Which Rolleiflex to sell?

HA pimp them i like that. Yeah maybe it's just that the focusing at 2.8 is damn near impossible but using the smaller and lighter 3.5 models has been awesome thus far. How do you like the T model? I hear people aren't all that hot on them but I've always thought they looked really cool. They just don't have Automat loading correct?

vitaly66 said:
This is similar to my own Rolleiflex trajectory. My first Rolleiflex -- a 2.8E -- I found disappointing. Even though everyone sez 2.8 is the "best", the big lens made the body feel front-heavy and kludgy, and image quality just wasn't all that. So I returned it.

My first experience with a 4-element Rolleiflex -- an MX-EVS Xenar -- was a revelation. Ah hah, this is the true Rolleiflex experience! Great image quality and superb, perfect handling.

Since then I have picked up a couple more Rolleis, including a T and an MX. I never even think about getting a 2.8 anymore. I'm glad other folks tend to pimp them though, because it keeps prices on the other models more reasonable.
Click to expand...
 
I would not sell any of those cameras, in my opinion you have still room to get a Planar 2,8 and a Tessar, not to mention the lovely Triotar

Planar 2.8, not the one in FX and GX models, has somewhat smoother out of focus transtions and is less contrasty than the Xenotar.
I find Xenotar and Xenar rendition being closer to Tessars rather then Planars, I recently got a T, I've not fallen in love for its Tessar lens yet, but this lens shows a very nice and distinctive signature when shooting with apertures smaller than f/8 in B&W
 
I do not know if all the "impossible to focus" 🙄 Rolleiflexes 2.8 are in good working order, of if they have been properly maintained: mechanical tolerances are very small, and they need to be calibrated. A lot of 'Flexes on the market are out of whack, having been knocked around by pros during 30-50 years. And if they were kept in their cases, they still look good.
 
Sold it.

S.H.: the 2.8 was CLA'd and focus was calibrated last year. I still found it difficult to focus due to the fact that I usually shot portraits with that camera and people move. 3.5 gives me a little more room for error.

emmef: i'm into these cameras for using them. I have nothing against collectors but I found even three rolleis too many to use regularly. if i'm already playing favorites why wouldn't i just get rid of my least favorite?
 
Exactly. I had two Rolleiflexes for a while but found that at my current use of MF I only need one at the moment. If my use goes up I'll get an identical camera to my remaining one, but with the other lens. 🙂
 
Woah.. that rollei went fast 🙂 Glad you made a quick and firm decision about the 2.8

I read you have a 3.5F planar. Any chance seeing pictures of the 3.5F and perhaps your take between 2 of your rolleiflex "survivors"?
 
Thanks!

The 3,5f actually does look good with the cap in there. Much cleaner looking and less bulky than when the busted up meter was in there. It looked horrible (but it's why the camera was a bargain)!
 
I think the selenium cell works- when I first got the camera I tried taking apart the meter and fooling around with it trying to make it work again. Some critical parts were bent and out of whack and I did what I could but couldn't get it to fully come back to life. There was some needle movement briefly but I think the spring jammed itself up again when I started changing the aperture/shutter dials. It needs all new internals and a new plastic outside cover which was completely broken off. AKA I think the whole thing needs to be replaced but maybe he has the parts needed to restore it's original function?

I really don't care about the meter in those cameras anyway (which is why I bought the broken meter one) but figured I could give it a try to fix it myself. No dice but who cares??
 
From your pictures, the camera seems to be in very nice shape. It would be a shame to not try to restore it completely. If not abused, these meters should last virtually forever.

The meter movement and outer casing came in one unit with a matching selenium cell. In your case, you may need only the meter movement.


My meter is now very accurate and reliable. The first thing that I did upon getting it back from Krikor was to check the camera's meter readings with my reference Gossen Luna Pro F which I know to be accurate. The readings matched! I use the diffusor on my camera meter, as I prefer incident light metering.
 
It's not in THAT great of shape. Probably Keh bgn. And I don't really feel like dropping more money into it right now. Maybe in the future but i use this camera for work and use a handheld meter anyway.
 
canetsbe said:
Thanks!

The 3,5f actually does look good with the cap in there. Much cleaner looking and less bulky than when the busted up meter was in there. It looked horrible (but it's why the camera was a bargain)!
Click to expand...

Bargains are good. I think a working light meter is a bonus but alot of 3.5F's light meter are not really reliable these days (even if the needle move and respond to light).

If there are truly brand new parts easily obtainable and not that costly, I may consider to change the unreliable one on mine. For now, I want to just have my 3.5F back and recoup some CLA cost/lost time by enjoying taking pics with it first.

Robert Lai, I have seen alot of people highly recommend Krikor and his speedy service. Have you by chance did anything else done for the 3.5F with Krikor, beside changing the brand new meter?
 
I'm just happy to have a CLA'd 3.5f for under $600 total. Fixing the meter kind of makes that a little less of a score (IMO since I never cared about the meter in the first place) and I can't ever see myself selling this camera!
 
canetsbe said:
I'm just happy to have a CLA'd 3.5f for under $600 total. Fixing the meter kind of makes that a little less of a score (IMO since I never cared about the meter in the first place) and I can't ever see myself selling this camera!
Click to expand...

That's a very good deal. Wish I had abit of your luck. My 3.5F is around USD680 after partial refund and adding up CLA and new Maxwell screen by Mr Fleenor... That's adds up to about 1.2K (all excluding shipping) AND I still end up with an unreliable meter. Makes me kinda :bang:
 
If you can make photos you're happy with, it's worth it???

I'm sure Fleenor will do wonders for that camera though. His rep is fantastic.
 
the 2.8E went fast because it is regarded by some as the best rolleiflex, from the old days. The 2.8F looks more usable with the interchangeable focusing glass/ hood but the leatherette is only plastic while on the 2.8E it's all genuine leather. There are like new specimen of this rollei I saw one and that camera is iconic!
 
Acidic Lemon,
My 3.5F was in basically the same situation as yours. I'm glad I'm not the only one who felt the 3.5F was a money pit.

Mine also went to Fleenor for the first overhaul and installation of a Maxwell screen.

Then, it went to Clarence Gass to get a new shutter spring.

Finally, it went to Krikor for a new meter. Since the other two repairers had worked so much on the camera, the meter was the only item for Krikor to address. Fleenor did not have meter parts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

lxmike
Not a gambling man but I bought a Rolleiflex 2.8E, blind.
Replies
13
Views
2K
Bolo Kukus
B
O
Rolleiflex 2.8C Shutter Guard Concern
Replies
10
Views
410
OneJohnFourTwelve
O
K
Rolleiflex 2.8E front panel removal - stuck
Replies
7
Views
723
kodachrome25
K
B
Rolleiflex 2.8f versions
Replies
12
Views
316
valdas
V
B
How best to sell AE-1 + off-brand zooms?
Replies
14
Views
1K
OmegaB600
O
Back
Top Bottom