Rolleiflex 2.8C or Rolleiflex T on a budget?

[Casperrobo]

as it says in the title, I currently am looking to get a Rolleiflex whilst also saving for a PhD so on a tightish budget. I already have a Rolleicord with all 3 bay 1 Rolleinars.

I have seen three options which are:

A 2.8C in good condition with clean lenses for £550

A Rolleiflex T in average cosmetic condition but recently serviced and clean lenses for £350

A Rolleiflex T in much better cosmetic condition with apparent tiny scratch on lens that "won't affect optical quality" for £350 as well.

Is a 2.8C worth the 200 quid more or should I just go for the T? The 2.8C really is at the top of my budget here.

I have seen a Rolleiflex 3.5F for £600 but that might be pushing it a bit much and it wasn't in the best cosmetic condition but didn't look too beat up, just a bit of pain loss here and there and apparently lenses are fine.

 

[Dan Daniel]

Do you use the Rolleinars? If so, get the T. They will fit it, while they won't fit the 2.8C. And Bay III Rolleinars (and other accessories) are not cheap.

All in all, the T with recent service and clean lens sounds like the best deal in your list. Its price is a bit high, but T's are overpriced in general.

 

[Casperrobo]

I should probably add I mostly like shooting portraits so I do use the rolleinars.

 

[Dan Daniel]

The Tessar is a sweet portrait lens. Not the same 'bite' as the Xenotar/planar lens (ok, yes, very subjective and debatable comment) with a nice look when at about f/5.6-8 and close focus.

Condition of old cameras is key. So again I lean toward the serviced T. And I shoot a 2.8C myself, own two plus a parts camera just in case. Still, from what you describe a T would serve you well. You can always buy a 2.8C later to celebrate getting tenure or such....

 

[pgomena]

I own a 2.8C and it was expensive when I bought it 30+ years ago. Prices remain high because they're very good cameras! Finding accessories is neither cheap nor easy as others have said. It is nice to have a somewhat brighter viewfinder, but for cost, quality and practicality, there's little advantage over an f/3.5 model, especially if you already own the portrait accessories you want.

 

[dpurdy]

You can put a prism on a T if that might matter to you.

 

[ntenny]

The Tessar is a sweet portrait lens. Not the same 'bite' as the Xenotar/planar lens (ok, yes, very subjective and debatable comment) with a nice look when at about f/5.6-8 and close focus.

I think this description is spot on. I don't have a T, but I have a Xenar Rolleicord (broadly similar in specs) as well as a 2.8C, and portraits are one of the situations where I reach for the former preferentially. The Planar and Xenotar are obviously incredibly wonderful lenses technically, and for some applications their dead-sharp, somewhat "clinical" look is exactly right, but the Tessar has a certain je ne sais quoi that for many people hits an aesthetic sweet spot for portraits.

Bay I is convenient for the TLR-specific accessories like the Rolleinaer, but for general use you really want an adapter to a common threaded filter size. I like 49mm, which is big enough to adapt to Bay III but small enough not to obstruct the viewing lens.

-NT

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

The other thing about the C is the ergonomics are not quite as good as the other, later models, specifically the way you change shutter speeds and apertures. Instead of just turning the wheel, you have to push and hold a little chrome button behind the wheel to unlock the control. Also, you have to have the shutter uncocked before changing into or out of 1/500th of a second - there's a secondary, more powerful spring used to propel the shutter at high speed that must be engaged, and if you try to do this while the shutter is cocked, you risk damaging the mechanism. The plus side of the C is the aperture is much more round as it uses more blades (11 vs 7 or somesuch, I forget the exact number). This will give you smoother, more pleasing out-of-focus areas. One more quirk with the 2.8C is the plastic locks for the shutter button and the flash sync are very frequently broken, and there are no spare replacements available. This is minor in the grand scheme, but still.

 

[MDR]

For Portraits either one is fine even the Rolleiflex 3.5A (postwar model with coated opton Tessar) which is again a bit cheaper to buy. For Landscape or for photographs for which you need absolute flatness of field a planar is the better lens for everything else the improved Tessar of the T model is more than good enough. For the price difference you can buy a few rolls of films. In the end I would advice you to go to the shop and handle both cameras so you can get a feel for them and buy the one you feel more comfortable with.

 

[Slixtiesix]

Which Rolleicord do you have? If it´s one of the later models I see no use at all to buy the T instead, apart from the simultaneous film transport/shutter cocking.

 

[Pioneer]

Portraits and Bay 1 Rolleinars. Go find a recently serviced 3.5 MX/EVS Automat.

Very personal preference but I have the 3.5 Planar and the 3.5 Tessar (several in fact.) I love, love, love the look of a Tessar.

YMMV

 

[Casperrobo]

I have a Vb so I have had that in the back of my mind that it wouldn't be much difference apart from maybe a brighter screen.

 

[Casperrobo]

I have heard the MX EVS is a much more solidly built camera that the T so I will keep an eye out for any going in the UK

 

[Slixtiesix]

If you have a Rolleicord Vb I really see no urgent reason to buy the T. The Xenar is not very different from the Tessar I think. They are both 4 element designs. Bokeh might be a bit different but that´s it. I have a T myself and it is a nice camera, but if I had a Vb in full working order I wouldn´t see a reason to switch. 350 GBP is quite a price tag and I´m not sure if the auto shutter cocking would would justify it...

 

[Chrismat]

If you want to see how well the Rolleicord does just look up the portraits of the Beatles done by Astrid Kircherr in Hamburg in the early 60s. She used a Rolleicord (V, I think). Great images.

Chris

 

[smolk]

I had the Automat MX and the 2.8F Planar, still have the 2.8C Xenotar and a Microflex. The sharpness of the 2.8C is striking and sets it apart. For some subjects, though, I prefer the rendering of the Microflex which has a Taylor Taylor and Hobson lens and is probably similar to but a tad better than the Tessar. It is smooth, velvety smooth. Yet the 2.8C does have 10 aperture blades unlike any other Rolleiflex (2.8D and later, Automat and earlier do not) which helps in certain aspects.
Portraits and small DOF? I prefer my Microflex. Pure sharpness or wide open and sharp: 2.8C. The 2.8C has good ergonomics. The plastic things are vulnerable, but not a deal breaker (and I actually did find a new one two years ago). The T is said to have weaker innards, but a well-used 2.8C may have seen some abuse. Would not worry about accessories. You need less than you think you do, the hood is essential, but there are 3rd party hoods for RIII. Since you already have a Tessar-type lens, I would go for the 2.8C. £550 is not cheap so it should really be good. Shine a smartphone torch through the rear lens and have a look at fungus in the taking lens. I once had a nasty surprise when I did.