Jani_from_Finland
Well-known
There is a nice 3.5E for sale here on rff also, looks nice.
Rolleiflex 2.8E clean glass .. less than $700
- Thread starter raid
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 41
- Views 7K
raid
Dad Photographer
I would first consider cameras for sale at RFF before ebay if the price range is close.
The 3.5E is in England .. for 500 Pounds.
The 3.5E is in England .. for 500 Pounds.
MCTuomey
Veteran
OT: So I've decided to try TLR shooting (New Year resolution), just acquired an Autocord from an RFF member, and contacted Karl via e-mail. He responded almost instantly, in multi-paragraph detail, with suggestions and recommendations. How good is that, eh? I'm impressed so far.
Pikapig
Loving Analog
Wat is the difference between all the 2.8E, D and F?
What is the factor to determine which is better?
What is the factor to determine which is better?
gbealnz
Well-known
Possibly the lens? Plannar/Tessar/Xenotar?
Gary
Gary
Evolutionary changes over time. There are the same lens options in each model, same basic shutter. The best way to learn the subtle changes is to do a search and read what they are. Honestly, I can't keep it all straight. But a 2.8 C, D, E, F.... All are great cameras which are equally capable.
canetsbe
Well-known
D, E, F all pretty much use the same range of lenses. The planars and the xenotars. I don't think they used tessars as they were put in the MX cameras (correct me if I'm wrong). I have heard all are superb. I own a 3.5F with a planar, and a 2.8E with a xenotar. Both are amazing.. the planar having a bit more of a crispy, "3D" rendition whereas the xenotar is sharp but with buttery smooth contrast.
As for the bodies, they all had slight differences in features, layout, etc. But IMO they are pretty much all the same camera when push comes to shove.
As for the bodies, they all had slight differences in features, layout, etc. But IMO they are pretty much all the same camera when push comes to shove.
thompsonks
Well-known
About the RolleiWide that someone thought was a steal at $2300: Adorama (dba Adorwin) has been trying to sell it on xBay for a couple of months. It disappeared for a while & then re-appeared, suggesting someone bought it & then returned it under their (generous) return policy.
It has a heavy-duty flash bracket on the side, suggesting heavy-duty commercial use as a press or wedding camera.
If you wonder what happened to the regular focusing hood so that it ended up with a prism, you might assume the finder got beat up from heavy use. The good news is that you could use a regular E or F finder on it instead of the prism – you don't have to have the special one for RolleiWides because all that adds is the direct-vision 'sportsfinder,' which most folks wouldn't use anyway.
I asked them to take a close look at the lens & got only the boilerplate reply of some defects that won't interfere with image quality.
All in all it didn't sound very good, so I looked elsewhere (got one with a harmless cosmetic ding from B&H).
Kirk
It has a heavy-duty flash bracket on the side, suggesting heavy-duty commercial use as a press or wedding camera.
If you wonder what happened to the regular focusing hood so that it ended up with a prism, you might assume the finder got beat up from heavy use. The good news is that you could use a regular E or F finder on it instead of the prism – you don't have to have the special one for RolleiWides because all that adds is the direct-vision 'sportsfinder,' which most folks wouldn't use anyway.
I asked them to take a close look at the lens & got only the boilerplate reply of some defects that won't interfere with image quality.
All in all it didn't sound very good, so I looked elsewhere (got one with a harmless cosmetic ding from B&H).
Kirk
Kirk,
this mirrors the Tele that they listed a couple of months ago with taking lens separation problems. It mysteriously re-appeared again, a few weeks later. I noticed the wide a few days ago myself, and could not help wondering if they both came from the same source, of course we will never know.
Regards,
Brett
2.8 Xenotar, and then, Planar lenses debuted on the C model and carried over to the D. The C has no EV system. I like it for this reason and the round specular highlights it will always deliver at any f stop. IIRC it was the first to offer double exposure.
The D has the same standard finder but with larger control wheels and EV coupling you can select or de-select. Five blade aperture from D to F can give pentagon highlights. It doesn't really matter though.
The E model (there are a few sub types) introduced optional uncoupled selenium metering. They could be bought with the meter or without and it could be user fitted after purchase if desired. Lens options were Xenotar and Planar in 2.8 or 3.5. Removable viewfinder hoods as well.
The F model introduced coupled metering when fitted (most 2.8 models I have seen tend to have a meter). Same lens choices.
The T models were also available with mostly 3.5 Tessar lenses and a run of 3.5 Xenars towards the end, plus no automatic film loading (red dot like a Rolleicord) but still lever film advance and integral shutter cocking. They have a feature set unique to them.
I think condition is everything and personally, I don't think choosing a beat up F over a good C or D is great idea. The F models are very popular because they are newer, have coupled metering and were well sorted. But a sound example of the earlier models shouldn't be dismissed. They are much better value than an F, providing a built in meter is not on your list of "must haves". Personally, I think they look nicer without the meters (especially the C & D models which do not have a blanking plate for the meter cell when it is not fitted) and I tend to use a hand held meter anyway.
I would encourage anyone to consider the early models, however it has to be noted that the lens coatings seemed to improve with later cameras, and it's really important to examine the taking lenses carefully because coating problems with Cs and Ds are very common. The 2.8 Xenotar has a front element with a single piece of glass and coatings that are less than bulletproof. The 2.8 Planar is a bonded pair and separation problems can occur with it, so, whether your preference is Zeiss or Schneider either type needs careful examination.
Which is better? You can get a dozen different answers here. Honestly, they're all better. Really. C or D. E or F, Zeiss or Schneider. It doesn't matter, as long as it is in good condition. But you need one. Now.
Regards,
Brett
Pikapig
Loving Analog
Thanks guys for the explanation...its very tempting to get one..i owned a yashica mat 124g, a minolta autocord and a mamiya c330..and its very tempting to sell some of these away for one...but then again..i have been questioning myself if its worth doing so....
Dan Daniel
Well-known
Condition, condition, condition. That's the factor to determine which is better.
Sure, there are certain features on various models which might influence your decision. Metering, EVS intelrocks, removable viewing hood and screens... those would be the biggies?
But underneath these features, the basic camera was well-designed and worked out by the time Rollei was making the C. So condition is the base consideration.
Disclosure:
I have only been a film photographer (again) for three years but have become entranced by these old German icons of design and functional beauty...
YES!! IT IS!!
What did I read somewhere I can no longer remember? Something like:
"You don't need one, but they make life better..."
Whilst I am always supportive of any TLR users efforts and passion (there were some wonderful images posted into the Kalloflex thread, for example) if I may be permitted to be blunt: Rollei has always been the standard against which all other TLRs are measured. There is a reason for this. I don't necessarily encourage you to dispose of the other TLRs (I'm loving the C220 that turned up recently) but, I do encourage you to acquire a Rollei. Why? It's obvious. Clearly, you are already a TLR "believer". Quite simply, you owe it to yourself to try one.
Life is just too short, not to.
Regards,
Brett
I have only been a film photographer (again) for three years but have become entranced by these old German icons of design and functional beauty...
YES!! IT IS!!
What did I read somewhere I can no longer remember? Something like:
"You don't need one, but they make life better..."
Whilst I am always supportive of any TLR users efforts and passion (there were some wonderful images posted into the Kalloflex thread, for example) if I may be permitted to be blunt: Rollei has always been the standard against which all other TLRs are measured. There is a reason for this. I don't necessarily encourage you to dispose of the other TLRs (I'm loving the C220 that turned up recently) but, I do encourage you to acquire a Rollei. Why? It's obvious. Clearly, you are already a TLR "believer". Quite simply, you owe it to yourself to try one.
Life is just too short, not to.
Regards,
Brett
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
Sold my Yashica-Mat 124G to buy a Rolleiflex 2.8F.
The lens in the Yashica is so good, it's almost eerie. Totally even exposure over the whole shot, even into the far corners it had no light fall-off... which I happen to like.
The Rolleiflex has slight (or sometimes less slight) light fall-off and it's 3D-properties are far better than those on the Yashica, which in general I found 'too flat' in both lighting and perspective. The Rolleiflex brings dynamics into the shot, even with stationary objects (and portraits!).
The C330 80mm lens (with Kodak Portra!) is somewhere inbetween, I might add.
The lens in the Yashica is so good, it's almost eerie. Totally even exposure over the whole shot, even into the far corners it had no light fall-off... which I happen to like.
The Rolleiflex has slight (or sometimes less slight) light fall-off and it's 3D-properties are far better than those on the Yashica, which in general I found 'too flat' in both lighting and perspective. The Rolleiflex brings dynamics into the shot, even with stationary objects (and portraits!).
The C330 80mm lens (with Kodak Portra!) is somewhere inbetween, I might add.
Pikapig
Loving Analog
haha..this is not helping....it only makes me think again on whether i already own something that is good enough...
Nonetheless thanks everyone! Guess i will not trade them off for a rolly...but save up to get a rolly and do the comparison myself..haha
Mudman
Well-known
Love how my 3.5 tessar renders
Frontman
Well-known
I pulled the trigger on the 2.8E. I'll let you know what it's like after I receive it. I wanted a user-camera with a clean lens, hopefully this one will do the job.
Pikapig
Loving Analog
Congrats...will wait for your pics and updates!
raid
Dad Photographer
I hope that this is a goodd eal for you in the end.
Frontman
Well-known
I paid with my Japanese credit card, so at the current exchange rate it cost less than 50k yen, which is about 50% lower than it would have cost a few years ago. So long as it is as advertised, I should be happy with it.
Similar threads
