lynnb
Veteran
This 2.8F looked very nice, but I didn't expect it to sell for that much! $3,217 seems a lot, and it doesn't even seem to be one of the white face models. After a bid of $1940, three separate bidders competed above $3,000.
Here's the description:
NICE Rolleiflex Rollei 2.8F 2,8F 35 mm film camera Zeiss Planar 80mm lens w/ box
"This is a very nice Rollei Rolleiflex 2,8F 35 mm film camera with Zeiss Planar 1:2.8 1-80mm lens system. It has serial number 2472394, which I believe dates it to 1960. The lens has serial number 922431. I got this from the original owner who is now 90 years old. It is extremely nice and has been well kept in its leather cover and comes with the original box, manuals, etc. as seen in the first picture. The shutter release works well. I'm not a photographer or a collector. I haven't taken pictures with this, so please ask any questions ."
Interesting that it's a "35mm film camera"!!
Here's the description:
NICE Rolleiflex Rollei 2.8F 2,8F 35 mm film camera Zeiss Planar 80mm lens w/ box
"This is a very nice Rollei Rolleiflex 2,8F 35 mm film camera with Zeiss Planar 1:2.8 1-80mm lens system. It has serial number 2472394, which I believe dates it to 1960. The lens has serial number 922431. I got this from the original owner who is now 90 years old. It is extremely nice and has been well kept in its leather cover and comes with the original box, manuals, etc. as seen in the first picture. The shutter release works well. I'm not a photographer or a collector. I haven't taken pictures with this, so please ask any questions ."
Interesting that it's a "35mm film camera"!!
raid
Dad Photographer
Some peope still value old classics, Lynn. It may not be logical or reasonable, but when you have the money and the heart fir such cameras, the sky is the limit.
Such cameras are "anti-digital", so to speak. Was it your camera or did you bid?
My user condition 2.8D cost me about $275 twenty years ago. I sold the F and the E.
Such cameras are "anti-digital", so to speak. Was it your camera or did you bid?
My user condition 2.8D cost me about $275 twenty years ago. I sold the F and the E.
barnwulf
Well-known
B&H photo still a new TLR in stock it's the Rolleiflex 2.8 FX Medium Format Twin Lens Reflex Camera and the price is, $5,339.00. I was very surprised when I discovered this on there website. - jim
skipjack
Established
If the buyer was from Asia, then regardless of the description, there would be an active market for the Rollei.
lynnb
Veteran
Raid, I would very much have liked to bid on it, but it's way beyond my budget. I would like a 3.5 Xenotar. One day I'll find a user! I have always admired Alex Krasotkin's portraits taken with the Rollei.
Jim, yes I saw the new Rolleiflex FX-N announced at Photokina. Great that they're still producing them. Rollei TLRs (and Leicas, for that matter) certainly hold their value well compared to digital obsolescence!
Jim, yes I saw the new Rolleiflex FX-N announced at Photokina. Great that they're still producing them. Rollei TLRs (and Leicas, for that matter) certainly hold their value well compared to digital obsolescence!
raid
Dad Photographer
I still own a Tele Rolleiflex Sonnar, a 2.8D Planar, a 3.5F Planar, in addition to an Automat with 3.5 Tessar. Once, I used three of the TLRs on one day at the beach on a tripod. The resulting images look great. I shoud use such cameras more often.
Rayt
Nonplayer Character
For a White Face 2.8F that looks to be mint with original box, the price is not unreasonable.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Looking closely at the pics it appears the taking lens has something inside that could be the beginnings of fungus?
Robin Harrison
aka Harrison Cronbi
That is a crazy price. I have a 2.8F Planar that the previous owner removed the meter from. I'm wondering if it would be worth the cost of sourcing and fitting a replacement meter if this is what fully working versions sell at...
JPD
Retina and Rollei user
It is a true White Face made in the 1970's.
The 2,8F used a different batch of serial numbers than the 3,5F. The serial numbers of the 3,5F during the same period where 2850XXX or thereabouts.
The 2,8F used a different batch of serial numbers than the 3,5F. The serial numbers of the 3,5F during the same period where 2850XXX or thereabouts.
raid
Dad Photographer
I sold my mintish 2.8F for less than $500 many years ago.
awslee
Well-known
For a White Face and if the condition is good, the price is reasonable.
jeanba3000
squareLover
Collectors and users don't share the same scale to estimate the value of a camera. 
I won't tell you how much I payed for my 2.8F, Wide and Tele Rolleiflex, some would fall from their chair, and it's a long story… 8)
And don't forget the final price is just above the second highest bid, like $1 more.
I wonder how much was the highest bid…
I won't tell you how much I payed for my 2.8F, Wide and Tele Rolleiflex, some would fall from their chair, and it's a long story… 8)
And don't forget the final price is just above the second highest bid, like $1 more.
I wonder how much was the highest bid…
whitecat
Lone Range(find)er
I can see the interest but I value it about 2K.
jeanba3000
squareLover
A friend of mine saw a Rolleiflex Wide manual in a yard sale in Paris, he asked the seller how he got it, the guy told him he just sold the camera for € 100 but didn't found the manual in time for the buyer !
raid
Dad Photographer
Why cause us so much pain!