Good 2.8f Rolleiflex on eBay

It's amazing how eBay users will sit and watch it and hope for a better deal by waiting to bid instead of snapping up a very obvious spectacular deal at $1,000. eBay buyers annoy me to no end. Hope someone worthy picks it up.
 
Ebay browswers = time wasters

Ebay browswers = time wasters

Chuffed Cheese said:
It's amazing how eBay users will sit and watch it and hope for a better deal by waiting to bid instead of snapping up a very obvious spectacular deal at $1,000. eBay buyers annoy me to no end. Hope someone worthy picks it up.
Click to expand...

I agree with the OP - a grand for a good 2.8F is a fine price. Down Under they go for much more, or at least are listed for small mints (usually A$2000+), altho if they sell or not is another story.

Too many Ebay browsers are time-wasters - here in Australia we call them "tossers". They aren't serious buyers, and are usually just looking for a super bargain to turn around and resell at a good profit.

Film cameras especially attract the bottom-feeders - the mentality seems to be, if it's film anything, then the seller will be prepared to give it away. Even Leicas.

Last year I sold an almost-new Rolleiflex 3.5E for a friend. The asking price on the 14 day bid was very reasonable (a third less than a reputable dealer in a shop would have sold it). Within a day of listing, we had 20+ watchers. No bids.

The first auction was passed in. Immediately after it ended, 12 browsers contacted to buy off-line. All offered ridiculously low prices. One wanted it for $200 with delivery included...

I relisted and sold quickly at the original price.

The tossers all got my standard email response a week after the sale ended. "Respectfully declined." All were then blocked from my Ebay account. I so like having the last word...

These days I sell very little on Ebay. In future I'll list long-term if I have to. No back-room deals.

I hope this 2.8F sells fast to a good home. I refer the lighter 3.5s and Ts, but the 'Fs are very fine cameras and with care an an occasional service (say every 10 years), can easily go on shooting for a lifetime (or until the word runs out of 120 roll film).

😛:angel:😀
 
Bit of a tangential question: the viewing lens looks multi coated but the taking lens looks single coated... is this the case, and if so why?
 
45govt said:
Heres another

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Rolleiflex-2-8-80-Classic-Twin-Lens-Camera/142727386726?_trkparms=aid%3D222007%26algo%3DSIC.MBE%26ao%3D2%26asc%3D50527%26meid%3D6ca18dca136041d5b60e620d64f19d3d%26pid%3D100011%26rk%3D3%26rkt%3D12%26sd%3D323160824873%26itm%3D142727386726&_trksid=p2047675.c100011.m1850

unfortunately no photos of the lens just an out of focus photo of the viewing lens, Hmmm.
Click to expand...

I just looked at this one, it's funny the lens picture is blurry looks like a
bit of fungus to me, I had a experience yesterday on ebay, I was watching
a 2.8C going for a low price. So then I sent the seller a email or two juring
the week asking about the lenses, a day before the bidding ended he
finally answered me back saying the camera was packed and didn't know
much about the camera and it was for parts. Okay so the day came and I
went and bid on it because I wanted the lenses out of it to put in mine and
guess what, I could not bid because for some reason he block me from bidding
which is real odd.
 
Range-rover said:
I just looked at this one, it's funny the lens picture is blurry looks like a
bit of fungus to me, I had a experience yesterday on ebay, I was watching
a 2.8C going for a low price. So then I sent the seller a email or two juring
the week asking about the lenses, a day before the bidding ended he
finally answered me back saying the camera was packed and didn't know
much about the camera and it was for parts. Okay so the day came and I
went and bid on it because I wanted the lenses out of it to put in mine and
guess what, I could not bid because for some reason he block me from bidding
which is real odd.
Click to expand...

Probably spooked him by asking a question that he couldn't verify and thought you may be someone who was picky and would return it. Generally when people ask me about a camera listed for parts and want to know details about how things function in it, I block them as they obviously didn't pay attention to what it was listed as. I've had too many problems with worthless buyers who don't pay attention to listing details, so if I get a whiff of someone annoying, I just block them. I can see why someone might do that after having bad experiences.
 
Chuffed Cheese said:
Probably spooked him by asking a question that he couldn't verify and thought you may be someone who was picky and would return it. Generally when people ask me about a camera listed for parts and want to know details about how things function in it, I block them as they obviously didn't pay attention to what it was listed as. I've had too many problems with worthless buyers who don't pay attention to listing details, so if I get a whiff of someone annoying, I just block them. I can see why someone might do that after having bad experiences.
Click to expand...

Huh isn't it normal and expected to inquire about the functioning of specific parts if one is interested in buying a camera for parts?
 
retinax said:
Huh isn't it normal and expected to inquire about the functioning of specific parts if one is interested in buying a camera for parts?
Click to expand...

nope.

the implication in selling a camera for parts is that it is non-functioning and no claims about it's condition can be reliably made, other than the camera is not working and could be used as a parts camera.
 
Very nice camera, but this is why I prefer the meterless models. The meters on these old cameras are either broken or inaccurate, I don't like the aesthetics nor the fact that most seem to have cracked meter glass/plastic as they stick out and get smacked on stuff.
My choice in the classic line is the meterless version of the 2.8E. For metered, the GX/FX series are great, as the built in spot meter really is good. The rest of the body is definitely built to a lower standard than the traditional Rolleiflexes though (comparing my GX to my E).

$569 for the Fleenor-ing? Ouch. Mine was less but my focus also was not off.
 
Huss said:
Very nice camera, but this is why I prefer the meterless models. The meters on these old cameras are either broken or inaccurate, I don't like the aesthetics nor the fact that most seem to have cracked meter glass/plastic as they stick out and get smacked on stuff.
My choice in the classic line is the meterless version of the 2.8E. For metered, the GX/FX series are great, as the built in spot meter really is good. The rest of the body is definitely built to a lower standard than the traditional Rolleiflexes though (comparing my GX to my E).

$569 for the Fleenor-ing? Ouch. Mine was less but my focus also was not off.
Click to expand...

yeah, I'm glad a fell into buying a meter less 2.8f. Was a bit dissapointed at first but seeing the issues the meters present and the aesthetics of the meter itself, I'm glad it worked out that way.
 
I purchased the originally mentioned Rolleiflex. I regretted selling my 2.8f nearly a decade ago on here, very thankful for the heads up on this deal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
  • Article Article
Buying on eBay: A Savvy Guide to the World’s Top Online Auction Site
2
Replies
34
Views
2K
WoodallP
WoodallP
dexdog
I normally do not complain about about eBay sellers
Replies
17
Views
2K
JoeV
JoeV
R
Yet more 2.8 vs 3.5 questions
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
Dan Daniel
D
Dunn
What's up with this eBay seller?
Replies
9
Views
1K
Range-rover
R
L
Hasselblad SLRs Stolen Hasselblad Kit - please keep an eye out.
Replies
11
Views
2K
raydm6
raydm6
Back
Top Bottom