Rolleiflex 2.8 vs. 3.5

[raid]

Of course all Rolleis give you the option of using any aperture you like. The 2.8 and 3.5 refers to the MAXIMUM (widest open) apertures of the two types.

The point made was not about the aperture 3.5 being somehow better than the aperture 2.8. What users wanted to say had to do with some characteristics of some cameras. The 3.5 models are lighter, and some users seem to find something "magical" about the rendition of the 3.5 lenses.

 

[Larry H-L]

I own two Rollei "E" Xenotar cameras, a 2.8 and a 3.5 - both are fine lenses with little quality difference. But I do like the wider view of the 75mm f3.5 when shooting landscape stuff.

The one I use the most? A Minolta Autocord. Lighter, brighter screen, love the focus slider, great lens, flat film path, cheap accessories.

 

[f16sunshine]

If you go for a f3.5 look for a nice clean Rolleiflex T. Tessar or Xenar lens version it does not matter (Both are excellent). The T takes Bay one accessories which are the easiest to find (filters, hood, rolleinar close up etc...). Expect to spend a total of $500-$600 or so with a complete CLA and screen upgrade. Bay iii is second easiest to find (the f2.8 models with Planar or Xenotar). Bay ii can be difficult and expensive (f3.5 with Planar and Xenotar)

Of the "normal" lens Rolleis. I own a f2.8D, f3.5F and a T with f3.5 75mm Tessar . The F2.8 is the king of Portraits and has an advantage with low light although not much. It will always be my favorite as I shoot open often.
Betweeen the T and 3.5F... the difference will really most only be noticed on the very edges at wide open. The Tessar is not as sharp there although the center is as good as you could ever want. Sharpness as you stop down evens things up between the two. My 3.5F has a Xenotar lens and as such, it is much more well corrected for an even field than the tessar.

Although they share the same lenses. The T model has a similar layout to the other Rolleiflexes where the Rolleicord has a knob wind on and IMO inferior film transport.
That's my two bits. Good luck.

 

[KoNickon]

I have a variety of these, and they're all great, but I would agree that the 2.8s are noticeably heavier. So the 3.5s are a very nice compromise, and the 3.5F has a nice bright screen. As for accessories, I may be wrong but it seems to me the Bay II accessories for the 3.5 are harder to come by than the Bay III for the 2.8 -- both are not cheap!

 

[JPD]

Between the 2.8 and 3.5 Planars, I have found the 2.8 to be less contrasty, and I like this better for B&W.

I too found the 2,8 Planar little less contrasty than the 3,5 Planar. I had a 2,8E but sold it and bought a late 3,5F and later also a 2,8F.

I have since sold the 2,8F. It was a fine camera, but I didn't use it that much. It's not that I didn't like the lower contrast, I often use my pre-war Rolleis with unocated lenses for black and white.

I haven't used a 2,8 Xenotar, but it's said to be contrastier than then Planar. I had a 3,5E3 with 3,5 Xenotar, and it was too contrasty for my taste.

 

[ZeissFan]

With most computers, a larger amount of RAM will provide a larger benefit than a slightly faster CPU. The two types of programs that benefit from having a fast CPU are games and video processing.

I don't know enough about the current image editing programs and know nothing about the processing of RAW images. I would think that a faster CPU would help, but getting one model down (3.8GHz vs. 4.3GHz) shouldn't be a huge performance hit.

And the number and type of programs running in the background also makes a big difference, as they tend to steal CPU cycles. I generally try to run as few programs as possible so that programs get as much CPU power as possible.

In the past, antivirus programs were big CPU hogs. I don't know if that is still true today. I'm not as big a PC geek as I once was -- although I did build myself a new PC last year, and I was able to get WinXP running in a virtual window under Windows 8 using VMWare.

By the way, I have a Rollei Magic II tucked away in a box somewhere. Not an impressive camera at all. Somewhat ugly, too.

Also, Roger, I think you are one of the best photography writers around, having read your columns in AP for years and also having bought several of your books. I hold you in very high esteem.

Even for processing big image files?

I'm not arguing. I don't know enough to do so. But I'd always assumed you'd see a modest improvement.

But to the OP: from limited experience, and it's always a personal question, the f/3.5 seems to me to have a 'magic' that the f/2.8 lacks.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Vics]

The point made was not about the aperture 3.5 being somehow better than the aperture 2.8. What users wanted to say had to do with some characteristics of some cameras. The 3.5 models are lighter, and some users seem to find something "magical" about the rendition of the 3.5 lenses.

I understand that. But that particular poster seemed to think that Rolleis had a fixed aperture. His previous post asked, "Is it not possible to change the aperture on these cameras? I mean, if you had a 2.8, you can't stop it down to 3.5?"

 

[raid]

I know, and I understood his posting (above) as not understanding what the fuss was all about since the aperture can be closed down to 3.5.

Maybe I am wrong here?

 

[SCLim]

Let your budget guide you. There is very little practical difference between 2.8s and 3.5s. You gain less than a stop of speed and at maximum aperture at close distances the DOF is very very thin. You won't be able to hand hold reliably in situations darker than f2.8 and 1/15s, at portrait distances. If you have f2.8 to use, great. At f3.5 and 1/8s, with the help of the neck strap, you can still take the picture.

The difference between 75mm and 80mm is not useful beyond a distance of say, 5m.

 

[graywolf]

The 2.8 is sharper, at f/2.8. grin

If you are shooting ASA 10 original Kodachrome you need the 2.8. Of course if you are it is 50 years out of date, and you can not get it processed anyway.

In the old days newspapers tended to use the 2.8's, wedding studios the 3.5's, most amateurs used the Tessar/Xenar lens cameras. Today the 2.8 is the more desirable collector's camera. Which of those six lenses is the best depends upon the particular lens you wind up with, as the best of any of them is better than the worst of any of them. In other words there is not actually all that much difference in photo quality between them. Sure you will notice a difference in a side by side comparison, but not I think to the point where you could look at a single photo and tell which lens it was shot with.

Personally, I rate lenses as "Professionally acceptable, or Not". I do not care if one is 10% better than another.

 

[Islandor]

Just thought I'd add my 2 cents... regarding a couple of comments here in this thread, and other places on the TLR forums here and elsewhere that say that the 3.5F's are lighter than the 2.8F's... there are not, they are identical actually (1120 grams). For the 3.5E vs the 2.8E there is over 100grams difference, but the 2.8C or D are about the same as the 3.5C or E's... The older MX or MX-EVS are a bit lighter though. And the "T"s with their plastic parts are lighter for sure!

Ref: http://www.rolleiclub.com/cameras/tlr/info/A-F_tlr.shtml

 

[jojoman2]

save your money, get a 3.5 and push your film. 2.8 you're paying premium prices, and then you're married to a camera with a normal lens. I bought a 2.8, and then fell in love with a wide angle perspective. Then I had to flip the 2.8

 

[Robert Lai]

I have the 6-element Planar in a 3.5 F, and the 5 element Xenotar in a 2.8F, both in Whiteface. I haven't compared them yet photographically as I'm primarily a hoarder and collector.😀

Actually, the 3.5 F has impeccable sharpness. I've had two 3.5F, and they seemed both to be the same way (both were 6-element Planars). The 2.8 F is a recent acquisition, and I just haven't had the chance to develop any film from it yet.

The 2.8 F has the original Rollei screen, which has adequate brightness, and good contrast.
The 3.5 F has the Maxwell screen, which has great brightness, and excellent contrast. It's an easier screen to focus with.
If the 2.8 F's lens turns out to be a good one, I may have the screen changed also.

Having said all this, a much more fun way to enter TLR photography is with the Minolta Autocord. That Tessar type lens is contrasty, and there is less fear of the preciousness of the camera that my near mint Whiteface Rolleis give me.

 

[ironhorse]

Funny that this thread should suddenly reappear. I just picked up a user, but fully functional Rolleiflex MX EVS for $130. Looking forward to my first roll of film.

 

[ray*j*gun]

I do not have a 2.8 but I just bought a mint 3.5F Planar and the lens is as sharp as anything I have seen on film. It is certainly sharper than my Hassey 80mm. I have no intention of using the 3.5 F for portraits

and the speed difference is unimportant to me.

 

[Range-rover]

Great shot Ray, I agree the 3.5's are great sharp enough for me.

 

[Art Vandalay]

I have 2 3.5Fs I got locally from a retired wedding photog. One's in user condition but works flawlessly; the other is in mint- but needs a CLA for a non-firing shutter. They're awesome cameras.

 

[mkvrnn]

The main reason for choosing a 2.8F over a 3.5 is to help you sleep at night.

I had trouble sleeping after I bought my first Rolleicord, a Va, because I knew the Vb was out there with that lovely quick release viewfinder. I had to have one, and when I found one I slept soundly for a few weeks. But then I started to think about Rolleiflexes and the sleepless nights returned. There followed an early Automat then my first Planar model, a rough £50 3.5F with a jammed shutter release which I managed to fix.

The next year or so brought a succession of Rolleiflexes including another Automat, several grey Ts in lovely condition, a really nice 3.5F and a pristine 2.8E. But I still sometimes lay awake at night, tormented by thoughts of a 2.8F. So I had to buy one, and when another even nicer one came along in its original box, I had to buy that as one as well.

So now at last I can sleep soundly. At least until I realise that I now have around 40 Rolleis and I wake up in a cold sweat.

But it does mean that I can go back to using the original Va without worrying that I might get better results with a more expensive camera.

 

[Islandor]

@mkvrnn

I think that you have encapsulated the essence of G.A.S. that many of use go through!!! But don't loose too much sleep, you can always part with a few of them and probably not come out too badly... and in the meantime you get to play with them, so rather than 'cold sweats', maybe the warm feeling of ownership can, if only even temporarily, be substituted for that 🙂 Every one of them has its own character. I only have about 25 at this point, so still have a ways to go t catch up to you! But I'm not worried... enjoying it actually 🙂

 

[mkvrnn]

Islandor

I appreciate your concern, but to be honest it isn't just the 40 Rolleis which deprive me of sleep. It's all the other TLRs and the Leica collection, not to mention the Leica clones and all those SLRs, both 35mm and medium format. I've always had a bit of a thing about half frame cameras too. I won't go into numbers.

And then there's the guitars. Cars too. And there are people out there who think that 9 lawn mowers is excessive: I sometimes think my wife is one of them.