rolleiflex, which is the best model?

2.8F or 3.5F (or Wide or Tele if you have specialized needs) if you want the best mechanical build quality, GX or FX if you need the built-in meter & best/modern lens coatings.
 
Paul: I think you are going to get a lot of replies like the following: What do you want to do with the camera? If your goal is to produce mid-century-style long scale prints, then an E or F series is great. If you are looking for modern multicoated biting late-Hassleblad-style sharpness then the GX might be what you are looking for. Need a light-meter? G-series. Don't care? E or F. These cameras were hand-made during a time when folks expected to be able to take apart and service well-made machinery. In that sense, any camera made after 1960 is probably fine.
 
Many consider the "F" generation of flexes to possess the most features coupled with the best build quality.

But of course "best" is highly subjective.
You'll see many equate their favorites (mine is the meterless E2/3) with what is "best".

Personally, you really can't go wrong with any Rolleiflex.
IMO, finding one with clean glass in good operational condition should trump what is considered "best".
 
t.s.k. said:
IMO, finding one with clean glass in good operational condition should trump what is considered "best".
Click to expand...

I think that myself ; quite a lot of the Rolleis on the second hand market (here in europe at least) are more or less out of whack. Some are even butchered by amateurs or dishonest sellers. A good working old automat is better than a misaligned sparkling 2.8f... GX or FX should have less problems, being more recent.

I stopped looking myself, and went straight to a Rollei repairman : he will sell me one of his "parts" camera (one of his 2.8f which was stripped of his meter cell). I am assured it will be working, with matched lenses, etc. and backed by a warranty.
 
Got mine from a pro photographer last weekend. it's a 1966 2.8F in full working oerder, it has had a lookover by a respected Rollei specialist in the Netherlands.

Many of them have had a dented rear corner from putting it down on the table to hard, or a fall. As a result, the back and bottom can be out of whack and sharpness compromised.

Skilled repairmen check for this before sending the camera back. It pays to get one from a trustworthy seller or a repairman and to get one that has had a CLA!
 
Rolleiflex : which is the best model ?

The BEST models are the PROPER Rolleis.

If you want a proper Rollei you need to buy a 3.5E thru to early 3.5F or 2.8C thru to early 2.8F - either Planar or Xenotar, preferably unmetered.

These models were made when Rollei were at the top of their game - genuine leather covering, half-moons fitted, usable with Rolleikin 35mm adapter.

Everything that came after the early 60s was increasingly inferior because Rollei started counting beans and economised on materials and machining.

The 2.8 GX and FX and the modern Teles and Wides are an overpriced pale shadow of a PROPER Rollei, their only advantages being a built-in meter ( good when it works, very expensive when it doesn't...) and slightly more contrasty lenses.

Why buy modern inferior quality models costing megabucks when so much better made earlier equipment is readily available much cheaper ?

Easy choice to make, seems to me...
 
dabick42 said:
Rolleiflex : which is the best model ?

The BEST models are the PROPER Rolleis.

If you want a proper Rollei you need to buy a 3.5E thru to early 3.5F or 2.8C thru to early 2.8F - either Planar or Xenotar, preferably unmetered.

These models were made when Rollei were at the top of their game - genuine leather covering, half-moons fitted, usable with Rolleikin 35mm adapter.

Everything that came after the early 60s was increasingly inferior because Rollei started counting beans and economised on materials and machining.

The 2.8 GX and FX and the modern Teles and Wides are an overpriced pale shadow of a PROPER Rollei, their only advantages being a built-in meter ( good when it works, very expensive when it doesn't...) and slightly more contrasty lenses.

Why buy modern inferior quality models costing megabucks when so much better made earlier equipment is readily available much cheaper ?

Easy choice to make, seems to me...
Click to expand...

I agree with this answer because it aligns with my own inventory.

Seriously, though, I have not used (or even seen) a GX, but I can't imagine that they justify the price increase over a solid E or F.
 
Rolleiflex Platinum Edition

5655666399_ec9c38d5cf_z.jpg
 
Benjamin makes a lot of sense in post #5 above. What kind of look do you want and there are the model categories. I went through this last year, I like the 50's-60's look, and my first Rolleiflex was an inexpensive MX Automat, on the left below. I didn't even know if I liked using the camera so I bought a user and tried it out for a while. After finding out that I really liked it I started looking for an excellent condition E3 made in the early 60's (right).

I settled on an E3 because I really liked the way the Automat worked, it doesn't have a meter and the build quality is said to be very high. I also did a lot of research and used The Classic Rollei - A Definitive Guide by John Phillips which was extremely helpful in sorting out the myriad little differences between all the models. I strongly recommend Phillips' book; it was absolutely invaluable. The Automat models were made by Rollei from 1937 to 1976 and they were very popular; small, light, well made with excellent glass, they are also very easy to use.

The f2.8 models are a little bigger and heavier and I'm not sure the extra half stop makes that much practical difference. I tend to use my E3 with a tripod; a totally different kind of photography from using a Leica and that's the point for me. YMMV.


DSCF3174PP.jpg
 
Another way to distinguish the one from the other is here, although the book might be real nice as well.

Not sure either whether the extra half stop of the 2.8 matters that much. Unless shooting portraits up close, which I intend to use it for. But I happen to like the slightly bigger and heavier camera.
 
I have a 2.8D Planar TLR that I have been using for about twenty years. It has Maxwell screen in it, and it works without any problems at all. I sold the pretty 2.8E and 2.8F. I also have the Automat with a Tessar, for a change in lenses. There is no real advantage in getting a 2.8F unless you want a meter and/or you want to change the prsim VF.

Get a 2.8D. It is in high demand. I use a hand held digital spotmeter with it. The lens is awesome.
 
Thanks guys, especially Raid. I plan to use it with a handheld Pentax digital spotmeter. Therefore I will be looking out for the 2.8D
 
peter_n said:
Benjamin makes a lot of sense in post #5 above. What kind of look do you want and there are the model categories. I went through this last year, I like the 50's-60's look, and my first Rolleiflex was an inexpensive MX Automat, on the left below. I didn't even know if I liked using the camera so I bought a user and tried it out for a while. After finding out that I really liked it I started looking for an excellent condition E3 made in the early 60's (right).

I settled on an E3 because I really liked the way the Automat worked, it doesn't have a meter and the build quality is said to be very high. I also did a lot of research and used The Classic Rollei - A Definitive Guide by John Phillips which was extremely helpful in sorting out the myriad little differences between all the models. I strongly recommend Phillips' book; it was absolutely invaluable. The Automat models were made by Rollei from 1937 to 1976 and they were very popular; small, light, well made with excellent glass, they are also very easy to use.

The f2.8 models are a little bigger and heavier and I'm not sure the extra half stop makes that much practical difference. I tend to use my E3 with a tripod; a totally different kind of photography from using a Leica and that's the point for me. YMMV.
Click to expand...

I've taken a similar path. Started with an MX-EVS, which for me remains the high point of elegant, articulated functional design that marks the Automat line.:) I prefer the MX-EVS to the earlier versions of the MX that lacked internal baffling and the grooved tripod mount for the Rolleifix. I've since moved up to the 3.5E3, for its meter-free goodness, lighter weight (vs 2.8D, E & F), and removable hood for easy mirror and screen cleaning. The 3.5E3 is essentially a meterless equivalent of the later versions of the 3.5F, and like those later 3.5Fs comes equipped with the equally superb 6-element Xenotar or Planar taking lenses.

I join in recommending the Phillips book. It's a definitive resource and fun to read. I wouldn't try to source a vintage Rollei without first consulting it.
 
I have a few older Rolleis, a couple of A's, a C, and a T. All of them were serious user-grade cameras when I got them, but all of the, work. I prefer to use the C, as I like the Xenotar 2.8 lens. The lens has quite a bit of cleaning marks, yet still makes superb images.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom