Planning on buying a Rolleiflex, 2.8 Vs 3.5?

[Rolleiflexible]

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 knob. It's something that I didn't think I'd use much but I was wrong.

Jeremy

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.

Jeremy, I agree with you that the DOF scale is a huge help. Bob, I have done the same as you. I had my repair guy remove the meter AND replace the focus knob on a 3.5E once, to get rid of the clunky big original knob with the coupled meter stuff. I hate the meters, and especially the way the F series couples everything to the EVS system. And one wonders how well the meters have aged.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

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.

I have shot the Vb and it is a joy. I love how light it is, and how well it balances in hand. A cable release is important for slower exposures — the shutter levers are hard to work without moving the camera body — that is my only complaint about the camera. Here is a link to a kallitype of a photo I shot with a Vb recently, 1/4 sec. (handheld, cable release) @ f/11:

 

[Jeremy Mudd]

I have shot the Vb and it is a joy. I love how light it is, and how well it balances in hand. A cable release is important for slower exposures — the shutter levers are hard to work without moving the camera body — that is my only complaint about the camera. Here is a link to a kallitype of a photo I shot with a Vb recently, 1/4 sec. (handheld, cable release) @ f/11:

Looks great! Nice work.

On my Rolleicord IV and V, I usually have the shutter button accessory screwed into the cable release and use that to fire the shutter instead of sweeping the shutter lever across. I find that a much more stable action that's less likely to cause any movement at low shutter speeds. I does require a little bit of time to get used to firing the shutter with the left hand instead of the right though.

Jeremy

 

[IMoL]

Looks great! Nice work.

On my Rolleicord IV and V, I usually have the shutter button accessory screwed into the cable release and use that to fire the shutter instead of sweeping the shutter lever across. I find that a much more stable action that's less likely to cause any movement at low shutter speeds. I does require a little bit of time to get used to firing the shutter with the left hand instead of the right though.

Jeremy

On my Vb, I also use the shutter accessory screwed into the cable release socket, but I actually use my right index finger to trigger it - of course on the Vb the focus knob is moved to the left side so it's my right hand that is under the camera when shooting. I find this very comfortable and much prefer this to the lever (or to a release on the front of the lens standard, like most rolleiflexes).

The only config I prefer to this is the "side" release of the 'flex T, which I always loved (and used with my right thumb).

I general, I find TLRs to be by far the easiest type of camera to handhold at slower shutter speeds.

 

[Twotone]

Thank you everyone for your comments and contributions! It's been very valuable to understand this, and I'll definitely save myself some money by focusing on condition rather than specific models. I'm also now considering Rolleicord, so thanks again for opening up options for me.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

I'm also now considering Rolleicord, so thanks again for opening up options for me.

We all just went off on a Vb love fest. The Vb shipped with a modern bright viewfinder BUT plenty of older Rolleicords have been fitted with modern screens. My favorite is a Rolleicord II with a Triotar lens.

 

[baachitraka]

Perhaps a clean Rolleicord Va fits the bill. You may be surprised about the brightness of the focus screen.

Clean, working sample is more important.

Next in the row is a Rolleicord with a Triotar lens and compur shutter.

 

[BrianShaw]

One advantage to a Vb is compatability with a lot of accessories, such as 16/24 exposure format kits, Rolleikin 35mm adapter, and, thanks to the removable viewfinder hood, the viewing prism... if any of those are of interest.

 

[Jeremy Mudd]

My favorite is a Rolleicord II with a Triotar lens.

I have to agree. There's something about the way the Triotars render that I just love.

Jeremy

 

[rulnacco]

I've had both 3.5 (Rolleiflex T with a Tessar lens) and 2.8. I eventually traded in the 3.5 on the 2.8F, but to be honest, I haven't noticed any practical difference in the images--even though the Tessar lens is reputed to be not up to the same quality as the Planar or Xenotar. It was plenty good enough as far as I was concerned!

I can't say I noticed much difference in the weight, as I didn't use both cameras side-by-side to compare.

As others have mentioned, the big difference is going to be price. The 2.8 versions are a lot more expensive, and you really don't need that fast a lens, probably, especially if you're shooting it outside in daylight. Plus, as pointed out, accessories for Bay 1 are a lot cheaper, even original Rollei hoods and filters, than Bay 3.

One thing I'd advise--get you a Rolleinar, for closeups. I don't know that you'd really use a Rolleinar 3 (the most powerful version) very much, but I find the Rolleinar 1 and 2 frequently useful. Here's a photo I took with a Rolleinar (number 1, I think) and the 3.5 Tessar, probably at something like F8:

 

[Steven Lee]

We all just went off on a Vb love fest. The Vb shipped with a modern bright viewfinder

Are all Vb models equpped with a "modern bright viewfinder"? Is it the same screen as in white face F-models?

 

[MarkS]

The Xenar f/3.5 lens on my Rolleicord Vb was just stellar. It had high resolution, but also produced just a wonderful tonality on b/w film. I used it with the sadly-missed Verichrome Pan, and the negatives just.. sparkled. They made beautiful prints with almost no effort. Everything just seemed to fall into place...
Of course I had to sell it about 12 years back, which I regret; but the prints and the memory of just how sweet that setup was will always stay with me. And back on topic, that was the "budget" lens and the inexpensive Rollei. So I'll suggest that any of them, Schneider, Zeiss, 2.8, 3.5, will do very well. And that comes from someone who used Hasselblads on the job for over 20 years. Buy on condition, and best of luck!

 

[Rolleiflexible]

Are all Vb models equpped with a "modern bright viewfinder"? Is it the same screen as in white face F-models?

Steven, I believe so — the Vb’s removable finder and modern screen were the same as on your F, and I believe the finder upgrade was the principal difference between the Va and Vb.

 

[Steven Lee]

@Rolleiflexible thank you Sir.

 

[etn]

My 2 cents, or actually more my $2000: if you have the cash, you might want to look for a 2.8 GX/FX.

Its advantages are (in no particular order):
- a integrated meter which works and is very precise,
- best lens of all Rolleiflexes, with multi-coating,
- clear and bright ground glass
- no risk of lens separation
- simplified film loading of the Rolleiflex T. I think it's an advantage over the auto-loading of Rolleis A-F, which can be unreliable (my 2.8E went to the mechanic several times because of that!)
- much, much less "mileage" on the bodies than your average Rollei A-F

The disadvantages are:
- no self timer
- a much higher price, up to you to decide whether it's worth it. (It was for me)

If I compare my FX to my 2.8E, the former has a more "modern" look to its pictures, probably due to the better coatings (the optical formula is supposed to be the identical). Both are excellent. Accessories are interchangeable between the two.

 

[etn]

And now the opposite opinion:
The Rolleicords will provide you 99% of the picture quality of a Rolleiflex at a much lower price, as has been stated above.

 

[jp498]

Big automat mx fan here.
Light weight, round aperture at all f-stops, not-collectible prices but still not cheap compared to a few years ago.
Bay 1 filters. Rugged. Mine has seen all weather (rain, snow, fog, desert sun, etc..) and still works as well as when I got it ten years ago and thousands of photos later. It rides in my van at all time with a light meter and film in a plastic ammo box. Nothing bad or lacking about the 3.5 tessar.

I also have a 2.8a Rolleiflex and it's nice, but it's quite a bit heavier and less balanced; very nose heavy.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

My 2 cents, or actually more my $2000: if you have the cash, you might want to look for a 2.8 GX/FX.

Its advantages are (in no particular order):
- a integrated meter which works and is very precise,
- best lens of all Rolleiflexes, with multi-coating,
- clear and bright ground glass
- no risk of lens separation
- simplified film loading of the Rolleiflex T. I think it's an advantage over the auto-loading of Rolleis A-F, which can be unreliable (my 2.8E went to the mechanic several times because of that!)
- much, much less "mileage" on the bodies than your average Rollei A-F

These are not advantages. The integrated meter complicates the manual setting of shutter and aperture; a handheld meter gives easier and more accurate ways to measure light. "Best lens" is a subjective opinion on which many would disagree. Any Rollei can take a new viewscreen, even my 90-year-old Art Deco Rolleicord. Lens separation is rarely an issue with ordinary Rolleis. (Not so with Tele Rolleiflexes.)

You are right that the FX/GX's simplified film advance mechanism is less vulnerable to failure. As you note, the T also has a simpler mechanism. So do all Rolleicords.

My guess is that most FX/GX Rolleis sit on collectors' shelves. They are not entry-level cameras.

 

[etn]

These are not advantages. The integrated meter complicates the manual setting of shutter and aperture; a handheld meter gives easier and more accurate ways to measure light. "Best lens" is a subjective opinion on which many would disagree. Any Rollei can take a new viewscreen, even my 90-year-old Art Deco Rolleicord. Lens separation is rarely an issue with ordinary Rolleis. (Not so with Tele Rolleiflexes.)

You are right that the FX/GX's simplified film advance mechanism is less vulnerable to failure. As you note, the T also has a simpler mechanism. So do all Rolleicords.

My guess is that most FX/GX Rolleis sit on collectors' shelves. They are not entry-level cameras.

Ha ha when I was writing my previous post I was half expecting to be "flamed". What is seen as an advantage by some is perceived as negative by others. Fortunately there are enough choices out there to appeal to everyone's taste. And isn't the purpose of a forum to exchange on different opinions?

This said without any offense. As a matter of fact, I admire your work. My favorite picture of yours is the clarinetist from your "Up on the roof" series. (My girlfriend happens to play the clarinet too, btw, therefore this picture particularly "resonates" with me.)

All the best,
Etienne

 

[Rolleiflexible]

Ha ha when I was writing my previous post I was half expecting to be "flamed". What is seen as an advantage by some is perceived as negative by others. Fortunately there are enough choices out there to appeal to everyone's taste. And isn't the purpose of a forum to exchange on different opinions?

This said without any offense. As a matter of fact, I admire your work. My favorite picture of yours is the clarinetist from your "Up on the roof" series. (My girlfriend happens to play the clarinet too, btw, therefore this picture particularly "resonates" with me.)

All the best,
Etienne

Etienne, thanks for the compliment. Maybe I have allowed my legal work to warp my sense of conversation, but I think of a “flame” as a personal attack. I disagreed with you but I never meant to attack you. If my words seemed harsh, please forgive me — not my intent in the least.

 

[etn]

Etienne, thanks for the compliment. Maybe I have allowed my legal work to warp my sense of conversation, but I think of a “flame” as a personal attack. I disagreed with you but I never meant to attack you. If my words seemed harsh, please forgive me — not my intent in the least.

Sanders, no offense taken I wrote "flame" in quotes - my tendency to exaggerate (otherwise life would be too dull!) I did not feel offended by any means.
If you happen to be in Munich at some point in the future, be sure to drop by, beer's on me.

 

[Dan Daniel]

Steven, I believe so — the Vb’s removable finder and modern screen were the same as on your F, and I believe the finder upgrade was the principal difference between the Va and Vb.

The Vb focus hood is not the same as on the F. It does not have the drop-down mirror for focusing while using the sports finder. I think, though am not certain, that the T's hood also did not have the auxillary mirror. Of course the overall hood is the same so you can swap them around. For example, I had a Vb with the 6x4.5 kit, very handy except that shooting in portrait orientation is a pain- frame/rotate camera to focus/frame again and take shot. I found another Vb with an F hood with the focus mirror, swapped the hoods, and sold on the 'original configuration' Vb and now have a Vb 6x4.5 with F hood that allows focusing in portrait orientation (probably the only truly useful implementation of that silly mirror, but I know others will disagree).

Another difference might be that the Vb had no spit image at the center of the focus screen. Might! I have seen enough Vbs with the split and Fs without to wonder if this is because people swap screens over time or if the original cameras had various screens over time.

And yes, best as I have seen, no difference between the Va and the Vb beyond the focus hood/screen assemblies. Well, the Vb had more plastic internally!

 

[Rolleiflexible]

The Vb focus hood is not the same as on the F. It does not have the drop-down mirror for focusing while using the sports finder. I think, though am not certain, that the T's hood also did not have the auxillary mirror.

You are right! I just checked: Neither my (busted) T nor my Vb has the mirror. Interestingly (to me), I have an Automat that the factory refitted with a removable finder, and it does have the mirror. Live and learn.

 

[Dan Daniel]

Interestingly (to me), I have an Automat that the factory refitted with a removable finder, and it does have the mirror. Live and learn.

Well, Rolleiflexes have the mirror and other models don't. Been that way from the later Automats forward, so even if yours originally didn't come with the drop-down mirror I bet the factory just went ahead and treated it like other 'Flexes.It's only when you get people like me who swap parts around that this can get messed up (and I obviously wasn't the first since I bought a Rolleicord Vb with the mirror in the focus hood).

 

[pentaxpete]

I was given a 1959 vintage ROLLEIFLEX E2 with 80mm f2.8 XENOTAR which had been scratched BUT it produces SHARP photos at full aperture SHARPER than my 1960 2.8F Planar with Un-Scratched lens !