Rolleiflex 2.8 vs. 3.5

Its hard to go wrong. I'm shooting a 3.5 Planar but haven't had many contrast issues yet, though I do tend to over expose and under develop so its possible my routine matches. Color has been fantastic too at film speed. 3.5F Planar:

(Acros, pushed a stop due to accidental underexposure)
8255865011_71a4d70dac_c.jpg


8376033446_5af189fd1f_c.jpg
 
I don't have a TLR although I've love to have one. But I would've thought if you had a 2.8, you always had the option of stopping down to 3.5. Whereas with a 3.5 you can't.
 
True. The issue is that the 2.8s sell at a big premium (usually 1/3-1/2 more than 3.5s). They are also heavier for those for whom weight is a concern. Just a tradeoff in the end.
 
If you get across from Melbourne to Tassie at some stage for a visit, let me know, and I'll give you a try of a Rollei or a Mamiya, you'll enjoy it, I'm sure. But it can be addictive. ;)

Yes, you can indeed stop a 2.8 down to 3.5; but the lenses are 80mm versus 75mm respectively for the 2.8 & 3.5 models. And various lenses were used, from 80mm f/2.8 four element Tessars (rare) to 75mm f/3.5 four element Zeiss Tessars and Schneider Xenars, through to five and six element versions of the 75mm Schneider Xenotar and Zeiss Planar. All these in addition to the five element 80mm Xenotar and Planars, which had their elements arranged slightly differently. Not to overlook the quite rare Zeiss Jena 80mm f/2.8 Biometar as well. So there is a bit more too it than which aperture size, although I should say I think too much is made of these differences. And of course as Brian says there are weight and other differences such as light meters, for instance, from model to model. But Robert Doisneau, for example, was limited to a humble 75mm Tessar back in the 1930s, and yet it didn't seem to do his images much harm from what I've seen of them. Any of them are likely to be better than 99% of their owners and I certainly don't include myself in the 1%.
Regards
Brett
 
Last edited:
ahhhhhhh I am wary of anything that might generate another addiction!

For me personally, it's not a question that I would go for the 2.8, I like a bit of shallow depth of field, I like the option of stopping down for sharp landscapes. I am quite comfortable with the 50mm equivalent so I think I could be ok with the 80mm on a TLR.

What I do know is that Vivian Meier took some truly amazing street photography with her TLR, although for street it's good to stop down to reduce shallow depth of field.
 
I have never felt 'limited' by the 75mm Tessar either for depth of feild or light gathering.

144475677.jpg


I guess for Portraits I like to use Rolleinar close up lenses, DOF is going to be shallow...
 
I can't compare a 2.8 vs. a 3.5 but I can compare Rolleicords to Rolleiflexes ..
I had so far a
Rolleicord II, III, V
Rolleiflex Automat Tessar, 3.5E Planar

The Cord II and Automat are sold, the Cord III went to my girlfriend, the V died because I fell on it, so I've the flex 3.5E now.
The Automat's lens was soft (maybe just dirt inside), the Cord II not so much better. The Rolleicord V was actually pretty damn sharp - can't see much of a difference to the 3.5 Planar with my scanner

The Rolleicords are lighter and smaller which is cool, also cheaper (a good V should be around 150-200 euros). What I always liked about my Rolleiflexes is the dead-even frame spacing, even the stone old Automat was like a swiss watch there. With the Cords it's ok-ish .. the III has rarely an overlap, but the V had troubles with it's double exposure lock (I had to switch this off)
 
People have always been willing to pay a premium for a faster lens, even if they don't use that extra speed.

It's the same as buying the GT or LX model of a car or a computer with a 4.3GHz processor over the 3.8GHz processor (when in reality, you probably won't notice the difference).

Digital camera makers fool the general public all of the time in the megapixel race.

More = better.

In some cases, more is better. In other cases, it's just more.

By the way, the look of the 2.8 model is visually impressive compared with that of the 3.5, the Automats and Rolleicords. Except for the art deco Rolleicord I, which looks really cool.

Rolleicord I:
Rolleicord_I.jpg
 
ZeissFan said:
People have always been willing to pay a premium for a faster lens, even if they don't use that extra speed.

It's the same as buying the GT or LX model of a car or a computer with a 4.3GHz processor over the 3.8GHz processor (when in reality, you probably won't notice the difference)....
Click to expand...
Even for processing big image files?

I'm not arguing. I don't know enough to do so. But I'd always assumed you'd see a modest improvement.

But to the OP: from limited experience, and it's always a personal question, the f/3.5 seems to me to have a 'magic' that the f/2.8 lacks.

Cheers,

R.
 
Soeren said:
Interesting thread
How does viewfinder brightness compare between the 3,5 B - F flexes?
Best regards
Click to expand...

I found all VFs to be very dim compared to my pentacon six or a hasselblad .. I can't say anything about they 3.5F or the 2.8s but I think the have the same viewing lens & screen as my 3.5E
 
Lax Jought said:
I don't have a TLR although I've love to have one. But I would've thought if you had a 2.8, you always had the option of stopping down to 3.5. Whereas with a 3.5 you can't.
Click to expand...
Of course all Rolleis give you the option of using any aperture you like. The 2.8 and 3.5 refers to the MAXIMUM (widest open) apertures of the two types.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom