Planning on buying a Rolleiflex, 2.8 Vs 3.5?

[Twotone]

Hi folks,

I'm planning to part ways with my 500CM after my honeymoon, and moving back to a TLR, hoping to also pick up a Leica M2 with the remaining cash but we'll see..

I had a Rolleicord briefly that I picked up cheap and sold on for spares as it needed a lot of work and was missing parts etc.

I'm planning to use some of the money to buy a Rolleiflex as I really like the size etc of these and portability is key for me.

What I can't decide on is 2.8 Vs 3.5! This will be my only medium format camera for the time being, and as the lens isn't removable (to change mid-shoot) I want to make sure it's right! Rather than the speed, I'm more thinking about the quality of the lens, hopefully I wouldn't lose sleep over approx 2/3rds of a stop.

I also am unsure if Planar is worth the extra ££ over Xenotar?

Does anyone have any opinion on this and also which version e.g. A, B C etc to go for? I've read between the types and I can't notice any real world differences from what I can see! I don't care about having an in-built light meter, in fact I'd prefer one without but happy with whatever option.

If I decide down the line I want to do studio stuff, I'll buy an RB67 or something, but the Rolleiflex I want for general life, portraits, and landscapes etc but sharpness is important!

Thanks!
TT

 

[ic-racer]

I'd buy what is available in good condition (good shutter, clear, scratch-free lens elements) and not worry about the lens brand or aperture. Why would you pay more for the Planar?

 

[Nitroplait]

Don't sweat the small stuff - most of your concerns belongs to the small category.
2.8 is heavier and pricier - that is it.
My only advice is not to scrape the bottom of the market for a bargain. A healthy sample is everything.

 

[Twotone]

Don't sweat the small stuff - most of your concerns belongs to the small category.
2.8 is heavier and pricier - that is it.
My only advice is not to scrape the bottom of the market for a bargain. A healthy sample is everything.

Thanks for this!
Absolutely not going to buy a dog of a camera, part of the reason why I wanted to make sure I got the model right, but appreciate that is a small detail as you say!

I'm planning to buy one in excellent condition and serviced, life is too short to use beat up/poorly maintained kit! All of my cameras are serviced.

So you don't feel there is any noticeable difference in lens quality/sharpness? Thanks

 

[Twotone]

I'd buy what is available in good condition (good shutter, clear, scratch-free lens elements) and not worry about the lens brand or aperture. Why would you pay more for the Planar?

View attachment 343573

Point taken!

I guess the perception that Planar = better quality photos

Thanks

 

[JPD]

I have used many Rollei TLRs and these days if I want to shoot 6x6 I'll grab a pre-war Rolleiflex with uncoated Tessar, because of its light weight (and the image quality is excellent for B/W). Or a Rolleicord with Triotar for the character.

The Planar/Xenotar perform a little better than the Tessar/Xenar at larger apertures, but many claim that the Tessar and Xenar have more character. It's hard to describe, both the Tessar and Planar are excellent lenses, very sharp, but the Planar can feel a little too modern and clinical sometimes.

 

[woodlandSerenade]

I really enjoy my Rolleiflex MX (f/3.5) with the Xenar lens. It’s nice and compact with a pleasing smooth rendition. I wouldn’t trade it for a f/2.8 model - I find them noticeably larger & a fair bit heavier for little benefit.

 

[GregY]

Twotone, I've had 2.8F & 3.5F models. Oddly enough, my keeper and most often used camera is my '58 Rolleiflex T with a 3.5 Tessar. & Yes it's the character of the lens....even wide open that i really like. Plus it is lighter than a 2.8 model
Buying whatever you decide on ...in good condition, is the best advice. My Rollei has been serviced by Harry Fleenor and installing a Maxwell screen as well made a huge difference to me.

[/url]

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

I've owned both Xenotar and Planar and confirm there is no perceptible diffence on the image I got, at least on my limited experience. Condition being the same (mine where top condition examples) they produce great images. Xenotar is great lens.

Than being said, when I sold most of My rolleis a couple if years ago, I got a better price for the Planar examples, probably because Zeiss has better marketing?

I keep a Rolleiflex 2.8C (love the adjustable loupe!) and a Rolleicord IV (for when I want to travel real light).

Like said before, condition is everything. Get the best example your budget can get. If you often do indoors photography(like I do) probably the 2.8 and 400 film Will allow you to use 1/30 and f/2.8 with available light


If you wear glasses, the adjustable loupe of the 2.8C is a blessing so highly recommed it.
Enjoy!

 

[Jeremy Mudd]

In Rolleiflexes I own a 2.8D and a 3.5E, both with Zenotar lenses. And a pre-war Automat 3.5 with a Tessar. Lenses on all 3 are outstanding.

Out of the 3 above, I typically am shooting the 3.5E most often. I find focusing is easier with it than the Automat. The 2.8D is great, but it is bigger and heavier. You'd think it wouldn't be that noticable and I used to scoff at those who complained about the difference, but I totally get it.

I also own several Rolleicords - Several I's and II's with the Zeiss Triotar "triplet" lenses in 3.5, 3.8, and 4.5 versions. I also have a Rolleicord III, a IV, and a V.

I find that compared to the Rolleiflexes, I tend to shoot my Rolleicords more. I'll grab the III, IV, or V if I am looking for something sharper and more clinical, especially when shooting close to wide open. If I want character and a vintage look, the early ones with the Triotar lenses are amazing.

Don't count out a Rolleicord as an option. There are a lot of them out there in great condition because they weren't "pro" cameras that were ridden hard and put away wet.

Jeremy

My Type II Model IV below with two images from it shot on HP5 pushed to 800.

 

[Steven Lee]

You will have more devoted Rolleiflex aficionados here than me. My comment below is coming from a Hasselblad fanboy who also wanted a more compact Plan-B camera for a rare occasion of handheld documentary photography.

So I purchased both: the 2.8F and 3.5F.

The cameras are basically identical. The biggest day to day difference is the focusing screen. I have 3 types of screens for my Rolleis: their stock screen, the latest Rolleiflex screen from the FW/FX series, and the Oleson screen. For bright sunny scenes the stock screen is the best. It's the darkest but everything snaps in focus so clearly. The Oleson screen is best for quick but not very accurate focusing, and the FW/FX screen (I got mine from rollefielx usa web site) is like a compromise between the two: it's very bright and allows precise focus but you have to concentrate and focus slowly.

Another difference between them, and this is my beef with Rolleifelxes in general, is that the tactile feel of aperture/shutter wheels and the shutter release is not the same. In fact, I've handled several different Rolleiflexes, and their tactile response was all over the map. Each specimen feels unique in your hands. Some are buttery smooth with hard to feel stops, others are more clicky if I can call them that. This will depend on your luck and personal preference. My cameras were serviced by Kanto camera in Japan and Fleenor in LA, so it's not a CLA issue.

Some people say the 2.8F is nose heavy vs the 3.5F. TBH the difference is microscopic.

To answer your question directly: I would go for a nicest 3.5F you can find with a Xenotar lens.

• Why the F-series? Because they are common, newer, and come with easily swappable focusing screens. I already described how much difference the screens make.
• Why f/3.5? Because for some reason 2.8F in comparable condition is stupidly more expensive. I simply don't understand where the difference comes from. Perhaps some collectors prefer to pay extra for the more "premium" model? Also, I do not believe I have taken a single photo at the wide open aperture.
• Why Xenotar? According to the reading I had done (but no first hand experience) the f/3.5 Planar can suffer from a the front lens group separating. You can easily find them on eBay like that. The Xenotar is a slightly ifferent optical design where the group is not glued so it won't suffer from this issue.

I also am unsure if Planar is worth the extra ££ over Xenotar?

I think it's the other way around. When I was shopping for my cameras I specifically was looking for a Xenotar, and they were slightly more expensive than the Planar counterparts at the time. Putting longevity aside, you can waste hours reading old conversations on various forums on Planar-vs-Xenotar and you'll come to the conclusion that there's no difference between them.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

You will have more devoted Rolleiflex aficionados here than me. My comment below is coming from a Hasselblad fanboy who also wanted a more compact Plan-B camera for a rare occasion of handheld documentary photography.

So I purchased both: the 2.8F and 3.5F.

The cameras are basically identical. The biggest day to day difference is the focusing screen. I have 3 types of screens for my Rolleis: their stock screen, the latest Rolleiflex screen from the FW/FX series, and the Oleson screen. For bright sunny scenes the stock screen is the best. It's the darkest but everything snaps in focus so clearly. The Oleson screen is best for quick but not very accurate focusing, and the FW/FX screen (I got mine from rollefielx usa web site) is like a compromise between the two: it's very bright and allows precise focus but you have to concentrate and focus slowly.

Another difference between them, and this is my beef with Rolleifelxes in general, is that the tactile feel of aperture/shutter wheels and the shutter release is not the same. In fact, I've handled several different Rolleiflexes, and their tactile response was all over the map. Each specimen feels unique in your hands. Some are buttery smooth with hard to feel stops, others are more clicky if I can call them that. This will depend on your luck and personal preference. My cameras were serviced by Kanto camera in Japan and Fleenor in LA, so it's not a CLA issue.

Some people say the 2.8F is nose heavy vs the 3.5F. TBH the difference is microscopic.

To answer your question directly: I would go for a nicest 3.5F you can find with a Xenotar lens.

• Why the F-series? Because they are common, newer, and come with easily swappable focusing screens. I already described how much difference the screens make.
• Why f/3.5? Because for some reason 2.8F in comparable condition is stupidly more expensive. I simply don't understand where the difference comes from. Perhaps some collectors prefer to pay extra for the more "premium" model? Also, I do not believe I have taken a single photo at the wide open aperture.
• Why Xenotar? According to the reading I had done (but no first hand experience) the f/3.5 Planar can suffer from a the front lens group separating. You can easily find them on eBay like that. The Xenotar is a slightly ifferent optical design where the group is not glued so it won't suffer from this issue.

I think it's the other way around. When I was shopping for my cameras I specifically was looking for a Xenotar, and they were slightly more expensive than the Planar counterparts at the time. Putting longevity aside, you can waste hours reading old conversations on various forums on Planar-vs-Xenotar and you'll come to the conclusion that there's no difference between them.

Agree on most of your points Steven.

I had multiple 3.5 over the years, and the ones in the best conditions where F so yeah, top conditions examples are common on the 3.5F model.

Also, in my limited experience with separation, it had not affected the images I get. Got multiple LF lens with separation issues that I got pretty darn cheap but have not affected my images, since my old dad taught me the shot with the light source on my back or use my hand to shieldl the light source on the sides. HOWEVER on cameras with high collectors value like Rolleiflex, it may be a big issue.


EDIT.- So yeah, try getting one without separation. Will help if you ever want to sell your camera.
Marcelo

 

[Besk]

I believe the rear elements of the Xenotar are glued together,.
However these are flat elements vs curved elements of the Planar. Being trained as an engineer I felt that the Planar was more prone to separation than the Xenotar lens because it is harder to match the curves of two different lenses plus there may be some differences in the coefficient of thermal expansion of the glass elements. I don't know that -I was just being cautious.

I therefore chose a Xenotar F over the Planar because of this.

However, recently I have read somewhere that one repairman had seen several Xenotar lenses with separation.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

That explanation sound pretty plausible Bob. I think I heard something similar in a past Xenotar vs Planar thread in the past.

 

[Paul Howell]

If you think a faster 2.8 is needed, not that much faster than a 3.5, then I recommend a Mamiya C220 with the 80 2.8, it is lighter than the C330 but takes all of the TLR lens of the Mamiya system, and will be quite a bit less than the Rolli with the 2.8.

 

[MattKing]

I'm planning to part ways with my 500CM after my honeymoon

Very short marriages are always very sad
Hope you find what you are looking for.

 

[btaylor]

As a multiple Rollei TLR owner, I think all the advice above is good. Everyone’s got an opinion about what they find most important. I will say that I’ve never taken a photo with a Rolleicord to a 3.5f that I thought was lacking because of the lens. I also tend to pick up my Rolleicord V first- I find it’s light weight inviting. And I find the 2.8 models front heavy and not as well balanced as the 3.5 models. But these are minor nits, you can’t go wrong with any of them if they are in good shape.

 

[Twotone]

Very short marriages are always very sad
Hope you find what you are looking for.

You and me both

 

[Rolleiflexible]

You will have more devoted Rolleiflex aficionados here than me. My comment below is coming from a Hasselblad fanboy who also wanted a more compact Plan-B camera for a rare occasion of handheld documentary photography.

So I purchased both: the 2.8F and 3.5F.

Steven and I often part company and this is no exception: I would avoid the F-series Rolleiflexes like the plague. The F prices are inflated because they were the last series produced in volume. (Ignore the G series.) But they are also more complicated and heavier, and they all incorporate an integrated light meter that is a PITA. When I bought my first Rolleiflex in the 1980s, Ken Hansen steered me to a 3.5E (no meter), which he considered the best Rolleiflex made. He was not wrong.

To the OP: ignore the lens type. You will not see meaningful differences between Planars, Xenotars, Xenars, Tessars, or Opton Tessars, or between 2.8s vs 3.5s. Prewar models with Triotars have a subtle signature that I love, but that might not work for you if you are looking for clinical detail in the extreme corners.

I think I have owned and shot just about every Rolleiflex and Rolleicord over the decades, except a Rollei Magic (another camera to avoid). Find a well-maintained specimen with a modern screen and a recent CLA at a reasonable price, and buy it. And then post some pix here for us to envy.

FWIW, I bought a new Rolleiflex earlier this year for $600. It was an Automat MX, f/3.5 Opton Tessar lens, from 1951. It was clean, good glass, with a new screen and fresh CLA from an experienced seller, Jimmy Koh. It is nearly as light as a Rolleicord and it makes amazing negatives.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

A couple of additional thoughts:

Hoods and filters for models with older f/3.5 lenses (Triotars, Tessars and Xenars) are far less expensive. They share their “Bay I” mounts with Yashicas and other cameras, so hoods and filters are easy to source and cheap to buy.

If you are shooting mostly close portraits, you might want a f/2.8 Rolleiflex. F&H made a 0.70x Rolleinar for the Tele Rolleiflex that can also be mounted to any f/2.8 Rolleiflex. The combination is ideal for shooting closer portraits. But that Rolleinar is hard to find these days, and crazy expensive now.

 

[Jeremy Mudd]

Steven and I often part company and this is no exception: I would avoid the F-series Rolleiflexes like the plague. The F prices are inflated because they were the last series produced in volume. (Ignore the G series.) But they are also more complicated and heavier, and they all incorporate an integrated light meter that is a PITA. When I bought my first Rolleiflex in the 1980s, Ken Hansen steered me to a 3.5E (no meter), which he considered the best Rolleiflex made. He was not wrong.

To the OP: ignore the lens type. You will not see meaningful differences between Planars, Xenotars, Xenars, Tessars, or Opton Tessars, or between 2.8s vs 3.5s. Prewar models with Triotars have a subtle signature that I love, but that might not work for you if you are looking for clinical detail in the extreme corners.

I think I have owned and shot just about every Rolleiflex and Rolleicord over the decades, except a Rollei Magic (another camera to avoid). Find a well-maintained specimen with a modern screen and a recent CLA at a reasonable price, and buy it. And then post some pix here for us to envy.

FWIW, I bought a new Rolleiflex earlier this year for $600. It was an Automat MX, f/3.5 Opton Tessar lens, from 1951. It was clean, good glass, with a new screen and fresh CLA from an experienced seller, Jimmy Koh. It is nearly as light as a Rolleicord and it makes amazing negatives.

All very good advice.

My 3.5E wasn't made with a meter and is a joy to use. I also really like the DOF scale on the focus nob. It's something that I didn't think I'd use much but I was wrong.

Jeremy

 

[Besk]

When I purchased my used but mint Rolleiflex 3.5 F (Whiteface) I asked the seller to remove the meter.
The only evidence that it ever had a meter is the ASA stetting knob on the side.

It hurt the value on resale but I wasn't thinking about that at the time.

 

[BrianShaw]

When shopping, pay attention to the filter size. Bayonet 1 and 3 are easy to get but bayonet 2 aren't as easy. I'd avaoid bayonet 2 for that reason.

 

[bags27]

Just confirming that my 'Cord Vb(ii) is super sharp and a joy to use. So very light that I walk with it in the palm of my hand. I had made i" cable releases that I use to snap photos and I find that I get consistently sharper photos that way. I have lots of film cameras, but Rollei is the only maker that I could truly understand someone committing to exclusively. It's like a shark: it's built to do one thing only, and do it brilliantly.

 

[BrianShaw]

Just confirming that my 'Cord Vb(ii) is super sharp and a joy to use. So very light that I walk with it in the palm of my hand. I had made i" cable releases that I use to snap photos and I find that I get consistently sharper photos that way. I have lots of film cameras, but Rollei is the only maker that I could truly understand someone committing to exclusively. It's like a shark: it's built to do one thing only, and do it brilliantly.

Although mine is in need of a shutter overhaul and in storage... I have the same fond feelings about the Roleicord Vb. Used it for over 20 years as favorite camera, especialy for travel. In addition to short cable release, I found a monopod and quick release to be invaluable.