emillu
Newbie
Hi there,
Its been a while since I checked back this sub-section for TLR.
(I figured the more I click on this section tended increases my desire of owning one!)
I still cannot resist the power of Rolleiflex and come up with a few questions:
Upon your user experience, If I would choose from Rolleiflex E or F models (regardless F2.8 or F3.5),
which model has the most reliable/accuracy on its metering?
Which model has the most durable shutter mechanism?
Thanks!
All the best!
Its been a while since I checked back this sub-section for TLR.
(I figured the more I click on this section tended increases my desire of owning one!)
I still cannot resist the power of Rolleiflex and come up with a few questions:
Upon your user experience, If I would choose from Rolleiflex E or F models (regardless F2.8 or F3.5),
which model has the most reliable/accuracy on its metering?
Which model has the most durable shutter mechanism?
Thanks!
All the best!
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Most of the old Rolleis do not have accurate meters anymore, and would need service to restore them to accuracy. The meters in them were pretty primitive selenium cell meters. Even if its accurate, you're better off with a handheld meter.
They all use the same Synchro Compur shutter, except very old models from before about 1950, which use the older but equally reliable Compur-Rapid. I have an ancient Automat type 1 from 1938 whose shutter works fine. The E and F models all have the newer shutter.
They all use the same Synchro Compur shutter, except very old models from before about 1950, which use the older but equally reliable Compur-Rapid. I have an ancient Automat type 1 from 1938 whose shutter works fine. The E and F models all have the newer shutter.
J. Borger
Well-known
Chris is right.
If you get the E-model get the laters version with easy replacable bright screen. For a Rolleiflex with a realy good meter you need a GX or FX.
If you get the E-model get the laters version with easy replacable bright screen. For a Rolleiflex with a realy good meter you need a GX or FX.
Matus
Well-known
I would also forget about the meter in an old rolleiflex. F commands higher prices, but at this age I would just choose based on a condition.
You may still go with the model T which has a very nice tessar lens and costs much less - I had one and it was really a great camera.
You may still go with the model T which has a very nice tessar lens and costs much less - I had one and it was really a great camera.
austophoto
Newbie
Forget the meter. I have scoured shops and ebay and spoken with Harry fleenor about replacing the selenium cell to no avail. The original cells perform poorly even in indoor conditions. I have seen some online diy where people replace the cell with a solar cell from a calculator. I know the novelty of a beautiful, fully functioning 2.8 planar is enticing, but you will realistically only find one of those on eBay at the ridiculous buy it now price close to 2k. These cameras are not rare and finding one with a flaw or two will drop prices drastically. I picked up a planar 2.8 e three weeks ago for 100 dollars
. I have put a lot of work into it and now. I have an amazing camera that im not scared to throw on my shoulder and walk the street. My advice is to find a beater in a local camera shop for cheap if you can. Make sure the lenses are synced make sure. Check to make sure the viewing lens really focuses to infinity and that the glass is clean. I replaced my focusing screen with an RB 67 screen that literally hurts your eyes at waist level. Don't want a pet project? Send it to Harry for 400 bucks and you've got one just like the ones in the eBay ads
. I have put a lot of work into it and now. I have an amazing camera that im not scared to throw on my shoulder and walk the street. My advice is to find a beater in a local camera shop for cheap if you can. Make sure the lenses are synced make sure. Check to make sure the viewing lens really focuses to infinity and that the glass is clean. I replaced my focusing screen with an RB 67 screen that literally hurts your eyes at waist level. Don't want a pet project? Send it to Harry for 400 bucks and you've got one just like the ones in the eBay ads
thompsonks
Well-known
Same opinion about meter. My favorite is an E3 without one.
I'd suggest 3.5 instead of 2.8. The price for 2.8s is inflated because collectors want the most expensive model. But a 3.5 is great to shoot with. It's not easy to focus a 2.8 taking lens accurately with a 2.8 viewing lens, and 3.5 will be lighter & better balanced. So I'd save the money on the lens, buy one strictly for its good glass, & apply the difference toward an overhaul & a Plain Maxwell screen.
Fleenor has a long backlog of work. If you send it to Krikor or to Mark Hansen, you won't have to wait as long.
Craigslist is a better place to shop than xBay – you can fondle before buying.
Kirk
I'd suggest 3.5 instead of 2.8. The price for 2.8s is inflated because collectors want the most expensive model. But a 3.5 is great to shoot with. It's not easy to focus a 2.8 taking lens accurately with a 2.8 viewing lens, and 3.5 will be lighter & better balanced. So I'd save the money on the lens, buy one strictly for its good glass, & apply the difference toward an overhaul & a Plain Maxwell screen.
Fleenor has a long backlog of work. If you send it to Krikor or to Mark Hansen, you won't have to wait as long.
Craigslist is a better place to shop than xBay – you can fondle before buying.
Kirk
Last edited:
kzphoto
Well-known
The 3.5 tends to have a sharper lens, the 2.8 has a beautiful OOF rendition that lends itself well to portraiture. 3.5F was better overall, and I think the accessories are a bit cheaper as well.
Metering cells tend to go bad: I've never relied on the built-in meters in the old Rollei cameras.
Buy based on mechanical / optical condition.
Metering cells tend to go bad: I've never relied on the built-in meters in the old Rollei cameras.
Buy based on mechanical / optical condition.
leica M2 fan
Veteran
I have a 3.5F that I don't think I could ever part with. The meter still works and is pretty darn accurate but I still use a handheld. It doesn't bother me at all that the image is reversed in the finder, by the way, the finder is very bright - a Maxwell. I did try a 2.8 bit it was too heavy and felt bulky and I was trying something in 120 that wasn't as heavy as a 6x6 SLR an this fit the bill very nicely. I don't think i would be displeased with a later version 3.5 E either. Hope all these comments help.
Steve M.
Veteran
I think all of the shutters are essentially the same on most models. The Planar is one of the better lenses ever made, but ALL Rolleiflex cameras have great lenses A 3.5 anything is usually much cheaper than a 2.8, and I would go for an E-3 3.5 w/ Planar if it were me. Having a model w/ a removanle top is a major bonus, because in literally a few seconds you can pop a prism on there if you need to, and you can switch out focus screens yourself in not much more than that.
Having said all this, I highly recommend that you try a cheap TLR to see if the camera works for you. TLR's aren't for everyone. As much as I loved mine and the images it made, it was just too big and awkward for me to use on a daily basis so I sold it.
Having said all this, I highly recommend that you try a cheap TLR to see if the camera works for you. TLR's aren't for everyone. As much as I loved mine and the images it made, it was just too big and awkward for me to use on a daily basis so I sold it.
f16sunshine
Moderator
Go for a Rolleiflex C or D if you want a f2.8. They seem to garner a few less dollars. In my opinion these models without the buit in meter have the cleanest look to them. As with other opinions, mine is the job of metering is better done with a more modern handheld. The C has a ten bladed aperture and some find the bokeh nicer from this model. It's trivial in my opinion. The best approach is to find one in good condition at a reasonable price. By that I mean. If it works great and has been serviced pay a bit more. If it's cheap make sure it's cheap enough to have CLA'd if there is no sign or history of recent service. Karl Ehlers worked over mine. I have a pair of D's.. 
f16sunshine
Moderator
Sorry, I could not resist that last sentence .lol
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
I often thought about getting the "faster" 2.8 but when I placed an add for ANY Rolleiflex TLR I got a response for a T.
Now, I refuse to let my Rollei T go... I bought it 2 years ago for $500 and it's probably the best money I've ever spent on a camera:
Cheers,
Dave
Now, I refuse to let my Rollei T go... I bought it 2 years ago for $500 and it's probably the best money I've ever spent on a camera:
Cheers,
Dave
peter_n
Veteran
I bought my first Rolleiflex very recently and one of my requirements was that it should be without a meter, and there's quite a choice. I use a Gossen incident meter with mine which is a 1950's Automat; very easy to load and use for a Rolleiflex newbie.
notraces
Bob Smith
Hand meter. I have a meter in my 3.5F Planar and NEVER use it -
I just bought back my 2.8C Planar because I missed it. I'd say pick one - any one -- have it CLA'd by either Paul Ebel or Harry Fleenor - and run with it... I have a slew of Rolleiflexes - starting with an Old Standard -- all the way up to the 3.5F and 2.8F -- Planar or Xenotar doesn't make that much difference.
I just bought back my 2.8C Planar because I missed it. I'd say pick one - any one -- have it CLA'd by either Paul Ebel or Harry Fleenor - and run with it... I have a slew of Rolleiflexes - starting with an Old Standard -- all the way up to the 3.5F and 2.8F -- Planar or Xenotar doesn't make that much difference.
JPD
Retina and Rollei user
The lightmeter on the F-models is easier to use because it's coupled with the shutter and aperture wheels. The E and T models use a meter that you need to transfer the readings (EV-number) to the EV System.
The meter on my 3,5F works perfectly, and I have used it by metering on my hand in shadow and on a small grey card. BUT nowadays I always use a hand-held lightmeter that I trust more.
Remember that the Rolleiflexes before the GX have selenium meters that go bad with age. It's not easy to find a 30-50 year old Rolleiflex with a perfect meter. So my advice is like the others - get a Rolleiflex in good condition and buy a hand-held lightmeter to use with it. Tessar, Xenar, Planar and Xenotar are all excellent lenses. The advantage with Planar and Xenotar is that they are a sharper in the corners fully open.
Even the Triotar on the early Rolleicords are fine lenses. They are plenty sharp stopped down. I sometimes take a 1930's Rolleicord when I want a light weight camera with me.
The meter on my 3,5F works perfectly, and I have used it by metering on my hand in shadow and on a small grey card. BUT nowadays I always use a hand-held lightmeter that I trust more.
Remember that the Rolleiflexes before the GX have selenium meters that go bad with age. It's not easy to find a 30-50 year old Rolleiflex with a perfect meter. So my advice is like the others - get a Rolleiflex in good condition and buy a hand-held lightmeter to use with it. Tessar, Xenar, Planar and Xenotar are all excellent lenses. The advantage with Planar and Xenotar is that they are a sharper in the corners fully open.
Even the Triotar on the early Rolleicords are fine lenses. They are plenty sharp stopped down. I sometimes take a 1930's Rolleicord when I want a light weight camera with me.
PMCC
Late adopter.
Sharpness fall-off in the corners (as exemplified by the Tessars and Xenars, which are not an option for the E and F models OP is interested in) can be a feature, not a bug, depending on what and how you're shooting. I think your shooting style should be taken into account somewhat when choosing between lenses whose signatures vary according to taking aperture. To my admittedly unexacting eye, at f8-f11 they all start looking more alike than different (the biggest enlargements I generally make are 11x14).
That said, +1 for 3.5 over 2.8 on cost and weight factors; on-board meters are at this point vestigial at best, and not worth paying for or relying upon; removable hood models (E2, E3, F, T, Rolleicord Vb) can be useful for fooling around with screens and prisms and spendy accessories, if you go in for that sort of thing (many of us seem to). I say that with 50 year-old cameras it makes sense to weigh condition as importantly as features, unless we're talking some must-have function (more likely a want than a need).
Currently getting acquainted with a 3.5E3, with encouraging results. Although my current experience with Rollei in general is relatively recent and limited, I do totally appreciate their appeal.
That said, +1 for 3.5 over 2.8 on cost and weight factors; on-board meters are at this point vestigial at best, and not worth paying for or relying upon; removable hood models (E2, E3, F, T, Rolleicord Vb) can be useful for fooling around with screens and prisms and spendy accessories, if you go in for that sort of thing (many of us seem to). I say that with 50 year-old cameras it makes sense to weigh condition as importantly as features, unless we're talking some must-have function (more likely a want than a need).
Currently getting acquainted with a 3.5E3, with encouraging results. Although my current experience with Rollei in general is relatively recent and limited, I do totally appreciate their appeal.
Last edited:
thompsonks
Well-known
"Go for a Rolleiflex C or D if you want a f2.8. They seem to garner a few less dollars. In my opinion these models without the buit in meter have the cleanest look to them.... The C has a ten bladed aperture and some find the bokeh nicer from this model."
Yes, but a couple of caveats:
The C & D lenses have early coating that's not as durable as later ones. Many were used professionally & the coating is thin/spotty/scratched from cleaning. Krikor told me he especially doesn't like Cs because the lenses are so often compromised. So look closely at the taking lens.
Also the plastic shutter locks have come off of many of them. Mine doesn't have one & I have to remember not to advance the film until just before taking a picture. Otherwise lots of pix of sidewalk & sky.
And it's only the 2.8C Xenotar that has the extra 'round' aperture blades.
Kirk
Yes, but a couple of caveats:
The C & D lenses have early coating that's not as durable as later ones. Many were used professionally & the coating is thin/spotty/scratched from cleaning. Krikor told me he especially doesn't like Cs because the lenses are so often compromised. So look closely at the taking lens.
Also the plastic shutter locks have come off of many of them. Mine doesn't have one & I have to remember not to advance the film until just before taking a picture. Otherwise lots of pix of sidewalk & sky.
And it's only the 2.8C Xenotar that has the extra 'round' aperture blades.
Kirk
maddoc
... likes film again.
I have a nice 3.5E-1 (3.5C in Europe) with Planar lens, bought from Jimmy Koh a little over four years ago. Last year the focus all of a sudden jammed and I had to send the camera to Harry Fleenor for repair. He also changed the original focus screen to a bright one, a huge improvement. One month after the camera came back the transport-mechanism jammed, a second trip for repair ...
Since then the camera works well and smooth. My Rolleiflex has the meter, which works well outside and down to ~ 9 EV.
Despite the cost for repair / service also extras like filter / hood / Rolleinars / Rolleifix (for tripod) are quite expensive. What I like about the Rolleiflex 3.5 is the size and handling compared to anything 2.8. 1/15s is possible hand-held so 3.5 is not to much limiting for me.
Since then the camera works well and smooth. My Rolleiflex has the meter, which works well outside and down to ~ 9 EV.
Despite the cost for repair / service also extras like filter / hood / Rolleinars / Rolleifix (for tripod) are quite expensive. What I like about the Rolleiflex 3.5 is the size and handling compared to anything 2.8. 1/15s is possible hand-held so 3.5 is not to much limiting for me.
d_ross
Registered User
I have 3.5 from 1981, the meter is out by a stop but that's easily sorted using the asa setting, I rarely use it in sunlight but often rely on it in low light situations and its still extremely accurate. I have many camera's and none have a better lens in my opinion.
JPD
Retina and Rollei user
True, and MTF-curves prove that, but I doubt that many can tell which 24x24 cm enlargement has been taken with Xenotar and which with Xenar stopped down to f:11. Also, there's some sample variation. I had bad luck with two Rolleicord Xenars.
Yes, and that's one of the reasons why I love the Zeiss Triotar. My favourite photo of my grandparents was taken with a Rolleicord II from 1939 with Triotar at f:4. The aberrations give a pleasing effect that I like.
