Preferred Rolliflex
-
A
- Thread starter cliveh
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale 4x5 holders
- Started by Peter Schrager
-
For Sale Nikkormat FT3 BLACK
- Started by Peter Schrager
-
For Sale Nagaoka 4X5 View Camera w/ Lens Boards
- Started by Beevo
-
For Sale FS: Fuji GF670 - Silver, recently serviced.
- Started by 0x001688936CA08
-
Found Mamiya RZ67 120 film back
- Started by blee1996
Forum statistics
Don't buy a fake, get a proper Rolleiflex
The Xenotar is as good as the Planar, I'd suggest an E and they come with 2.8 or 3.5 lenses as do the F's, you need to decide whether you need an f2.8 lens, I have 2 Rolleiflex cameras a 3.5E2 F3.5 Xenotar) and an Automat (f3.5 Opton Tessar) as well as a Yashicamat 124 with an f3,5 lens, personally I don't need faster.
Ian
Ian is quite right. The E series are a bit less expensive than the F series, collector interest has forced up the price of the F,and the E will do the job for you. Of course if your first name is Sheik, go for the newest like the 2.8 GX.
If you are on a budget, the 3.5 models are perfectly fine, even the older Automats,and some say that the 3.5 Planar/Xenotar cameras give the best IQ....no big deal though. Also don't discount the excellent ans underrated Rollei T with the Tessar lens.
If you are on a budget, the 3.5 models are perfectly fine, even the older Automats,and some say that the 3.5 Planar/Xenotar cameras give the best IQ....no big deal though. Also don't discount the excellent ans underrated Rollei T with the Tessar lens.
As far as which one was "preferred" I believe the 3.5F with Planar was the biggest selling of all Rolleis.
Both the 3.5 and 2.8 models have a 2.8 viewing lens. The 75mm lens slightly wider than the 80.
Both the 3.5 and 2.8 models have a 2.8 viewing lens. The 75mm lens slightly wider than the 80.
Ian has pretty much hit the nail on the head. The 3.5E cameras are, in my opinion, the best bang for the buck. I have four E's and one 3.5F. My most used is a really war-torn 2.8E with Xenotar. I prefer the Xenotar to the Planar for two reasons: 1) Harder coatings. 2) Usually cheaper than the like Planar. I don't have a Rollei with a Tessar anymore, but do have a mint Yashica 124G and a beater Minolta Autocord. Both are excellent picture takers with the edge going to the beater Minolta. So, if I were lusting for a Rollei and my name wasn't Warren Buffet I'd look for a 3.5E with a Xenotar. As a matter of fact I bet that's what Warren would buy too since he is the kind of guy that wants the most bang for his billions too. JohnW
I have quite a lot cmeras (too much, says my wife). My most used is a Rolleiflex 3,5F. It is the most sold one, and you get the most accesories for it without paying to much. I was lucky enough to byu bot Mutars for it (wide ange eand tele lens accessory).
I should have added that I would go for a "Non-metered" version myself. I think it's much better to have a non-metered Rolleiflex than it is to have a metered version with a meter that is not working or not accurate enough to use. My beloved, beat-up 2.8E is non-metered. Now, on the other hand, the meter on my 3.5F is super accurate and I really don't need to carry my Luna Star F light meter when I use that camera. The other bad thing about metered versions is that if your meter needs repair it's very hard to find parts or somebody to do the repair. If I could only own one Rollei it would be a later non-metered version and carry a pro-style light meter along with it and a tripod. Just my thoughts and mine alone. John W
My Rolleflex 3,5F ist metered and the meter works fine. After more then 50 years ...
A new 2.8FX with the HFT coated Planar is an awfully nice camera. I would get that.
2.8E Planar
Oh, if I had more money than brains I'd be using one too, but no money, no 2.8FX. I don't think Rollei ever made a bad Rolleiflex did they? John W
I have an ancient (1930) 3.5 Automat. I love this old camera. I don't think I would trade it for anything newer. I love that Tessar lens.
m
m
I love my 2.8F Planar . Even the meter is still working and surprisingly accurate. The camera is just an overall joy to use. I had mine CLA'd for quite a chunk of money, but it was worth every penny. It has become my most used camera. It is hard to describe, but I just love how this lens renders what it sees and the atmosphere it creates in an image.
I've had a number of Rollei's over the years and I settled into liking the MXV models as I got accustomed to the EV system and cross-linked shutter/aperture of these. I had an old L-398 Sekonic meter and they seemed made for each other. I had Planars, Xenotars and Tessars and at f8 and up, couldn't confidently pick out a difference at 8X10 print sizes.
I also have a 2.8F Planar which takes great images. I was lucky that I inherited from my father when he passed away.
Jeff
Jeff
Yup. Exactly why I love my Rolleiflexes above and beyond all others. If I was forced to only have one camera it would be one of my Rolleiflexes.
2,8 C, D, E, F. They have all the same Planar. The 2,8 C has more aperture blades, ten I think, than the five in the later models. The 2,8 F has the bright screen. Condition is the important thing, and you can't go wrong with any of the models.
The 3,5 Planar is a tiny bit sharper and contrastier than the 2,8. Especially the six element Planar on the late 3,5 F models.
All of the 3,5 E3 have six element Planars or Xenotars. I
I only mentioned the common models that he will find all the time on auctions and in shops. But of course, the E2 and E3 models are options too.
Yes, the locking levers on the shutter release and flash contact are plastic, and sometimes missing.
I've never heard that before about the 3.5E3 Xenotar? Do you know what the difference is? JohnW
Lots of places online where people say only the PLanar changed but I've seen a few times that the 3.5E3 Xenotars also changed. Here's one example with some references:
http://www.rolleiclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4
The difference? Probably no practical one that we can see most of the time but they must have done it for some reason.....
Rick,
That was interesting reading and seems to still have left the answer up in the air. Many years ago, when I did the camera show circuit in the Mid-West, I was setup next to an older gentleman that was a wealth of knowledge as to the Rolleiflex. I can't even remember his name, but do remember he had links to Rollei Germany and I believe was an employee at one time. Since he had his table filled with was Rolleiflex cameras I decided to pick his brain a little. One of the questions I ask was about the difference between the 5 and 6 element Planar. He just smiled at me and said that the sixth element was basically a built-in UV filter. He might have said Skylight filter, but my memory isn't that good anymore to know for sure.
That might just be why it's still a Rollei mystery about the makeup of that 6th element. If Rollei said it was just a built-in UV or Skylight filter it wouldn't mean much to anybody, but if that 6th element were some magical mystery element then..................................! I have both the 5 and the 6 element Planar and if that 6th element is magical I can't see it. They are both exceptional lenses. Case closed for me, but everybody likes a good mystery now and then. JohnW
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |