Best rolleiflex version

[pollux]

I would like to cash in my camera at a local store. I would like to buy a rolleiflex tlr. Which is the best version, the 2.8E, 2.8F, 2.8GX or 3.5F 75mm? The rolleiflex 2.8E is the cheapest. All cameras are in exc+ condition. They all have meters. What should I be aware of second hand? I heard some old cameras have inaccurate focusing after service. One camera I looked at has a bette focusing screen to replace the stock one. Some cameras are not shimmed properly after service. The eBay seller is very reputable.

P.s some of them are xenotar lenses, the f3.5 is a planar.

Thankyou all,

William

 

[dpurdy]

Being a long time Rollei user, my favorite from that list would be the 2.8F with a xenotar. The F has a removable finder hood which would allow you to attach a prism.. which I find very useful. The GX has the most modern coatings on the lens and the best meter but lacks the self timer and has a bit stiffer shutter release. A lot of people prefer the 3.5F to the 2.8F and it is just as good. It is a matter of if you are more comfortable with a 75mm lens or an 80 mm lens. As small as that difference seems, it seems to have quite an impact. It is a matter of personal preference. I find composing with the 80 is more natural to me. I prefer the Xenotar because in all my testing it shows less flare than the Planar except for the latest version Planar with the HFT coating that is on the GX. Xenotar vs Planar is an interesting debate and many are on either side.
Dennis

 

[whlogan]

I never used a GX, but I have 20 TLR's mostly Xenotars and Planars and I must say the Planars seem to have an edge in sharpness and lack of flare. I love 'em all however and you will not go wrong whicheven way you go.
Logan

 

[ic-racer]

When I choose mine about 20 years ago I went with a late model F (GX not available). All the lenses are good, 3.5, 2.8, Zeiss and Schneider if they are not foggy. All the cameras are good, both F and E if they are not beat up. The main consideration for me was getting a camera with the least wear and tear.

 

[BrianL]

Factor in the minimum accessories you will want as these can add up big time. I started with a Bay I Rollleiflex and though I've thought about moving to one of the 2.8 versions the cost to duplicate my Bay I accessories such as filters, shades, etc. will cost more than the camera so I've decided a 3.5 is good enough and staying with Bay I makes sense.

 

[R gould]

You won't go far wrong whatever model you chose, but I would go for a model that takes Bay 1 as these seem, at least where I am, to be both easier to obtain and cheaper, There is not very much to chose between the lenses,the planar maybe having a very slight edge, but except at very large enlargements you would be hard pressed to tell the difference, I know I am and I have versions with Tesser, exenar, xenotor,and although I no longer own a Planar version I did do, sold it a while ago, one thing to check is the winder, if there is not a lot of paint around the circuler rim, and on later versions the button on that side, then the camera has probably had very hard, professional use, if the paint is only slightly worn, or not at all, then the camera has probably only had light use,so go for that one, as long as the mechanics are working fine and the shutter firing at all speeds then you should be fine,
Richard

 

[Rollei fan]

Everything depends on your needs. Do you really need f2.8? It is not a full stop faster than f3.5. And a Rolleiflex 2.8F is almost twice as expensive as 3.5F. The newer FX and GX are great, but much more expensive.

Also remember that the 3.5 is 75mm and 2.8 is 80mm. Do you prefer a little wider lens?

I have a rather "well used" 3.5F with 6 element Planar. Incredibly sharp lens, good contrast. Not so prone to flare as the 2.8 Planar, I guess. And I like the little wider angle of view of the 75mm compared to my Mamiya C220 with it's 80mm.

If I had to choose again, I would buy a 3.5F or 3.5E, preferably without built-in exposure meter, because a small hand held meter is much more useful.

If I were on a tight budget, I would get a Minolta Autocord rather than a Rolleiflex or Rolleicord with Xenar or Tessar. It isn't as pretty as Rolleis, but it is cheaper and many say that the Rokkor is better than Xenar or Tessar.

 

[Jeff Kubach]

I'm sure you'll love anyone of them. I have the 2.8F which I got free when my father passed away.

Jeff

 

[Pgeobc]

Well, I own a 3.5E Xenotar and a 2.8GX Rollei Planar. Were it not for that miniscule 1/2 stop differece engraved on the lenses and the difference between the Bay-II and a Bay-III filter setups, it would be difficult to tell which is which. With any method that I have at hand (and that is not much) to look at negative sharpness, they are virtually the same. I fluid scan and then crop in Photoshop, btw.

There were some made with Tessars and Xenars. These are fine lenses in their own right, but must be stopped down to get optimal sharpness. So, on a less than sunny day or a dim room, that might limit your options. They are still lovely cameras and at the right apertures, they provide magnificent photos.

The GX has a modern, bright viewfinder and the E has an aftermarket bright-screen of some type. Those are real pluses.

The external meter on the E is inaccurate after all these years. The GX has a meter in the viewfinder light path, so its a little more sophisticated. Personally, I think a hand-held meter of some type beats both of them.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

I have coveted a Rolleiflex ever since I had my first TLR, a Yashica D. Eventually, I got myself an Automat MX-EVS with the 75mm Tessar lens.

It really is no slouch, and is around the same range as the Mamiya TLR lenses, with a different look, though. The camera was inexpensive, accessories are plentiful and also cheap. I managed to get myself Rolleinars 1, 2, a whole set of B&W filters, the LB filters for colour film, a panoramic head, etc.

I would have coveted a 2.8F or a 3.5F but I was not in the position to invest a significant amount of money to do so. My "pro" MF system is my Mamiya C330, which is more rugged, more flexible, though heavier than the Rolleiflex.

The 'flex on the other hand is my notebook camera: carry everywhere, do anything. The post-war Automats hit a really sweet spot for quality and Rollei experience. You can have more versatility with the planar/xenotar F models, but your expense rises. Models with the C, D, or E designation allow you to get a five-element lens for cheaper (hood is non-removable, other features might be missing).

In order of desirability, I would say:

1. Planar / Xenotar models:
   1. 2.8F
   2. 3.5F
   3. 2.8 C, D, or E
   4. 3.5 C, D, or E
2. Postwar Tessar / Xenar models
   1. Rolleiflex T
   2. Automats (aka 3.5A, 3.5B, or MX-EVS)
   3. Rolleicord Vb
3. Postwar Rolleicords
4. Prewar Automats

Beyond that you enter the realm of antiquities or oddities, depending on how you see it.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Another thing to think about with the older 'flexes is the 2.8A/B/C and maybe even the D have a multi-bladed iris that gives you a more round aperture, yielding smoother out-of-focus rendering. I have a 2.8E with the Planar. The meter is of course by now dead. If an internal meter is important to you, then you need to look at the GX, with the F as a backup option. The other older options will either have no meter at all, or will have a meter that if not already dead, will get there soon enough and be unrepairable when it does die.

 

[Paul Cunningham]

and be unrepairable when it does die.

Is that really true? Unrepairable, or just unreasonable to repair?

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

As an owner of about 8 Rolleiflexes/cords, I can say that the best one is the one that looks to be the cleanest and to have been taken care of the best. As for Planar vs. Xenotar you will not be able to tell the difference in any aspect with regular shooting. For some reason Planar seems to be more desirable so for re-sale that might have some small aspect. If speed is not expected to be needed and you'd prefer a lighter camera than get a 3.5. I cannot tell the difference between my 3.5E3 Xenotar or my 3.5E Planar at all. Nor can I really tell any major difference between the 3.5 or 2.8 lenses be they Planar or Xenotar. Bottomline: They are ALL good, unless they were battered, repaired or CLA'd badly, or the lenses have fog or scratches*.

*This said my fav is my 2.8E Planar with a lens that has a decent amount of micro-scratches. In general use, and with a hood, you'd really see little difference to even my perfect 2.8C Xenotar with it's perfect lens. But for portraits the micro-scratches give an ever so slightly more moderate contrast that is simply divine. Go figure.

 

[darkprints]

some things to consider

Older models, up through the E, do not have removable finders. The E2 and later do, including the T. This is only important if you want to use a prism.

The "modern" versions (GX, FX etc.) are built on the model T chassis, for economic reasons.

Don't pass on the T just because it has a 4 element Tessar.

No matter what you end up buying, factor in the cost of a CLA.

 

[pollux]

I have recently seen a 55mm f4 which has had a CLA and is well used. All shutter speeds fire properly, and the aperture adjusts properly. There are no lens scratches. Should I ask the dealer about the focusing wide open, and it's accuracy?

 

[luvcameras]

I prefer the 3.5F later types. The difference b/t 3.5 and 2.8 is almost nill. Having said that, almost any post 1950's Rolleicord or Rolleiflex is a pleasure to use and will produce results on film that will exceed most digital cameras when printing 11x14 and larger.

Dont forget to check out my Dead Link Removed

Love my Rolleis


Dan

Dead Link Removed

 

[Vaughn]

I will be selling a Rolleiflex soon -- I want to run a roll through it before I post it. It is a early 50's 3.5A (also listed on various charts as an Automat, Model 4 and as a MX, Type 1).

Both the viewing lens and the taking lens (Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar 75mm 3.5) have a red "T" on them -- any significance of the red "T"?

Vaughn

PS -- I use an early 2.8F -- something went "Ping" in the meter when I was adjusting the f/stop and/or shutter speed -- still registers the light but the linkage for the matching needle must have snapped. No biggie as I have a Luna Pro.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Is that really true? Unrepairable, or just unreasonable to repair?

They're old selenium meters. The cells lose sensitivity and when they go, they go. Nobody makes replacement cells for them so the cost is a non-issue.

 

[michaelbsc]

They're old selenium meters. The cells lose sensitivity and when they go, they go. Nobody makes replacement cells for them so the cost is a non-issue.

I thought someone took over Metrogon.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

I have recently seen a 55mm f4 which has had a CLA and is well used. All shutter speeds fire properly, and the aperture adjusts properly. There are no lens scratches. Should I ask the dealer about the focusing wide open, and it's accuracy?

I ask the price FIRST, then the other questions if you're still interested...

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I thought someone took over Metrogon.

I didn't know there was a source for them at all. Last I had heard the meters were non-repairable.

 

[michaelbsc]

I thought someone took over Metrogon.

I didn't know there was a source for them at all. Last I had heard the meters were non-repairable.

I know Metrogon in the UK sold them a few years ago. And I also know they're gone. But I thought the products were taken over.

Maybe I'm wrong. Wouldn't be the first time.