Planning on buying a Rolleiflex, 2.8 Vs 3.5?

[bunip]

if you are looking for the sharpest lens you should go for a six elements planar or xenotar. you’ll find 6 elements lenses on 3,5F models starting from 2.800000 camera serial number for planar, from 2.200000 for xenotar. I have the planar and xenotar 3,5 six elements lenses and the planar 2,8 six e. My preference is for the xenotar

 

[Steven Lee]

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

I have the 4.0FW which is the wide angle version of the FX/GX. Bough it as new-old-stock. I agree with your list of advantages, and yet I am not sure if those cameras are worth the extra $ over a well-serviced classic model.

TBH I am not sure why I have this opinion. I actually like the built-in meter, which is accurate enough to be reliably used for shooting slides, But somehow this camera just feels very different than the classics. One notable difference is the stiffness of the film advance, and unevenness of that stiffness, i.e. the level of effort slightly varies as you crank it.

I was discussing this with the Rolleiflex US distributor who said that the difference in haptic feedback is explained by the newer manufacturing methods with tighter tolerances and less reliance on lubrication. He said that the FX series is almost dry inside.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

I have the 4.0FW which is the wide angle version of the FX/GX. Bough it as new-old-stock. I agree with your list of advantages, and yet I am not sure if those cameras are worth the extra $ over a well-serviced classic model.

TBH I am not sure why I have this opinion. I actually like the built-in meter, which is accurate enough to be reliably used for shooting slides, But somehow this camera just feels very different than the classics. One notable difference is the stiffness of the film advance, and unevenness of that stiffness, i.e. the level of effort slightly varies as you crank it.

I was discussing this with the Rolleiflex US distributor who said that the difference in haptic feedback is explained by the newer manufacturing methods with tighter tolerances and less reliance on lubrication. He said that the FX series is almost dry inside.

I have suspicions about the FX/GX generation of Rolleis. The company was out of cash and would soon go insolvent. The market for film cameras was tanking. The elimination of the automatic film advance mechanism was for economy, not reliability. I suspect the US distributor’s explanation for the rougher wind was marketing spin — that it was attributable to a more primitive mechanism, not finer manufacturing tolerances.

All that said, I would kill for an FW. I have a Zeiss 0.70x Mutar that converts an ordinary Rolleiflex into a wide angle camera and it works well enough, but it turns the camera into an unbalanced awkward mess. You are a lucky man to have an FW. How do you like it?

 

[Steven Lee]

@Rolleiflexible sorry I just realized how confusing my statement was. Eric's comments were not about the film advance mechanism, he was commenting on shutters, the aperture control mechanism, and frequency of servicing. Basically he said something along the lines of "yeah, they don't feel as smooth but you don't have to CLA them as frequently as your Hassy".

How do I like the FW? In terms of handling it is very similar to the 2.8F, slightly bulkier than the 3.5F. I love the focal length! My #1 Hasselblad lens is the 60mm Distagon, and the FW allows me to walk around with a similar POV in a much more compact package. I think the Zeiss is better in the corners and has less vignetting at the open aperture with contrast filters. The FW sports the modern / bright focusing screen, which I really liked and got one installed in my 2.8F as well.

I have no knowledge of how it was produced, I am not as educated on Rolleiflex manufacturing history as some folks here, but the camera doesn't feel cheap at all. But it also is not as smooth as my classic Rolleiflexes, and there are some obvious cost saving design simplifications. For example, as you already know there's no leader sensing. But the far more annoying simplification is that the film spools don't have auto-locks, i.e. you have to pull & hold when you're loading.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

...frequency of servicing. Basically he said something along the lines of "yeah, they don't feel as smooth but you don't have to CLA them as frequently as your Hassy".

You sure you want to step into that landmine?

 

[Jeremy Mudd]

Hey, it's printed right on David Odess website, that one must CLA their Hasselblad once every 5 years.

Well, looks like I get to add another to the list of rules that I've broken in my lifetime.

Jeremy

 

[etn]

But somehow this camera just feels very different than the classics. One notable difference is the stiffness of the film advance, and unevenness of that stiffness, i.e. the level of effort slightly varies as you crank it.

Strange. When was your FW manufactured? How many rolls did you run through it?

For the record, the film advance of my FX feels very smooth. My FX was manufactured around 2005/2006. (I bought it new in 2006) I ran hundreds of rolls through it, it might have broken in the film advance.

The shutter feels definitely different than the one in my 2.8E - it's also not the same kind of shutter (Seiko I think?). Not worse by any means. As a matter of fact, I find it easier to adjust shutter speed and aperture on the FX, with less resistance and clearer detents. It just snaps into place. Only issue, the FX and 2.8E go in reverse directions But here, my personal preference goes to the FX as the direction you have to turn to adjust the shutter/aperture very logically matches the LED display of the meter. Obviously, to each his/her own

In any case I have no complaints whatsoever about the film advance of the FX. For one, it proved much more reliable than the auto detect of my 2.8E.

 

[etn]

All that said, I would kill for an FW.

Around 10 years ago I was in the same situation and decided that a Hasselblad with interchangeable lenses would be less expensive than an FW, as well as provide other advantages too - e.g a tele lens (instead of an FT), interchangeable film backs, etc.

Fast forward to today and 3 Hassy bodies, half a dozen backs and pretty much every lens ever made for the system, I realize how wrong my original statement was

 

[Rolleiflexible]

Around 10 years ago I was in the same situation and decided that a Hasselblad with interchangeable lenses would be less expensive than an FW, as well as provide other advantages too - e.g a tele lens (instead of an FT), interchangeable film backs, etc.

Fast forward to today and 3 Hassy bodies, half a dozen backs and pretty much every lens ever made for the system, I realize how wrong my original statement was

Exactly! I sold my Hasselblad rig. The one thing a Hasselblad offers that a Rolleiflex does not is the flexibility of interchangeable lenses. But I don't want to schlep a bunch of lenses up and down the Appalachian Trail for landscapes. And I don't want to be fussing over lenses when shooting another human being. For me, the perfect camera doesn't get in the way. The Hasselblad kept getting in the way for me, with its weight, its lens options, and the clatter of its shutter and mirror.

I'm not trying to turn this into a Hasselblad vs Rolleiflex debate. The OP didn't ask for it. I'm just relating to Etienne's comment. I'm thrilled that great film cameras like Hasselblads and Rolleiflexes both continue to have some relevance in 2023. It's all good.

 

[bags27]

I thought my Mamiya 7 was the perfect camera...and it probably is. But it doesn't get me excited. My Blad 500 c/m and Cord Vb(ii) both sing to me. When I forget filters or other essential things because I have too many systems to keep track of, I think I should embrace K.I.S.S. and just get a Rolleiflex and be done with it. But the Blad has soul, too. I feel as if I'm part of a community that stretches back nearly 3/4s of a century. More than any other camera, I feel "connected" with the Blad. Can't explain it otherwise. It just has what Walter Benjamin mystically called "aura."

Cameras are many things, and different things to different people. I guess I'm learning that for me, the mechanical connection with the past is essential.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

Cameras are many things, and different things to different people. I guess I'm learning that for me, the mechanical connection with the past is essential.

For me as well. You remind me of a passage from Roland Barthes's book, Camera Lucida:

“For me the noise of Time is not sad: I love bells, clocks, watches — and I recall that at first photographic implements were related to techniques of cabinetmaking and the machinery of precision: cameras, in short, were clocks for seeing, and perhaps in me someone very old still hears in the photographic mechanism the living sound of the wood.”

 

[JPD]

I think I should embrace K.I.S.S. and just get a Rolleiflex and be done with it. But the Blad has soul, too. I feel as if I'm part of a community that stretches back nearly 3/4s of a century. More than any other camera, I feel "connected" with the Blad. Can't explain it otherwise. It just has what Walter Benjamin mystically called "aura."

I wish I could keep have kept it simple and stayed happy with my first Rolleiflex and Rolleicord, instead of wanting more of them and finding other interesting cameras. All my Rolleis have "soul", and so to my 6x9 Voigtländer E-Bessa, Zeiss Ercona, Voigtländer Avus (with their Skopar and Voigtar lenses replaced with Goerz and Rietzschel lenses), Voigtländer Bergheil with Heliar, the Kodak Retina cameras and their lenses... I can plan for weeks which cameras I should use for this or that.

 

[Michael Mutmansky]

I thought my Mamiya 7 was the perfect camera...and it probably is. But it doesn't get me excited. My Blad 500 c/m and Cord Vb(ii) both sing to me. When I forget filters or other essential things because I have too many systems to keep track of, I think I should embrace K.I.S.S. and just get a Rolleiflex and be done with it. But the Blad has soul, too. I feel as if I'm part of a community that stretches back nearly 3/4s of a century. More than any other camera, I feel "connected" with the Blad. Can't explain it otherwise. It just has what Walter Benjamin mystically called "aura."

Cameras are many things, and different things to different people. I guess I'm learning that for me, the mechanical connection with the past is essential.

I somewhat agree with you on the Mamiya 7. Oddly, I absolutely love the slightly older Mamiya 6 and MF version of that system. Slightly different in design and construction, but Oh, so different is use/feel in my opinion.

Of all the cameras I've owned (from Canon and Leica 35mm up through Canham and Phillips ULF cameras) the one I regret selling the most is the Mamiya 6 system that I had.

...and I almost bought one again this winter, but the electronic shutter in the system has me convinced that they won't be long for this world anymore, so I bought a Hasselblad and also a Rolleiflex 3.5f.

I pondered the various Rollieflex options when choosing and ultimately decided that I liked the metered body and if I could get one that worked well, it would allow me to be super-simple with my kit when I wanted to go that route. It seems to be a great system for that. Much lighter than a Hasselblad, but, of course, much less flexible. I also liked the interchangable VF because I felt it may give me options for a prism and other screens that may be handy. I'm not experienced with it yet to know how I'll use it, but straight out of the box (with the original Rollei focus screen) seems to be a fine shooter.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Exactly! I sold my Hasselblad rig. The one thing a Hasselblad offers that a Rolleiflex does not is the flexibility of interchangeable lenses. But I don't want to schlep a bunch of lenses up and down the Appalachian Trail for landscapes. And I don't want to be fussing over lenses when shooting another human being. For me, the perfect camera doesn't get in the way. The Hasselblad kept getting in the way for me, with its weight, its lens options, and the clatter of its shutter and mirror.

I'm not trying to turn this into a Hasselblad vs Rolleiflex debate. The OP didn't ask for it. I'm just relating to Etienne's comment. I'm thrilled that great film cameras like Hasselblads and Rolleiflexes both continue to have some relevance in 2023. It's all good.

No need to take all the lenses, just the 50mm, 80mm or 100mm, and the 250mm Hasselblad lenses.

 

[Prest_400]

I have suspicions about the FX/GX generation of Rolleis. The company was out of cash and would soon go insolvent. The market for film cameras was tanking. The elimination of the automatic film advance mechanism was for economy, not reliability. I suspect the US distributor’s explanation for the rougher wind was marketing spin — that it was attributable to a more primitive mechanism, not finer manufacturing tolerances.

Wasn't it that somewhere in between the original Rolleiflex dies got lost so the FX/GX and newer Rolleiflexes were based off Rolleicord dies?

I thought my Mamiya 7 was the perfect camera...and it probably is. But it doesn't get me excited. My Blad 500 c/m and Cord Vb(ii) both sing to me. When I forget filters or other essential things because I have too many systems to keep track of, I think I should embrace K.I.S.S. and just get a Rolleiflex and be done with it. But the Blad has soul, too. I feel as if I'm part of a community that stretches back nearly 3/4s of a century. More than any other camera, I feel "connected" with the Blad. Can't explain it otherwise. It just has what Walter Benjamin mystically called "aura."

Cameras are many things, and different things to different people. I guess I'm learning that for me, the mechanical connection with the past is essential.

I sometimes fight this, even more as I moved to Sweden where it's the home country of Hasselblad. I could lend one for an outing and with the 80mm 2.8 and WLF it was quite nice a shooter.

I somewhat agree with you on the Mamiya 7. Oddly, I absolutely love the slightly older Mamiya 6 and MF version of that system. Slightly different in design and construction, but Oh, so different is use/feel in my opinion.

Of all the cameras I've owned (from Canon and Leica 35mm up through Canham and Phillips ULF cameras) the one I regret selling the most is the Mamiya 6 system that I had.

...and I almost bought one again this winter, but the electronic shutter in the system has me convinced that they won't be long for this world anymore, so I bought a Hasselblad and also a Rolleiflex 3.5f.

I pondered the various Rollieflex options when choosing and ultimately decided that I liked the metered body and if I could get one that worked well, it would allow me to be super-simple with my kit when I wanted to go that route. It seems to be a great system for that. Much lighter than a Hasselblad, but, of course, much less flexible. I also liked the interchangable VF because I felt it may give me options for a prism and other screens that may be handy. I'm not experienced with it yet to know how I'll use it, but straight out of the box (with the original Rollei focus screen) seems to be a fine shooter.

The Mamiya 6/7 are going for insane prices nowadays. I had bad timing back in 2012 where I almost could afford a M7II when the prices were low but I was still a pre-college cash strapped student. Went for the GW690 which holds all the medium formats with its extra width. Nowadays it's still a very well performing system (on paper as I know) and almost wish there was a M7III with the GF670 dual format support and the M6's collapsible/bellows bayonet.

I always eyed the Rolleis as attractive, to me even more than Leica and Hasselblad. I did get a Rolleicord V that unfortunately needs a CLA and I suspect is a bit misaligned (or I am in its use).
The 3.5E2 meterless were very interesting but out of pure performance, a 2.8D or E would be fantastic to have. I don't remember if the 2.8F came as meterless.

I might not or might sometime fall for some local auction Automat or T. My general practice the last years was to spend any budget on film, processing and paper as well as travel media. Lately been shooting less and focusing more on print results.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

I don't remember if the 2.8F came as meterless.

I recall reading that all F models came with the selenium light meter. The meter was coupled with the dial on the side via a linkage.

The E models could be purchased with or without a meter. Rollei sold a kit to retrofit the meter to the E bodies if a customer wnted to add it. I bought a metered E in 1981. In 2015, I bought a similar age E but without meter.

 

[dave olson]

I have had a 3.5 F for years. Forget the hype for the 2.8. If there was any discernible difference between the two Rolleiflex would have known. I have an operating manual Rolleiflex issued with a new purchase. In it, it states that this manual applies equally to both the 2.8 and the 3.5, the only difference being the taking lens. Period. Remember there is only a 1/2 stop difference between 2.8 and 3.5. Is it worth the money or just bragging rights?

 

[campy51]

I just bought this today with a 148xxxx serial number. I also have a 2.8E with planar that I am running a roll through it now.

 

[bags27]

FWIW, my very fine repairguy once told me that a 3.5E Xenotar was the sharpest Rollei lens he had ever seen.

 

[Arthurwg]

Lynn Davis used the Schneider F3.5 to shoot her wonderful iceberg pictures, published as "Monument," Arena, 1999.

 

[campy51]

I recently bought a 3.5F that's in near mint condition and also bought an additional 2.8E that has damage. I fixed up the 2.8E to the point that my test pictures were good enough to convince me to sell my other 2.8E. I can't say which I prefer since there is not enough of a size and weight difference to really notice. Both have Xenotar lenses which I think have a little sharper picture than the Planar but that shouldn't be the deciding factor.

 

[retina_restoration]

I once had a Rolleiflex with the f3.5 Xenotar lens, and it was not especially sharp. My Rokkor lens on the Autocord is sharper. I sold the Rolleiflex.

 

[campy51]

I also have the Autocord and agree it's very sharp.

 

[Kino]

I find my Rolleicord VA just as compelling as either the Rolleiflex 3.5f or the 2.8A.

Pumper #1

Trying out this combination of Foma 200 and Eco Pro Xtol clone at stock dilution. Might need a touch more exposure or a bit more time in the developer, but so far pleased.

www.photrio.com

 

[Rayt]

The Autocord is very good with color, perhaps it’s the newer coating over the Rolleiflex from the 50’s and 60’s? And the higher contrast of the Rokkor is a benefit with C41 film.

There is no bad Rolleiflex or Rolleicord except maybe my personal copy of the 2.8A. I like all of them for black and white. After nearly 30 years using them as primary cameras I settled on a 3.5 Planar. Two bodies can fit in a small Billingham bag as long as they don’t have the meter. I avoid metered Rolleis. I would recommend an E2. It’s practically the same camera as the F but around 30% cheaper. Having user changeable screen is not an advantage because with the almost required CLA you can get another screen put in. I only prefer later models because I prefer the later pop up magnifier.