Rolleiflex models,types etc

[Richard S. (rich815)]

No disagreement here. Although Es are starting to creep up in price too, as folks are asking silly money for Fs (almost $2k for a garden-variety F with a couple accessories? I've seen that recently). The comment about the age was meant as a general disclaimer - be aware that you're coveting a 60+ year old piece of hardware, and budget and plan accordingly. Don't assume that because it's a Rolleiflex it will be maintenance free.

I think we agree. I'm strongly of the opinion that the E's are the best value, considering age, build
quality, etc. and yes the prices of the F's is getting ridiculous.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I think we agree. I'm strongly of the opinion that the E's are the best value, considering age, build
quality, etc. and yes the prices of the F's is getting ridiculous.

My daily shooters are a pair of E's and a Tele which is basically a meterless E with a 135mm f4 lens on it. So yeah, the E is the best value. While I'd love to have an A, B and C for collecting purposes, I'd not shoot the A or B because of their rarity and relative delicacy. The C is just too fussy from an ergonomic viewpoint.

 

[twoeyeandy]

My two pennys worth...
I own a teeny tiny MX-EVS and it's great. I think they were introduced as 'bridge model' between the 2.8 models and the Rolleicords. Therefore they aren't that collectible (yet), they seem to be more plentiful and reasonably cheap. Being Bay 1 the lens accessories are cheaper too.
Mine goes with me everywhere, I love the whole shooting process and the images it produces. Buy what you afford and get shooting.

 

[Sean Mac]

www.myrolleiflex.co.uk your Tessar/Xenar seems to be doing a great job.

I have a 2.8f I bought 15 years ago from a pro who gave up film. It has always had the virtue of curing GAS attacks. What could be more desirable?

The price of a nice 2.8f is understandable even if you're a grumpy old guy who can say "I only paid 300 for the last one of those I bought." Mine is well used though.

There is another german camera company who apparently would want that kind of money just for a 50mm F1.4. I have enough 35mm gear and that maths always works when I look at getting a M3/M6 and I say "No way. I could buy a nice Rolleiflex for that kind of money!"

So 2.8f Rolleiflexes can cure GAS and take pictures too.

 

[twoeyeandy]

www.myrolleiflex.co.uk your Tessar/Xenar seems to be doing a great job

Ha, Tessar....and thanks, you've got to use' em

 

[JPD]

My two pennys worth...
I own a teeny tiny MX-EVS and it's great. I think they were introduced as 'bridge model' between the 2.8 models and the Rolleicords. Therefore they aren't that collectible (yet), they seem to be more plentiful and reasonably cheap. Being Bay 1 the lens accessories are cheaper too.

The 3,5 B (MX-EVS in America) was the "normal" Rolleiflex of the period. I think you're confusing it with the later Rolleiflex T that became the cheaper 3,5 Tessar model when all the "normal" Rolleiflexes had Planar or Xenotar.

 

[twoeyeandy]

The 3,5 B (MX-EVS in America) was the "normal" Rolleiflex of the period. I think you're confusing it with the later Rolleiflex T that became the cheaper 3,5 Tessar model when all the "normal" Rolleiflexes had Planar or Xenotar.

Oh so the MX-EVS was a 3.5 B .... I didn't know that. Ta for the correction.

 

[smolk]

Having had the MX, MX-EVS, 2.8C and 2.8F, I ended up with the 2.8C (Xenotar) and 2.8F (Planar) and then I decided I did not need both. Hard decision as they were equally good, but I went with the 2.8C. Yes, the shutter and flash lock are plastic (one was broken, but I found a spare part on eBay and had it repaired), but the 10 blade diafragma is great. Yes, it is a nuisance that you need to pre-select the 1/500 or non-1/500 before cocking the shutter, but otherwise this model delivers all the goods with better blades and no protruding bits (I did find the meter's shape annoying and its metering unreliable). Although the finder is not as easily replaceable as the later versions, I have mine fitted out with a SL66/600X screen - and it works wonders. Very bright and cheaper than a Maxwell / Beattie screen. No adjustment necessary either.

 

[dpurdy]

I use my Rolleis a lot. I have a 2.8F and a 2.8FX. For roll film the Rollei is my go to camera. However if I didn't have the 90º prism on my cameras they would mostly stay in the closet.
Personally I don't like waist level finders in use or in perspective. That I know is a very rare opinion. Before I had prisms I mostly used the sports finder, but that is not very accurate.
If you want the option of putting a prism on your camera you need to have one of the models that can. E2, E3, F, T, GX, FX and I think some Rolleicords.

 

[Brett Rogers]

Having had the MX, MX-EVS, 2.8C and 2.8F, I ended up with the 2.8C (Xenotar) and 2.8F (Planar) and then I decided I did not need both. Hard decision as they were equally good, but I went with the 2.8C. Yes, the shutter and flash lock are plastic (one was broken, but I found a spare part on eBay and had it repaired), but the 10 blade diafragma is great. Yes, it is a nuisance that you need to pre-select the 1/500 or non-1/500 before cocking the shutter, but otherwise this model delivers all the goods with better blades and no protruding bits (I did find the meter's shape annoying and its metering unreliable). Although the finder is not as easily replaceable as the later versions, I have mine fitted out with a SL66/600X screen - and it works wonders. Very bright and cheaper than a Maxwell / Beattie screen. No adjustment necessary either.

That's a good tip about the SL66 screens for earlier models: thanks.