Rolleiflex 2.8 vs. 3.5

ironhorse

ironhorse

Joe DuPont
Local time
1:25 PM
Joined
Aug 29, 2009
Messages
417
How much of a difference is there between the Rolleiflex 2.8 and the 3.5? I am looking to buy my first TLR and would like to know if there is, indeed, a significant difference. Is the 2.8 better for portraits? I would also consider a Rolleicord depending on the responses.

Thanks
 
If you like shallow DOF portraits then yes the 2.8 is better. It also costs a lot more then a user 3.5. I inherited a 3.5 a few years ago and while a great camera to use, I do wish I had the 2.8 for portraits and low light.
 
To me, the thing that would make the 2.8 better for portraits is the 80mm focol length. The extra 5mm doesn't seem like much, but go to the Rolleiflex group on flickr, and you'll see what I mean. The 1/3 stop difference in speed won't mean much, IMHO.
 
Many people claim that the 3.5F has "the best lens", if such a thing exists.
I have settled on a 2.8D Planar and a 3.5F Planar. The "secondary" models include two Automats and one Telde.
 
You have to know if you need the extra stop or not. Most people don't. The only real difference is DOF. Like Balto said, if you do a lot of portraits, then it's worth it. I find that the additional stop makes little difference in most low light situations.
Also keep in mind, that the 2.8 'Flexes are heavier.

If you never had a TLR, I would definately try a Rolleicord with a Xenar lens first. You will be amazed about the image quality. There is also a lot less that can go wrong, they are easier and cheaper to CLA and much lighter.
 
My 3.5E with 75mm Planar is magical/mythical.

Some years ago I had a 2.8D. It had a different look. Not worse, just not as jaw dropping in capturing fine detail. It is a great camera in its own right.
 
I held out for a 2.8 for a long time. Eventually I found a 3.5F in good condition here in the forums. I'm absolutely thrilled with it. I understand why it has a reputation for sharpness; it gets me all the detail I can imagine wanting with bokeh that doesn't distract, etc. And as a package its still a good size/weight.

I use a 35mm with a fast lens if I need more speed. I use a 35mm and a longer lens if I need more a narrower DOF. The Rollei may not be the most general purpose camera around but in the wide range of times its useable it does everything I could ask it to do.
 
IMO the 3.5s have a better 'feel' – lighter and better balanced. And for everything else except portraits, the 75mm lens seems to me an advantage.
 
raid said:
Many people claim that the 3.5F has "the best lens", if such a thing exists.
I have settled on a 2.8D Planar and a 3.5F Planar. The "secondary" models include two Automats and one Telde.
Click to expand...

Hi Raid, would you consider doing a side by side comparison with your two Rollei's, please?
 
my recommendation is the 3.5 tessar or 2.8 xenotar. I did not like my 2.8 planar but Ive seen some xenotar examples and I probably would have kept my rollei had it been a xenotar.
 
ironhorse said:
How much of a difference is there between the Rolleiflex 2.8 and the 3.5? I am looking to buy my first TLR and would like to know if there is, indeed, a significant difference. Is the 2.8 better for portraits? I would also consider a Rolleicord depending on the responses.

Thanks
Click to expand...
archeophoto said:
You have to know if you need the extra stop or not. Most people don't. The only real difference is DOF. Like Balto said, if you do a lot of portraits, then it's worth it. I find that the additional stop makes little difference in most low light situations.
Also keep in mind, that the 2.8 'Flexes are heavier.

If you never had a TLR, I would definately try a Rolleicord with a Xenar lens first. You will be amazed about the image quality. There is also a lot less that can go wrong, they are easier and cheaper to CLA and much lighter.
Click to expand...

The voice of wisdom.

I love my Flex to bits but the Cords aren't as much worse as many Flex owners try to convince themselves IMHO. Ideal solution is to have at least one of each, of course. Rolleicords are still good buying, well, some of them, anyway.
Regards
Brett
 
I've shot with a
80mm f2.8 Planar (2.8E)
80mm f2.8 Xenotar (2.8D)
75mm f3.5 Xenotar (3.5E)
75mm f3.5 Tessar (T/MX-EVS)

Some I have sold, some I have kept, and some I am selling. The one that I will not sell is the MX-EVS. I wouldn't get a Rolleicord but that is just me.

What I have concluded is that they area all excellent and sharp. You can see samples in my flickr stream.

I doubt most can tell the difference perspective-wise between the 75mm and 80mm lenses or a Planar vs Xenotar. The 80mm lenses are 2/3 faster and even though it isn't that much, when you need the light you need the light. I try not to pay too much attention to bokeh but I havn't noticed anyting disturbing from any of my Rollei's.

My favorite are actually the Bay I's at the moment because they balance better and are PLENTY sharp. From my T,


Untitled by Michael_Sergio_Barnes, on Flickr
 
thompsonks said:
IMO the 3.5s have a better 'feel' – lighter and better balanced. And for everything else except portraits, the 75mm lens seems to me an advantage.
Click to expand...

Agree with this. I found more differences in handling than in the lens. Don't notice half a stop with BW film really.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom