Yet more 2.8 vs 3.5 questions

[rajb]

Hello everyone,

I currently have a 2.8F that I purchased about a year ago. As soon as I got it, I sent it to Harry Fleenor for a CLA as I'd heard repeatedly he was the best. Upon viewing it, along with several other notes, he sent this about the lens:

Viewing lens has scratches on front surface. Taking lens has one scratch & light coating deterioration on front surface & lens separation front group & fungi stains & one light scratch on rear of rear group.

I got it the camera overhauled as best as he could, but I suspect that the lens separation and fungi stains are here to stay. When I got the camera back, the shutter dial wasn't working well, so I had to send it back again. It's as if the camera wasn't thoroughly tested before it was sent back to me. This makes me wary of Harry's work, even though he's supposed to be the best.

In any case, I really love shooting with a TLR and ideally I'd like a Rolleiflex that I keep for the rest of my life. This is why I've been looking at purchasing another one in better condition and selling the 2.8F that I currently own.

I mainly shoot portraits of my family and friends. I also take it when I travel as my medium format camera of choice. I know they say buy the one in the best condition you can, but I'm planning on purchasing from Magicflexcamera so they're all in excellent condition. With that in mind, I have a few questions:

1. Based on the condition of my lens above, is it worth upgrading to a nicer condition lens, knowing that I'd like something that just keeps going without worry? I'm thinking that the prices of good examples are just going to keep rising, so better to get into it as soon as possible.
2. Is there much noticeable truth to the "3.5 cameras are lighter than 2.8?" I know on paper there is, but do you actually feel the difference?
3. Sometimes when I shoot portraits, I love a shallow DOF. I know the 3.5 is only 2/3 stop slower than the 2.8, but in practice, will there be noticeable difference in the shallowness of the DOF? I can't seem to find direct comparisons online.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

 

[KoNickon]

With regard to #1, I think if you use a lens hood and avoid shooting directly into a light source, any problems with scratches, lens separation and fungus will be minimized to the point it's not noticeable. I have a 2.8F with some front coating loss and separation, and I really can't tell there's any problem. I am sure others have different experience.

#2 -- a 3.5F (or E) will definitely be noticeably lighter than a 2.8. And of course if it's an un-metered 3.5 Rolleiflex, you will notice the difference even more. (Haven't priced accessories lately, but I expect Bay III filters, hoods, caps cost more than Bay II -- another point in the 3.5's favor.)

#3 -- For portraits, probably you'll notice the DOF difference, especially if you use a Rolleinar 1 (which I recommend highly for portraits, since it gets you inside 1 meter; makes a big difference). But without the Rolleinar, probably it's not going to matter than much. But I haven't done direct comparisons between the 3.5 and 2.8 Rolleis.

 

[rajb]

Thank you for all the answers!

With regard to #1, I think if you use a lens hood and avoid shooting directly into a light source, any problems with scratches, lens separation and fungus will be minimized to the point it's not noticeable. I have a 2.8F with some front coating loss and separation, and I really can't tell there's any problem. I am sure others have different experience.

That makes sense. To be honest, I don't really notice a difference now, but my question is more about whether now that the process has started, if it will continue to get worse over time. If so, I should probably invest in a cleaner lens now.

#2 -- a 3.5F (or E) will definitely be noticeably lighter than a 2.8. And of course if it's an un-metered 3.5 Rolleiflex, you will notice the difference even more. (Haven't priced accessories lately, but I expect Bay III filters, hoods, caps cost more than Bay II -- another point in the 3.5's favor.)

Accessories are interesting, I've heard that like you mentioned Bay III are the most expensive. But I've also heard that Bay II are difficult to find. A quick search on eBay seems to bear that out, at least when it comes to the Rolleinars.

#3 -- For portraits, probably you'll notice the DOF difference, especially if you use a Rolleinar 1 (which I recommend highly for portraits, since it gets you inside 1 meter; makes a big difference). But without the Rolleinar, probably it's not going to matter than much. But I haven't done direct comparisons between the 3.5 and 2.8 Rolleis.

This makes sense too with regards to the Rolleinar.

 

[CharlesDAMorgan]

I have both, the 3.5F is a little lighter and a little less bulky, but not by enough really to be an issue. I've never been out with both, but a couple of hours with the 2.8F is no trial.

Compared to a little Rolleicord, both are bulky heavy beasties!

Marginally better cost of accessories etc is a benefit of the 3.5F, but again compared to bayonet 1, they are both very much more expensive. I think the slightly longer 80mm of the 2.8 does help as well with DOF. I don't do portraits though. On the flipside though, that slightly shallower angle of view has made one difference - there is a church door in Cornwall I can shoot in the space available with the 75 (there's a wall behind me) which I can't do with the 80!

I look at the photos I've taken with both and fundamentally, both are superlative cameras. You can get a lot of accessories with the saving on a 2.8F.

 

[KoNickon]

I am MUCH more comfortable (and knowledgeable) talking about this stuff than about world current events....

 

[Cascadilla]

With regard to the weight question--I have both a 2.8 D and a 3.5 E. I much prefer the balance of the 3.5 E to the 2.8 D, since the 2.8 D feels front heavy in my hands. This is a personal preference and not a huge issue in actual use, but if you could try both models side by side it would probably be useful for you.

 

[Guest]

Well i had to send my camera back to him TWICE, both times for issues that were not present when I originally sent it for a service. I also wondered why the issues were not discovered before boxing up and posting, I found the issues within five minutes of opening. I also took images of the box, before sending and upon arrival and sent them as proof of no damage to the box. Postage costs are not cheap, I was not happy. Either way in the end it finally came back in perfect condition after waiting 10 MONTHS.

 

[Huss]

Last time I was in his shop he had an apprentice working with him/training him. (I think someone said it was his son).
I wonder if it was the apprentice who worked on your camera.

 

[Guest]

I should have added, no way would I have a 2.8 F version of this camera. I felt the weight difference very significant. The 3.5F is a beautiful piece of German engineering and mine takes SUPERB IMAGES. I actually think it’s images are better than from my Hasselblad lenses do. it’s just a feeling when I look at images side by side, nothing obvious, just a feeling of superiority.

 

[aizan]

1) It doesn't sound severe enough to noticeably impact image quality. Try a test roll when it comes back, and if it looks fine, I wouldn't bother.

2) The 2.8 models are front heavy, while the 3.5 models are well-balanced and a little lighter. The difference is pretty noticeable, but makes no difference practically, IMO.

3) IMO there is not much difference in DOF between 2.8 and 3.5. Two thirds of a stop is barely noticeable. If you want to see side-by-side tests, take one shot with the lens wide open, and another with the lens stopped down to f/3.5. It all comes down to your eye.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gX_gAm1v4GQ&t=1s

I have a 2.8E2 and MX-EVS, and I use them for different things. The 2.8 with a Maxwell screen is for portraits in window light and other shady lighting. The 3.5 with the stock screen is for everything else because it feels nicer in the hand. If I could only have one, I'd keep the 2.8 because the extra 2/3 stop is helpful for window light with ISO 400 color film, and I can put up with the unbalanced feel for the rest of the time. If you shoot b&w or one of the new ISO 800 color films (like the new Lomography 800 film), then a 3.5 would be fine in that situation.

 

[Beemermark]

I own both a 3.5F and a 2.8F. The only difference is 2/3 of a stop. I've had many of them over the years, mostly buying and selling at shows. I currently have one of both, one done by Harry and one by Paul Ebel. The only major difference is filters & hoods are way,way cheaper for the 3.5F. I did buy a Bay to 43mm adapter to use 43mm filters 9on the 2.8F

I never realized the 2.8F was heavier than the 3.5F. Makes sense I suppose. But inquiring minds want to know so I dug out my scale and weighed them, both with filters, hoods & film. 2.8F @ 3 lbs 1oz, 3.5F @ 2 lb 10 oz, a hopping 7 oz difference. If weight really matters I would suggest a Olympus OM-1n with normal lens weighing only 1 lb 8 oz. Finally at the closest focusing distance it's about a middle stomach to top of head shot, The Rolleiflex doesn't focus that close. I've never noticed any difference between the two shot wide open.

BTW, Harry said my 2.8F had chips in the lens. I couldn't see it. A couple of years later I sent it to Paul for something else and he couldn't see anything wrong with the lenses either. Take it for what it's worth. But I'd shoot with it first and see how it performs.

 

[Deleted member 65559]

rajb, Welcome to the wonderful world of Rolleiflex. As aizan suggested, try the camera out and check the results. Over the years, before i really got the Rolleiflex thing, I had a few both 3.5 & 2.8. In the heat of large format work, I traded a beautiful 2.8f for a 90mm superangulon XL lens. Later I kept looking for a whiteface 2.8f 12/24.... but prices were rising. While looking & waiting I found a cheap Rolleiflex T. I had it CLAd and a Maxwell screen installed. After using it a while and printing from the negatives I became a huge fan of the Tessar. That $300 Rollei has been all over the world with me and i never did buy the 2.8f.... & the 12/24 no longer matters since there is no longer any 220 film. The best tip for you is the one KoNikon suggested; that the DOF with the Rolleinar 1 attached results in beautiful portraits or close ups. Best of luck. Here's a sample @ 3.5 wide open

 

[ACullen]

Of the shed loads of film cameras I own the 3.5F would be the very last I’d ever part with.

 

[rlouzan]

Also the Rollei 3.5F is quieter than the 2.8F

 

[Beemermark]

Also the Rillei 3.5F is quieter than the 2.8F

How can it be quieter? Both are leaf shutters, all leaf shutters are extremely quiet.

 

[aizan]

The difference in volume is very slight and 100% inconsequential. 🙄

 

[rlouzan]

It's difficult to believe, but test them side by side.

 

[mitrajoon]

2.8 vs 3.5

2.8 vs 3.5

You should get and shoot with the 3.5 and then decide what to do with the 2.8. Like many others, I have both and prefer the 3.5. Image quality is just as good as the 2.8 and it feels more balanced. Try one for yourself, you can always resell it for what you paid for it.

 

[rajb]

Well i had to send my camera back to him TWICE, both times for issues that were not present when I originally sent it for a service. I also wondered why the issues were not discovered before boxing up and posting, I found the issues within five minutes of opening. I also took images of the box, before sending and upon arrival and sent them as proof of no damage to the box. Postage costs are not cheap, I was not happy. Either way in the end it finally came back in perfect condition after waiting 10 MONTHS.

Ugh, isn't that frustrating? I expect better from someone that's routinely considered the best and raved about repeatedly on the forums. Glad you finally got it back working fine, even if it was a long wait.

 

[rajb]

Phew, same here.