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

[Analogski]

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!

 

[wiltw]

One-half f/stop is NOT sufficiently brighter to allow you to capture shots in lower light (to make a noticeable difference), nor does it give sufficiently lower depth of field to make that much more pleasing areas of selective focus.
SOMETIMES the threshhold of a half f/stop might permit a successfully exposed shot, rather than slightly underexposed shot that has to be compensated in the darkroom during printing, but those cases are rare.

Getting a longer FL can improve a shot at times, but again, in-the-darkroom cropping could effect the same result. There is no alternative in the darkroom for a wider angle capture, however.

 

[Dan Daniel]

For basic handling, balance, and general carrying, the 3.5 is the way to go. The 2.8s are front heavy. The taking lens glass on the 2.8 is right out in front, which can lead to some anxiety in, say, a crowded street, and for just general handling it is much more exposed. A lens hood reduces this worry.

I've never heard of an image quality difference between the 3.5 and 2.8 lenses. If anyone has, it'd be great to hear about this. I am not certain where the mystique of the 2.8 came from. Maybe it is because the Planar and Xenotar lenses started at 2.8 (C and D) before they made a 'budget' (??) 3.5 lens model?? If you want to the blingiest Rolleiflex to impress the Leica owners at the golf course, go for the 2.8. If not, well, let me quote someone: 'I'm very happy with my Rolleiflex 3.5F....' Guess where I got that quote? It's a great camera, enjoy.

Tele? Great lens. Like really nice! Look at close focus distance for portraits, a bit far for a head shot. The 0.35 Rolleinar takes care of that but they are not cheap. Very front heavy. If you can swing it and want to try it, go for it. You can most likely sell it on for whatever you pay. Watch for lens separation. I have one with minor separation and it was about 2/3 the price of a clean lens version with no noticable effect.

 

[Nitroplait]

“Upgrade” to 2.8f is only relevant if you know you need it. If you have to ask, you don’t.
It is heavy and costly and really: half an f stop matteres to you?

 

[blee1996]

I like both my 3.5F and 2.8C, because they render image differently. 3.5F sharper, 2.8C smoother. The 2.8C is more complementary than upgrade.

 

[Paul Howell]

Unless you are into available light photography, as was popular in the 60s and 70s, and shoot in low light such as street photography or night or indoor concerts and the like it is a lot of money for not much gain, law of diminishing returns. But if you really want a 2.8 taking lens for the money look into a Mamiya 220 with 80mm 2.8.

 

[Ulrich Drolshagen]

I have both. I use the 2.8 now and than but most of the time I prefer my 3.5 especially when traveling/hiking. It is somewhat lighter and a little bit smaller. I do not remember any situation where I needed the additional half stop.

 

[GregY]

"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. "

....i don't understand this..... here's a photo w my Rolleiflex T (3.5) .....i rarely shoot wide open outside
(I've made darkroom prints to 20"x20" from this FP4+ negative

 

[itsdoable]

The difference between f/3.5 and f/2.8 is 2/3 of a stop.

The difference between the Planar and Xenotar f/3.5 ~ f/2.8 lenses in the landscape range are not measurable, but some people claim the Planar f/3.5 is the best of them all (I would not make too much of that claim though).

There is no question that the f/2.8 lenses are better at f/2.8 And if you need or want f/2.8... well there you go.

The 2.8 Rollei's are heavier, larger, and more front heavy. For trekking and landscape, the f/3.5 would be more obvious, but they don't have the same panache.

 

[Sharktooth]

All of these cameras are in the neighbourhood of 60 years old, or more. The "best" ones are the ones that still work properly, such as the one you already have. General aging, poor storage, and poor handling are of far greater concern, than discussing the particular merits when new.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

But then again… the internet seems to claim it’s superior in every way to the 3.5F, largely due to the faster lens.

WRONG. As so often, the internet has a lot of idiots writing garbage. Faster does not equal "superior." 60+ year old camera: condition, alignment, haze, coating, film flatness make all the difference.

 

[Pieter12]

You might see the 1/2 stop make a difference in viewfinder brightness, but overall the 3.5 is more than adequate for just about anything you need.

 

[danmouer]

My camera kit includes a ‘Flex EIII 3.5 which I have often thought about “upgrading” to a 2.8. Inevitably I talk myself out of that because I have never been able to convince myself there is a good reason to do so.

 

[retina_restoration]

I have a Rolleiflex Automat with an f3.5 Tessar.
I also have a Rolleiflex 2.8E with Planar f2.8 lens.

The one with the Planar lens produces far superior images, but the Tessar is no slouch either. Change if there's going to be an improvement in lens quality, but aperture size isn't important.

 

[Dan Daniel]

You might see the 1/2 stop make a difference in viewfinder brightness, but overall the 3.5 is more than adequate for just about anything you need.

(Both 3.5 and 2.8 cameras have a 2.8 viewing lens)

 

[btaylor]

I have a box of Rolleis. Amongst them I have the 3.5F and a 2.8D. I much prefer the 3.5 as the weight and balance are much better in my hands than the 2.8. I can’t tell any significant difference in the prints. TBH, my favorites to take out are the Automat and ‘cord V. Both are lightweight and not so precious, no complaints with the Xenars either.

 

[Pieter12]

(Both 3.5 and 2.8 cameras have a 2.8 viewing lens)

I stand corrected.

 

[loccdor]

Speaking generally, the fastest lenses offered tend to flare and ghost more than the almost-as-fast option. They'll usually be a little less sharp wide open, too. You need to look at a few hundred shots from each of the lenses in question and decide for yourself if you like the effects, primarly looking at wide-open shots. Flickr is a great place to do that as many people tag their lens on their images for search-ability. No one can really answer the question for you, they'll be answering it for themselves. It's mostly an artistic consideration, not a technical one.

It is worth mentioning that for 6x6, normal lenses at f/3.5 and even f/5.6 already offer pretty shallow depth of field.

 

[Analogski]

Thanks for the replies so far. Makes things more clear. I'm very content with my Xenotar lens. So if I'm correct, there's no need to grab a 2.8f. Maybe a Tele could be a nice addition for landscape photography and portraits. But I should reed a bit more about it. Or is someone that has both camera's that can give some advice on that part?

 

[Paul Howell]

Maybe a Tele could be a nice addition for landscape photography and portraits. But I should reed a bit more about it. Or is someone that has both camera's that can give some advice on that part?

Don't know much about the Rollie Tele or wide, but a Mamiya C220 with interchangeable lens provides the options for both a tele up to 250 and wide to 55mm, I think. The Mamiya lens are excellent, perhaps not quite as sharp as a Rolli but good enough to resolve Tmax 100.

 

[Dan Daniel]

Maybe a Tele could be a nice addition for landscape photography and portraits. But I should reed a bit more about it. Or is someone that has both camera's that can give some advice on that part?

Look at the cost of something like a Hasselblad and a 150 or a Bronica SQ and a similar telephoto? The thing with the Tele Rollei is that it really isn't a comfortable camera. The excess weight to the front really unbalances the TLR, and unlike a Mamiya the Rolleiflex main body is small and not easy to balance with this weight. The Tele Rollei was a stop gap experiment as both 35mm and medium format SLRs started dominating.

About the only thing going for it is that the lens on the Tele Rollei really is pretty darn nice. And it has similar controls to other Rolleiflexes.

 

[blee1996]

I tend to agree with @Dan Daniel that medium format telephoto lens goes better with SLRs, especially if you want to do head&shoulder portraits and close-ups. Tele Rollei will be fine with environmental portraits and landscape though.

If you really prefer the TLR route, Mamiya C330S + 180/4.5 Super is a superb combo at a fraction of the cost.

 

[wiltw]

I prefer the 2.8 because of the slight perspective difference from the 3.5 75mm. I started using Rolleis due to being an Irving Penn fan and he preferred the 3.5, so that is what I got. However I could never get used to the fact that what I saw with my eyes was different than what I saw in the camera. I got a 2.8 80mm at a camera show for cheap and voila it's view matched mine perfectly. So that is what I still use.

Lest we mislead beginners... 'perspective' is entirely determined by the camera position, changiing FL itself does NOT change 'perspective'...the only difference made by FL, when used at a fixed camera position, is the dimensions of the Field of View that fits within the contents of the frame area (and DOF differences). ('Perspective' is the relationshop of an object to its surroundings.)
Point about 'perspective' demonstrated by a series of shots taken at single tripod position, with subsequent framing made similar during post-processing...

 

[Jessxi]

Rolleiflex did make an attachable Mutar (Tele-converter) in 1.5x and .7x for the 3.5f lens.

 

[GregY]

Rolleinars are also good on the flex for portraits