modifications. I know this will be subjective.
Pricewise - a metered (Heavier?) 2.8E would cost me about 60 Euros more than a 2.8C. Condition of both seems good, both are from good dealers.
Any input is appreciated!
Best,
Peter
RedLion
Come to the Faire
I would get an "E" for "F" model. Harry Fleenor produced a pdf with advice on buying a Rollie and while I'm not comfortable quoting it extensively (it's not a free doc), he did have this to day about the "C" and "D" models:
The C and D models have plastic shutter release locks and sync. Connector locks. These break easily and are not replaceable because these parts are no longer available.
The C and D models have plastic shutter release locks and sync. Connector locks. These break easily and are not replaceable because these parts are no longer available.
morback
Martin N. Hinze
Hallo Peter!
I have two 3.5E that are different. One has the removable hood, the other doesn't. So even within versions you have sub-versions.
Now to put it simply, the original screen suck. They're fine for daylight shooting, but as soon as you get indoors you will maybe only see the center 20% clearly enough to attempt focusing:
Basic Screen:
Basic Screen + Rolleigrid:
New screen:
That was a bright and sunny day outside. EV 15. Imagine now indoors, when you easily lose 9EVs...
That said, the new screen is not easy to focus for me. I might be too used to split image focusing, and with the Rollie I tend to hunt for focus or just scale focus. I think in that regard, the original screen might have been a bit better. So maybe your split screen idea is a good idea.
I would not bother with any metered version. In fact, I removed the metering extras from one of my bodies. It makes it bulky for no reason, and you lose a useable film reminder dial.
Those guys work just fine in the cold. I did the Swiss alps last december and it was fine. But there's no opening medium format rolls with winter gloves... Unless maybe you pre-open them at home and just rubber band them?
Hope this helps.
m.
p.s.: might do a Caspian to Black Sea trip this fall. Or just walk about Georgia. Seems to be a beautiful place.
I have two 3.5E that are different. One has the removable hood, the other doesn't. So even within versions you have sub-versions.
Now to put it simply, the original screen suck. They're fine for daylight shooting, but as soon as you get indoors you will maybe only see the center 20% clearly enough to attempt focusing:
Basic Screen:
Basic Screen + Rolleigrid:
New screen:
That was a bright and sunny day outside. EV 15. Imagine now indoors, when you easily lose 9EVs...
That said, the new screen is not easy to focus for me. I might be too used to split image focusing, and with the Rollie I tend to hunt for focus or just scale focus. I think in that regard, the original screen might have been a bit better. So maybe your split screen idea is a good idea.
I would not bother with any metered version. In fact, I removed the metering extras from one of my bodies. It makes it bulky for no reason, and you lose a useable film reminder dial.
Those guys work just fine in the cold. I did the Swiss alps last december and it was fine. But there's no opening medium format rolls with winter gloves... Unless maybe you pre-open them at home and just rubber band them?
Hope this helps.
m.
p.s.: might do a Caspian to Black Sea trip this fall. Or just walk about Georgia. Seems to be a beautiful place.
Dan Daniel
Well-known
From info on the web, the weight difference between the C and E appears minimal. Remove the meter and it will be even less (and yes, get without or get it removed- the extra bump will make packing harder). As bicyclists will often point out when someone starts obsessing over grams, go take a leak and lose half a pound, for free!
I can't speak to difference of handling, but everything on an E sure looks like my C.
Both take Bayonet III/ Bay III (3) which is much larger in diameter than 28.5.
Screens can be changed. Don't let it be the decider. Some Es have removable hoods, some don't. All Cs need the hood unscrewed and most likely focus adjusted for different thickness screens.
The C hasa ten-bladed aperture, the E has a five-bladed aperture.
I am still waiting ofr the 58 year old plastic pieces on my C to break. If they do, I lose the shutter lock. I'll deal, or I'll make a replacement- the mechanism is pretty simple and not precision.
All in all, I would suggest that you get an E, either without a meter or have a repairman remove the meter for another camera. Since a TLR is new and you aren't certain if it is the right camera for you, an E is easier to re-sell.
I can't speak to difference of handling, but everything on an E sure looks like my C.
Both take Bayonet III/ Bay III (3) which is much larger in diameter than 28.5.
Screens can be changed. Don't let it be the decider. Some Es have removable hoods, some don't. All Cs need the hood unscrewed and most likely focus adjusted for different thickness screens.
The C hasa ten-bladed aperture, the E has a five-bladed aperture.
I am still waiting ofr the 58 year old plastic pieces on my C to break. If they do, I lose the shutter lock. I'll deal, or I'll make a replacement- the mechanism is pretty simple and not precision.
All in all, I would suggest that you get an E, either without a meter or have a repairman remove the meter for another camera. Since a TLR is new and you aren't certain if it is the right camera for you, an E is easier to re-sell.
David Murphy
Veteran
Both are great cameras and the differences are minor. Both the Planar and Xenotar produce stunning images. The main thing is to get one in good condition with particular attention being paid to the condition of the taking lens. Any good technician can CLA a Rolleiflex for a modest fee, so shutter problems, etc. are easy to take care of need be.
I don't think this is correct.
I have never seen a 2.8D with the plastic locks. Every image I have ever seen of one has metal types. My own D has these also. It's not uncommon for Cs to have one or both missing; my own C does not have the PC connector lock. I have wondered how hard it would be to reproduce these but I suspect the cost of tooling up for a high quality replacement of a limited run of items would put people off price wise.
The C is better value for money. It's also a historically significant model for Rollei.
What are the finest lenses Rollei ever fitted to their TLRs? I don't want to start a flame war between Tessar/Xenar owners and others, because, honestly, I have never met a Rollei TLR I couldn't love at first sight--but most would respond that the Xenotar and Planar lenses are the best of the best. Well, both these lenses debuted on the 2.8C model Rolleiflex.
I think the out of focus effects of all the lens and shutter types, from what I have seen, are wonderful, but I do confess I like the way the shutter of the C renders any out of focus highlights as circles, instead of pentagons.
Do you want a built in light meter? I prefer without, personally, and usually incident meter with a hand held meter. The E models have a cover plate for the meter cell if a meter isn't fitted to a particular camera. One of the things I like about the older models like the B, C & D is that because meters were not fitted, they have a simple "Rolleiflex" plate in front of the viewfinder assembly. I therefore feel that, aesthetically, they are the most beautiful Rolleiflexes. Maybe the D, with those aforementioned chrome metal locks, is the prettiest of all?
Functionally, other differences between the two include the EV system, which is fitted to the D & E model but not the C.
The Synchro Compur shutter fitted to the C is a Compur Rapid type with booster spring for 1/500. There are several implications in practical use as a result of this. Firstly, it's a reliable shutter. However it's not possible to select, or de-select, the maximum speed after the camera has been wound and the shutter is cocked. In use it is not a major problem, because the C model was also the first to be fitted with double exposure capability. I have had to train myself not to wind my C on after shooting. If, in the rare instance I need to change on or off of 1/500, I simply stop the lens down to f/22, fire the shutter with the taking lens covered, and use the double exposure release to cock the shutter again after I have re-set it. So there is a work around, but, it is important not to try to adjust on or off 1/500 if it is cocked because it can damage the shutter.
Secondly, and also related to 1/500, you mustn't set the self timer with 1/500 selected. It will lock the shutter up. Because I do some landscape I will often use the timer to trip the shutter without bumping the camera, so maybe I use a timer more than some. During my first roll with it, I set the timer with 1/500 selected and the timer wouldn't release, and the shutter wouldn't trip. I ended up disregarding my own advice, and shifted the shutter speed down to 1/250 (against the not-insubstantial tension from the booster spring) so I could free the shutter. Luckily, I got away with it but it's not recommended. In any event, unless you need a group portrait in full sun, 1/500 should never be required with timer, but, FYI--it will lock the shutter up.
The last point regarding the C shutter installation is that, it does indeed feature a wonderful ten bladed aperture which keeps the lens opening nearly perfectly round at all stops. However. It also uses the "old" scale of shutter speeds; Ie 1/500; 1/250; 1/100; 1/50; 1/25; 1/10; 1/5; 1/2; 1s; Bulb. The good news is that the shutter can be set to select intermediate speeds Eg. 1/125 or 1/60. According to page 24 of the original owners manual for the C: "Intermediate speeds may be set at any points between 1 sec. and 1/10th sec. and between 1/25th and 1/250th sec."
The most common lens fitted to the C is the Xenotar. A wonderful lens but sadly coatings are often less than perfect. At least the front cell is a single piece of glass, unlike the 2.8 Planar types, so re-coating isn't nearly as difficult or, presumably, as expensive as removal is a straightforward affair. You need to check condition closely though, for scratches or coating deterioration.
The last point is that the E model has a nifty sliding depth of field strip inboard of the focus knob linked to the aperture control. So as you adjust the aperture the depth of field range automatically alters. The C has a traditional printed scale showing the numbers of all the stops next to their depth of field. For landscape use I think the old design is actually better suited to hyperfocal focussing because you can see the DOF for all the stops, not just the one that is selected. YMMV.
The most important factor should be condition. Apart from the Rolleimagic models I don't think there is any such thing as a bad Rollei TLR model (and there are a few die hard who still use the Magics!). I'd love a pre-war model one day, because I believe they all have their own appeal. So by all means look for the preferred model type you want (you can't really go wrong with any of them) but condition is always key.
Regards,
Brett
sreed2006
Well-known
@Brett - What an outstanding write-up! Thanks for taking the time to do this.
One other difference I can mention is that the magnifier lens for the focusing screen on the 2.8C can be adjusted up and down, as well as tilted, to adjust for ones particular eyesight. While that sounds like a good idea, in practice it does not work out very well, since it can easily be bumped out of place when you put your eye close to it while focusing, and you have to move it back into place. The magnifier lens on the 2.8E stays in position once put there.
One other difference I can mention is that the magnifier lens for the focusing screen on the 2.8C can be adjusted up and down, as well as tilted, to adjust for ones particular eyesight. While that sounds like a good idea, in practice it does not work out very well, since it can easily be bumped out of place when you put your eye close to it while focusing, and you have to move it back into place. The magnifier lens on the 2.8E stays in position once put there.
Dan Daniel
Well-known
Dang, the adjustable magnifier on the 2.8C is my favorite part. I thought I was buying it for the 10-bladed aperture, but now it's the ability to both focus and see the whole screen without glasses that is the best part for me.
To each his own. The EVS system seems to be another 'feature' that can polarize people. At least they added a way to disable it
To each his own. The EVS system seems to be another 'feature' that can polarize people. At least they added a way to disable it
Leigh Youdale
Well-known
The Tasmanian Devil has just about got it all covered.
Basically, for me, the weight issue is about the 2.8 lens versus the 3.5 lens. Both lenses (of either make) are pretty much on a par but the extra glass in the 2.8 does add to the weight. The bodies weigh in almost identically.
Meters. Two of mine have the built in meters. I mostly use a hand-held meter but I wouldn't reject a body on either count. The meters are easily removed and/or fitted and there are instructions around somewhere from Rollei on how to DIY. But don't get excited about it - the meter component adds just 10mm to the overall width and only where the focus knob is fitted. No big deal and really weighs nothing. My meters still work OK.
Screens: My vote would be for an E2 model over the C. Removable hood is one advantage amongst others detailed in other posts above, and the depth of field indicator Brett mentioned is quite useful. I've fitted all mine with Maxwell screens. Not the cheapest but a huge improvement on the originals. All three have the split central central spot (which I find quite handy) and all have gridlines - helps maintaining verticals and horizontals!
Filters: Bay III is the size you want for a 2.8 lens. They are not slip on - they are Bayonet fittings (hence "Bay") and are just on 46mm diameter in total - probably 45.5mm. I think if you can't find them easily you should look up Fotodiox on EBay for a Bay III adaptor that will allow the use of third party screw-in filters. I've had to do that for my Rollei Wide Angle which takes Bay IV attachments (quite rare, it seems) and coupled with Tiffen filters they work well.
Basically, for me, the weight issue is about the 2.8 lens versus the 3.5 lens. Both lenses (of either make) are pretty much on a par but the extra glass in the 2.8 does add to the weight. The bodies weigh in almost identically.
Meters. Two of mine have the built in meters. I mostly use a hand-held meter but I wouldn't reject a body on either count. The meters are easily removed and/or fitted and there are instructions around somewhere from Rollei on how to DIY. But don't get excited about it - the meter component adds just 10mm to the overall width and only where the focus knob is fitted. No big deal and really weighs nothing. My meters still work OK.
Screens: My vote would be for an E2 model over the C. Removable hood is one advantage amongst others detailed in other posts above, and the depth of field indicator Brett mentioned is quite useful. I've fitted all mine with Maxwell screens. Not the cheapest but a huge improvement on the originals. All three have the split central central spot (which I find quite handy) and all have gridlines - helps maintaining verticals and horizontals!
Filters: Bay III is the size you want for a 2.8 lens. They are not slip on - they are Bayonet fittings (hence "Bay") and are just on 46mm diameter in total - probably 45.5mm. I think if you can't find them easily you should look up Fotodiox on EBay for a Bay III adaptor that will allow the use of third party screw-in filters. I've had to do that for my Rollei Wide Angle which takes Bay IV attachments (quite rare, it seems) and coupled with Tiffen filters they work well.
skipjack
Established
Whichever you decide I highly recommend the Maxwell screen. Makes the Rolleiflex as much improved camera to use and enjoy. Significant difference worth the money.
thompsonks
Well-known
If I were planning to travel with a Leica M, I certainly wouldn't buy a 2.8 Rollei for low-light situations. If it's to be mainly a traveling camera, get a 3.5 and then use either a Summilux or fast film with the Leica.
A Rollei is a cool camera, but it's a really uncool low-light camera compared to your M6.
I'd buy a 3.5 with good glass & then get a thorough CLA. And as in previous post, a Maxwell screen.
Kirk
A Rollei is a cool camera, but it's a really uncool low-light camera compared to your M6.
I'd buy a 3.5 with good glass & then get a thorough CLA. And as in previous post, a Maxwell screen.
Kirk
Peter_S
Peter_S
Hi!
Wow, what a wealth of information - THANKS! I highly appreciate it, particularly the screen photos by Martin and the information by Brett.
I will carefully take all that into consideration. Leaning a bit more towards the E. Hope to be able to decide soon and get one in the house. Mainly still trying to figure out the effect the C's lens' 10-blade closure has compared to the 5-blade of the E's, but that probably only matters for the shape of lights in the background than anything else.
Thanks again,
Cheers,
Peter
Wow, what a wealth of information - THANKS! I highly appreciate it, particularly the screen photos by Martin and the information by Brett.
I will carefully take all that into consideration. Leaning a bit more towards the E. Hope to be able to decide soon and get one in the house. Mainly still trying to figure out the effect the C's lens' 10-blade closure has compared to the 5-blade of the E's, but that probably only matters for the shape of lights in the background than anything else.
Thanks again,
Cheers,
Peter
You're welcome. Yes, I agree. The ten blade thing is over rated. I prefer it for the precise reason you mentioned. I took a friend out to the city yesterday to experience medium format for the first time. I had my 2.8C. She was using a C220. We happened on some vintage cars outside a cathedral and made the most of the three (an old Plymouth, a Hudson and a Ford V8, all from the 1930's by the look of it). I taught her how to process her films last night. The results from the Mamiya continue to impress, but one shot certainly had three or four small pentagonal highlights in it. I don't think they will ruin the shot, but you do notice them. If they were round, they would not be quite as distracting I'd think. Normally I would post the pic by way of example, but it is not strictly mine, as I did not take it even though I was there helping with metering and settings etc... (For the record, Kylie did very well with her first encounter with a TLR. She loved the 1930's Voigtlander Bessa 6x9 folder, too. When she pulled the films out of the tank, I think she was hooked.)
Regards
Brett
raid
Dad Photographer
The D was made in 1955, and it still is working after over twenty years of use. It is a rock solid camera. I sold my E and F and i kept the D.
In general, newer is better for fewer problems, so in your case, I would go with the E.
In general, newer is better for fewer problems, so in your case, I would go with the E.
Peter_S
Peter_S
A bit in line with Kirk's and Raid's advice...I found a good offer for a 3.5F, which seems to have a particularly stellar lens and is fairly new.
Now - how lighter is the 3.5F Planar than the models with 2.8 Planar? the few lists I found list similar weights, but most seem to say the extra glas in the 2.8 weights. Being lighter and very sharp are appealing....
Best,
Peter
Now - how lighter is the 3.5F Planar than the models with 2.8 Planar? the few lists I found list similar weights, but most seem to say the extra glas in the 2.8 weights. Being lighter and very sharp are appealing....
Best,
Peter
Dan Daniel
Well-known
My impression from people's comments is that it is the balance change which makes people say that the 2.8 is heavier. People talk of it being front heavy compared to the 3.5 and that the 3.5 has a better 'feel'?
raid
Dad Photographer
Don't underestimate the effect of a 2.8 lens for bokeh and portraits. I use the 3.5F and the 2.8D, and each has its use. The 2.8 is an overall better camera than the 3.5, in my opinion. The 3.5F has a very sharp lens, and it would be great for sunlit scenes, but a 2.8 is already "slow" for available light photography, but it gives you a slight edge with a faster film indoors.
A 2.8 isn't front heavy. A Tele, is front heavy...I guess it's all relative. I reckon a Rolleicord is a clear winner in this department!
Mind you my Tele is not very front heavy at the moment, some of the hottest weather in my part of Oz for nearly twenty years has slowed the repair process, back into that in earnest this week.
Regards
Brett
thompsonks
Well-known
Heavy & clumsy are somewhat subjective, depending on your body & hand size. IMO Rolleis are beautiful Bauhaus art objects in which form follows function, & around my neck in my hands a 3.5 MX-EVS or 3.5E3 feels as well as looks like a perfected design. Like an M4 with 35 Summicron.
But to repeat: In this specific instance where OP plans to travel with a Leica as well, how/why would 2.8 be his best choice for low-light-level photography?
Kirk
But to repeat: In this specific instance where OP plans to travel with a Leica as well, how/why would 2.8 be his best choice for low-light-level photography?
Kirk
raid
Dad Photographer
Using a MF camera in low light scenes opens up a new world of photography.