Reshuffling Rolleis

[msbarnes]

I have a few rollei's, 5. Bay I (2), Bay II (1), and Bay III(2). Tessars, Xenotars, and Planars. Rolleinars, hoods, and filters. I want to sell all but two. What would you do?

This is partly because I want a Hasselblad and I just don't use five of them. I usually use two because I play around with two emulsions (Acros and Tri-X) and shoot a lot in low light. I typically use one MF camera and one 35mm camera so I never really shoot two simultaneously. I know this is very personal and maybe pointless to discuss but how would you do this?

I have a 2.8E, 2.8D, 3.5E, MX-EVS, and T.

2.8E + 3.5E: I prefer the E finders but if I do this then I'm keeping and acquiring accessories for both models.

2.8E + 2.8D: I don't like the D finder that much but it isn't so bad. If I did this then I can consolidate my accessories to one bay.

2.8E + MX-EVS: I can have one luxury rollei and one backup tessar (which is by no means bad). The MX-EVS is worth the least and I already have the all the rolleinars/filters that I would want for this one.

Thinking about it, I don't care about the T. It has more collectors appeal, I think.

To the moderaters. I'm sorry if this sounds like a classified. That is not my intention.

 

[S.H.]

I'd keep 2.8E + MX-EVS or 2.8E + T. Two different beasts, one luxury Rollei, one to carry around.

 

[mfogiel]

I would simply keep the 2 bay III versions, as they are best for portraiture. I like in particular the lower contrast that you get when shooting wide open. As an alternative, you could keep the 2.8E and get a Tele Rollei too. If you keep a Rollei, skip the 80 Planar for Hasselblad, and get the 60 Distagon and/or the 100 Planar or 120 Makro Planar.

 

[msbarnes]

I would simply keep the 2 bay III versions, as they are best for portraiture. I like in particular the lower contrast that you get when shooting wide open. As an alternative, you could keep the 2.8E and get a Tele Rollei too. If you keep a Rollei, skip the 80 Planar for Hasselblad, and get the 60 Distagon and/or the 100 Planar or 120 Makro Planar.

I love portraiture. My 2.8E is actually getting a CLA and maxwell screened installed. I love lower contrast but don't shoot wide open much because of DOF issues.

Hasselblad.
My reason for getting a Hasselblad is for more lenses. In 35mm (format) I like 35mm and 50mm focal lengths a lot. Some people prefer one over the other but I like both equally. So if i were to get a Hasselblad I was thinking 60/100 or 60/120 and teaming that up with my 'Flex for portraits and generally shooting.

Tele Rollei.
I thought about this too but it is quite pricey for a fixed lensed camera. But if you think about it, a two-lens hasselblad is probably around the same price, maybe a bit more (for the lenses of my interest). I just like the idea that a Hasselblad is modular, so they are easier/cheaper to repair/replace.

Ofcourse the Hblad vs Tele Rollei depends on my style and preferences but thinking about it...I think I'd prefer the Tele Rollei but wouldn't mind a Hassselblad. Mutars to me seem like a waste for good optics though.

 

[z.bruce.li]

If I were you, I will choose the last option (2.8E + MX-EVS). You will have a Planar lens and a Tessar lens for different visual characteristics, plus the operation and controls are same/similar. If absolute sharpness is needed, then maybe you can make room for one more the 3.5E?

 

[f16sunshine]

If you are using them for street as well as portraits I would keep a T.
Having a lightweight low cost Bay 1 camera to pair with a heavier and more expensive Bay 3 camera makes a lot of sense.
I take my T to parties and street events where i don't want to risk my more expensive 2.8's. Plus the tessar/xenar gives a different look than the Planar/Xenotar f2.8.
So keep your best overall camera and your most practical overall camera. Sell the rest to re-invest the windfall.
The Tele Rolleflex is sweet but, if you are going for a Hassie the 150mm f4 is a much less expensive and more flexible solution.
I have a Tele and it is often hampered by it's limited tele range (75mm equivalent in 35mm) and relatively long minimum focus. Not to mention it's current cost if you don't already own one.

Cheers!

 

[msbarnes]

I've read that the 3.5E is the sharpest but I have yet to have done a direct comparison because my 2.8E is plenty sharp.


Untitled by Michael_Sergio_Barnes, on Flickr

My T ain't bad either:


527567_233907660070171_1446293679_n by Michael_Sergio_Barnes, on Flickr

 

[msbarnes]

If you are using them for street as well as portraits I would keep a T.
Having a lightweight low cost Bay 1 camera to pair with a heavier and more expensive Bay 3 camera makes a lot of sense.
I take my T to parties and street events where i don't want to risk my more expensive 2.8's. Plus the tessar/xenar gives a different look than the Planar/Xenotar f2.8.
So keep your best overall camera and your most practical overall camera. Sell the rest to re-invest the windfall.
The Tele Rolleflex is sweet but, if you are going for a Hassie the 150mm f4 is a much less expensive and more flexible solution.
I have a Tele and it is often hampered by it's limited tele range (75mm equivalent in 35mm) and relatively long minimum focus. Not to mention it's current cost if you don't already own one.

Cheers!

I've used my BI Rollei's as you have described. I took my T to go biking because I didn't want to risk breaking my higher-end Rollei's.

I'm thinking 2.8E + MX-EVS/T makes the most sense. I thought about keeping the 3.5E but you've got to limit your cameras somewhere, which is why I have so many!

 

[f16sunshine]

Very nice Michael.

 

[mfogiel]

Ofcourse the Hblad vs Tele Rollei depends on my style and preferences but thinking about it...I think I'd prefer the Tele Rollei but wouldn't mind a Hassselblad. Mutars to me seem like a waste for good optics though.

The difference between Tele Rollei and a Hasselblad with a 120 or 150, is mainly in the style of shooting, i.e. if you want to do it handheld or from a tripod. The Hassy is basically a tripod beast, while the Rolleis, including the Tele, can be used handheld without any problem, both because of the lack of mirror slap and because the focusing is easier.
As to the question of quality, if you google Sanders McNew on this, you will see there is nothing to fear, and personally I actually believe, there is already too much resolution, even when you shoot with a Rolleinar wide open:


MF20121908 by mfogiel, on Flickr

 

[Vics]

I would keep the MX-EVS and all those accessories and make the 'blad your luxe MF camera. That's exactly what I did. Kept my MX Xenar with all the goodies, and sold the 3.5F Xenotar to a member here for enough to beef up my Leica stuff. It's been a happy decision for me, and I hope for my buyer as well.

 

[unixrevolution]

I'm a speed freak, so I'd keep the 2.8s.

 

[thompsonks]

Well, I dunno 'bout that. OP says he always carries a 35mm too. IMO 2.8 is bulkier and for available light not really 'fast.' And it's not easy to focus a wide-open 2.8 taking lens with a 2.8 viewing lens. So I sold 2.8 in favor of lighter, better-balanced 3.5 E3 & F--plus 35mm RF with f1.4.

Mileages differ.

Kirk

 

[RedLion]

Since a Tele was mentioned, here are some recent outside hand-held shots from my Tele Rolleiflex, taken using the .7 Rolleinar, at minimum distance, wide open at F4.

Depth of field is insanely shallow.

 

[msbarnes]

Well, I dunno 'bout that. OP says he always carries a 35mm too. IMO 2.8 is bulkier and for available light not really 'fast.' And it's not easy to focus a wide-open 2.8 taking lens with a 2.8 viewing lens. So I sold 2.8 in favor of lighter, better-balanced 3.5 E3 & F--plus 35mm RF with f1.4.

Mileages differ.

Kirk

I'm pretty happy with 35mm for low light and I agree that f2.8 isn't that much better than f3.5 exposure-wise. Some prefer the 2.8 weight but honestly, the 3.5 might feel better in my hands.

I'm keeping my 2.8E because that is the one that I gave a CLA/Maxwell screen. It made sense because that Rollei was in better condition.

Well one of my friends wanted a Rollei so I sold him my 3.5E . I'm shipping it out tomorrow. He eventually wants to move to a 2.8 (like many people) but I told him that if Rollei only made one camera, then I'd be pretty happy with that. I also told him that I can see myself getting another Bay II Rollei in the future, lol.


Untitled by Michael_Sergio_Barnes, on Flickr

Taken with my 3.5E.