Rolleiflex 2.8 Models

[PatrickT]

I'm sure this has been explained on this board before, but I find myself really wanting a 2.8 Rolleiflex and don't know where to start. My Rollei T has been serving me well, but I can't help but want the extra speed of the 2.8 (I like to shoot wide open a lot).

So, where do I start with the 2.8s? Which are the ones to look out for, the ones to avoid, the ones that are underrated, the ones that are overrated? What are the main differences between the models?

Thanks in advance! Here's one I recently dug up again with my T shot on trix...


Sophia by Patrick Trautfield, on Flickr

 

[Steve M.]

Your best bet is to buy one (either an E or an F) w/ a removable focusing hood and a Planar lens. I had a T for some time and loved it, but bought an E3 w/ 3.5 Planar and went out and shot the same subjects w/ the same cameras. The Tessar is a fine lens, but in all cases, and especially at wide apertures close up AND far away, the Planar was clearly the better lens. Pure magic. I used to have 2.8C w/ a Xenotar too, and as good as that lens was, I think the Planar is better. Other than the Voigtlander Heliar, it's the best medium format lens I've ever used, and shots from my E3 are clearly better than the Hasselblad 80 2.8 Planar I had.

 

[Leigh Youdale]

Have a look around here - <http://johnsrolleionlypage.homestead.com/Rolleimainpage.html>

 

[andredossantos]

The 2.8C and 2.8D models are usually cheaper and while I don't know if the design was altered in later models I LOVE the look of the Planar on my 2.8D. These models do not have a meter which I like since Ive never used an onboard meter with a Rollei. You can find these models for several hundred dollars cheaper than the E and F models.

 

[HarryW]

Patrick,
This site should give you the differences between all Rollei models.
http://www.rolleiclub.com/cameras/tlr/info/all_TLR.shtml
Happy hunting

Regards
Harry

 

[PatrickT]

Thanks for the responses. I went to the sites and while they helped a bit, I still find myself confused.

Say, for example, I wanted to know the functional difference between a 2.8C and a 2.8D. What is it?

Not sure why I find this confusing, but I do...thanks in advance

 

[raid]

There are few "functions" to be compared between these two models.
There is a shutter and there are two lenses.
That's basically it.
You look through ....

 

[Frank Petronio]

I'd get a 2.8C that is or could be cleaned and adjusted, perhaps with a focusing screen upgrade. The lens has a rounded aperture and the mechanics are simpler than the later cameras.

If you must have a late camera, the E2 and E3 variations are a better deal than a F.

Frankly, a pentagonal aperture opening, a questionable meter whose housing gets easily cracked, and a removable hood that allows you to mount a crappy prism are negatives, not positives to me.

 

[archeophoto]

The 2.8C has a 10 bladed diaphragm. Hence it renders backgrounds different then any other Rollei. That's the main difference. Check out some photos taken with the 2.8C on Flickr and you will see what I mean.
I don't think anyone can pick out a difference in image quality between a Planar and a Xenotar in a photo lineup.
There are endless discussion on the net about this and they never lead to anything. There are so many variables in photography (especially if you shoot wide open) that no one can tell you one is "clearly better" than the other one. You will never encounter the same photographic situation twice, so how would somebody really compare?

In the sample you posted I doubt that anybody would see a difference between your 3.5T and any 2.8 as there are no details in the corners to distinguish sharpness differences.

Thanks for the responses. I went to the sites and while they helped a bit, I still find myself confused.

Say, for example, I wanted to know the functional difference between a 2.8C and a 2.8D. What is it?

Not sure why I find this confusing, but I do...thanks in advance

 

[raid]

These are good points.
Does the 2.8D have 5 blades instead?
The OOF I get with the camera looks great.

Common remark online: "The later ones (D and onwards) have ugly 5 blade apertures. The C has 10."

 

[AgentX]

I don't notice a massive amount of difference between my 2.8C xenotar and my 2.8E planar.

I'd buy whichever 2.8 you can find in good condition at the right price.

I really liked dealing with Koh's camera on my 2.8C. Good prices, nice service, everything CLA'd by a former factory tech going out the door.

 

[MikeL]

Patrick, I agree with agentx and others, functional condition (mirror in right place, focusing mount collimation (not banged out of alignment), shutter working properly) is a bigger concern than which 2.8 model. I have a xenotar with a big smudge on the lens, but it is well collimated, and I can't imagine anyones images failing due to resolution. The thing is sharp!

 

[tedwhite]

Here's my 2.8E Xenotar (1956) with pistol grip. The pistol grip works well - as long as you grip it with your right hand as it's curved that way. Helps steady the camera and you don't have to feel around for the shutter release. The camera was CLA'd a couple of years ago by Ross Yerkes in L.A., at which time I had him install a Maxwell screen. These are superb cameras with top quality glass. I have heard all the Planar vs. Xenotar discussions. I'd be happy with either.

 

[PatrickT]

Thanks for the response guys. Not having a ton of difference between the different models is a good reason to buy whichever I can find the best deal in. I'll keep looking!