VictorM.
Well-known
This may be a 2.8F: http://cgi.ebay.ca/Rolleiflex-2-8E-...286.c0.m14&_trkparms=66:2|65:10|39:1|240:1318
Too bad I don't have any money.
Too bad I don't have any money.
fbf
Well-known
looks like 2.8F to me. I wish I saw this earlier.
Cindy Flood
Established
It sure looks like my 2.8F and you can see what looks like 2.8F in the one picture. Also, the serial is hard to read, but the first two numbers could indicate 2.8F. Someone got a really good deal.
maddoc
... likes film again.
Wow ! Looks like somebody got a nice deal.
Leigh Youdale
Well-known
Sounds like a good deal!
I recently bought a 2.8 E2 (without meter) for $500 AUD. It was OK except it hadn't been used for thirty years. I had it CLA'd here in Sydney, and a NEW Gossen exposure meter fitted all for another $250 and it's pretty damn good. Had two rolls of film through it with good results.
I recently bought a 2.8 E2 (without meter) for $500 AUD. It was OK except it hadn't been used for thirty years. I had it CLA'd here in Sydney, and a NEW Gossen exposure meter fitted all for another $250 and it's pretty damn good. Had two rolls of film through it with good results.
Al Kaplan
Veteran
I'm surprised that it doesn't say what lens it has. Could be a Schneider Xenotar, Zeiss Planar, or possibly a Zeiss Jena Biometer. The six element Planar was reputed to be better than the five element competitors. That lenshood must be worth some bucks too!
fbf
Well-known
I like the xenotar much more than the planar on the 2.8F but the planar does fetch more money. Get it CLAed and a maxwell screen (exactly what I am using). It is the ultimate machine.
Frank Petronio
Well-known
It's an F for sure
It's an F for sure
And when I squint I see a "anar" like Planar. Either way it was a great deal.
The seller wrote a reasonable description, I wonder why they got the model wrong and left the lens out? Maybe it means it wasn't such a great deal?
It's an F for sure
And when I squint I see a "anar" like Planar. Either way it was a great deal.
The seller wrote a reasonable description, I wonder why they got the model wrong and left the lens out? Maybe it means it wasn't such a great deal?
Al Kaplan
Veteran
Frank, your squint must be better than my squint!
I wonder if anybody will ever again produce a 120 twin lens reflex. For some jobs they were an ideal camera. Compared to the 120 SLR's they're extremely quiet, light weight and reliable.
I wonder if anybody will ever again produce a 120 twin lens reflex. For some jobs they were an ideal camera. Compared to the 120 SLR's they're extremely quiet, light weight and reliable.
Frank Petronio
Well-known
I think it is like Leicas Al, the older ones are best. The Rolleiflex FX and GX weren't as nice as the older models and they cost 3-plus times more.
Al Kaplan
Veteran
Frank, there are a lot of reasons for the high prices, including declining sales volume, the German wage scale compared to Singapore where they moved their production of 35mm cameras, the money they dumped into their ill fated Rollie SL66 which was never able to compete with Hasselblad, the shift of the pro wedding and newspaper shooters toward 35mm (and now digital), the fact that a Yashicamat was "good enough" and cheaper to just replace than to get a CLA on a Rolleiflex. In the end though, I suppose they just were no longer fashionable.
Still, it's a versatile machine. A 75mm lens on 120 is about the same coverage as a 35mm lens is on a 35mm camera, figuring cropping to 8x10 proportions. The 75 or 80mm lens allows cropping enough for a decent head shot, the field of view of a 90 on 35mm film. Dust on the larger negatives is less of a problem.
The majority of public relations or news shoots could be done on a 12 exposure roll. For a generation making the switch from sheet film and 4x5 press cameras it was a challenge figuring out what the hell you were going to do with the remaining 8 or 9 shots on the roll after you knew that you'd nailed the moment.
SOMEBODY must be buying them again. There aren't as many used TLR's for sale these days and prices are creeping up again. Oh crap! I'm talking myself into picking up a brick of 120 TX again.
Still, it's a versatile machine. A 75mm lens on 120 is about the same coverage as a 35mm lens is on a 35mm camera, figuring cropping to 8x10 proportions. The 75 or 80mm lens allows cropping enough for a decent head shot, the field of view of a 90 on 35mm film. Dust on the larger negatives is less of a problem.
The majority of public relations or news shoots could be done on a 12 exposure roll. For a generation making the switch from sheet film and 4x5 press cameras it was a challenge figuring out what the hell you were going to do with the remaining 8 or 9 shots on the roll after you knew that you'd nailed the moment.
SOMEBODY must be buying them again. There aren't as many used TLR's for sale these days and prices are creeping up again. Oh crap! I'm talking myself into picking up a brick of 120 TX again.