Automat vs. 3.5f vs 2.8f

[JoeA]

Hello group,

I've been lurking in shadows here for a while as I consider which Rolleiflex to purchase. Whether the R&D is done here or in other sites I see how loved the Rolleiflex tlr is, how great they are, etc... and I can't wait to get one of my own. But the one issue that keeps coming up is I'm just not seeing the advantage between the different models.
So here then is my question, what advantage does a 3.5f have over say a late model Automat, or for that matter a 2.8f over a 3.5f?
I do realize that there are age issues between them, but if we are talking about bodies that are in reltively good shape, possibly in need of a CLA, is the price difference between them worth it?

Thanks in advance...

Joe

 

[dpurdy]

One advantage an automat has over a later F model is that they don't cost nearly as much so you have more money to spend on film.
The models after and including E2 have the removable finder so you can put on a prism.
The later models are more likely to have working meters.
Difference between 2.8 and 3.5 is a matter of personal preference.

I think that if you are happy using a waist lever finder and hand held meter, the automat is the best bargain in Rolleis. You can find them on ebay for less than 500.
The earlier models have tessars without coating.

 

[summicron1]

what he said. The only advantage to the F models is the removable hood -- if you don't plan on using a prism --and why would you convert an elegant tlr into a bulky and unweildy slr? -- the F models will only cost you twice as much for the same thing. I have a Rolleicord Vb and a 2.8 E model and both are simply wonderful.

while we're at it, and even though you didn't ask, there are those who claim the planar lens is better than the schneider. An optical technician can possibly find a difference, you will never be able to.

 

[JoeA]

Well I have no problem with a hand held light meter and part of the beauty of the Rolei is the waist level finder.
So, unless I really want a 2.8f or 3.5f the Automat ought to be just fine.
Which is good, since I just bought one and kinda wondered how I did.
An Automnat MX (K4A) with a Zeiss Opton Tessar lens, CLA'd by Mr. Fleenor in 2010, for $299.00

Did I do well? I guess I'll find out when the first roll comes back...

joe

 

[summicron1]

you did very well, joe -- and CLA by Fleenor alone is usually more than $300, and you got a camera as a bonus.

 

[JoeA]

It arrived on Tuesday and it looks pretty good for 60 years old.
I had seen references to Fleenor and none of them negative, so when I saw this one I figurred go for it.
This is my first Rollei and I think that what surprizes me the most, on first impression, is how quiet it is, compared to my NIkons and Bronicas.
When I get my first roll back I'll have to share it, that is if these old eyes can still focus!

joe

 

[summicron1]

good for you -- just remember, when loading, to feed the film between those two rollers near where the film goes in -- that's the feeler mechanism to load the film and allign it to the first frame -- lots of people don't know this and think their camera is broken.

ct

 

[JoeA]

In my R&D I remembered seeing something about the "two rollers" when loading the film.
I guess I must have got it right here's a shot from my first roll with the Auromat, no bad for a camera 60 years old!

Taken one morning at a local park here in Tallahassee.

j