Rolleiflex 2.8f versions

[bonyu]

I'm looking up serial numbers for 2.8f here and totally confused by its descriptions.

1. Is 2442134-2454999 the so-called type 2? But at other places, I saw people refer to 2,451,851 as the beginning of type 2.
2. According to the table below, the second batch of 2.8F has 12/24 transport. Does it mean they all have a 12/24 switch? Then, what does "the 12/24 switch may not be present" mean? I've seen many late productions have no 12/24 switch. Are they compatible with 220 film?
3. I thought only the film door with a huge bump was compatible with flat glass. When the table says flat glass, does it mean some cameras in this batch have the flat glass feature? Am I wrong about the film door's shape and the flat glass thing?

What would be a reasonable price for 2445xxx or 2455xxx in near mint condition? Should there be a big gap between their prices?

Thank you!

 

[TenEleven]

I'm looking up serial numbers for 2.8f here and totally confused by its descriptions.

1. Is 2442134-2454999 the so-called type 2? But at other places, I saw people refer to 2,451,851 as the beginning of type 2.
2. According to the table below, the second batch of 2.8F has 12/24 transport. Does it mean they all have a 12/24 switch? Then, what does "the 12/24 switch may not be present" mean? I've seen many late productions have no 12/24 switch. Are they compatible with 220 film?
3. I thought only the film door with a huge bump was compatible with flat glass. When the table says flat glass, does it mean some cameras in this batch have the flat glass feature? Am I wrong about the film door's shape and the flat glass thing?

What would be a reasonable price for 2445xxx or 2455xxx in near mint condition? Should there be a big gap between their prices?

Thank you!

[removed huge image]

1 &2. The type labels are not authoritative, for a couple of reasons.

• First of all all German (and Japanese!) camera makers used up parts before starting a new line, so there are transitional models and almost never a hard cut.
• Secondly the 12/24 switch could be retrofitted (and also removed again!) by Rollei on demand of the customer - it is not a good indicator of anything.
• The distinction between model 1/2 of the 2.8F is not meaningful to the end-user. Also, 220 film is not made anymore so if anything a 12/24 switch (one of my 2.8F's has them) is more a liability than anything else. The experience of shooting 220 with a Rolleiflex is clunky. Thus I shot maybe a grand total of 20 220 rolls out of the thousand or so I ran through these cameras.

3. The bumpy door with the three-way pressure plate is one part but not the entirety of the flat glass mechanism. The camera body also needs to have a provision for it. The most visible part will be a tiny pin that can be pushed in on the right hand side of the film rails.

I tried the flat glass thing for an entire roll before giving up on it and selling it for a good price to a collector. The gain in sharpness - even at great enlargements was negligible - but you sure do see the extra dust which collects on either side(!) of the glass. Also scratches. 120 film is mercifully a lot less scratch prone than 135 - but the "flat glass" it should be called scratch glass sure changed that. Tramline scratches galore as the dust gets dragged across the sensitive emulsion side with a lot of pressure thanks to the 3-setting pressure plate.

There should be no price variation between these serial numbers. The big jump is for the "White Face" models - I assume primarily again due to collectors, because there is no change in anything for the end-user - well I guess one small change - the nubs that hold the film are now out of plastic.

There *is* a price difference between "Planar" and "Xenotar" models. Around U$2000 seems reasonable for one in good working condition with clean lenses and the caps. Slightly less that for a "Xenotar". Both lenses are amazing in my opinion. Plan in the cost for the hood, another $50, you will need one! And strap which is bespoke to the Rolleiflex. Luigi makes fine straps but that adds another $200 - in any case do NOT hang your $2k camera from a 70 year old leather strap - it will end in tears.

Lastly, if you intend to shoot it I would not pay extra for mint - these are exceptionally reliable cameras once serviced and outward appearances does tell you very little. My main shooter 2.8F Xenotar is looking very beat indeed after it already survived two 3+ feet drops onto concrete. Still works perfectly and I just ran 3 rolls through it last weekend.

Edit: And even when mint - it's basically guaranteed that the light meter will not work at all or not read reliably. The selenium cells in these all have perished. Also the plastic dome of the meter is liable to get bashed in in use which greatly reduces the resale price of these - if that's a thing you care about.

 

[bonyu]

1 &2. The type labels are not authoritative, for a couple of reasons.

• First of all all German (and Japanese!) camera makers used up parts before starting a new line, so there are transitional models and almost never a hard cut.
• Secondly the 12/24 switch could be retrofitted (and also removed again!) by Rollei on demand of the customer - it is not a good indicator of anything.
• The distinction between model 1/2 of the 2.8F is not meaningful to the end-user. Also, 220 film is not made anymore so if anything a 12/24 switch (one of my 2.8F's has them) is more a liability than anything else. The experience of shooting 220 with a Rolleiflex is clunky. Thus I shot maybe a grand total of 20 220 rolls out of the thousand or so I ran through these cameras.

3. The bumpy door with the three-way pressure plate is one part but not the entirety of the flat glass mechanism. The camera body also needs to have a provision for it. The most visible part will be a tiny pin that can be pushed in on the right hand side of the film rails.

I tried the flat glass thing for an entire roll before giving up on it and selling it for a good price to a collector. The gain in sharpness - even at great enlargements was negligible - but you sure do see the extra dust which collects on either side(!) of the glass. Also scratches. 120 film is mercifully a lot less scratch prone than 135 - but the "flat glass" it should be called scratch glass sure changed that. Tramline scratches galore as the dust gets dragged across the sensitive emulsion side with a lot of pressure thanks to the 3-setting pressure plate.

There should be no price variation between these serial numbers. The big jump is for the "White Face" models - I assume primarily again due to collectors, because there is no change in anything for the end-user - well I guess one small change - the nubs that hold the film are now out of plastic.

There *is* a price difference between "Planar" and "Xenotar" models. Around U$2000 seems reasonable for one in good working condition with clean lenses and the caps. Slightly less that for a "Xenotar". Both lenses are amazing in my opinion. Plan in the cost for the hood, another $50, you will need one! And strap which is bespoke to the Rolleiflex. Luigi makes fine straps but that adds another $200 - in any case do NOT hang your $2k camera from a 70 year old leather strap - it will end in tears.

Lastly, if you intend to shoot it I would not pay extra for mint - these are exceptionally reliable cameras once serviced and outward appearances does tell you very little. My main shooter 2.8F Xenotar is looking very beat indeed after it already survived two 3+ feet drops onto concrete. Still works perfectly and I just ran 3 rolls through it last weekend.

Edit: And even when mint - it's basically guaranteed that the light meter will not work at all or not read reliably. The selenium cells in these all have perished. Also the plastic dome of the meter is liable to get bashed in in use hi which greatly reduces the resale price of these - if that's a thing you care about.

Thanks a lot for the input. I couldn't imagine a more detailed answer. So, the $2k you refered to is for a good condition not mint, right?

I saw many listings states that the light meter responds to light changes. Even though, in your opinion, I shouldn't expect it is usable, right? Then, that sounds like go with one has a broken light meter could be a real deal.

I'm still confused about the flat glass. Purely out of curiosity, if the camera has the pin you talked about but not a bumpy film door, is it compatible with the flat glass?

Thus, practically, except for white face, the others should have the same price. Do you have any opinion about the marginal add up for a white face?

Thanks again.

 

[TenEleven]

The add up to the white face should not be marginal. At least in Japan the price for a white face is basically double that of a "plain" 2.8F so around $4000. If it's also mint and with the Planar then I have seen prices north of $7000

For that you get as stated film stubs which are now plastic or nylon. A redesigned front plate that gives the model its name. And a lens that has slightly more modern coatings which however in my experience (I have one) is not a difference you will be able to tell from negatives - it flares just the same as the older models in side-light etc. Hence a hood is a must here also.

I never bothered with the built in light meter of any Rolleiflex because just like the 12/24 thing it's very clunky and due to the shape of the meter it will read a lot of sky even when it works (leading to underexposure) also you can never be sure what exactly it is reading. A handheld meter is the much better and more trustworthy option.

It is "compatible" in that you can put in the flat glass unit - but you still need the bumpy door (which are interchangeable between cameras by the way) set to the glass position to push in that pin and make everything go. Once again it's academic because any gain in sharpness will be erased by what I assure you are destroyed negatives which hurts a lot more than any minor gain in sharpness might please you. Rollei themselves clearly realized this because the "flat glass" mechanism and backs quickly vanished, never to be seen again - all later models are free from it.

If you are looking for a deal, given the above - I think the meterless models such as the 2.8D and the 2.8E with the slightly stubbier clunkier meter are better deals. Everyone wants the 2.8F because it is - supposedly "the best one" and last in a long line.

As long as it has a decent focus screen any automatic film-loading Rolleiflex makes a great shooter though and the earlier models weigh quite notably less. The $2000 is a rough guidance, if you want something that looks completely unused you will pay more. If you are fine with a Xenotar you'll pay less. Also it depends on what the camera does or doesn't come with. Some come at least with the lens cap. Some come with the completely useless leather case which is only good if you want to start breeding mold in your lenses but still charge extra for that.

Edit: The main draw of the F (and E3 which is an F without the meter but they are contemporary) is that the focus screen and focus hood are (easily) interchangeable. Meaning you can get an eye-level finder or a new focus screen. Easily in brackets because of course you can change the focus screen even on a pre-war Rolleiflex, too - it's just a bit more work since you have to undo 4 screws and fiddle around a bit more.

 

[bonyu]

The add up to the white face should not be marginal. At least in Japan the price for a white face is basically double that of a "plain" 2.8F so around $4000. If it's also mint and with the Planar then I have seen prices north of $7000

For that you get as stated film stubs which are now plastic or nylon. A redesigned front plate that gives the model its name. And a lens that has slightly more modern coatings which however in my experience (I have one) is not a difference you will be able to tell from negatives - it flares just the same as the older models in side-light etc. Hence a hood is a must here also.

I never bothered with the built in light meter of any Rolleiflex because just like the 12/24 thing it's very clunky and due to the shape of the meter it will read a lot of sky even when it works (leading to underexposure) also you can never be sure what exactly it is reading. A handheld meter is the much better and more trustworthy option.

It is "compatible" in that you can put in the flat glass unit - but you still need the bumpy door (which are interchangeable between cameras by the way) set to the glass position to push in that pin and make everything go. Once again it's academic because any gain in sharpness will be erased by what I assure you are destroyed negatives which hurts a lot more than any minor gain in sharpness might please you. Rollei themselves clearly realized this because the "flat glass" mechanism and backs quickly vanished, never to be seen again - all later models are free from it.

If you are looking for a deal, given the above - I think the meterless models such as the 2.8D and the 2.8E with the slightly stubbier clunkier meter are better deals. Everyone wants the 2.8F because it is - supposedly "the best one" and last in a long line.

As long as it has a decent focus screen any automatic film-loading Rolleiflex makes a great shooter though and the earlier models weigh quite notably less. The $2000 is a rough guidance, if you want something that looks completely unused you will pay more. If you are fine with a Xenotar you'll pay less. Also it depends on what the camera does or doesn't come with. Some come at least with the lens cap. Some come with the completely useless leather case which is only good if you want to start breeding mold in your lenses but still charge extra for that.

Edit: The main draw of the F (and E3 which is an F without the meter but they are contemporary) is that the focus screen and focus hood are (easily) interchangeable. Meaning you can get an eye-level finder or a new focus screen. Easily in brackets because of course you can change the focus screen even on a pre-war Rolleiflex, too - it's just a bit more work since you have to undo 4 screws and fiddle around a bit more.

Thanks again!

One last bit, is there any real risk on the coatings of early 2.8f? Many say early coatings are fragile. I'm looking at one 2445xxx. Maybe, it's not too early?

 

[TenEleven]

Thanks again!

One last bit, is there any real risk on the coatings of early 2.8f? Many say early coatings are fragile. I'm looking at one 2445xxx. Maybe, it's not too early?

I am going to have to make some assumptions here by what you - or the people quoted mean by "fragile coatings".

• If they mean the chips that can appear in the coating of Zeiss (Planar) 2.8F cameras - that can happen in any model - again there is not hard or even soft cut-off. My late 246xxxx has it - has it since I bought it in fact. It has since spread a tiny bit. It affects absolutely nothing. It's a visual concern for collectors only.
• Maybe the white-face doesn't do it - but I would not dare to go as far since that is a sample size of one - worthless, statistically speaking.
• If they mean cleaning marks and scratches - then yeah all 50ies/60ies/70ies etc cameras will have generally a bit softer coatings than modern optics. Thus they need to be treated with care. This would however apply to all lenses from that period anot just to Rolleiflexes.

Lastly this is why it's best to, if possible, buy the camera in-person so that you can inspect it. If you do not feel comfortable doing it yourself have someone along who can. You are very concerned about the optics and anterior things - but if I were buying another I would check the following before even worrying about the lenses and what make it is etc.

My rough checklist, in order of importance

• Transport & Auto-Start (For any Automat model)
  • Does the film transport work?
  • Does it start automatically when it detects the glued part of the backing paper? (You can use old burner film that you hand-rewound onto the spool.)
  • Does cranking back and forth cock the shutter?
  • Does the frame-counter reset on closing the back?
    • If it doesn't do any of these things the camera is DOA and you don't need to bother checking anything else.
• Shutter and timings
  • Does the shutter open and close smoothly? There should be no hesitation.
  • Are the shutter blades oily? Are the aperture blades oily?
  • Does 1s shutter speed look and sound appropriate? What about 1/15th and 1/30th? 1/500 should have extra resistance both when winding and setting it. If the shutter has been repaired badly they will be identical.
• Movements & Focus
  • Does the wheel turn smoothly with the right resistance?
  • What about the aperture and shutter speed dials? The shutter speed dial is clicked for later models from E onward. It should not be stiff to the point to make your fingers hurt.
  • What about the crank? It should not be making any noises other than very subtle mechanical noises when winding the crank back and forth.
  • Does the crank stop at the correct position to stow it when returning it?
• Front standard & Focus
  • Is the front standard level? Look around the skirt and see if it is equidistant to the body at all points. If it is not the camera has taken fall damage and might have other problems. Your chance of taking in-focus pictures went down greatly. Avoid such cameras!
  • Check something very far away - does infinity look appropriate on the view screen?
• Optics & Lenses
  • Check the taking lens. A few scratches are fine - they have no effect on anything, as are coating marks. What about cleaning marks or haze? These are deadly and unlike the former WILL affect the picture.
  • Is there separation in the lens - it looks like a rainbow colored oil slick. Look through the lens with the shutter open on "b" is the view clear without visible debris. Is the lens cloudy?
  • Open the viewing hood and use the reflected light to check the viewing lens. It is much less critical but if the condition is very bad it will make it hard to focus.
  • Check for fungus (it looks like blobs or spider-webs) in both lenses. Again avoid such cameras.
• Check the viewing hood & sports finder.
  • The focus hood should open and collapse smoothly without hesitation.
  • The focus loupe should pop out and should be level to the screen. If it is not level focusing will be harder.
  • Check the sports finder functionality - from the front push down the logo. This should bring up the sports finder. It should not be bent.
  • Check the sports finder focus mirror (if available) - the view is L/R and Up/Down inverted but should otherwise be clear and possible to focus with the lens under the sport finder hole.
• Strap & Lugs
  • The lugs should be firm and not worn down. Look at the bar inside the lugs. If they are worn they will need replacement which is expensive.
• Back and door
  • Check if the back door closes and opens smoothly, it should not be at an angle and should close without having you to push it this way or that. It should also be removable and be able to re-attach it smoothly.
  • Sit the camera on a table. It should not wobble and all four feet should be level with each other.

 

[TenEleven]

I am pointing all of this out because I feel you may be unduly getting hung up on lens condition. It matters a lot less with medium format in my experience.

Here is my favorite user Rolleiflex - a hand me down from a press photographer. This is the condition of the lens without even shining a light through it. I have taken many excellent pictures with it which have gotten printed to 24" size and up and exhibited. There are no real world issues.

If the lens was hazy or something it would be definitely not be usable - it would look nice though!

 

[TenEleven]

For completeness here's a recent shot on Tri-X on a rainy overcast day. Aperture was f/5.6 or thereabouts since it was dark and rainy.



Here is a 100% view. Bottom center of the image. I think the lens is doing fine

 

[valdas]

A couple of remarks. 220 film is still available - Shanghai GP3.

Shanghai GP3 100 Black and White Negative Film 220

black and white 220 medium format roll film with low grain, high contrast, and decent sharpness. Shop offical shanghai gp3 film in SHJCFILM with free shipping worldwide

shop.shjcfilm.com

And using 220 film in Rolleiflex with 12/24 functionality is pretty simple - basically just one flip of the switch midroll. Sure, it is not as simple as with fully automatic cameras like GA645, but not that clunky.

I paid for my Rolleiflex 2.8F 12/24 less than 1000€, this was two years ago, them spent some 500€ on CLA, but it was quite good deal. Still, you can find then for quite a reasonable price:

Rolleiflex 2,8F w. Planar 2,8/80mm ( Seltene/Rare) 12/24 Set CE11258 | eBay

Rolleiflex 2,8F w. Planar 2,8/80mm ( Seltene/Rare) 12/24 Set CE11258 | Foto & Camcorder, Analoge Fotografie, Analogkameras | eBay!

www.ebay.ie

 

[TenEleven]

OP was asking for "near mint condition" the linked one is anything but.
I mean this level is what I would go for, too since I just want to take pictures, and not worry about adding my own scratches, but this is not what the OP was asking.

 

[valdas]

OP was asking for "near mint condition" the linked one is anything but.
I mean this level is what I would go for, too since I just want to take pictures, and not worry about adding my own scratches, but this is not what the OP was asking.

Near mint is very relative when we speak about 50+ year old camera. It can be mint cosmetically but would still require the shutter service. Unless it is both mint cosmetically AND serviced. But I agree it would not make any sense to spend money on cosmetic condition.

 

[Godfrey]

Near mint is very relative when we speak about 50+ year old camera. It can be mint cosmetically but would still require the shutter service. Unless it is both mint cosmetically AND serviced. But I agree it would not make any sense to spent money on cosmetic condition.

... unless your only interest is in collecting, not using. 😉

G

 

[valdas]

... unless your only interest is in collecting, not using. 😉

G

yes, but maybe in this case even the sticky shutter should not be a problem, as long as the camera is nice looking?