Yet more 2.8 vs 3.5 questions

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.

I have been shooting with it for a while. It's fine, great even. I think my concern is just weather since the issues with the lens have already begun, whether they'll continue to worsen over time. If that's the case, I want to rewind time and buy a cleaner copy that's earlier on it's life. But that's just dependent on whether the lens of my 2.8F is going to be ok from now on.


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.

Duh, why didn't I think of this?? haha
 
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.

Thanks for this! I definitely wasn't trying to minimize the weight in general. But if the 3.5 was definitely lighter, then I may opt for that. Doesn't sound like that's the case though.

I already have the camera back and have been shooting with it for a while. The images are nice, but I'm just wondering about the fact that since the lens separation has already begun, whether I should opt to get a cleaner copy of the lens now. Knowing that my goal is to have the camera last me as long as possible.

Basically I don't want to get 10 years down the line (provided they're still making film) and have the lens deteriorate beyond use and then all clean Rolleiflexes are even more expensive than ever.
 
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


Thanks for the welcome! Love that image, so beautiful! Hope you made a print of it!
 
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.

While that would generally be true, if I get a 3.5F, I would get one from Magicflexcamera (link in my original post). They are quite expensive because they're rebuilt and essentially like buying a brand new Rolleiflex.

I highly doubt there's a lot of fools out there like me that would pay that much for a Rolleiflex at this point 🙂 So if I got it and decided to sell it, I would definitely take a loss on it haha
 
p.jpeg


p.jpeg


p.jpeg


Here are a few images from my 2.8F
 
I assume the separation is mild otherwise you would have seen it before sending it off to Fleenor. If it just mild edge separation then there is no need to worry about it. If you mostly shoot portraits then maybe a 2.8 is worth it. It depends on subject matter and shooting style. I mostly use a 3.5f Planar as a walk around and after a few hours with a Rolleiflex around your neck the weight difference matters.
 
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.


I agree with mitrajoon completely. The 3.5F is far cheaper, hood and accessories like the Rolleinar are cheaper, and it's just as good as the 2.8F. But you have the 2.8F overhauled, at considerable cost and time, and you know it takes excellent pictures. I wouldn't loose a lot of sleep over what Harry said about separation. I think he uses a 10x loupe with the camera disassembled to examine the lens. I have large format lenses that I bought 20 to 30 years ago with a lot of edge separation. They are great lenses and the separation has not gotten any worse in 20 or 30 years. Also, my previous comments about portraits, I forgot about using the Rolleinars. I have one for my 3.5F, I'll have to try it for portraits (not my type of photography anymore).
 
I would just use your fantastic freshly serviced camera and quit worrying.
I always try to imagine a regular Joe in 1967 buying a 2.8F Rolleiflex, the greatest TLR there is and then worrying its too loud too big too dusty too whatever... of course not.
Stop worrying about the passing of time and use your camera. Maybe it’ll break one day, maybe it won’t but sheesh!
 
I would get the Rolliecord 4/5 for travel..probably better at F8 than the Rollieflex in any form...and its lightweight..
I would either use the camera w/separation till it dies..but separation usually that means its been banged hard...or dropped ...
Wont get better..thats for sure..and wide open..you may see it eventually..if it worsens..
 
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.

It's not fun to have to send a camera back like that and have to wait a couple of weeks more. And it's not a good first impression of a repair person. But it happens sometimes with all repair services, even the best.

I used Rolleiservice, the official Rollei repair center in Sweden, many times for my Rolleis. The guy who ran it was trained at the Franke & Heidecke factory in Braunschweig and an excellent repairman. I had to send two cameras back. One because the shutter stopped working, and one because that overengineered depth of field thing broke on a 2,8 F. Just a spring that got loose, but still not fun to have to send the cameras back. All the cameras repaired by him still work fine after 25-30 years. 🙂

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?

I don't feel much difference in weight between a 3,5F and 2,8F, but a big difference between an F-camera and a pre-war Automat (and the early post-war ones). The Rolleicords are also lightweight.
 
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.

Some Rolleiflex manuals have depth of field charts.

https://www.cameramanuals.org/rolleiflex/rolleiflex_3_5_01.pdf
https://www.cameramanuals.org/rolleiflex/rolleiflex_28d.pdf

(basic DOF charts are usable across different specific models, and they dropped the precise listings in later manuals).

So looks as if at 4 feet and f/2.8, DOF is 1-1/4" front and back. At f/4, DOF is 1-7/8 front and back.

Well, just give you a rough idea of the numbers you are looking at. If you are hand-holding, I imagine most people will have enough back and forth motion in reframing and adjusting to make 4 foot focusing with either a 2.8 or 3.5 a risky operation.
 
Back
Top Bottom