RedLion
Come to the Faire
Trying to decide which is better to get.
A 1960 - 1966 Rolleiflex 2.8F or
a 1987 - 1994 Rolleiflex 2.8GX
Given that I can get either one for about the same price, and both are in Excellent+ condition.
What should be my considerations and which do I get?
Joe
A 1960 - 1966 Rolleiflex 2.8F or
a 1987 - 1994 Rolleiflex 2.8GX
Given that I can get either one for about the same price, and both are in Excellent+ condition.
What should be my considerations and which do I get?
Joe
adamli629
Member
If I were you, I will take the 2.8gx
Freakscene
Obscure member
The GX was put together from Rolleicord and 'flex technology combined. The GX, does not, for instance have the automat loading, which allows you to automatically wind on to the first frame without using "start" lines on the paper. The F is more complicated but better constructed. The main thing to consider is that the F may need a trip to Harry Fleenor, while the GX may not. If you are actually going to use them regularly, they will both need to go back fairly frequently, Rolleis are high maintenance machines.
Marty
Marty
hanskerensky
Well-known
The GX has some pro's. It has no automatic filmstart detection (but uses a Start marker) so there are no problems with thin film. Is has a very bright groundglass. It is equiped with modern lightmeasurement (2 Si lightsensors on viewerlens image) and has an additional Si lightsensor to measure the light which reflects from the film for certain Rollei or Metz flash-equipment.
Be aware that there are versions with Compur shutters (early) and Copal shutters (later).
Be aware that there are versions with Compur shutters (early) and Copal shutters (later).
furcafe
Veteran
My understanding is that the 2.8F has better build quality, but the 2.8GX has more convenient modern features & a more modern lens (e.g., w/better coatings), so to re-frame your question, it's like trying to decide between a 1960s M2 or M3 w/that era's 50mm Summicron v. a 1980s 0.72 or 0.85 M6 classic w/that era's 50mm Summicron.
At least in the U.S., in both situations, the classic combo should actually be less expensive than the newer, so either you're overpaying for the 2.8F or underpaying for the 2.8GX. Money aside, I would make the decision based on what features you value in your gear.
At least in the U.S., in both situations, the classic combo should actually be less expensive than the newer, so either you're overpaying for the 2.8F or underpaying for the 2.8GX. Money aside, I would make the decision based on what features you value in your gear.
Last edited:
twopointeight
Well-known
The lens coatings on the GX might be better for shooting color. Flash would also be easier on the GX. I had one and returned it as I didn't like the film loading or the feel of the shutter release. I've shot hundreds of rolls through an E2 Planar, with CLAs by Harry Fleanor about every two years. Get a clean F, change the screen, and a CLA.
historicist
Well-known
I've got a 2.8F and have tried the 2.8GX and 2.8FX and the build quality is (or more accurately feels) way better on the 2.8F.
Better lens coating on the later cameras (rolleis quite prone to veiling flare, so this is pretty worthwhile) and the built in meter is great too). I personally didn't find the screen to be a massive improvement.
I guess it depends on whether you prefer romance or common sense.
FYI in the UK there's a company that can recoat the lenses on the older cameras with modern coating, which makes a fair improvement. It cost me £225 including a service.
Better lens coating on the later cameras (rolleis quite prone to veiling flare, so this is pretty worthwhile) and the built in meter is great too). I personally didn't find the screen to be a massive improvement.
I guess it depends on whether you prefer romance or common sense.
FYI in the UK there's a company that can recoat the lenses on the older cameras with modern coating, which makes a fair improvement. It cost me £225 including a service.
sar-photo
Simon Robinson
I got a GX a few years ago and sent it straight back to the shop. It didn't have the build quality or feel of the F and I found the shutter louder and not nearly as smooth as the F. I have no idea what year the GX was but I would get an F over a GX anyday!
side by side,
to me the 2.8 GX has a very cheap build feeling to it
compared to the 2.8 F - or ANY of the classic Rollei TLR for that matter.
working the f/stops and shutter speeds,
the GX had a tinny, unsatisfactory mechanical feel
I personally would never want to own a GX
Stephen
to me the 2.8 GX has a very cheap build feeling to it
compared to the 2.8 F - or ANY of the classic Rollei TLR for that matter.
working the f/stops and shutter speeds,
the GX had a tinny, unsatisfactory mechanical feel
I personally would never want to own a GX
Stephen
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
After putting a Rolleiflex 3.5F Planar and a Mamiya C330f Professional side by side, I chose the Mamiya. It has parallax correction and exposure correction for bellows draw in the finder. And it is built like a tank, putting any Rolleiflex to shame. It's heavy, but I can handle that.
Just a suggestion.
Just a suggestion.
Last edited:
Nick De Marco
Well-known
I have a Rollei 2.8F. Also a 3.5T. No 2.8GX, but a Mamiya 6 and 7, and a Hassy classic, as well as a few others
For me, using black and white, it is hard to beat the 2.8F. The Planar lens is exceptional, and I like the build quality and simple meter, which even know I find reliable
For me, using black and white, it is hard to beat the 2.8F. The Planar lens is exceptional, and I like the build quality and simple meter, which even know I find reliable
enochRoot
a chymist of some repute
my favorite is a 2.8 E3. harder to find, but worth searching for. they are contemporary with the F, but do not have a meter (hence less to go wrong mechanically). i prefer shooting w/ a hand-held meter with rolleis for sure! barring that, get the F.
raid
Dad Photographer
I used the 2.8D, 2.8E, and 2.8F [it could have been an E3 w/o meter] for a while. Each model is well built, and each camera has a great taking lens. I could not find any real differences between these cameras. so I kept the basic 2.8D and sold the other two cameras. The feel of these camera is rock solid. I have a Maxwell screen in the 2.8D.
x-ray
Veteran
I'm frequently amazed at some of the comments here. Some seem as though the person commenting never used the camera they're talking about.
First of all Rollei TLR's are known for dependability. I personally have used Flexes for over forty years and other than a shutter cla never had a problem even under heavy professional use. I used Rollei SL66's (3 bodies and 7 lenses) for over twenty five years and know I shot over twenty five thousand rolls through each and only had a few problems in the last few years and most were simple fixes and backs being rebuilt from time to time. I did own Rollei 3003 35mm cameras and while a great idea they were mechanical and electronic disasters. As far as mechanics the Rolleiflex TLR is about as dependable as it gets.
The comparison between the C330 and the Rolleiflex is incorrect. The Flex has paralax correction. To my knowledge all of the flex since the late 40's had paralax correction. Everyone I have owned has had it. Yes the c330 has it but the indicator only tells you where the top of the frame is and you have to guess where the bottom is. You do not see the full frame when focusing close.
Also there's no need for exposure correction when shooting close with the flex as it does not focus close enough for exposure compensation to be a factor. In the 330 yes it is since it has a long bellows and will focus quite closely.
Veiling flare has never been an issue. I almost always use a shade and have not found the Planar, Xenotar, Tessar or Xenar to be prone to flare. Color is superb and contrast is excellent. I've owned Rollei's with all of the above lenses. Like Raid I've owned the D,E and F with 2.8 lenses in a mix of Xenotar and Planar. I too now own a 1955 ? D with a Xenotar and love the camera and find no need to change.
First of all Rollei TLR's are known for dependability. I personally have used Flexes for over forty years and other than a shutter cla never had a problem even under heavy professional use. I used Rollei SL66's (3 bodies and 7 lenses) for over twenty five years and know I shot over twenty five thousand rolls through each and only had a few problems in the last few years and most were simple fixes and backs being rebuilt from time to time. I did own Rollei 3003 35mm cameras and while a great idea they were mechanical and electronic disasters. As far as mechanics the Rolleiflex TLR is about as dependable as it gets.
The comparison between the C330 and the Rolleiflex is incorrect. The Flex has paralax correction. To my knowledge all of the flex since the late 40's had paralax correction. Everyone I have owned has had it. Yes the c330 has it but the indicator only tells you where the top of the frame is and you have to guess where the bottom is. You do not see the full frame when focusing close.
Also there's no need for exposure correction when shooting close with the flex as it does not focus close enough for exposure compensation to be a factor. In the 330 yes it is since it has a long bellows and will focus quite closely.
Veiling flare has never been an issue. I almost always use a shade and have not found the Planar, Xenotar, Tessar or Xenar to be prone to flare. Color is superb and contrast is excellent. I've owned Rollei's with all of the above lenses. Like Raid I've owned the D,E and F with 2.8 lenses in a mix of Xenotar and Planar. I too now own a 1955 ? D with a Xenotar and love the camera and find no need to change.
Last edited:
Steve M.
Veteran
Unless you absolutely need the 2.8 lens, you can save a bit of money on a 3.5. Trust me, it will be just as sharp. I would go for an E w/ Planar. Look for one w/ a removable top hood like the F (think it's the Type 3 models). The E is a very well built camera, has the same lens as the F, and can be found at better prices. The Planar on mine is outstanding, even wide open.
I've posted this photo before, so my apologies to those who have seen it, but it does illustrate the Planar's ability to be darned sharp wide open w/ great bokeh. It's definitely better than I am. Tri-X in D76, and it was essentially a grab shot in a cafe.
I've posted this photo before, so my apologies to those who have seen it, but it does illustrate the Planar's ability to be darned sharp wide open w/ great bokeh. It's definitely better than I am. Tri-X in D76, and it was essentially a grab shot in a cafe.
raid
Dad Photographer
I also own a 1955 2.8D. It is also my birth year, which made it "the best" for me!
The Rollies are very special cameras, and they represent a better value than a Leica does, in my opinion.
I always use a shade with the 2.8D. No filters, though.
After many years of using the 2.8, I got a 3.5F and an Automat, for the different lenses.
The Rollies are very special cameras, and they represent a better value than a Leica does, in my opinion.
I always use a shade with the 2.8D. No filters, though.
After many years of using the 2.8, I got a 3.5F and an Automat, for the different lenses.
Frank Petronio
Well-known
I prefer(red) the simpler models without meters or removable hoods, I would rather find a good clean $500 C, D, or E and then spend a lot on a great CLA and a bright screen.
Put the rest of the money in the bank or....
Put the rest of the money in the bank or....
morback
Martin N. Hinze
I have a 3.5E and E2, both Xenotars. The lens is fantastic at all apertures, no problems there. The details, sharpness, gradation and depth blows me away every time.
I'm thinking of selling the E for one reason alone:
The hood construction is bad. It's very noisy (when walking around with it open) and archaic compared to the E2. Also, in the E the edges of the groundlgass are obscured by the hood, whereas n the E2 you have a full unobtrused view to the edge of the frame. I think the E2's screen is therefore slightly smaller (it's easier to see the parallax correction too).
E2 have the knobs on the side of the hood that indicate that they are removable.
I think the late E series is the best buy. Get it without light meter, then you'll have a really nice film/asa reminder dial and a slightly less large camera.
I'm thinking of selling the E for one reason alone:
The hood construction is bad. It's very noisy (when walking around with it open) and archaic compared to the E2. Also, in the E the edges of the groundlgass are obscured by the hood, whereas n the E2 you have a full unobtrused view to the edge of the frame. I think the E2's screen is therefore slightly smaller (it's easier to see the parallax correction too).
E2 have the knobs on the side of the hood that indicate that they are removable.
I think the late E series is the best buy. Get it without light meter, then you'll have a really nice film/asa reminder dial and a slightly less large camera.
Matus
Well-known
Just out of curiosity - how does the FX compares to GX in regard of build quality/feel?
Terao
Kiloran
What's the market price for a user condition 2.8 of some form? Every shot I see with that lens seems to have a quality I'd like to use for my portrait work. My TLR experience is limited to a 124G so I'd like to try the "daddy" sometime 