Rolleiflex quality question

[bibowj]

\

Hello all- today I finally was able to buy my first Rolleiflex. I have been coveting this camera for years but could never quite afford it... Which isn't exactly true because I've bought other cameras that are far more expensive but I just couldn't risk it with TLR. I bought a 2.8E Plannar from KEH in BGN condition which showed up in what I would call near Mint... and Im smitten...but I have a question.

Rolleiflex 2.8Fs are upward $2k USD ... and it seems when I do a Flickr search, THIS is the camera everyone has. I ADORE the the look of the lens..and I can pick a shot done by this camera out of line up nearly every time ..theres just something magical about the DOF, and contrast..I dont understand it but I do know that I love it.

So I bought a 2.8E and its perfect, but is there any difference in the images froma clean 2.8E verses a 2.8F? I dont care about anything else but the look.. are both plannars created equal?

Thanks everyone!

 

[gone]

It's the same lens, so no difference in IQ. Excellent lens in my opinion, but so is the Xenotar. I think there was a 6 element 3.5 version, but to my understanding, that may have given just a little bit better performance wide open. I prefer your E camera to the F because it's lighter.

 

[ntenny]

Same lenses, same shutter. I think the big thing about the F is that the meter is coupled; there are some other mechanical enhancements (or "bells and whistles" if they're things you don't care about, I suppose), but the optics are AFAIK identical.

-NT

 

[msbarnes]

Yeah, they are very similar. The F allows you to use a prism, but so do some E's (E2 and E3, I think). Well, I don't care for a prism or a meter and so the F has no advantages for me.

 

[cliveh]

You have a beautiful classic camera of superb quality. Just enjoy.

 

[Tom1956]

Here's a picture for you. Guess who's who.

 

[cliveh]

Here's a picture for you. Guess who's who.

They both have nice cameras, but I don't know. Who are they?

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

The F's meter is not coupled - no Rolleiflex ever had a coupled meter (at least not in the sense that it would give you exposure automation). But the meter in the F is an improved design over the meter in the E. The F also has interchangeable viewing hoods, so you can use a prism on the camera if you want. Later model E's (the E3, and I think MAYBE the E2) also have this option, but they still have the older style meter (which is highly likely to be dead by now). I have a pair of 2.8 E Planar bodies, and I love them to death. On one the meter is marginal (it's good for confirming sunny 16, but you can figure out exposure under those circumstances anyway!), and the other one it's completely kaput. To the best of my knowledge, the lenses and shutters are identical, though. There MAY have been an improvement in the coatings, but not that I'm aware of.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

They both have nice cameras, but I don't know. Who are they?

Mouse over the image.

 

[cliveh]

Mouse over the image.

I did with no response.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I did with no response.

"74727d1380138349t-rolleiflex-quality-question-victorhasselblad_reinholdheidecke.jpg.att"

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Mouse and hold - it's Victor Hasselblad and Reinhold Heidecke, the inventors of the respective cameras on display.

 

[TheToadMen]

Mouse and hold - it's Victor Hasselblad and Reinhold Heidecke, the inventors of the respective cameras on display.

And the image was shot with a Nikon F

 

[mweintraub]

But both didn't make the glass, right?

 

[ntenny]

The F's meter is not coupled - no Rolleiflex ever had a coupled meter (at least not in the sense that it would give you exposure automation).

But it is linked to the exposure settings, right? In my mind that's the definition of a "coupled" meter. I'm just going on specs, though---my 'flex is well before the built-in meters came in.

-NT

 

[Mewael]

Are the new Rolleiflex TLRs coupled? Like the FX and GX? Probably not what the OP is interested in (as they are much more expensive) but just out of curiousity.

 

[Lowly]

But it is linked to the exposure settings, right? In my mind that's the definition of a "coupled" meter. I'm just going on specs, though---my 'flex is well before the built-in meters came in.

-NT

That's my understanding of what a coupled meter is. When I change exposure settings on my 2.8F the match needle seems to move!

 

[elekm]

Are the new Rolleiflex TLRs coupled?

I'm not sure what you mean by this?

 

[erikg]

The new models don't have the auto index rollers, I think that's too bad, I liked that feature.

 

[Mewael]

sorry, what I meant by coupled, is that the meter on the new Rolleiflex's are linked to the aperture and shutter speed settings.

 

[summicron1]

the F models are sexy. If sexy makes you a better photographer than it's a better camera, but that's the only reason.

That and a thousand dollars more to buy one.

 

[Pioneer]

My little Automat with the 3.5 Tessar is as sexy as I can afford. Fortunately it takes pretty decent pictures even without a built-in meter or a 2.8 max aperture.

 

[Zathras]

My little Automat with the 3.5 Tessar is as sexy as I can afford. Fortunately it takes pretty decent pictures even without a built-in meter or a 2.8 max aperture.

The Automats with the Tessar are sweet little cameras. I've shot with a 2.8E with a 80mm ƒ2.8 Xenotar, a Rolleicord Vb with a 75mm ƒ3.5 Xenar and a 1954 Rolleiflex "MX-EVS", which I believe is the one of the last of the Automat series. I like the Automat with the Tessar the best. The 2.8E and the Rolleicord have great lenses, but there's something really special about my Automat and its Tessar.

I'm saving up the money to send the old girl off to Harry Fleenor for her 60th birthday next year. After she comes back, I'll probably sell the 2.8E and the Rolleicord since the Automat and my Minolta Autocords fill all my needs as far as TLRs are concerned.

 

[Pioneer]

Mine is exactly the same model, built the year I was born. Harry worked his magic on mine about a year ago. You will be amazed when yours gets back. I fell in love all over again. I still have a hard time believing that the Tessar can be that sharp! IMHO that lens is certainly not a limiting factor at all with my photography.

 

[Bill Burk]

bibowj,

You got your answers, the camera should be worth all you gave up to get it.

I was going to say... If you think you can pick the photos out of a lineup... Then put some of yours up.

You will quickly know if you really CAN pick them out of a lineup, or if you really can't tell the difference...

Whichever is fact - you will learn something about yourself.

(Don't ask me how I know - it has nothing to do with Rollei but everything to do with perception).