Is upgrading to a faster Rolleiflex a good decision? Or keep it the way it is?

[Franklee]

I've had a bunch of various vintage Rolleiflexes D through F and the E2 models without the useless meters and prisms are the best bang for buck, along with a CLA.

Honestly the late model Rolleicords are most practical - lighter, less expensive and because you also have to cock the shutter, they slow you down so you don't burn through as much film when shooting portraits. With the Rolleiflexes it is very easy to enjoying the film winding and shooting so much that you take a lot of extra pictures instead of one good one.

In terms of sharpness, they are all sharp and smooth. Getting the subject in focus, critically, is way more important than having the "best" lens - your technique makes so much more of difference than having a slightly better lens.

FWIW I did some comparisons with a late 1960 Hasselblad 80/2.8 and the Rollei was sharper, sample size of one.

 

[beemermark]

I have owned numerous Rolleiflexes thru the decades. I do tend to like the 2.8F "look" a little more than the 3.5F. Never noticed any difference between the Planars and Xenotars. Have a Rolleicord V, 3.8F, and 3.5F right now. People telling you that the 2.8 is heavier than the 3.5 or that the 2.8 is nose heavy are full of it. The Tele is definitely nose heavy. Never had a problem with flare either, course I usually have a hood on the lens. have always found the "useless" meter to work wonderfully, you just know how to use a meter. If fact I don't ever recall a meter that wasn't accurate. I once had three white face 2.8F's. Sold them all and kept a 3.5F until I stumbled on a 2.8F at a ridiculously low price.

The difference between the 2.8F and 3.5F is 2/3 of a stop. That's it and that's all.

 

[Hamster]

I have owned a 2.8C for a decade as well as several MX-EVS and 'Cord with the Tessars for over 3 decades. I have since sold the 2.8C and kept the Tessar equipped Rolleis. For me, I found the MX-EVS to have the best balance of function and ergonomics, and with more readily available BAY I hood, filters and Rolleinars, I can accomplish more with my Tessar equipped machines.

 

[GregY]

I have owned a 2.8C for a decade as well as several MX-EVS and 'Cord with the Tessars for over 3 decades. I have since sold the 2.8C and kept the Tessar equipped Rolleis. For me, I found the MX-EVS to have the best balance of function and ergonomics, and with more readily available BAY I hood, filters and Rolleinars, I can accomplish more with my Tessar equipped machines.

I've had a Rolleiflex 2.8F (traded it for LF lens 90mm Super Angulon XL) as well as a Mamiya C330 (couldn't bond w the handling)...
But i've had a Rolleiflex T now for more than a decade....and love the character of the Tessar. With FP4+ it's classic, & with TMax 100 it's sharp & smooth....& the camera is small & light & handles well

 

[Arthurwg]

Aside from the F-stop, does the Schneider lens exhibit other valuable qualities that might make it preferable to the Zeiss? My favorite Rollei pictures were made with the 3.5.

 

[retina_restoration]

One of these photos was made with a Rolleiflex Automat f3.5 Tessar and the other with a Rolleiflex 2.8E Planar.
Can you tell which is which?

Rolleiflex 1
Rolleiflex 2

 

[itsdoable]

... People telling you that the 2.8 is heavier than the 3.5 or that the 2.8 is nose heavy are full of it...

<snip>

I guess I'm "full of it" then

The F2.8 is ~1.4Kg, and the F3.5 is ~1.2Kg, and the difference it mostly in the front standard.

But it's like the difference between 75mm and 80mm, some notice it, some don't. Having both, if I'm packing light and trekking, I tend to take the F3.5, because I don't find the difference between 75mm and 80mm significant.

 

[RezaLoghme]

Dear film enthusiasts,

I’m very happy with my Rolleiflex 3.5F, it’s an old, squeaky gem that I truly enjoy shooting with. Lately, though, I’ve been wondering whether upgrading to a 2.8F would actually be worthwhile.
According to a service specialist, it’s not really worth it unless you plan to trek into the wilderness (where a faster lens is more needed) and the weight balance isn’t ideal either. But then again… the internet seems to claim it’s superior in every way to the 3.5F, largely due to the faster lens.
Of course, it’s about twice the price, so I’m not sure if it really constitutes a worthwhile upgrade compared to my current Rollei.
For roughly the same price I could also pick up a Tele version. I enjoy both landscape and portrait photography, so maybe that would be a useful addition. However, I have no experience with the Tele at all.
Any tips, insights or advice are very welcome!

1. what do you mean by "upgrade", in what way would the 2.8F be "better" for your use cases?

2. Tele Rollei is unwieldy and unbalanced, and many suffer from taking lens separation issues (but not all sellers openly disclose it), hence the tempting low prices.

 

[Dan Daniel]

I've had 3 different 2.8C Xenotars. One lens was amazing. One was eh perfectly ok. And one was in between. Same thing with Planars in assorted sizes and cameras.

Variations happen, especially on lenses made on less precise machining. Individual sample variations, condition, and overall camera alignment could probably make any of the 4 lenses in Rolleis better or worse than any other. Run them through assorted scanners or darkrooms and compression algorithms and forum file systems, and who knows what we are even seeing??

If I had to say something, Xenotars tend to be sharper, more microcontrast and a tendency to squirrelly backgrounds. Planars are 'smoother' with smoother backgrounds. Tessars are fine but none (before T reformulation) has impressed me. And Xenars rule, but you need to like a bit lower contrast and more openness. All of this, ALL OF THIS, is based on me looking at my own negatives and prints, period. When it comes to looking at other people's images, I don't give a rat's behind what lens they used.

So, how many angels can other people make dance on their pin heads?

I'll go back again to the OP's first sentence: "I’m very happy with my Rolleiflex 3.5F..." I'd say he's doing good.

 

[Analogski]

Yes, I definitely love my Rolleiflex 3.5f. By the upgrade, I mean a faster lens. But I've read all the comments till now. Thanks a lot! I'll be keeping my 3.5f, and I'll try to clean the old, original focusing screen, maybe it will get me beter results when I need to focus fast. The Oleson splitscreen is sometimes bit confusing and slows me more down (because I like to be dead on).

 

[outwest]

I have a 3.5F and a 2.8C (because it was only $85). Both are great. Yes the 2.8C is noticeably heavier and the filters cost a lot more. I have the 35mm kit for the 2.8C and the shots with it are fantastic (sweet spot?). Which one do I travel with? The 3.5F which is the best camera ever made;-)

 

[beemermark]

I guess I'm "full of it" then

The F2.8 is ~1.4Kg, and the F3.5 is ~1.2Kg, and the difference it mostly in the front standard.

But it's like the difference between 75mm and 80mm, some notice it, some don't. Having both, if I'm packing light and trekking, I tend to take the F3.5, because I don't find the difference between 75mm and 80mm significant.

Your 2.8F must have a lead weight in side (or maybe a glass plate?). Rollei's manual specification section gives both cameras weighting the same at 1,222 gms. Curious I weighted my 2.8F - it's 1,256 gms.

 

[itsdoable]

Your 2.8F must have a lead weight in side (or maybe a glass plate?). Rollei's manual specification section gives both cameras weighting the same at 1,222 gms. Curious I weighted my 2.8F - it's 1,256 gms.

How much does your 3.5F weigh? I bet it's ~200gm lighter.

The actual weights vary quite a bit depending on version, lens, spec, meter/no meter, etc... The 3.5F have published weights from 980~1220gms. The 2.8F's weight from 1140gm up to under 1400gm, but it's hard to find those weights as Rollei did not always publish them. But yes, the weights I quoted were for similar, metered bodies with similar finders and loaded with film - because why would you carry it around without film.

The FX/GX were lighter through.

 

[beemermark]

My 3.5F weighed 1180 grams. Both have meters.

 

[RezaLoghme]

How much does your 3.5F weigh? I bet it's ~200gm lighter.

The actual weights vary quite a bit depending on version, lens, spec, meter/no meter, etc... The 3.5F have published weights from 980~1220gms. The 2.8F's weight from 1140gm up to under 1400gm, but it's hard to find those weights as Rollei did not always publish them. But yes, the weights I quoted were for similar, metered bodies with similar finders and loaded with film - because why would you carry it around without film.

The FX/GX were lighter through.

A roll of 120 film is about 30 grams.

 

[wiltw]

A roll of 120 film is about 30 grams.

Kodak VPH c1995 23.4g

 

[itsdoable]

A roll of 120 film is about 30 grams.

28 ~ 50(!) grams was what I had, but most are closer to 28g

Kodak VPH c1995 23.4g

Neat - never seen one that light, but then I don't go around weighing rolls of film.

 

[itsdoable]

My 3.5F weighed 1180 grams. Both have meters.

OK, so the F2.8 is larger and heavier than the F3.5. Yours weight difference is less than mine.

 

[wiltw]

28 ~ 50(!) grams was what I had, but most are closer to 28g

Neat - never seen one that light, but then I don't go around weighing rolls of film.

Ordinarily, I don't weigh rolls of film either...I just wanted to validate what I had read about 120 film being about 30g!
Out of curousity, I just measured two rolls of Fuji color neg

• NPH c1995 24.4g
• NPS c1995 23.8g

 

[lecarp]

Forget thinking about upgrading and think in addition two..three...four etc.

 

[davela]

I own, and have owned, several TLR's. In my view Rolleiflex 2.8F is a standout among them in several respects. Most particularly because of its build quality which is simply exceptional. The 2.8F is noticeably better made than the earlier 2.8 models, which were already excellent. So the 2.8F's reputation is a deserved one IMO, and yes it's worth it! It reminds me of the place the Leica M3 holds among 35mm rangefinders - a standout camera among a spectrum of excellence. The 2.8F is also reasonably compact and light in my experience, but more importantly it has an ergonomic feel-- an intangible aspect that just "feels right". Using mine brings me joy!

If you also need a noticeably lighter TLR at times, I would suggest as a companion an earlier Rolleicord model, or one of the many fine Japanese Rolleicord copies without frills (which add weight and complexity). The Yashica A comes to mind.

 

[Analogski]

I own, and have owned, several TLR's. In my view Rolleiflex 2.8F is a standout among them in several respects. Most particularly because of its build quality which is simply exceptional. The 2.8F is noticeably better made than the earlier 2.8 models, which were already excellent. So the 2.8F's reputation is a deserved one IMO, and yes it's worth it! It reminds me of the place the Leica M3 holds among 35mm rangefinders - a standout camera among a spectrum of excellence. The 2.8F is also reasonably compact and light in my experience, but more importantly it has an ergonomic feel-- an intangible aspect that just "feels right". Using mine brings me joy!

If you also need a noticeably lighter TLR at times, I would suggest as a companion an earlier Rolleicord model, or one of the many fine Japanese Rolleicord copies without frills (which add weight and complexity). The Yashica A comes to mind.

But is it in your opinion better build than the 3.5f?

 

[RezaLoghme]

But is it in your opinion better build than the 3.5f?

A serious question:

What would be a reply that would satisfy you, and would you act based upon that reply?

"Better build" is probably highly subjective. have you been to a shop, handling a 2.8 so far? If not, that would be the best idea.

 

[RezaLoghme]

I have zero relations to this shop, I have not even ever been there, but they are in your country and have a vast palette of TLRs:

Twin Lens Reflex cameras - Fotohandel Delfshaven / MK Optics

Inkoop en Verkoop | Classic camera store in Delft / NL | Used Twin Lens Reflex cameras with warranty | Huge stock | Rolleiflex | Yashica | Minolta | Shipping worldwide

fotohandeldelfshaven.nl

You can even rent a 2.8 for 100 EUR / week. What more do you want?

 

[Analogski]

A serious question:

What would be a reply that would satisfy you, and would you act based upon that reply?

"Better build" is probably highly subjective. have you been to a shop, handling a 2.8 so far? If not, that would be the best idea.

Just a serious question, because of the reply. No action upon the answer. Just a serious question....