Rolleiflex 3.5F w/Planar - I'm in love.

Everytime i see the results of my Rollei, i hate it!
I get these stunning images, creamy look, great sharpness.
Careful cropping sometimes needed to cut out distortions of a semi wide lens. The angle not the lens! Large negs and contacts. A system in your hand.I have a filter and lenshood.
Enjoy yours. The pix here very nice.
 
Oh yes, there is. The 2.8 D model has a faster lens, which can make a difference when taking hand held photos.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
If there enough real difference between them to actually justify needing both?
Click to expand...
Not to me. The 2/3 stop speed loss of the slower Planar is as naught as compared with the superior rendition. I don't own either -- I don't much care for TLRs -- but I've used both and to me, the f/3.5 is 'magic' where the f/2.8 ain't. IF I bought another Rollei, the 3,5 Planar is the only one I'd consider nowadays.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Not to me. The 2/3 stop speed loss of the slower Planar is as naught as compared with the superior rendition. I don't own either -- I don't much care for TLRs -- but I've used both and to me, the f/3.5 is 'magic' where the f/2.8 ain't. IF I bought another Rollei, the 3,5 Planar is the only one I'd consider nowadays.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Not to me either, I've had a 3.5E and now on a 2.8GX, to me, they are basically the same. I rarely shoot wide open though.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Not to me. The 2/3 stop speed loss of the slower Planar is as naught as compared with the superior rendition. I don't own either -- I don't much care for TLRs -- but I've used both and to me, the f/3.5 is 'magic' where the f/2.8 ain't. IF I bought another Rollei, the 3,5 Planar is the only one I'd consider nowadays.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Well, I have both. I am glad that I also have the magic one.
 
Roger Hicks said:
I've used both and to me, the f/3.5 is 'magic' where the f/2.8 ain't.
Click to expand...
I have both and wouldn't sell any of the two. I find them equally "magic". The f/3.5 is a bit lighter to carry around. The f/2.8 is so beautiful to look at. :D

I used to own a lovely f/3.5 Tessar MX-EVS and I found it "magic" as well...

Quite frankly those rendition differences stories on 6x6 negs seem close to some hoaxes to me. Every 6x6 I shot with produced equally excellent IQ to my eyes, even the small simple folding Ikonta 521/16 (Tessar) I use to carry in my bike handlebar bag.

I guess that re. 6x6 cameras and TLRs or SLRs in particular, the main trap we must be careful not to fall in is "the beauty" of what we see in the viewfinder, regardless of what is seen in the viewfinder.

I mean, there is some great risk to take uninteresting pictures while using such cameras, because the large viewfinder screen may create something virtually and temporarily interesting where there isn't something interesting to shoot actually.
 
Highway 61 said:
I have both and wouldn't sell any of the two. I find them equally "magic". The f/3.5 is a bit lighter to carry around. The f/2.8 is so beautiful to look at. :D

I used to own a lovely f/3.5 Tessar MX-EVS and I found it "magic" as well...

Quite frankly those rendition differences stories on 6x6 negs seem close to some hoaxes to me. Every 6x6 I shot with produced equally excellent IQ to my eyes, even the small simple folding Ikonta 521/16 (Tessar) I use to carry in my bike handlebar bag.

I guess that re. 6x6 cameras and TLRs or SLRs in particular, the main trap we must be careful not to fall in is "the beauty" of what we see in the viewfinder, regardless of what is seen in the viewfinder.

I mean, there is some great risk to take uninteresting pictures while using such cameras, because the large viewfinder screen may create something virtually and temporarily interesting where there isn't something interesting to shoot actually.
Click to expand...
I see your arguments but I've never been keen on having two very similar bits of kit where I have to switch from one to the other for minimal advantages, so I tend to chose the one I prefer most of the time. Hence getting rid of my 35 Summicron in favour of my 35 Summilux. Yes, the Summicron is a better lens -- sometimes. But not so much better that I'm going to travel with two 35s, and change lenses, for a specific picture. Let alone carry two Rolleis!

Cheers,

R.
 
I miss the beauty of what we see in VF when using the SWC. You are absolutely right about this point. It is stunning to look through a TLR VF.

"I guess that re. 6x6 cameras and TLRs or SLRs in particular, the main trap we must be careful not to fall in is "the beauty" of what we see in the viewfinder, regardless of what is seen in the viewfinder."
 
jimrohrer said:
Shooting with my Rolleis is like being on vacation!
Click to expand...

Although I love M-series, the Rollei has been my travel camera for some time. One lens - one camera, it's handling is special and the images are also. Its the most fun, and I can't tell you how many people I meet because of the Rollei (its a people magnet, those that know photography and those that don't) :D
 
Ok, I grew up on the other end on my father's Rolleicord. Later in my own photographic life I got my own Rollei, and another, and another… not all at the same time, but 'evolving' to my perfect Rolleiflex… which is the one I have now.

A later version Rolleiflex 3.5 Planar [just] pre-white face (the white face is the last, desirable because of that for collector's, but a slightly cheaper to make version, minus some engravings and the Rollei trade-mark anodised 'rings'…), 6-element, 12/24 loading, cool, cool, cool. These are all VERY well made cameras, beautiful to look at, hold, handling, and superb optical quality in any form.

The Planar 3.5 is just the best (for me). Not that much slower than the 2.8, lighter, sharper and has a really beautiful optical 'look'.

But why NOT two Rolleis? With 12 (or 24) exposures, one with B&W and another with colour? The 2.8 looks very formatable, and nothing wrong with the optical quality, I know I had one. Still if it was one only I've made my choice.
 
As usual, it depends on whether you will find yourself needing/wanting the extra speed v. the lighter weight. Contra Mr. Hicks, I haven't noticed any superior rendering using the 3.5F v. the 2.8F at the same apertures, but I can tell the difference in weight (though it's not large in medium format terms) & do use f/2.8 often.

The closest analogy to my mind is that it's like having both a 50/2.8 Elmar & a 50/2 Summicron.

Chriscrawfordphoto said:
If there enough real difference between them to actually justify needing both?
Click to expand...
 
dreamsandart said:
The Rollei has been my travel camera for some time. One lens - one camera, it's handling is special and the images are also. Its the most fun, and I can't tell you how many people I meet because of the Rollei (its a people magnet, those that know photography and those that don't) :D
Click to expand...

The exact same for me, on all points ! :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom