Rolleiflex indecision...

I think that the most attractive thing about the 2.8 cameras isn't the half-stop of extra speed, but the 5mm longer focal length. I have an MX and a 3.5F and I love both of them, but I often wish they were better at close up portraits. The photos like that taken with the 2.8/80 lens always look better to me.
The most important thing to remermber is that Rollei TLR photography can really get addictive. Maybe shoot low-ball the first time out? See if you like it? I'd vote for the MX.
 
Last edited:
Here's a factor rarely mentioned in these comparison discussions: how does the screen look?

I just got a Rollei back from Harry Fleenor with a new Maxwell screen installed and it's wonderful to look through. I won't mention which model it is, because I would argue that the lower-end Rollei with a clean, bright screen is better than the highest end lens with an old, darker or dirty screen. The ability of the photographer to see/compose is far more important than the lens that captures the image. If any of these have the Maxwell screen, get that one.
 
hexiplex said:
Rolleiflex 2.8 C Xenotar 80/2.8 great condition, with case - $1,186
  • Rolleiflex 3.5 MX-EVS Tessar 75/3.5 good condition, minor wear, recent service - $700
  • Rolleiflex 3,5 F Planar 75/3.5 good condition except missing plastic cover over lightmeter, with case - $600
  • Rolleiflex T Tessar 75/3.5 meter broken, normal wear - $550
  • Rolleiflex Automat X Tessar 75/3.5 - $390
  • Rolleicord V Xenar 75/3.5 "mint" in case, box and manual - $530
.
Click to expand...

Of the cameras listed, only the 3.5F and Rollieflex Automat X Tessar (if it's in working condition) are fairly priced. I had a Tessar and sold it. Currently have a 2.8F Planar and an MX-EVS Xenar, the only difference I notice between the two is when both are wide open. The Planar is superior there.
 
Last edited:
if $ does not matter, i'd get the 2.8C.
If i would be looking for the best deal, i'd get the 3.5F.
But even the cheapest, the automat tessar, is a great camera.

I myself have an automat from 1937 or 38 with an uncoated Tessar, lovely results, and a 3.5F Planar, great results. Technically, that is.
I wish i would be that good that i could use -at least- the automat up to its full potential.
I can't.
I am the weakest link,not the cameras.
 
Ron (Netherlands) said:
The 2.8C was the last one with beautiful round aperture and therefore some believe it produces a nicer Bokeh than the later Rollies. I had the 2.8C for many years, but when working quick I really missed the EVS, which was only introduced on as from the 2.8D, the one which is quite rare (I had an Ikoflex with EVS that's how I learned to appreciate it). Further if you want to use it inhouse with available light, go for the 2.8C.
Click to expand...

Ron,
Do you mean that all 2.8D cameras are rare or only a certain model?
 
The images look beautiful with my 2.8D. I have never tried a 2.8C.
The 3.5F also gives great looking images.
These Rollie TLR's have characters.
An older model with a Zeiss Jena lens gives an alternative look.
The Automat models are also excellent.
Save some money for view screen replacement.
 
raid said:
Ron,
Do you mean that all 2.8D cameras are rare or only a certain model?
Click to expand...

Well what I mean is that the 2.8D is hardly offered: not here not on Ebay or other sites whereas the 2.8C and E are regularly available. I don't know whether it is rare in terms of production numbers. What I surely like about it, is that it has EVS, but has not a meter (I don't really like the E and F for that - a Rollie should be used with a hand held meter :)
 
Last edited:
Ron,
I sold my 2.8E and 2.8F but kept the 2.8D. I always use a Pentax Digital Spotmeter with my Rollei. I paid $275 for my 2.8D locally. It was completely cleaned and adjusted.
 
raid said:
Ron,
I sold my 2.8E and 2.8F but kept the 2.8D. I always use a Pentax Digital Spotmeter with my Rollei. I paid $275 for my 2.8D locally. It was completely cleaned and adjusted.
Click to expand...

Raid, you must have been very lucky, also considering the price you've paid. If I find one in good condition I would buy it, but till now never found one :(
 
wayneb said:
Here's a factor rarely mentioned in these comparison discussions: how does the screen look?

I just got a Rollei back from Harry Fleenor with a new Maxwell screen installed and it's wonderful to look through. I won't mention which model it is, because I would argue that the lower-end Rollei with a clean, bright screen is better than the highest end lens with an old, darker or dirty screen. The ability of the photographer to see/compose is far more important than the lens that captures the image. If any of these have the Maxwell screen, get that one.
Click to expand...
Excellent point. Bot of mine had to have new screens. I went with Beattie Intensscreen. I'm glad I bought them when they (the screens) were cheap!
 
Well, after taking a second look at the pictures I have of the cameras, I've decided to go with the MX-EVS after all. It is in significantly better condition than the 3.5F and the seller has agreed to include a Rolleinar, a hood and a yellow filter to compensate for the price that was somewhat higher than a local dealership... But, will decide for real tomorrow, might still go 3.5F.

EDIT: Bah, 3.5F won me over with it's way superior corners, screw leatherette condition.
 
Last edited:
hexiplex said:
Well, after taking a second look at the pictures I have of the cameras, I've decided to go with the MX-EVS after all. It is in significantly better condition than the 3.5F and the seller has agreed to include a Rolleinar, a hood and a yellow filter to compensate for the price that was somewhat higher than a local dealership... But, will decide for real tomorrow, might still go 3.5F.
Click to expand...

http://www.dantestella.com/technical/autocord.html

From all accounts I've heard, the Minolta is probably better then all rolleiflexes minus the ones that have planars. It's what I've read here and there anyway. Film loading seems a lot easier, and the focusing as well. Might want to try both. Minolta is half the price.
 
Why are you flogging the Autocord? They're excellent cameras, but the OP was asking about various Rolleiflex models.

Moriturii said:
http://www.dantestella.com/technical/autocord.html

From all accounts I've heard, the Minolta is probably better then all rolleiflexes minus the ones that have planars. It's what I've read here and there anyway. Film loading seems a lot easier, and the focusing as well. Might want to try both. Minolta is half the price.
Click to expand...
 
Firmly decided on the 3.5F now, things change quickly for me. Flickr just has too many nice examples of the Planars' delicious corners. Happy birthday, I guess!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom