astrosecret
Recovering rollei snob
is the 2.8 c some kind of super rare rollei!? what am i looking at?! this is more than mint condition 2.8fs i've seen!!!!!!
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dl...9k7FkOY%3D&viewitem=&sspagename=STRK:MEWAX:IT
And the cosmetic condition is honestly poor! when did prices get like this? looks like theres oil on the blades and no returns accepted... is one really born every second or is this a highly sought after line of flexes?
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dl...9k7FkOY%3D&viewitem=&sspagename=STRK:MEWAX:IT
And the cosmetic condition is honestly poor! when did prices get like this? looks like theres oil on the blades and no returns accepted... is one really born every second or is this a highly sought after line of flexes?
Last edited:
Dan Daniel
Well-known
Interesting that the winer bidder has made ALL of his bidding in the day or so before this auction. In fact, looks like all the bidders driving this beyond its expected range are new. Seems fishy to me.
http://offer.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewBids&_trksid=p4340.l2565&item=300546585536
Ebay is nuts at time. I don't think I would buy something like a Rolleiflex or Leica on there; too many sketchy bidding wars and too many bogus claims and misleading descriptions.
http://offer.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewBids&_trksid=p4340.l2565&item=300546585536
Ebay is nuts at time. I don't think I would buy something like a Rolleiflex or Leica on there; too many sketchy bidding wars and too many bogus claims and misleading descriptions.
Last edited:
Ezzie
E. D. Russell Roberts
I was in the market for a 3.5 or 2.8 for quite some time. I noticed very strange behaviour on a number of items, from many different sellers. A couple of bidders with no history or feedback drove the prices up before falling out towards the end. I also saw the same camera on sale from two different ebayers, same pictures, same s/n, same description, same ad layout. Different seller, different location (though same country). In the end I bought off a forum member.
Gregoryniss
Well-known
I bought my 2.8E on Ebay and it was as described and in great condition. Though I bought it "buy it now" from an established camera store (brooklyn camera). Maybe that is the route to go...
sreed2006
Well-known
Three months ago I researched prices on the Rolleiflex 2.8C with the Planar lens in excellent condition. There was not much information available on the web.
A local seller had one listed in the "Antiques" section of Craigslist for $1500. It came with a case and some extra items.
I asked the seller how he had arrived at the price, and he had also discovered that there was not much information available on the 2.8C with the Planar lens, so he just took a guess. When I offered $1000, he accepted that willingly - it had been his uncle's and he had been trying to sell it for over a year without luck. (Even at $1000, I probably overpaid, but not by a tremendous amount, considering the other items included.)
Then, there was the Yashica 24 that I researched last year. Now that was a rare camera with almost no information about prices. I found only one example that had sold, in Australia. The one I bought was in great cosmetic condition, but the seals were gone and the meter didn't work. The seller was asking $150, and I offered $140, which he accepted, and to be honest, neither of us knew which one had gotten the better deal.
Does a lack of price information on the web mean that they are rare? Probably. Either that, or the owners are really happy with them and are hanging on to them forever - and they only come on the market when the owner dies - kind of like the Olympus Zuiko 100mm F2 lenses, which noboby that has used one and still has a pulse will sell.
In any case, the Rolleiflex 2.8C is a fine camera, with some advantages over other models (such as the 10-bladed aperture), but I am guessing it should not sell for more than a comparable-condition 2.8F.
A local seller had one listed in the "Antiques" section of Craigslist for $1500. It came with a case and some extra items.
I asked the seller how he had arrived at the price, and he had also discovered that there was not much information available on the 2.8C with the Planar lens, so he just took a guess. When I offered $1000, he accepted that willingly - it had been his uncle's and he had been trying to sell it for over a year without luck. (Even at $1000, I probably overpaid, but not by a tremendous amount, considering the other items included.)
Then, there was the Yashica 24 that I researched last year. Now that was a rare camera with almost no information about prices. I found only one example that had sold, in Australia. The one I bought was in great cosmetic condition, but the seals were gone and the meter didn't work. The seller was asking $150, and I offered $140, which he accepted, and to be honest, neither of us knew which one had gotten the better deal.
Does a lack of price information on the web mean that they are rare? Probably. Either that, or the owners are really happy with them and are hanging on to them forever - and they only come on the market when the owner dies - kind of like the Olympus Zuiko 100mm F2 lenses, which noboby that has used one and still has a pulse will sell.
In any case, the Rolleiflex 2.8C is a fine camera, with some advantages over other models (such as the 10-bladed aperture), but I am guessing it should not sell for more than a comparable-condition 2.8F.
Steve M.
Veteran
I don't understand why that 2.8C sold for so much either, but that's just the nature of auctions. I don't think it's odd or fishy. A few people probably decided that it was going to be their camera and it ended up being bid more than it's worth. Often things sell for less than they're worth, so you never know.
The way the bids work, you can make one bid at your highest price you'll pay. Then it will get bumped up over the course of the auction each time someone bids the item up. It can't go over your high bid. That's why I don't sweat what things sell for. If I really want something I still have a max price that the item is worth to me. Above that, it can sell to a higher bidder. Everyone's happy. Getting into a bidding war isn't what you should do.
Don't pay any attention to those "No Returns" that people put in their ads. If an item is not as described eBay forces them to take it back. The few times this happened to me, I was refunded all of the purchase price of the item, along w/ shipping both ways.
The way the bids work, you can make one bid at your highest price you'll pay. Then it will get bumped up over the course of the auction each time someone bids the item up. It can't go over your high bid. That's why I don't sweat what things sell for. If I really want something I still have a max price that the item is worth to me. Above that, it can sell to a higher bidder. Everyone's happy. Getting into a bidding war isn't what you should do.
Don't pay any attention to those "No Returns" that people put in their ads. If an item is not as described eBay forces them to take it back. The few times this happened to me, I was refunded all of the purchase price of the item, along w/ shipping both ways.
Last edited:
NormanV
Member
Two years ago I bought a 2.8C on Ebay that had a very full description and around a dozen photos from all angles. The condition was not far off the one in the original post. There was hardly any interest and I got it for £135.
I found that I didn't like the adjustable viewfinder lens as it kept moving and getting caught up when I folded the hood. Plus, I didn't enjoy the handling as much as I had with my previous Rollei(40 years ago). So I re-sold it on Ebay, as I live in a remote area people seem to be reluctant to bid on my sales and I rarely achieve a good price but I made a profit on this one, £235 was the selling price, still very cheap.
I found that I didn't like the adjustable viewfinder lens as it kept moving and getting caught up when I folded the hood. Plus, I didn't enjoy the handling as much as I had with my previous Rollei(40 years ago). So I re-sold it on Ebay, as I live in a remote area people seem to be reluctant to bid on my sales and I rarely achieve a good price but I made a profit on this one, £235 was the selling price, still very cheap.
sreed2006
Well-known
@NormanV - I was going to say something about the adjustable viewfinder lenses on the 2.8C, but couldn't figure out how to put it. They are more of an annoyance than a help, aren't they? I've never had one get caught up in the folding hood since the hinges on my adjustable viewfinder lenses are still pretty tight. They stay where I put them. I just can't place the top one close enough to the focusing screen for my eyes, though. I've found a Rolleimeter solves that problem pretty well - just bypass the whole focusing screen altogether.
Some people complain about the rapid pace of upgrades by today's manufacturers, but if you look at the rapid sequence of upgrades to the Rolleiflex in the 1950's, todays pace seems normal. I think the fancy swinging adjustable viewfinder on the 2.8C was just an upgrade "gimick." I notice that the feature didn't last.
Some people complain about the rapid pace of upgrades by today's manufacturers, but if you look at the rapid sequence of upgrades to the Rolleiflex in the 1950's, todays pace seems normal. I think the fancy swinging adjustable viewfinder on the 2.8C was just an upgrade "gimick." I notice that the feature didn't last.
graywolf
Well-known
It sometimes seems like everybody wants the same thing at the same time, then eBay prices go crazy with bidding wars. It used to be that eBay gave you completed listings going back a year, and you could get an idea of the real value of something. Now, with only a month you often can not even find one of the items in the completed listings if it is at all rare.
In the past, the 2.8C Rolleiflex was about the cheapest with the high end lenses. My estimate would be about $750 for a minty one. Of course, my estimate is worth exactly what you paid me for it. Hum..., maybe I should put my estimate on eBay and find out what it is actually worth.
In the past, the 2.8C Rolleiflex was about the cheapest with the high end lenses. My estimate would be about $750 for a minty one. Of course, my estimate is worth exactly what you paid me for it. Hum..., maybe I should put my estimate on eBay and find out what it is actually worth.
astrosecret
Recovering rollei snob
as you will see now this auction has been relisted. obviously some fishy stuff going on. this camera should not be had for more than 800$ cla'd.
raid
Dad Photographer
I paid $300 for a user condition 2.8D with the Planar lens, and I have never regretted buying this wonderful camera. I sold mintish 2.8E and 2.8F cameras, but I kept the 2.8D.
Darshan
Well-known
I have never before seen a shutter described that way, what's nice & strong about a shutter?
sreed2006
Well-known
^^^ Huh? What is that all about, DanP?
sreed2006
Well-known
Okay - we all agree that the price shown for the 2.8C was too high. When I was researching prices last January, with no example 2.8C sales to go by, it was quite frustrating.
How does one establish the value of a camera?
How does one establish the value of a camera?
David Murphy
Veteran
It's worth $600-800 in very good shape
marduk
Well-known
What exactly is an adjustable viewfinder lens? Is it some accessory? I haven't noticed any annoyance about the 2.8C focusing hood. It's of the same construction as in my 3.5E Planar for example.
NormanV
Member
thompsonks
Well-known
On the big question of 'how do you price Rolleis?', the answer is you google the Antique Cameras website and look on the Rollei page. It's updated a couple of times a year. It lags a bit behind current prices, because collectible models have been rising pretty fast. (A person who makes vintage cameras his business says it's because Chinese collectors have entered the market in such a big way.)
On this particular model, 2.8Cs have a divided reputation. On the positive side, the ones with Xenotars have 10 aperture blades and supposedly produce better bokeh for that reason (though the number of aperture blades isn't the only thing that makes for good bokeh).
On the negative side, first, the viewfinder hood is for sure a nuisance (mine sticks too), and lasted for 1 model. (Marduk, if yours is the same as on an E, then someone was so annoyed that they swapped it out.) Second, many of these cameras were used by professionals and received heavy wear. Rollei's first attempt at a 2.8 (Biometar) flunked out, but this one – its replacement – was a hit. Lots were made but lots died in the trenches of wedding photography and photojournalism.
So weighing both sides, a collector who's a bokeh freak might be delighted to have found a 2.8C that's not too worn. A collector would have Harry Fleenor overhaul it completely, take a couple of pictures and then put it on a shelf – at a loss to photography.
But whatever his enthusiasms, this particular high bidder paid double or triple what the camera was worth. I recently bid halfheartedly on 2.8Cs in comparable condition that went for $625 and $569. The most recent sale was barely over $400 – it wasn't in good shape, but I bought it myself to see if the Xenotar bokeh myth has substance.
Sky-high bidding (as in this instance) is sometimes a psychological quirk and sometimes just a mistake, with bidders unable to differentiate the models and not understanding what's for sale. For example, a late Automat in good but not exceptional condition for over $800, when others sell for about $300? My guess is that someone thought all Rolleis with 3.5 lenses have the same one.
EBay Rollei descriptions and selling prices are so erratic that you can't really tell what to bid or what you'll get for your money. IMO it's a mistake to buy a vintage camera on eBay unless you bid low enough to allow for a complete overhaul. Craigslist is a better way to go. You can pay it a visit, fondle it, shine a light through its lens, put a dummy roll of film through its transport, listen for the length of its shutter speeds, and overall avoid getting scammed.
On this particular model, 2.8Cs have a divided reputation. On the positive side, the ones with Xenotars have 10 aperture blades and supposedly produce better bokeh for that reason (though the number of aperture blades isn't the only thing that makes for good bokeh).
On the negative side, first, the viewfinder hood is for sure a nuisance (mine sticks too), and lasted for 1 model. (Marduk, if yours is the same as on an E, then someone was so annoyed that they swapped it out.) Second, many of these cameras were used by professionals and received heavy wear. Rollei's first attempt at a 2.8 (Biometar) flunked out, but this one – its replacement – was a hit. Lots were made but lots died in the trenches of wedding photography and photojournalism.
So weighing both sides, a collector who's a bokeh freak might be delighted to have found a 2.8C that's not too worn. A collector would have Harry Fleenor overhaul it completely, take a couple of pictures and then put it on a shelf – at a loss to photography.
But whatever his enthusiasms, this particular high bidder paid double or triple what the camera was worth. I recently bid halfheartedly on 2.8Cs in comparable condition that went for $625 and $569. The most recent sale was barely over $400 – it wasn't in good shape, but I bought it myself to see if the Xenotar bokeh myth has substance.
Sky-high bidding (as in this instance) is sometimes a psychological quirk and sometimes just a mistake, with bidders unable to differentiate the models and not understanding what's for sale. For example, a late Automat in good but not exceptional condition for over $800, when others sell for about $300? My guess is that someone thought all Rolleis with 3.5 lenses have the same one.
EBay Rollei descriptions and selling prices are so erratic that you can't really tell what to bid or what you'll get for your money. IMO it's a mistake to buy a vintage camera on eBay unless you bid low enough to allow for a complete overhaul. Craigslist is a better way to go. You can pay it a visit, fondle it, shine a light through its lens, put a dummy roll of film through its transport, listen for the length of its shutter speeds, and overall avoid getting scammed.
Last edited:
Dan Daniel
Well-known
As an aside, or oblique, as someone pointed out regarding a Leica that recently went for close to 2 million USD- that means that there are at least TWO people who think the camera is worth close to that.
Don't forget the 2.8A with its 2.8 Tessar taking lens—as flawed as it was, from most accounts—which preceded the 2.8B.
I think you might find the 2.8D had the same finder and magnifier as the 2.8C. The owners manuals for each suggest this, judging by their illustrations and text, and my 2.8C and 2.8D models are certainly fitted with identical components.
Not everyone has access to a local craiglist, but more power to those who have. I agree that ebay is a minefield lately. Even so-called professional sellers, who ought to be able to inspect and test a camera correctly, have burnt me recently (although fortunately I've managed to obtain redress through Paypal where required). With recent interest in Rollei TLRs, I believe it has attracted some less scrupulous sellers, who are jumping on the bandwagon and listing all manner of junk and talking it up.
Regards,
Brett