Interested in purchasing a Rollei TLR

[Josef]

I've been looking to purchase a Rollei 2.8 XXXX
Can someone tell me which bodies to look for? I'm only interested in bodies with 2.8 lenses.

The FX and GX are out of my price range.


Thanks!

PS: I have my eye on a Rollei 2.8 E in excellent condition for $750. Is that a good price?

 

[dpurdy]

Are you watching ebay? Unbelievable how much money the Rolleiflexes are bringing now. You might try posting a WTB in the classifieds though you might have to be a subscriber to do that.
If that E is in near mint condition I wouldn't be surprised to see it go for that much on ebay.
The body differences aren't much to worry about, the main difference is in whether or not you can remove the WLF finder hood and how the meter works. There is a model called the E2 that has the removable hood but the E and everything previous has the non removable one.
A lot of people like the C because of the aperture blades. A lot of people think the E was the best ever.
There is a lens option in the 2.8s. Either the Schneider Xenotar or the Zeiss Planar. The Xenotars tend to sell for a little less though nearly everyone agrees it is equal in quality to the Planar if not better.
Good luck,
Dennis

 

[dpurdy]

ebay item # 320652299489
This one might be what you are watching. It is a very nice condition E with Planar that is already over 800.

 

[Toffle]

Don't discount the 3.5s out there. To paraphrase Dennis, there are some who say that the 3.5s are every bit as good or better than the 2.8s. My 3.5 f is without a doubt the best camera I own. (though I understand that all TLRs are obsolete regardless of their exceptional functionality ) You would not be disappointed with either version. Good luck with your search. Keep us posted on your progress.

Cheers,

 

[dpurdy]

My first Rollei was a 3.5F and I decided to sell it and get a 2.8 because I stupidly thought the viewing lens would be brighter. The viewing lens is a 2.8 in either case.

 

[Toffle]

My first Rollei was a 3.5F and I decided to sell it and get a 2.8 because I stupidly thought the viewing lens would be brighter. The viewing lens is a 2.8 in either case.

Yes, I was going to mention that. The 3.5 Planar is a highly regarded lens. The thing to consider is the availability and price of attachments. Most 3.5s are Bay 2, which I believe are still more available than the Bay 3s of the 2.8s.

 

[eddym]

Don't discount the 3.5s out there. To paraphrase Dennis, there are some who say that the 3.5s are every bit as good or better than the 2.8s. My 3.5 f is without a doubt the best camera I own. (though I understand that all TLRs are obsolete regardless of their exceptional functionality ) You would not be disappointed with either version. Good luck with your search. Keep us posted on your progress.

Cheers,

No, not just obsolete; archaic! Worse, they have no right to even exist!

But who cares, just keep taking pictures with your TLR and ignore the blathering from trolls. The pictures speak for themselves!

 

[Q.G.]

It clearly did sting, knowing that noone in his right mind would design a camera as a TLR nowadays, unless there was absolutely no way round it.
But why you failed (and continue to do so) to take comfort in the fact that this doesn't mean that they (good ones) can't take excellent pictures is still quite remarkable.
One would almost believe you really don't care about photography. Just about one particular type of camera.


Back on topic: even the f/3.5 Tessar Rolleiflexes are quite capable machines.
So given the state of the market, i would not dismiss too many cameras too soon.

 

[Rob Skeoch]

I had a GX that I sold last year... like you said, very pricey. But years ago I had the "T" model. I think it was a more basic model, although I can't think of anything more basic than a TLR anyway. My point is it was an outstanding camera, did everything I needed it to do, and took great photos. The model was not all that popular and is often less costly used because of this. I thought it was a great camera though.... any of the photos that weren't great were because of user error.

-rob

 

[Ulrich Drolshagen]

No, not just obsolete; archaic! Worse, they have no right to even exist!

But who cares, just keep taking pictures with your TLR and ignore the blathering from trolls. The pictures speak for themselves!

I think, we should post in all photography related forums how uncomfortable the Rolleiflexes are to work with, how bad the lenses are compared to modern lenses on d*tal cameras and that the outcome does not justify the hassle working with them. Our praising the Rolleiflexes is misleading too much people into wanting one.

Ulrich

 

[Paul Sorensen]

I think, we should post in all photography related forums how uncomfortable the Rolleiflexes are to work with, how bad the lenses are compared to modern lenses on d*tal cameras and that the outcome does not justify the hassle working with them. Our praising the Rolleiflexes is misleading too much people into wanting one.

Ulrich

Sounds great, we can do some sort of search engine spam/link bait system of web sites to get the word out.

This could work!!!

Of course, once everyone hates film cameras and film sales drop even further and film becomes generally unavailable we will be sorry.

To quote Emily Litella ... "...never mind..."

 

[elekm]

The "T" is a cross between the Rolleiflex Automat and the Rolleicord. I found it be a good but not outstanding camera and certainly not deserving of its lofty price.

A Planar lens does indeed render differently from a Tessar at larger to medium apertures. I had a 3.5E with a Planar and working meter that took forever to sell.

 

[Paul Sorensen]

The "T" is a cross between the Rolleiflex Automat and the Rolleicord. I found it be a good but not outstanding camera and certainly not deserving of its lofty price.

Yeah, when I bought mine I was very open to a "T" but the prices were high. I bought an Automat with a Tessar and have been very happy with it. I didn't recommend it because the OP said he really wanted a 2.8. If I had that in the budget, I would probably want one and not be willing to consider the 3.5 myself.

 

[mhanc]

I have a 3.5F planar [best camera EVER] and given the results would have absolutely no interest in a 2.8 if I were buying again.

 

[ooze]

I have a 2.8GX and a T, and I think the T is better from a design and ergonomic point of view. Both the Planar and Tessar lenses are oustanding IMO, although they do render differently. Some GX's have a rather stiff shutter release. I had mine modified; it's a bit smoother now.

Considering the price difference, if I had to choose today I would take a T any time.

 

[JPD]

I have a 3.5F planar [best camera EVER] and given the results would have absolutely no interest in a 2.8 if I were buying again.

I've owned two 2,8 Planar Rolleis, one E and one F. I sold them both and kept the minty 3,5F with the six element Planar. They are all good, but I liked the 3,5 Planar a tiny bit more. If I were to buy a 2,8 today I would choose a 2,8D, only because of its looks.

The 3,5F is an excellent camera, but I have my "Tessar and Triotar days" sometimes, when the "soul" of the lens is more important. The uncoated Triotar isn't bad at all.

 

[pgomena]

I have owned and used a 2.8C/Xenotar for 30 years. I will never sell it. What else would I use while my Hasselblad is in the shop?

Peter Gomena

 

[Jeff Kubach]

I inherited a Rolleiflex 2.8f from my father after he passed away. A great camera.

Jeff

 

[George Collier]

I wouldn't worry too much about the difference in speed between the 3.5 and the 2.8, nor between the T and the F. I have a 3.5T and a 3.5F, and when using the same film and developer (everything with the Rollei is on a tripod, or at least a monopod for me), I honestly could not tell you which 20x20 inch print came from which camera/lens. The 3.5F is newer, so it's finder is brighter, and mechanically superior, but I use both. No matter where you buy either, expect to put some money into it within a year or so. They are old, and sometimes need a bit of work, even if well cared for.
A good source is Ken Hansen, who has sold to other APUG members. He doesn't mind being mentioned here. khpny19@aol.com
One tip - if you buy one, go through all shutter speeds with compensating aperture to achieve equal exposure, while it's cold outside, if possible. Both cameras I bought needed a shutter job just because of age, and it shows up in slow speeds in cold weather.
Oh, and did I forget to say - they are great cameras!

 

[MXSolomon21]

I have a Rolleiflex MX Automat from 1951 that I love. I want to get a 2.8 or a 3.5 at some point though. As for Rolleis going for a ton of money on ebay, they are really "Hip" right now, everyone wants one. Even older Automats in good shape are going for $500 which I think is ridiculous, but still a great camera.

 

[Josef]

I ended up picking up a beautiful condition Rollei 2.8 E1 for $750. I shot a couple of chromes through the camera and anxiously waiting to see the results.

 

[Toffle]

I ended up picking up a beautiful condition Rollei 2.8 E1 for $750. I shot a couple of chromes through the camera and anxiously waiting to see the results.

I am sure you will be very pleased with the results, they are fine cameras. (but not cheap)