Rolleiflex help

[raj82]

Hello everyone,

I've been bitten by the Rolleiflex bug because I played around with an Automat a few weeks ago and loved it. Now I'm in the process of trying to find one to buy and I need your help.

Here are my two options:

Rolleiflex 3.5F with Planar
- BGN condition on KEH
- Meter doesn't work
- $800

Rolleiflex 2.8F 12/24 with Planar
- Meter doesn't work
- Meter housing is chipped
- $1499 (I can potentially get this down lower)

I was under the impression that the 3.5F was lighter than the 2.8F, but I've recently come to learn that that's not the case. The Automat is several hundred grams lighter, but the F are the same.

Which do you think I should get? If 2.8F, what would be a good price for it? I'm currently putting a roll through it to figure out how the lens and shutter are. I also noticed that while loading the film yesterday, the spool at the top where you feed the film isn't rotating when I rotate the dial on the side of the camera, I had to use the film winder to correctly load the film. This may help me bring down the price even more.

Would love to know your thoughts.

 

[Tom1956]

I'd go for the 3.5.

 

[BrianShaw]

Can't disagree with that. For spending that much money I hope you are sure you'll like TLRs.

 

[raj82]

Hi Tom!

Thanks for the suggestion. Is price the main reason you'd say to stick with the 3.5?

 

[raj82]

Can't disagree with that. For spending that much money I hope you are sure you'll like TLRs.

Hey Brian,

I've shot several rolls of film through them now and seem to enjoy several things about them:

1) Their quietness
2) Their charm for me
3) Their charm for the subject being photographed
4) The quality of the photos I get from them

But you're right, probably best to go for the 3.5.

 

[Tom1956]

Price, weight, performance, and for a mere 1/2 stop loss? No brainer. Plus the chip. I don't buy chipped cameras.I'll give them 100 dollars for it and turn it into another junk restoration project.

 

[snapguy]

I would go for the 3.5. I had one I got in 1956 and it is a fantastic camera. The 2.8 is sexy, for want of a better word, but the little bit extra f-stop is not very important IMO. I have always believed built-in light meters on the Rollei are silly. Not that useful or reliable. I photographed 1950s actor/singer Ricky Nelson's wedding with my Rollei and the b&w negatives are still fabulous looking. There is a depth to the crisp images that takes your breath a way. Good old Tri-X.

 

[summicron1]

the dial you refer to as not turning the film spool is the one on the left side? That one doesn't turn the spool -- you need to use the film crank to do that.

If I were you just starting out I'd got for an E model -- the differences are slight -- no removable hood, no 12/24 option -- and the quality identical while the price is half. If you don't need the F-camera options, why pay so much for them?

Having said that, the 2.8 models are a bit louder than the 3.5 models. It's nice to have the extra speed of a 2.8, but not critical, and B3 accessories -- lens shade, rolleinars -- cost a bundle.

If you shop for E models, you can get a 2.8 for what they're asking for a 3.5 F model.

 

[gone]

I would recommend a 3.5 E w/ Planar. Same lens, lighter weight, less price.

Having said, that I much preferred the images from my Rolleicord w/ Triotar than my Rolleiflex w/ Planar. Sacrilege, but I did. A lot smaller, lighter, and the $80 price was nice.

Shot w/ Rolleicord w/ Triotar and a yellow filter. Tri-X in D76.

 

[Tom1956]

I've got a 1956 3.5E. I like the finder with the flip-down mirror, and use it as an eye-level camera. Flip down the mirror to focus on the GG, then move up to the sport frame for the shot. Really nice when parallax isn't a big concern.

 

[ntenny]

Unless you plan to shoot 220, it seems like the only functional difference is that half-stop, and US$700 is a *lot* of money for a half-stop.

-NT

 

[jon koss]

Gosh, only those two options on all of planet earth? You can do better. If you were bitten by the Automat bug I think you should stay with an Automat. They are the smoothest of the family and represent the best value. Grab a clean Automat, spend a few shekels for a proper CLA and you will be in business for a lifetime. The Planar/Xenotar cameras are just not as silky.

Just one user's opinion…

J

Hello everyone,

I've been bitten by the Rolleiflex bug because I played around with an Automat a few weeks ago and loved it. Now I'm in the process of trying to find one to buy and I need your help.

Here are my two options:

Rolleiflex 3.5F with Planar
- BGN condition on KEH
- Meter doesn't work
- $800

Rolleiflex 2.8F 12/24 with Planar
- Meter doesn't work
- Meter housing is chipped
- $1499 (I can potentially get this down lower)

Would love to know your thoughts.

 

[tony lockerbie]

Jon is right here, as I have several Rolleis and the post war Automats just seem a little nicer in the action. The 3.5F though is still a lovely thing, while the 2.8's are, as afore mentioned...just plain sexy.
Many rate the 3.5 Planar as the best lens ever on a Rollei and this is probably correct. This, plus the fact that the filters and hoods are cheaper and easier to acquire, would sway me towards the 3.5.
The main difference between the Planar and Tessar is the full aperture performance, the Planar is sharper but the Tessar/ Xenar lenses have a lovely look wide open. Ditto the Triotar on the early 'Cords.

 

[Tom1956]

Rolleiflex was very late before they bothered to put a dadburn flash socket on the camera. I would not even consider those unequipped models.

 

[ntenny]

Rolleiflex was very late before they bothered to put a dadburn flash socket on the camera. I would not even consider those unequipped models.

We're they? My 2.8C has a PC socket; I think all the "letter" models do, certainly the E models the OP asked about.

It wouldn't be a deal breaker for me, but certainly it's the kind of thing that you need when you need it.

-NT

 

[Tom1956]

Mid 50's was pretty late to be just starting to put a sync socket on the camera. IMO

 

[eddie]

I have a 3.5F. It's a wonderful camera. The meter works, but I use a spot meter, so I wouldn't be put off by a non working meter. I can't speak about the other Rollei's, as I've never used them, but can recommend a 3.5F.

 

[Tom1956]

I have a 3.5F. It's a wonderful camera. The meter works, but I use a spot meter, so I wouldn't be put off by a non working meter. I can't speak about the other Rollei's, as I've never used them, but can recommend a 3.5F.

Agreed. A non-working meter is to be expected. A good one would be a fluke, and probably too non-linear to actually use.

 

[raj82]

3.5E it is. I'm on the hunt for one of those now.

Question, does anyone have experience with these:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/NEW-ROLLEIF...2866912?pt=Camera_Filters&hash=item4168e75b60

 

[Tom1956]

Good choice--on the 3.5E GL

 

[Jeff Kubach]

I would go for the 3.5 also. Of course you could wait for a better deal.

Jeff

 

[Xmas]

the 2.8 may be unusable on the second frame in a sequence for film curl for critical work only the mamiya and autcord TLR have straight film runs.

I shoot a blank on my yashica mat at 5.6 or wider

but the rolli are sexy on a shelf alas I never could afford one.

 

[rubyfalls]

Another for Team 'Cord:

 

[ntenny]

the 2.8 may be unusable on the second frame in a sequence for film curl for critical work only the mamiya and autcord TLR have straight film runs.

Can you elaborate on this concern a bit? It's not something I've heard about before; is it the film feeler roll that interferes with the "straightness" of the film? (Of course they all turn a corner from the roll to the focal plane, but I guess the feeler does potentially introduce a slight S-curve in the film path.

-NT

 

[eddie]

I'm curious about the film curl statement, too. I assume the only difference between my 3.5 and a 2.8 is the lens. I've never had an issue with film flatness.