Let loose a Rolleiflex?

[c41]

Life has led me to the enviable position of having three very similar Rolleiflex (thank you world!)
I'm considering selling one of them.

• 2.8F Planar
• 3.5F Planar
• 2.8C Xenotar

(Background: I'm a 'weekend warrior' sort of photographer, urban scenes - people, architecture, whatever is happening. Definitely a user of cameras not a collector but I still enjoy spending the weekend in the company of what to me are very special cameras. The end product is prints, just for my pleasure, not for commercial purposes.)​

So which one would you sell? Or is it crazy to sell one at all? I can manage financially without selling one, it just seems a bit overkill to have three very, very similar cameras. I like the simplicity of one lens with Rolleis, it really does have an effect of letting me focus on the image and not overthinking things (so I buy three lol!)

All three are in very similar condition, excellent plus, not mint, no defects. All three have superb modern screens.
I have a pretty full set of Bay III peripherals, Bay II less so at the moment, just the basics. All three give very, very similar images when all is said and done.

The 2.8F Planar I don't think I could ever sell, I enjoy its images too much, so it comes down to the 3.5F vs 2.8C.
Pros: 2.8C - stay with Bay III, f/2.8 lens, round aperture (10 blades), Xenotar brings a little variety. 80mm focal length.
Cons: 2.8C - non-removable hood (I've never used a prism yet), old-fashioned shutter speeds (1/100 etc.), caution required with the 1/500 speed setting as well.

Pros: 3.5F - the reduced weight. It's barely noticeable to look at them but in the hand the smaller size is a real bonus.
Cons: 3.5F - Bay II complexity. And 75mm isn't 80mm so I've introduced a subtle point of difference/complication.

My initial choice was to let the 3.5F slip away but I'm having second thoughts. Maybe I should just keep it. Maybe I'll regret letting it go. It's a boring question for which I'm sorry! But if you're feeling bored, what would you do? Am I preaching to the choir in a community of Rollei hoarders? Is this just a plea to let me keep all three? Who has and uses 75mm and 80mm Rolleis out there? Who uses 2.8C and a more modern 2.8?

 

[BrianShaw]

If you can’t decide on your own... maybe you’d better keep all three!

Three is two more than I have but hardly a hoard.

 

[c41]

Maybe you're right, sometimes it just helps to write it all out.
Before the internet this would have been on a piece of paper, with the wonders of internet now my navel gazing is shared for all to see!
It's good to know three is not a hoard, maybe more of a 'cache'.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

If you have three of same brand you are not warrior, you are golfer.
But it is OK.I have three Leica RF.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

If you MUST sell one, I'd let the 2.8C go. I know this sounds heretical... but the 2.8C is A: becoming collectible, and B: getting harder to service. Certain parts for it (the locks for the PC socket and shutter button, for example) are not only no longer made, but effectively impossible to find. The lens coatings are also more fragile on the C's. I once tried to get a C, but I found that even if it had been in perfect working order, the ergonomics of how to "clutch" the shutter and aperture controls, plus that 1/250th and 1/500th engage-when-not-cocked thing made it fragile and ungainly simultaneously. The one I bought was one of the two things I've ever had to invoke Ebay's return policy for - it was described and photographed to make it look like there was minor coating loss to the lens, and it was described as having been tested recently with film. What arrived was a lens that looked like it had had rough sex with a belt sander, and a 30-year old roll of C-22 film in it. The quote I got from my local service shop (which has a Rollei expert tech on site) was several hundred more than I paid for the camera, and based on the damage to the glass, it would have been at best a very soft-focus camera. I replaced it with a second 2.8E Planar, with which I've been very happy.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Sell them all and by Hasselblads. Instead of three bodies and three similar lenses you could have one body, three different lenses and additionally be able to swap film mid roll without loosing a shot!

 

[Theo Sulphate]

3.5F is redundant when you've got the 2.8F.

I bought a 3.5F followed by 2.8D. Had I bought the D first, I'd've never bought the F with slower lens and especially with intricate meter linkage for ageing selenium meter. Will keep it though because they're not making Rolleiflexes anymore.

 

[c41]

Thanks all. Fair points on the much older C model and on the duplication of the two F types.

Bay II Rolleinar I seem hard (impossible?) to find is one more factor against the 3.5F. A curse on all the Rollei accessory pirates!

The relative age and fiddliness of the 2.8C counts against it, pentagons never bothered me too much and the goofy shutter speeds/separate 1/500 speed is a practical annoyance.

Maybe I’ll just keep all my ‘clubs’ in the bag for now and see what i used in 12 months time. The 2.8C is losing for now.

I do have a little bit of Hasselblad already but duly noted that i should go all in!

 

[M Carter]

What arrived was a lens that looked like it had had rough sex with a belt sander,

Finally, I've found the man to ghost-write my memoirs. Please message me sir, I'll have my private jet await for our first meeting, which will feature caviar, champagne from Hitler's bunker, and Asian supermodel twins. Because, y'know, Asian twins.

 

[piu58]

There ist the most accessory for the 3,5F. It has the wider view (75 mm instead of 80).

 

[k.hendrik]

Sell them all, and for once in your life do something rationally.... get a SL66se.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Sell them all, and for once in your life do something rationally.... get a SL66se.

Either a SL66se or a Hasselblad. You will never look back.

 

[k.hendrik]

Either a SL66se or a Hasselblad. You will never look back.

Well, the only Hasselblad I would recommend is the SWC the other ones are toys...

 

[etn]

To all who recommended selling them and buying a Hasselblad:
Apologies, but I disagree (although I am a Hasselblad fanboy and understand all the advantages of the Swedish beauty!) A Rolleiflex is simply not the same, like a Leica is not the same as a Nikon. Both have their place. Owning both makes sense. Therefore we should make the following recommendation: keep them all and buy a Hasselblad (or two) on top of them

 

[Sirius Glass]

OR walk around with a wide angle Rollei, normal Rollei and a telephoto Rollei on your neck. You will have both bling and round shoulders with a hump on your back.

 

[MattKing]

OR walk around with a wide angle Rollei, normal Rollei and a telephoto Rollei on your neck. You will have both bling and round shoulders with a hump on your back.

Or a Mamiya C330 and 3 lenses - in total it will be relatively light and small enough to fit in a nice small bag and you can wink at Sirius if you see him .
More seriously, and to the OP, I would ask:
Which of the three do you enjoy using the most? If you have a good answer, that is the one to keep. If you cannot answer, then pick one, sell the other two, and you will be happy no matter what.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

The Rolleiflex is much quieter, more discreet, and more genteel than many other cameras.

 

[k.hendrik]

OR walk around with a wide angle Rollei, normal Rollei and a telephoto Rollei on your neck. You will have both bling and round shoulders with a hump on your back.

I love your in depth criticism and broadview nothing beats a Hasslebald !

 

[FujiLove]

After careful consideration, I think you definitely need a Rolleicord Vb ;-)

 

[Sirius Glass]

OR walk around with a wide angle Rollei, normal Rollei and a telephoto Rollei on your neck. You will have both bling and round shoulders with a hump on your back.

I love your in depth criticism and broadview nothing beats a Hasslebald !

Well Leica, Minolta, Canon and Nikon are good runners up. Still nothiing beats a good piece of glass.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I love your in depth criticism and broadview nothing beats a Hasslebald !

Hey, I am working on getting the OP to sell off his Rolleis so that you can buy them up. Get with the program. Do I have to write out everything for you?

 

[mitrajoon]

I'd keep all 3. I'd consider them functioning works of Art. If the c stops functioning, it's still a work of art. To the person who said the 3.5 F is redundant, I would only say having both a 2.8 and 3.5, I actually l prefer the slightly lighter more compact 3.5F. But as I said, both are works of art I wouldn't part with.

 

[c41]

lol, thanks all. I'm leaning towards your view mitrajoon - keeping them all, they are special. A non-functioning camera isn't of interest to me in the slightest, but I see no reason the C won't outlast me, it's in good condition.
I'll probably regret letting whichever one go, too hard to decide, so best to keep them all.

I'd always thought Hasselblads were the first cameras on the moon but rewatching the Lionel Jeffries 60s technicolor classic, First Men in the Moon, recently, I'm pretty sure he had a Rolleiflex stowed somewhere about his person and the TLR was there long before those Swedish flat pack cameras.

This old picture of another Englishman who's been to the moon might soften the blow of that devastating news.

 

[BobMarvin11225]

Were I in you place I think I'd keep all three, but if I had to let one go it would be the 3.5F because it doesn't share lens accessories with the two f2.8 Rolleis.

 

[chip j]

Get a Contax G system.