New (to me) Rolleiflex 2.8 E

[sreed2006]

I purchased a Rolleiflex 2.8 E yesterday at a camera show. It came with a full complement of filters, close focus lenses, a quick-release tripod mount, a tripod mount for panoramas, a Rolleikin kit for allowing use of 35mm film, and this very frustrating piece of equipment called a Rolleimeter (more about which later).

The camera has some nicks in the paint, but looks to be in great shape. This is my first good look at a TLR, and I have to say that it is a very impressive work of technology.

On the one that I purchased, the knobs to control the shutter speed, f/stop, and meter/ASA are difficult to turn. Also, the manual says that the shutter button presses in easily until just before the shutter fires, but that is not the case with this camera's shutter button - it is difficult to press, and I cannot really feel when it is about to trip the shutter.

Should I send it in for a CLA? Would a good CLA make the knobs easier to turn, or are they normally pretty stiff? If I do send it in, are there any suggestions on where to send it (I am in Texas, USA).

The Rolleimeter (rangefinder attachment) came with the camera, but I have not been able to attach it. There are metal posts on either side of the light meter lenses. The post on the left easily goes underneath the Rolleimeter, but the post on the right of the light meter lenses runs into metal on the Rolleimeter, and prevents the clamp on the right of the Rolleimeter from reaching to the back of the meter housing. If you know what I'm talking about, can you explain to me how to get this device attached? It cannot be that hard, but I've spent at least three hours on it so far, with no luck (and scratched the paint a bit, which is really disappointing). Every instruction I've seen for the Rolleimeter says to "put it on the camera." So, that's why I think it should be easy - I just haven't been able to figure it out, yet.

Thanks in advance.

 

[rayfoxlee]

Congratulations on what sounds like a superb outfit. I have owned 2x Rolleicord Vb's, 2.8F and a Wide Angle and they are all fantastic cameras.

First of all the CLA issue. The camera is between 50 and 54 years old, so the oils are likely to have dried out, so the buttons, dials and lever wind are unlikely to work as smoothly as they should. The shutter button is a firmer press than you are probably used to anyway, but is should not be so hard to depress that you risk camera shake - if it is, then a CLA is overdue. The dials are cross coupled, meaning that if the coupling of shutter speed and aperture
is engage, there will be more resistance as moving one dial changes both functions. To uncouple, press the centre of LH dial (looking down into the camera) and move the middle of the button to 90 degrees from where it is at present. This will uncouple/couple the function. I hope this makes sense!

The rolleimeter is a black art and, frankly, I cannot imagine why you would need it. You should have critical focussing when at eye-level through a secondary peephole in the back of the opened viewfinder, but this gives an upside down image of half the frame (from recollection). The rolleimeter was supposed to permit critical focussing in poor light with the split image. If you would email me at rfoxlee@dsl.pipex.com, I can email you some instructions from The Rollei Manual by Alec Pearlman that may or may not help.

Once CLA'd, you have a truly outstanding kit capable of the highest quality. Enjoy!

Ray

 

[sreed2006]

Ray

Thanks for the offer. I've just sent you e-mail.

I have de-coupled the shutter-speed from the f/stop dials, and the shutter speed dial is still pretty stiff. When the knobs are coupled, it really takes turning both of them at once to get them to move, without having the ridges on the knob dig into my finger. The camera is in such beautiful condition, I suspect it hasn't been used much in the past few years.

The man who sold it to me said he was selling it for his 80 year old neighbor. The Rolleimeter itself was in an old Kodak sheetfilm box that expired in October 1960. Neither of those of course are conclusive, but my guess is it has been resting quietly for quite a long time.

 

[rayfoxlee]

Apologies, I gave you the wrong email address - should be rayfoxlee@dsl.pipex.com!

Ray

 

[Leigh Youdale]

I bought an E2 a couple of years ago and immediately sent it for a full CLA as it hadn't been used for about 40 years. Even now the knurled knobs for aperture and speed are a bit stiff but everything works fine and I probably just need to use it more!
I'd get the CLA done with particular attention being paid to the problem areas you've highlighted.
You might also look into getting a Maxwell viewing screen fitted. On the E2 you can do it yourself very easily but I'm not sure if the E allows the same easy removal of the viewing hood. The improvement in viewing clarity made it worthwhile for me.

 

[Leigh Youdale]

Is this any help in fitting the Rolleimeter? It all looks a bit too complicated to me to be really parctical.
<http://www.butkus.org/chinon/rollei/rolleiflex_acc/rolleiflex_acc-2.htm>

 

[Sanders McNew]

S, congratulations on a great camera. I have
an embarrassing number of Rolleiflexes but my
wife and I both shoot 2.8Es -- to my mind (and
hers) it is the best of the series, for many
reasons.

There are 4-5 repair people in the US who are
routinely recommended for Rolleiflex service,
and I have used several. I have not used Harry
Fleenor, widely regarded is the best of the group
-- Harry is always backlogged and you might wait
awhile before seeing your camera again -- but by
all accounts he is quite good.

http://www.rolleirepairs.com/

I send all of my Rolleiflex work to Paul Ebel, up in
Wisconsin. Paul is fantastic; I cannot say enough
good things about him. Of the repairmen I have
used, Paul consistently gets it right, promptly, at
a fair price. Paul's email: paulebel44@yahoo.com .

A Maxwell screen is a wise investment. Be sure
to get the version WITHOUT the center microprism
focusing aid -- they are much inferior to the plain
screens. (If you must have the center spot, then
get a Beattie screen instead.)

And have fun with your new camera.

 

[sreed2006]

Leigh, That manual page shows exactly the Rolleimeter that I have. The instructions say:

B. Attaching Rolleimeter to Camera
1. Set camera at infinity (oo).
2. Turn mounting screw c counter-clockwise until it stops.
3. Hook the Rolleimeter over the left edge of the nameplate and push it back so that the right side fastener can be engaged. Be sure that the actuating lever rests on the camera's movable iron panel.
4. Hold Rolleimeter firmly in position with thumb and turn screw c clockwise until tight. Removal is effected by complete counter-clockwise turning of mounting screw c and lifting off.

It is the Step 4 and "screw c" that is not getting the Rolleimeter onto the camera. The illustrations in the manual do not show the back end of screw c, but screw c has an L-shaped clamp that is supposed to tuck behind the camera's meter housing, and then as you turn the screw, the clamp should tighten the device to the camera. When I attempt this, screw c's L-shaped clamp end does not reach the back of the camera's meter housing. So, tightening screw c does not tighten the Rolleimeter to the camera, since the clamp is not grabbing anything. (Would it help if I posted pictures?)

As to whether or not the device is impractical, I cannot wait to find out! I mean, since I already have it, it would be nice to at least try it out.

I put a roll of Ilford HP5 Plus 400 through the camera yesterday, and was as excited as a kid at a carnival. This is a very nice camera.

 

[sreed2006]

Sanders, Thank you very much for the information. I'll put another couple rolls through it, and then send it in for a CLA.

I really, really like the Depth of Field indicator on the camera. There are, of course, many nice features, but that one feature is just awesome.

 

[laurentb]

S, congratulations on a great camera. I have
an embarrassing number of Rolleiflexes but my
wife and I both shoot 2.8Es -- to my mind (and
hers) it is the best of the series, for many
reasons.

There are 4-5 repair people in the US who are
routinely recommended for Rolleiflex service,
and I have used several. I have not used Harry
Fleenor, widely regarded is the best of the group
-- Harry is always backlogged and you might wait
awhile before seeing your camera again -- but by
all accounts he is quite good.

http://www.rolleirepairs.com/

I send all of my Rolleiflex work to Paul Ebel, up in
Wisconsin. Paul is fantastic; I cannot say enough
good things about him. Of the repairmen I have
used, Paul consistently gets it right, promptly, at
a fair price. Paul's email: paulebel44@yahoo.com .

A Maxwell screen is a wise investment. Be sure
to get the version WITHOUT the center microprism
focusing aid -- they are much inferior to the plain
screens. (If you must have the center spot, then
get a Beattie screen instead.)

And have fun with your new camera.

Sanders, if you don't mind (and if you didn't post them somewhere else 😉), could you detail the reasons to prefer the 2.8E ? I'm the very happy owner of a 3.5B, and am considering a 2.8 for the near term future. I had a look at the various 2.8 models and would appreciate some factual information about the pros of this particular model.

 

[furcafe]

Sanders:

Could you elaborate on why you don't like the Maxwell screen w/ center microprism focusing aid &/or why you think the Beattie is better? I've never seen the Beattie screens, & have the Maxwell Hi-Lux Micro/Split RF, where the center is surrounded by matte, on my 2.8F & Rolleiwide & the Hi-Lux Brilliant Matte on my Tele-Rollei. As a TLR newbie, I opted for that setup because that's what I'm used to w/SLRs, where I use the center focus aid(s) for rough focus (especially for wides) & then use the rest of the screen for fine focusing.

Thanks, Chris

A Maxwell screen is a wise investment. Be sure
to get the version WITHOUT the center microprism
focusing aid -- they are much inferior to the plain
screens. (If you must have the center spot, then
get a Beattie screen instead.)

And have fun with your new camera.

 

[Sanders McNew]

Sanders, if you don't mind (and if you didn't post them somewhere else 😉), could you detail the reasons to prefer the 2.8E ? I'm the very happy owner of a 3.5B, and am considering a 2.8 for the near term future. I had a look at the various 2.8 models and would appreciate some factual information about the pros of this particular model.

Laurent, really, there are no clunkers in the
Rolleiflex line -- I would be happy shooting any
of them. I prefer the later 2.8Es (with the
removable viewfinders) for a number of
reasons. They provide the flexibility of the
modern finder (introduced in the middle of
the E-series run), without having a light meter
coupled to the aperture and shutter dials as
in the later F series. And I prefer the 2.8s to
the 3.5s because I can mount a 0.70x Tele
Rolleinar on it -- it is weak enough to leave
on the camera all the time, trading infinity focus
for the ability to come in closer for portraits.
And the 2.8s are a bit heavier, which I find
helps me to steady the camera when off a
tripod at slow shutter speeds.

 

[Sanders McNew]

Could you elaborate on why you don't like the Maxwell screen w/ center microprism focusing aid &/or why you think the Beattie is better? I've never seen the Beattie screens, & have the Maxwell Hi-Lux Micro/Split RF, where the center is surrounded by matte, on my 2.8F & Rolleiwide & the Hi-Lux Brilliant Matte on my Tele-Rollei. As a TLR newbie, I opted for that setup because that's what I'm used to w/SLRs, where I use the center focus aid(s) for rough focus (especially for wides) & then use the rest of the screen for fine focusing.

The two screens are different -- the Fresnel
lines on the screen with the center spot black
out toward the edges when viewing it through
the magnifying loupe. And since I tend to
focus on objects (eyes) toward the edge of
the screen in my portraits, the screens with
the focusing aids frustrate me. The plain
screens do not do this, and appear much
smoother overall compared to the screens
with the focusing aids.

As a general rule, the center spots are a
crutch that you should learn not to use with
a Rolleiflex. If you focus with it and then
move the camera to compose for the shot,
your focus will be off -- just like with a
rangefinder. It is easy to focus on the
glass without using the center spot, but
the center spot exerts a certain gravity
that pulls the eye to it, doesn't it? 🙂

 

[sreed2006]

Further research on the Rolleimeter led to the information that there were two different Rolleimeter models made for each of the 2.8 and 3.5 cameras. That is four models in total. Two were for Rolleis that have light meters, and two were for Rolleis that don't have light meters.

The model I have goes on a 2.8 without a light meter.

Also, the Rolleimeter was designed to allow focusing in low-light conditions. After about 1959, Rollei put brighter ground glass screens on their cameras and discontinued the Rolleimeter since it was not needed anymore.

Therefore, I have a really beautiful piece of German engineering that I have no use for (other than to look at).

Should I keep it for the eventuality that I'll some day acquire a Rolleiflex 2.8 without a light meter, or should I put it up for sale?

 

[laurentb]

Thanks, Sanders ! I was wondering when the removable finder came (seems a good idea to be able to clean the dust of the mirror), but I have no use of an internal meter.

 

[Sanders McNew]

Thanks, Sanders ! I was wondering when the removable finder came (seems a good idea to be able to clean the dust of the mirror), but I have no use of an internal meter.

Nor do I. There was a model, the 2.8E3, that
had the removable finder and no internal meter.
My wife and I both have this model and it suits
our needs perfectly.

 

[robklurfield]

re CLA, Krikor Maralian of Krimar in NJ is very good and reasonably priced, too. When I saw him about two months ago, he just gotten a shipment of Maxwell screens.

 

[sreed2006]

Snapshot of the Rolleiflex 2.8E, with some of the accessories that came with it.

And, since I have a nice film camera, I decided to process my own negatives, for the first time ever. Ilford HP5 Plus, hanging in the kitchen (toward the left side of the tree).

I am saddened that working with film and film cameras is getting harder and harder. Today, I looked high and low for a changing bag for negatives, and could not find one for sale anywhere in the big city. Finding the developing chemicals on a shelf is still possible, but you really have to know where to look - and the selection is pretty limited.

But - I finally, finally processed my own B&W negatives, and while I didn't get it perfect, I did it! There's kinks and bends in the negatives here and there. Luckily, some of them look only partly destroyed. 🙂

 

[Sanders McNew]

I am saddened that working with film and film cameras is getting harder and harder. Today, I looked high and low for a changing bag for negatives, and could not find one for sale anywhere in the big city. Finding the developing chemicals on a shelf is still possible, but you really have to know where to look - and the selection is pretty limited.

Move to New York. Or learn to order
from B+H and Freestyle.

 

[raid]

Congrats on the 2.8E. I sold the 2.8E3 and the 2.8F and I kept the basic 2.8D with Planar lens. I have a Maxwell screen with focus aid, and for the photos that I take, it works fine. I understand where Sanders is coming from though.