purchase rolleiflex fx 80mm

[dionysos]

Hello people, i have the opportunity to buy a rolleiflex brandnew for a reasonable price, such as 2400 euro here in belgium.

I always told myself if there's one thing that i really wanted, than it will be a rolleiflex,
I'm shooting now with a nikon f 100, without complain, but i want a better "quality" of image.

i'm an amateur, so isn't it a little bit too professional for someone who takes photos now and then?

Normally its the person who captures the images not the machine.....

You have people who give al lot of money for stupid stuff such as glimmy cars,.....

i can't decided

is there somebody that can give some good advice? ( why, why not)


ciao

joel

 

[jmg1911]

As my lovely wife said when she saw me drooling over a Porsche Boxster, "Everyone should have their deam."

 

[archphoto]

If you can afford it: go for it.
If you are carefull with it it will retain it's value, keep everything that came with the camera, including the box and whatever.
If you want to sell it later you allways can without loosing too much money or any money at all.

Rolleiflexes are great camera's, I have a 2.8F Planar.

Peter

 

[Vaughn]

I learn photography with a Rolleiflex. It was a great beginner camera...and I still use one over 30 years later. It is a great tool no matter what one's photographic abilities are. It does the job very very well.

Personally, I would not buy a new one. For that price you can buy several used ones and have them completely CLA, if needed. Unlike cars, the model has hardly changed over the years cosmetically.

Vaughn

 

[ic-racer]

I would not call it "too professional." Most people that will see you with it will think it is some antique. No one will believe what you paid for it when you tell them it has no megapixels . I think these cameras are still on the market for people just like you that shoot film and want, or have always wanted a Rollieflex. If you can afford it I would not pass it up! I got my 2.8F in 1986 and would never get rid of it.

 

[Jeff Kubach]

I got my Rolleiflex 2.8f when my father passed away a number of years ago. It is a lovely camera.

Jeff

 

[2F/2F]

If you have the money to blow.........however, you could probably do everything you need to do with an old model and a high-quality overhaul for far less money...WAY less money if you got a 3.5 'Cord instead of a 2.8 'Flex.

 

[dionysos]

thanks for the reactions,

here in belgium,
you will pay for a secondhand rollei 2.8,f close to 2000 euro, for a nice one
plus the cost for the CLA
and you don't have the new glass ( multicoated)

It's not that i " have" the money for it, but i made a effort for buying it.....
people always told me ( users of tlr rollei), that the glass is far better,....

maybe another question,
is it true that the differences, image performances between the old ones and the new ones being spectaculair?
or not noticeable?

see you later

 

[noumin]

Did you ever shoot with a TLR before ? If not, it might be a good idea to start
with a Rolleicord for about 1/10 of the amount you want to spend for the FX.
So you can find out if you like shooting with a TLR or not. If you like it you can
still upgrade later, if you don't like it, sell it and loose almost no money. But
spending 2400€ only to find out that shooting with a TLR is not your piece of cake is, I imagine,
not one of the most enjoyable experiences.

joerg

 

[archphoto]

Basicly you have 4 diferent lenses on the Rollei's: Triotar (3 lenses), Xenar, (a Tessar), Xenotar and Planar.
The Triotar and the Xenar were used on the Rolleicords and verry early Rolleiflex"s upto the Rolleiflex B.
When Rollei came out with their C and later models they were equiped with the Xenotar and the Planar in both 3.5 and 2.8 versions.
The diference between the Xenotar and the Planar is verry small, the Planar version will allways cost more.
The F's are more complicated (build-wise) than the previous models.
All Xenotars and Planars were coated.

The most desirable model is the verry late 3.5F Planar which seems to outperform the 2.8 Planar, but you will need a verry hard look to see the diferences.

If you just want a Rolleiflex and you don't want to spend too much money, go for a 3.5 D or E version, or a 2.8 with clean glass ofcourse.
These camera's will give you great pic's and are still verry servicable, I have been CLA-ing them for the past 30 years or so.

Peter

 

[2F/2F]

€2,000 is out of hand!!! Who exactly is paying that much for them? They are generally under 20% of that here. If that is really the case, buy one from the U.S. and ship it.

The modern glass won't make one iota of difference in your work. If anything, the old glass will have a slightly more pictorial-suited character...that is IF anything.

 

[archphoto]

For the late FX it seems to be the price in Europe.
Importing from the US to Europe means paying import duties, around 20%, so that does not help a lot, unfortunately.
Otherwise I would buy more in the US myself !

Peter

 

[2F/2F]

For the late FX it seems to be the price in Europe.
Importing from the US to Europe means paying import duties, around 20%, so that does not help a lot, unfortunately.
Otherwise I would buy more in the US myself !

Peter

I have not been suggesting or talking about new Rolleis. I have been suggesting and talking about old ones, and I considered import duties. What does an old one go for in Europe?

 

[waynecrider]

You might want to consider whether the square format will fit with your perspective. It's not for everyone. It can of course be cropped, but many shoot full frame and you have to take in consideration allowances that need to be made. Easy enough tho. In the end a cropped 6x6 is usually a 645 neg. Personally I like it as an alternative, but not as a consistent one. I say buy something used and reasonably cheap and if it fits buy a better camera.

 

[Anscojohn]

thanks for the reactions,

here in belgium,
you will pay for a secondhand rollei 2.8,f close to 2000 euro, for a nice one
plus the cost for the CLA
and you don't have the new glass ( multicoated)

It's not that i " have" the money for it, but i made a effort for buying it.....
people always told me ( users of tlr rollei), that the glass is far better,....

maybe another question,
is it true that the differences, image performances between the old ones and the new ones being spectaculair?
or not noticeable?

see you later

******
For the extra 400 or so Euro, let the dog starve; sell the kids into bondage; make the significant-other labor in a truffle factory: buy the new one. Differences in picture quality between it and a clean used one. Not really. Go for it.

 

[JPD]

WOW, a Rolleiflex 2,8 FX is a dream camera for me. I have never bought a new current model Rollei. What a show off it would be when people ask about the "old camera" and to be able to tell them it's new. I wish I could afford an FX or an FW.

 

[dionysos]

thanks for the reactions again,

the real price directly from the manufactory is about 3200 euro
so, it's a fair price, i think

when i have to believe some people here, there aren't big differences between old's and new ones?( glass? the same?)
so it might be better to consider to buy an occasion?
what's the max price for a decent rollei 2.8 f?


let me know

ciao

 

[dionysos]

the price for an old type is between the 1700 a 2000 euro depending from which type( planar white face....)

Has somebody ever compared the fx and f old against each other? Are they even sharp? same rendering,....

see you then

 

[noumin]

Joel, as for lens quality, have a look here :

http://www.hevanet.com/cperez//test/fourcameras.html

These are old lenses but it might give you some idea about
how they perform.

 

[Slixtiesix]

The FX has two advantages over older models: HFT multicoating and a built in lightmeter. (Ok, the F had a selenium meter, but remember these are now about 30 years old). If you want a camera for travelling, go for the FX. Working with the built in meter may be faster and you won´t need to carry an extra lightmeter. HFT is really nice to have if you shoot against the sun.
Some people complain that the built quality of the older models was higher,
but that seems a matter of personal taste.
Do you have the possibility to test the camera in the store? Just try if it works for you and if you like it - buy it!
Greetz, Benjamin

 

[elekm]

I would encourage you to buy the camera. Using a TLR will give you a different visual perspective with your photography.

Also, with just 12 shots per roll, you will be forced to be more selective in what you shoot. It's a slower process, and that is not a bad thing at all.

That's a very good price for a new camera. Sure, you could buy something older for less money, but then you probably would need to have it serviced, or it could turn out to have optical problems -- cleaning marks on the lens, fungus, etc., etc.

Get plenty of black and white and transparency film!

You'll be impressed by the depth of tones in b/w and equally impressed by transparencies that don't require a magnifying glass to view.

 

[Mark Antony]

I would buy the FX, for an amateur it will be perfect as it will have a built in TTL light meter latest lens and coating, so it you have the cash go for it, buy a few rolls of the new Ektar 100 and have a blast.
As for buying an old one with a recent CLA that's what I did as I don't have the spare cash, I bought a Rollei T which cost including CLA £180.
You can get reasonable ones from Ffordes
Dead Link Removed
They have them for between £179-2500 a good CLA will be about €100-150
A good F will cost about € 500-1000 if you can find one

 

[micek]

I had a Rolleicord V with a Maxwell screen. Wanted a 2.8 lens and got a Rolleiflex GX. After a few months sold the GX. The meter made no difference to me, it was heavier and felt more awkward to use than the Rolleicord, and I couldn't tell the difference between prints from one or the other (usual print sizes are 8"x8" and 12"x12"). I still have the Rolleicord.

 

[dionysos]

i'm surpriced about the reactions

but i still have my doubts,
i only want to be sure if the image quality is small or little between the old and the new camera? mostly i shoot black and white....

can someone give me the answer,hehe

ciao

 

[Slixtiesix]

If you only consider the image quality, I think it will be hard to tell the difference. The old Planar is very good and design changed only little, if it changed at all, during time. The only benefit of the newer version is its HFT coating. I have a Planar HFT and a S-Planar without HFT for my SL66 and the S-Planar is more prone to flare as is the Tessar of my Rolleiflex T, but as long you avoid the lens from beeing hit by direct sunlight results are awesome even without multicoating. Resolution will be the same with all Planar lenses.