Rolleiflex dilemna !

F

frogfroggy

Member
Local time
3:38 PM
Joined
Dec 11, 2012
Messages
27
Hello my TLR friends,

I have a question concerning two Flex's: The 2.8C Xenotar and the 3.5F Planar.

I am in a dilemna right now, because I am pending which one to buy. I already had the Rolleicord Va but sold it a few months ago. Stupid me. Now wanting the real deal I set up my mind for these two models. The question is however which one.

The 3.5F without meter sells for 800 Euros with only the lens cap and seems to be in pristine condition. Only some minor cosmetic defects for the viewfinder, but nothing to worry about. I know that the shutter, mechanics and lens apertures are working accurately (however no CLA). http://www.ebay.de/itm/150998853732?...84.m1423.l2649
The 2.8C with meter sells for around 650 Euros plus hood, yellow filter and leathercase (CLA'd but without warranty, the leatherette was also renewed).

The 2.8C offers the 10-blade aperture which is nice for bokeh. The 3.5F offers the switch for 12/24 and furthermore offers the six element lens with a bright viewfinder.

Im eyeing more for the 3.5F but 150Euros seems a little much but the camera will last me a lifetime, if I take good care of it. My head is already bursting with all these pros and cons :bang:. Ease my pain, so that I can sleep like an :angel:

David
 
2.8C WITH meter, and 3.5F WITHOUT meter? Something is wrong.

By the way, do Fs without meters exist? I just saw something on another forum that was an F by all looks EXCEPT that there was no meter block, only an ASA dial thing. Maybe the meter needle was moved on some models?
 
It may have a meter, but it may not be accurate. If you want really good metering, it's unlikely a old Rolleiflex will provide that.
 
Keep in mind that original rollei bay II accessories are generally harder to find.
With that said, I do prefer my 3.5 than my 2.8.
I consider "no meter" a plus when it comes to fitting it comfortably in a bag.
 
I also was a little skeptical at first because the 3.5F has no meter. But I read somewhere that they also sold 3.5F's without meters, correct me if Im wrong! Personally I do not really need a meter. For me its just extra bulk and if there would've been a meter I would even have let it be removed just to fit it in a bag more easily.
 
I'm with Dan on this one -- the 2.8C in all its flavors was never made with a meter.

The meter has no value to me. I hand meter everything. I have the 2.8C Planar (Dan stole my Xenotar :) ) -- and I have the 3.5F Planar -- both are outstanding.

If it were me, I'd buy the one in the BEST condition. Period.
 
There certainly are 3.5F's without a meter. I just handled one. The 3.5F with Planar lens is my idea of a the best Rolleiflex ever.
 
My 2.8F Planar do not have a meter and as so many others have said, I prefer to do metering with a handheld one.
 
Dan Daniel said:
2.8C WITH meter, and 3.5F WITHOUT meter? Something is wrong.

By the way, do Fs without meters exist? I just saw something on another forum that was an F by all looks EXCEPT that there was no meter block, only an ASA dial thing. Maybe the meter needle was moved on some models?
Click to expand...

I have two 3.5Fs, one is with meter and another is without. That proves the existence of meter-less 3.5F, does't it?
 
They are both very capable cameras, there is a slight difference in the way Xenotar and Planar renders the image but you cant go wrong choosing any of them
Rollei F has the focusing screen with fresnel that is brighter and evenly illuminates the corners, but the C screen shows better when it snaps to focus
 
notraces said:
If it were me, I'd buy the one in the BEST condition. Period.
Click to expand...
+1. Get the 3.5F. If you absolutely and positively don't want a meter wait for a 3.5E3. I don't think Planar or Xenotar makes that much difference, I've seen beautiful images from both so it wouldn't be a differentiator for me, and as Bob said 220 is effectively dead. However condition is all with these cameras, especially if you want to keep it for a long time.
 
Check the lens of both cameras very, very carefully for separation of the elements. Costly to have repaired. Many Rollei lens suffer from it.

The 3.5 is a little lighter in weight, there are more parts available if you need to have it repaired. True, the Bay II hood and accessories tend to be more expensive. All Rollei's in my opinion benefit greatly from adding a brighter screen like a Maxwell screen. Use a handheld meter, the older ones tend to be inaccurate. You'll most likely use the 3.5 more than the 2.8. Both are exceptional if up to spec.
 
I just bought 2 3.5Fs (Planars) locally - both with working meters. They were used by a pro wedding photographer (he had 10 of them) and show signs of use, but very little. One is fully functioning and at Krimar right now for a CLA. The other's shutter won't fire and needs a new winding arm. That one is cleaner than the functioning one.
 
What you have not said, is what and how do you photograph. For travel/landscape and colour I would go with the 3.5, for portraits, and B&W would go with the 2.8.
 
A f2.8 any f2.8 is a pretty sweet thing. It's surprising the magic one half stop of DOF and an addition 5mm of magnification can bring to an image (the 2.8's are 80mm the 3.5's are 75mm).
I have a few Rolleiflex cameras of different flavors. The one I would sell last is a meter less f2.8D with a maxwell screen installed.
It's my favorite Camera. Go for the f2.8C :D
 
mfogiel said:
What you have not said, is what and how do you photograph. For travel/landscape and colour I would go with the 3.5, for portraits, and B&W would go with the 2.8.
Click to expand...

Its a toss up, I will probably do more portraits but will also take the camera with me on my travels. As for B&W pictures I will tackle that area when I buy me a complete darkroom setup. The camera is on reserve !

I decided to buy the camera for 760 Euros! I know its quite high but if all goes wrong I can still send it back, which is nice and nothing to lose. Im really excited now !
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom