• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

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

Analogski said:
But is it in your opinion better build than the 3.5f?
Click to expand...

No and yes and maybe? So much about old cameras depends on the condition of each sample. I've handled 1949 Rolleiflex Automats that are as solid as a camera can be. And white face 2.8Fs that are beat to crap and very sloppy.

But all in all Rollei was constantly refining the mechanics of the Rolleiflexes. Or at least changing them. Some changes were better, some weren't (the better is the enemy of the good). My daily user is a 3.5 E3. Rollei stopped making the 3.5Es, then decided to restart, to make an F without a meter again. So they took the latest F design, stripped out the meter and coupling systems (a wonder but full of places for wear, binding and less than smooth operation), and made it the E3. So all the little refinements over the years were rolled into that model (except they kept the EV coupling, a mistake that I will correct some day). I searched out an E3 after working on one and seeing how it had all the latest refinements of the late F models, but no meter my preference.

The 2.8s, any of them, have a weight and feel and look that is impressive. I understand why people consider them better than the 3.5 lensed 'Flexes. And it may be that they are built better than the 3.5s, I wouldn't say that with certainty but davela, for example, seems pretty certain and probably has very good reasons for this.

The F was also made when TLRs were going out of favor with pros. 35mm SLRs and medium format SLRs were taking over. So as the years went on, 2.8s were not used as hard as earlier models, and more prone to be, like Leicas, 'dentist cameras.' Hence the number of late Fs in very good condition.

Seems to me that you have this bug in your brain and it won't go away until you shoot with a 2.8F. If you can afford buying one and selling it on if need be, or selling the 3.5 on, go for it. Until then, I would say that you have one of the best cameras Rolleiflex made, and that you are enjoying it. Go shoot. The bug will either keep buzzing or move on to another brain, but in the meantime you can enjoy shooting.
 
Last edited:
All of this Rollei talk made me go out and shoot my 3.5f and 2.8f together. My only complaint is the EV interlock on the 3.5f. The negatives from both cameras are needle sharp and both of the "useless" meters worked pretty well. I used the filter factor compensator dial for using filters and the bayonet filters are a joy to use. If you can get it done without a wide angle or a telephoto lens they can't be beat. In today's dollars those would be very expensive cameras to buy. If not for the EV interlock I can't find a reason to pick one over the other.
 
ags2mikon said:
All of this Rollei talk made me go out and shoot my 3.5f and 2.8f together. My only complaint is the EV interlock on the 3.5f.
Click to expand...
I thought the interlock was dropped on all the F models. Am I wrong?
 
beemermark said:
I thought the interlock was dropped on all the F models. Am I wrong?
Click to expand...

There are some that have a 'secret' interlock. No EV scale and numbers like on the E. But on the rim of the aperture dial is a silver rim, similar to the lock on the 2.8C dials. This is the interlock release. I think it is what ags2mikon means? It sucks. Also it is not difficult to kill from the backside once the shroud is off.

 
According to my serial number it is a first series 3.5F. I used the Rolleigraphy site. That is as far as I looked.
 
ags2mikon said:
It sucks! Yes it does. How is it killed?
Click to expand...
Once you see the backside it should be come clear as you play with the mechanism. I think that it is a spring tab that slides in to lock the coupling.

The real issue here is that removing the front shroud of the F is not simple. Along with a couple of tricks simply to get it off, you then have to reset the shutter, aperture, and meter coupling mechanism properly. I shouldn't have said that it was simple to kill, as this part of it, which has to be dealt with, is not simple.
 

I agree with your analysis. FYI I have owned, for a brief while, a 3.5 Planar model. A fine camera indeed, but I still prefer the 2.8's, especially the 2.8F. I think you summed my sentiments too with this remark: "The 2.8s, any of them, have a weight and feel and look that is impressive."
 
Last edited:
To me, the late model 2.8 cameras always had an "authoritative" vibe. The slightly larger size, and the "serious" stare of the 2.8 lenses. I remember the late 1980s/early 1990s when NOS Rolleis could be found on some specialized dealers' shelves (wow, possessives' plural's!). It looks how a Gatso camera might have looked like in the 1940s. If CCTV had been around in Weimar Republic.

To me, the 2.8F is a "serious" camera, not technically but from its aura, like a Sinar 4x5 monorail. Silver and black. Like a surgeon's instrument in an operating theatre. German. Nothing fancy, nothing frivolous about it.

I know it is easy to say, but I would not fret much over the decision. If it has to be a 2,8F, it has to be a 2.8F. It can be sold easily, if it is not right. Any hypothetical waxing about "build quality" is not going anywhere. Just buy the best you can afford, and enjoy it.

And while I am heavily into a GX simply for nostalgia, the 2.8F is probably "the" Rollei of all Rolleis, the canonical camera that probably pops up first in peoples minds when thinking "Rollei(flex)" - sorry to all XF35, 35, SL35, SL66, SLX and whatnot owners.

Hell, while writing this I am getting into Rolleiflex 2.8F trance. But it would have to be a very clean example. Leatherette and focus screen replaced, full CLA. Probably 2000 EUR or more. Which is 1.5 Iphones, half a set of alloys for a modern car, a disappointing vacation with your partner, one dental implant, or ten steak dinners....
 
Last edited:
I have stopped collecting Rollei TLRs. I sold my 2,8F with Planar because I didn't use it much. I kept my late 3,5F with the six element Planar because it's slightly sharper and has a little better contrast. For black and white I prefer my 1939 Automat with Tessar. It's sharp and lightweight.
 
I switched out my 3.5 for a 2.8 and honestly I preferred the 3.5. I don't see any reason to go with 2.8, but it's an itch we have to scratch.
 
3.5 is lighter, better balanced. I didn't notice the weight of the 3.5, but I sure did feel it on my neck carrying the 2.8 all day. All the controls on the 3.5 felt well placed, but I don't feel as comfortable handling the 2.8. probably as I was accustomed to the 3.5.
Also the 3.5 was half the price and I don't tend to shoot wide open.
 
From a rational point of view, I agree with the opinion that you probably shouldn’t buy a Rolleiflex 2.8F.

But the moment I saw a white-face Rolleiflex 2.8F in almost mint condition, my emotions completely defeated my rational thinking.

I also wouldn’t wish for you to make the same crazy decision I did… unless, of course, it’s simply because I want there to be one more Rolleiflex 2.8F out there in the world.
 
Send them 2.8 to me

So browsing a local auction site, I've been eyeing the Planar-Xenotar flexes. A decent unit (non CLA) seems to sell for 400-600€ and was thinking about what one member associated with a centre european camera store mentioned, that they were not selling that well nowadays.
Basically an unmetered Planar 3.5F mislabelled as 3.5E (and without S/N) popped up, and I'll bid, but tend to bid low. Ahh, I missed a 350€ CLAd 3.5E back in the Pandemic. Had I known! Anyways, I know myself, and rather buy film or other things and pay for fuel or travel rather than more GAS.

I've got a Pentax 645 without the 75mm, and those standalone standard lenses are actually not cheap (specially the FA). To carry another lens, or a system... The SLRs and Mamiya Cs have f2.8 lenses, which is great for lower light.
Once I get into building family, heirloom and such, then I'd look into such machine. I am used to f3.5 in medium format and spoiled by the 6x9 Fujinons, so for Color I'd stick with the Planar-Xenotars.
 
If you want to shoot portraits the 2.8s are IMHO much better. 80mm is barely long enough for a flattering portrait especially as you get close. The subject separation at moderate to close distances is very nice with an 80/2.8. The 75 is great for when you simply want sharp pictures and a slightly wider perspective.
 
Have a 3.5 and no real desire to get a 2.8 until a salvageable 2.8A appeared on this site at most reasonable price. Bought it, had Dan Daniels go through it and then I put some new green leather on it.

It's fun to use and the fact that it is perhaps the least liked of the 2.8 series somehow makes me like it even more. I like underdogs and this one is a great performer...
 
I've got 2.8s (a pair of 2.8E's, both early models) and a Tele. The Tele (the vintage one) has a minimum focus of roughly 8 feet (2.7 meters, give or take), so for doing anything other than full-length portraits, a Rolleinar .35 is a must. If you have the Rolleinar, it's a fantastic portrait camera, but as others have mentioned, it is very nose-heavy.
 
I've had a bug about getting a 2.8 for awhile and whenever they come-up at a reasonable condition/price I have to go all through this again to come to the same conclusion that its bad enough I have a Bay I and a Bay II 3.5 and now I'm considering a Bay III...that usually talks me out of it. But I always say if you can afford it without sacrifice try it out, they are masterworks.
 
I only have original lens hood for Bay III. All the filters can be done using an adapter from Bay III to common threaded ones, even though it might not be the most elegant solution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register