Rollei 2.8 A

[TheFlyingCamera]

I'm looking at a Rolleiflex 2.8 A. are there any quirks I should be aware of with this particular model?

 

[David H. Bebbington]

Have researched this very quickly to remind myself - apparently the first of this model were fitted with Tessars from Jena (Carl Zeiss Jena), some of which were poorly made. The Opton Tessar (made by Carl Zeiss Oberkochen, in the west) is considered a better bet, but in general f2.8 is regarded as too big an aperture for the Tessar design. Rollei 2.8As are rare, if you can buy one at a good price on approval and test the lens. OK, otherwise you might find that a 2.8C costs no more. Whatever you buy, both 2.8A and 2.8C are over 50 years old, wear could be present, CLA almost certain to be required.

Regards,

David

 

[Rolleiflexible]

If you've not already visited, you should see this web page, which has useful photos and descriptions of the various 2.8x Rolleiflex models:

http://johnsrolleionlypage.homestead.com/Rollei28Collection.html

The nice feature of the 2.8A and 2.8C models is that they predate the EVS shutter/aperture interlock found on the later models. To work that miracle, Compur and F+H had to simplify the shutter by reducing the number of leafs from 10 (I think) to 5. So the A and C models have a nice round aperture, whereas the E and F models have a pentagonal one. In theory, at least, the older aperture should provide better bokeh, if you're fussy about that sort of thing.

David is right that the A and C are 50+ years old now. But I have several Rolleiflexes from the period, including a 2.8C and they chug along without complaint. I disagree with David that a CLA is inevitable -- unless mistreated the camera can go decades without need of servicing. If you do need work done on a Rollei, send it to Krikor Maralian in NJ, www.krimarphoto.com -- he's been a certified Rollei tech for decades, and is both fast and fairly-priced.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I ended up letting the A go... on closer inspection it was cosmetically pretty rough, and I THINK the focusing magnifier was cracked, badly (no good picture of it, but it looked white and crazed in the photo that showed a small glimpse inside the chimney). There will be others along, I'm sure.

 

[JPD]

Have researched this very quickly to remind myself - apparently the first of this model were fitted with Tessars from Jena (Carl Zeiss Jena), some of which were poorly made. The Opton Tessar (made by Carl Zeiss Oberkochen, in the west) is considered a better bet,

The Jena Tessars were made before/during the war, for the Ikoflex III. They were later coated, and Franke & Heidecke bought them in to use on the 2,8A. Some, but far from all, of the lenses front and back groups were mismatched.

So, the Carl Zeiss Jena 2,8 Tessars were made before Zeiss was divided into east and west, and not poorly made. Maybe the front and back groups were mismatched during the coating process.

 

[luvcameras]

Rolleiflex TLR Guide

http://members.aol.com/dcolucci/rolleitlr.htm


"Rolleiflex 2.8A Type 1 $ 400-700 Serial # 1100001-1164999 from1949/50. About 7870 produced. 80mm Tessar 2.8 lens. Heidoscop-Anastigmat 80mm F2.8 viewing lens. Interchangeable finder loupe. Parallax control. Compur Rapid shutter to 1/400. Bay II unique to this model.


Rolleiflex 2.8A Type 2 $ 600-900 Serial # 1201000-1204999 from 1951. About 2000 produced. 80mm Tessar 2.8 lens. Heidoscop-Anastigmat 80mm F2.8 viewing lens. Interchangeable finder loupe. Parallax control. Compur Rapid MX shutter to 1/500. Bay II unique to this model.