Rolleiflex 2.8C vs. 3.5E

Master_of_Reality · Jun 9, 2008

Greetings all! I am currently looking for a good old Rolleiflex camera to get into medium format. I am debating between a 2.8C or 3.5E, and i need some opinions.

1st, I have a question- I saw someone on Photo.net say the 2.8C has 10 aperture blades... can anyone confirm this? This is one of the main reason's im interested in this camera, aside from the price. I'm looking to compare the bokeh from the C with that of my friends F, which has 5-6 blades, if i remember correctly.

I'm drawn to the 3.5E with a Planar because i've heard that the 3.5 Planar is the sharpest of all the rolleiflex lenses, and there is a dealer in my area selling one for $425, which seems reasonable.

I guess i want to know people's opinions on these cameras.. which models you have/own, how they handle, ect. Also, if you were me what would you go for? i'm positive i'm getting a Rollei, i just need a bump in the right direction at this point.

Thx,
Mike

Rolleiflexible · Jun 9, 2008

I have both. The 2.8C is pretty but
I prefer to shoot with the 3.5E. The
shutter and aperture are a bit easier
to set, and the viewfinder magnifier is
much better-designed. I am completely
reliant on the magnifier, so this is a big
issue for me -- maybe not for you.

If it's a newer "E" with a removable view-
finder hood, that is an added plus. The
removable hood permits you to upgrade
the viewscreen yourself, without sending
the camera out to a repair shop.

I've not seen any useful difference in bokeh
between the two models, but others might
have a different experience.

Sanders

Master_of_Reality · Jun 10, 2008

hmm, so which would you say produces sharper photos?

Rolleiflexible · Jun 10, 2008

Master_of_Reality said:
hmm, so which would you say produces sharper photos?

Toss-up. User error, manufacturing variances, and state
of repair will obliterate any discernible difference between
Rolleiflexes fitted with a 2.8 and a 3.5 Planar or Xenotar.

Conventional wisdom has it that the 75mm f/3.5 version is
the original, that the 80mm f/2.8 was adapted from it, and
that the original is the better design. But I've yet to see it
in my own photography.

Another thing to consider when choosing is accessories.
The 3.5 series takes Bay 2 filters and hoods, while the 2.8s
take Bay 3 accessories. The Bay 2 accessories are more
plentiful and less expensive.

Sanders

Master_of_Reality · Jun 10, 2008

ok, makes sense. i guess it'll just come down to price at this point.

thx,
Mike

luvcameras · Jun 10, 2008

Yes, Rolleiflex's with a Compur Rapid shutter have a round aperture opening due to more blades being used. However, most people do not see bokeh differences, mainly because without Rolleinars, Rollei's dont focus close enough to emphasize bokeh. If you want a great Rollei with a meter, get an F model with coupled meter. The early meters are a pain to transfer settings to the aperture and shutter. Frankly, I think the 3.5F planar's are the best lens in the line up, not the 2.8 lens

See my Rolleiflex Price and Info Guide
http://members.aol.com/dcolucci/rolleitlr.htm

Thanks
Dan

JPD · Jun 10, 2008

The 3,5 Planar on my late 3,5F is sharper and contrastier than the 2,8 Planar on my 2,8F. But my 3,5F has the six element Planar, and there are small variations between lens samples...

George Collier · Jun 10, 2008

I have a 3.5T that I enjoy using, along with other formats. I followed this thread out of curiosity. What is bokeh? Never heard that one.

RobertP · Jun 10, 2008

George, Its a Japanese word that means "fuzzy"

Rolleiflexible · Jun 10, 2008

George Collier said:
What is bokeh?

For our purposes, it refers to the manner
in which a lens renders out-of-focus areas.

dpurdy · Jun 10, 2008

It is pronounced like Bouquet... I think. And the 2.8 Xenotar is the best of the Rollei lenses. the 2.8 Planar has a little more flare though that was corrected with the HFT coating. The 3.5 lenses seem to have a bit more depth of field due to shorter focal length. But they are not sharper no matter how many people say they are.
Dennis

RobertP · Jun 10, 2008

Rolleiflexible said:
For our purposes, it refers to the manner
in which a lens renders out-of-focus areas.

Which is why it was adopted as a photographic term. George, just look at shots made with lenses such as an archromatic meniscus or a petzval design. The Verito shot wide open is a good example. As is most portrait lenses. It is basically a lens that hasn't been corrected to the point where it eliminates all the aberrations. But any lens shot wide open regardless of design will usually have some type of bokeh (fuzzy) out-of-focus areas.

Uhner · Jun 10, 2008

This is getting a bit off topic – but I can recommend the following article: http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/ATVB.pdf for those who are interested in the concept of Bokeh.

For those who are into subjective ranking lists – download Mike Johnson’s Lens Bokeh Ratings at: http://www.lulu.com/bearpaw

glengorley · Jun 11, 2008

Old rollei freak

Hi guys, I'm new here, just retired finally and will have more time to spend on photography. I am 3rd generation serious photographer in our family..and yes, there is a fourth gen. a young niece who has taken to roaming the world with a camera. I will post her url later.

To the point: I bought the 2.8C Planar when it first hit the stores in about 195?.. I was roundly chastised by my friends for spending so much .. was it nearly $300 ? Then my photo friends jumped on me for choosing Planar over Xenotar. I never regretted my choice. It served me well until about 5 years ago. Not ever a problem. gorley

el wacho · Jun 11, 2008

no. of blades also adds more star lines to point source lights ( streetlights ) as you stop down.

Master_of_Reality · Jun 13, 2008

personally, i don't care if it's a planar or xeontar... i wont be making enlargements to the point where it will critically make a difference.. however, i am leaning toward the Schneider, just because it kinda goes against the grain (knowing that all the rollei guys i know shoot with zeiss lenses...)

but, yeah, i'm really bent on getting the 2.8C ... i found a nice one on the 'bay, however, the lens looks like it has water marks.. check it out..
http://cgi.ebay.com/Vintage-ROLLEIFLEX-2-8-C-Type-1-TLR-w-New-Lowepro-Case_W0QQitemZ200231248828QQihZ010QQcategoryZ3354QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
is this fungus or what? everything else about this specimen seems fine...

outwest · Jun 13, 2008

If the price stays low, go for it. I have a 2.8C that has about 20% separation on one side of the lens, but as long as you keep the hood on, it makes beautiful images. Which brings up the problem of the hood and the filters - Bay III ain't cheap or even easy to come by. I also have a 3.5F Planar and that is one picture taking machine - maybe the best ever. The main thing I have against the 2.8C, as someone already mentioned, is the magnifier. They just didn't have that quite right. I saw a nice 2.8C today, with the hood, for $399. I'm halfway tempted to get it. By the way, there is nothing wrong with a 3.5E in either the Planar or Xenotar.

Rolleiflexible · Jun 13, 2008

The taking lens on that camera looks
pretty hideous. The wind-side body
(photo 5) also looks to have something
odd going on under the leather, in the
vicinity of the film counter and strap
lug. Expect to have to sink a lot of
cash into rehabilitating this one, if
you win the auction.

Sanders

JPD · Jun 13, 2008

Master_of_Reality said:
but, yeah, i'm really bent on getting the 2.8C ... i found a nice one on the 'bay, however, the lens looks like it has water marks.. check it out..
http://cgi.ebay.com/Vintage-ROLLEIFLEX-2-8-C-Type-1-TLR-w-New-Lowepro-Case_W0QQitemZ200231248828QQihZ010QQcategoryZ3354QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
is this fungus or what? everything else about this specimen seems fine...

I wouldn't buy it. The metal looks corroded, and it could have been stored in a humid place. The taking lens is ugly indeed.

Rolleiflex 2.8C vs. 3.5E

Advertiser

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency