Just bought 2.8E... Have I made the right decision?

[ravenxarmy]

I've always wanted a TLR and never managed to get one. Until about 6 minutes ago.
So I had my eye on the 2.8F and it seems so did everybody else. I was bidding on it up to about $2K but gave up as there was a 2.8E finishing some few hours later which was in slightly better condition than the F.




So I won this E for just over a grand which I think is a decent price considering the F ended at about $2.2K.
I can't imagine F being TWICE as good as E?
Especially that this E is in near mint shape (at least going by the description) and the F was just about acceptable.

My question is: the seller included the original Rolleiflex screen that came with the camera but right now there's the BEATTIE Intenscreen installed. Supposedly much better / brighter.



I was wondering if anyone had any experience with these? Keep it? Change it back to the original? I'm new to the TLR... Excited to get this in the post in the next few days.

 

[Uncle Fester]

Congratulations on getting the Rolleiflex. The 2.8E is a great camera. I have one of these with the Beattie Intenscreen installed.
I feel that while it's very bright, it is a little harder to focus. I also have a 1954 MX-EVS that has the original screen with a Rolleigrid
fresnel installed above it. It's a little dimmer, but easier for me to focus than the 2.8E. I also have a Rolleicord VB with a Rick Olsen
screen in it that's also easier for me to focus. Having said all that, the Beattie screen may work just fine for you. You have a fantastic
camera there. Enjoy it!

 

[Vince Lupo]

The 2.8E is a super camera, you did just fine.

 

[ravenxarmy]

Thanks for the info! I guess I will have to try them both and see. While I was walking around the shops last few months looking for a Rolleiflex I saw quite a few with the non-grid screens and a split prism thing in the middle. The kind you'd get in a Nikon FM2 but much smaller. Does anybody use these?
I've looked at a few 3.5Fs with these installed in a few shops around Tokyo.

 

[Deleted member 65559]

I had a Maxwell screen installed in my Rolleiflex when Harry Fleenor did the service. It made a big difference to me. I have a screen w both the grid & the split image....I use both...at various times. I prefer the screens to the original Rollei screens for the additional brightness.....which makes it easier to focus.

 

[Retro-Grouch]

You can't go wrong with any Rolleiflex. Congratulations on your purchase! The consensus on aftermarket screens is that they are easier and brighter to view, but harder to focus, and that has been my experience. Dimmer screens were always the Achilles heel on Rolleis, and most folks who have installed an aftermarket screen seem to like them. That being said, your choice of which screen to use may be based on your shooting style. Close-up portraits, wide open, might just be easier with the original screen's easier focusing. But many, many superb photos were made on much older Rolleis with screens vastly inferior to either of the two you will receive, and we sometimes forget that we have to make some compromises when we choose to use vintage equipment.

 

[Deleted member 65559]

"we sometimes forget that we have to make some compromises when we choose to use vintage equipment. "
.....or with new equipment for that matter

 

[oftheherd]

Congratulations on your new purchase. I am sure you will like it. I had a Yashica 123 MAT G years ago and loved it. I didn't like the 4x4 at first, but came to enjoy the freedom it provided.

 

[Sarcophilus Harrisii]

I've always wanted a TLR and never managed to get one. Until about 6 minutes ago.
So I had my eye on the 2.8F and it seems so did everybody else. I was bidding on it up to about $2K but gave up as there was a 2.8E finishing some few hours later which was in slightly better condition than the F.

filedata/fetch?id=4809961&d=1668960959
filedata/fetch?id=4809963&d=1668961013

So I won this E for just over a grand which I think is a decent price considering the F ended at about $2.2K.
I can't imagine F being TWICE as good as E?
Especially that this E is in near mint shape (at least going by the description) and the F was just about acceptable.

My question is: the seller included the original Rolleiflex screen that came with the camera but right now there's the BEATTIE Intenscreen installed. Supposedly much better / brighter.

filedata/fetch?id=4809965&d=1668961050

I was wondering if anyone had any experience with these? Keep it? Change it back to the original? I'm new to the TLR... Excited to get this in the post in the next few days.

Never used a Beattie screen but to answer your first question: no, I don't think the F series are twice as good as an E. They are lovely cameras, for sure. And they are the model which is often recommended as the best one to purchase, hence, photographers new to medium format may discount other options as good or even better for them. There is more demand for the 2.8F series in particular for this and other reasons.

If one puts emotion aside, though, the actual benefits, in use, of an F series: a pentaprism, if you want one (although E2->, T, Wide, Tele & Rolleicord Vb can also take a prism); 220 capability in some cases (virtually extinct); coupled meter (is using a built in meter really that critical, if you are already committed to medium format?); command a considerable price premium over older models. Personally, I prefer to go back even further, and have long said the 2.8C and D models are the sweet spot for price v image quality. But, the bottom line is you should assess a Rollei by its condition, not its age. One can last a long time if well cared for. Equally, it doesn't matter if a particular example is a late F white face, if it's been bashed to the shithouse, and brutalised. If you had your heart set on an F series, being patient for a better candidate would have been prudent. But, given a choice between a so-so F or a really good E, if you are equally happy to use either model, you have made absolutely the right decision.

 

[aizan]

To repeat the old adage, buy a camera according to condition, not age. I'd say you made the right choice! That Rolleiflex is a nice one.

I would keep the Beattie installed if you plan on using it mostly in low light. The extra brightness helps. On the other hand, if you plan on using it mostly when the sun's out, I would install the stock screen since the focusing snap (contrast) is higher. If your use is split evenly, I'd recommend the Beattie.

 

[x-ray]

I’ve owned quite a few Rollei TLR’s since the 60’s including an MX-EVS model, E, 2 D’s, Rolleicord Vb and currently an F 3.5 Planar.

I picked up my F for $75 in an antique shop, cleaned it up outside and had a CLA because the shutter was sticking. All total I have about $500 in a pretty much new 3.5 F. Honestly I’d rather have an E model without the meter because the meters in the E and F weren’t very good. The meter sees too broad an area and is very easily fooled and a high percentage have bad selenium cells. Many people remove the meter. I started to do it and bought a plug for the meter movement and one for the meter cell but decided to leave mine intact because it works and is accurate.

The differences between the E and F aren’t worth any difference in price in my opinion.

As to the screen, I’ve had bright screens and never liked them. I bought an Olson screen and it’s ok but I put the original grid split image screen back in and like it best.

They’re excellent cameras, enjoy it!

 

[bbutterfield]

Can I ask where you found a “plug for the meter movement?” I’d like to preserve my 3.5f meter but I never use it. Thanks for any info you have.

 

[kknox]

You have a Super camera I have the same one. Had a full cla love it. Congratulations

 

[raid]

Congratulations on getting this TLR. I have owned several Rolleiflex TLR cameras, including a 2.8F and 2.8E. I sold both, but I kept the basic 2.8D. The meter is not important to me as I am used to using a hand held spot meter with the TLR cameras. At one stage later I got a 3.5F as I was curious what so many people seem to like about this model. I still have it. In the end, it is all about the taking lens and not the camera model. Well, the photographer is also important!

 

[Beemermark]

About the only significant difference is the lack of the removable folding hood on the E. I've had number of F models over the years and also have a 3.5f "C" (I keep because I have the close up attachments). I do have a prism for the F but rarely use it.

 

[ravenxarmy]

Thank you for all the responses!
I've still not got the camera. It's arriving on Thursday. From the auction photos above is it possible to tell whether it's an E or E2 or E3??
I am getting curious about it now. As I understand it the hood on the E model is non removeable. The E2 adds a removeable hood and works with a pentaprism. E3 has removeable hood and the ground glass has split image.
I think the seller said he switched the screens himself which leads me to believe this would be one with a removeable hood?
I imagine you'd need someone with proper tools to switch screens on the original E?

 

[Godfrey]

Thank you for all the responses!
I've still not got the camera. It's arriving on Thursday. From the auction photos above is it possible to tell whether it's an E or E2 or E3??
I am getting curious about it now. As I understand it the hood on the E model is non removeable. The E2 adds a removeable hood and works with a pentaprism. E3 has removeable hood and the ground glass has split image.
I think the seller said he switched the screens himself which leads me to believe this would be one with a removeable hood?
I imagine you'd need someone with proper tools to switch screens on the original E?

Yes, the primary difference between the E and F models is the latter's interchangeable viewfinder and easily interchangeable focusing screen. The picture of the camera you showed does not have the latches for the interchangeable viewfinder, so it is likely an E, not an E2 (which had the interchangeable viewfinders).

While it is a little harder to do (and to keep the focusing screen properly aligned with the focusing system) it's not *that* hard to change the screen on any Rolleiflex. With models prior to the F, you simply had to keep the focusing screen's shim stack intact and then test the focus to be sure the screen was in the right position after installing a replacement screen. Not too hard to do if you have a good magnifying loupe and a sturdy camera stand or tripod—and a reliable fixed target—to work with.

I had a number of different Rollei TLRs over the years, from the 1949 Automat to the last 2.8/3.5F "Whiteface". They're all marvelous cameras ... I actually preferred the older 3.5MX/3.5MX-EVS more than the later 2.8E and 2.8F models because I never found the meters to be all that useful and never used the additional features (like 220 film capability, interchangeable viewfinders, etc), and the older models were smaller and lighter. The Planar lens on the 3.5F was a notch better performing than the older Tessar models, but not enough so to be all that compelling given the difference in price.

I had original Rollei ground glass, later improved OEM, Beattie, and Maxwell focusing screens in my cameras over the years. The Maxwell screen is the only alternative to the original Rollei screens I found to be worth the money; the Beattie is bright but has poor focusing contrast. The OEM ground glass was dim but very very accurate to focus with; Maxwell screens improve the brightness but remain very good on focusing contrast. Personally, the focusing aids (split image and microprism) always got in my way ... I always preferred the simple matte fresnel groundglass screen with horizontal and vertical orientation grid ... It's the same type of screen I use in my Hasselblads today, and always used in my Nikon F/FE2/FM2 cameras.

It looks like you found a very nice example of the 2.8E. I would not obsess over minor details and accessories unless they are essential to your photography. Once it comes in, go out and make photos with it, enjoy the heck out of it! You can do so much with just the basic camera, and perhaps a couple of filters and lens hood, there's not really much need for other stuff. 😉

be well,
G

 

[Godfrey]

Can I ask where you found a “plug for the meter movement?” I’d like to preserve my 3.5f meter but I never use it. Thanks for any info you have.

If you mean the white cover over the metering cell, that's an incident light metering diffusion mask. It used to be standard with every meter-equipped Rolleflex. You'll likely have to hunt one up on Ebay or similar now. If you just want to preserve the selenium cell, a small piece of opaque artist's tape over it will do that, or keeping the camera in a case when not in use.

G

 

[bbutterfield]

No, I have a cover for the cell, I’m referring here to the meter itself. Seems like it would be straightforward to 3d print a cap to replace the meter (whIch is easily removed) and I see occasional references to such a beast on this and other forums but I’ve never seen one offered for sale anywhere. I may just try to hack something from the hardware store…

 

[Godfrey]

Well, some of the E cameras were sold without meter, and had a blanking cover to fill the space and another one for the focusing knob where the needle is. I wonder if you could find those covers on Ebay ... since many of those cameras were upgraded to include a meter, back in the day.