Just curious, why's that?
Rollei was at the top of their game when they made this camera.
It is as sharp as anything they ever made.
It's meter-less (a big bonus).
The film advance / aperture/ speed adjustment is the smoothest and finest they ever offered.
It is much lighter than the 2.8's, and nearly as light as the Rolleicords.
All the front controls are the best layout, and the least vulnerable to accidental damage. (least delicate).
The front aperture and film speed adjustment are not linked, and are free to move any direction you want them. (as opposed to the Type 1, and E models)
I prefer the build quality, the fold design, and the improved magnifier of the non-removable hood. Others may prefer the removable hood, but they are more issue-prone & delicate.
All the accessories such as hoods, filters and Rolleinars (except Rolleipol) are readily available and affordable.
Compared to the 2.8's, this camera is only giving up a half a stop - and really who shoots a Rolleiflex at 2.8 very often anyway. Respectable, but not at it's best.
Initial cost is WAY less than a Planar or Xenotar Rollei, and much better deals are available.
Nasty little secret is that the Xenars and Tessars are every bit as desirable and capable as the Planars and Xenotars, and actually have better bokeh.
Also, by design, the Tessars and Xenars do not suffer from separation, as can sometimes happen with the cemented elements of the Planars ( and to a lesser extent - the Xenotars).
These are some of my other cameras I am comparing.
Rolleiflex Standard Model 622 (K2) 3.5 Tessar (Prewar)
Rolleiflex 3.5 Automat MX (type 2) Opton Tessar
Rolleiflex 3.5 Automat MX-EVS (type2) Tessar
Rolleiflex 2.8C (type 2) Xenotar
Rolleiflex 2.8D Planar
Rolleiflex 3.5E (type 1) Planar
Rolleiflex 3.5E (type 2) Xenotar
Rolleiflex 3.5F (type 4) Planar
Rolleicord V 3.5 Xenar
Rolleicord Va 3.5 Xenar
Rolleicord Vb 3.5 (type 1) Xenar
Hope this helps.