Want to Buy WTB: Rolleiflex 3.5F or Rolleiflex 2.8E

[Srahimian24]

Hello everyone, my name is Stephen and I am new to the forum but I have been stalking it for sometime

I am looking to buy a Rolleiflex 3.5F or a 2.8E. I am probably leaning towards a 3.5 due to it being a cheaper camera. Wanted to try here before going to Ebay, please let me know if you have anything

 

[btaylor]

I am a big fan of these Rolleis, I have both the 2.8E and 3.5F. Personally I prefer the 3.5F, I find the additional weight of the 2.8 lens makes the camera a bit front heavy, making the 3.5 better balanced. A half stop doesn’t make much of a difference in actual shooting with today’s fast films, IMHO.
Good luck on your search!

 

[Srahimian24]

Thanks, I should mention that I would also be happy with a 3.5e! Really excited to get my hands on one

 

[Srahimian24]

I am a big fan of these Rolleis, I have both the 2.8E and 3.5F. Personally I prefer the 3.5F, I find the additional weight of the 2.8 lens makes the camera a bit front heavy, making the 3.5 better balanced. A half stop doesn’t make much of a difference in actual shooting with today’s fast films, IMHO.
Good luck on your search!

How do you like the photos from each?

 

[btaylor]

Honestly, most of my favorite shots I have taken were with my Rolleicord Va, or the Automat- both of them much cheaper models. The lenses are stellar on both. I think sometimes the expensive models make me less likely to take them out.

 

[guangong]

Rolleis are so robust and long lasting that I wouldn’t put a 2.8F out of consideration. Condition of camera should be most important point. I have owned my 2.8F since early 1970s, bought used. A half century of trouble free use. Per year cost now almost nothing. Good luck on your search. Rather than eBay, I would try Igor’s, KEH, Roberts, and other dealers first.

 

[NB23]

Why 2.8E? Beautiful camera but heavy. The focusing screen is truly abysmal and gets in the way of a good shooting experience. You’re basically shooting a 2.8 but with the rolleicord experience. Buy a screen for interchangeable hood rolleiflexes (the F series) and cut it to fit. This modification will transform your 2.8E into what it is supposed to be: a stellar performer.

Be careful, the 2.8E\F Planar lenses tend to have separation and certainly they will all end up with it. This is why I would prioritize the models with Schneider lenses. The 2.8 Planars will all end up separated over time and I am not exaggerating.

The 3.5F model is better just because of the interchangeable viewfinder/screens, allowing you to use chimney hoods, eye-level finders...

I own and use 7 rolleiflexes and 4 Rollleicords. I made my 2.8E2 with schneider lens my primary camera, then it’s a toss up between the two 3.5F and 2.8E (which has had its taking lens recemented, recoated, and its screen changed) and the TeleRolleiflex. Then, the T for its interchangeable viewfinder, the 3.5E, and the rolleicords (all fitted with better screens).

Remember that a Rolleicord gets majorly upgraded once you change its screen, and very close to 3.5E/F territory once you a add a Shutter Button.

Beautiful cameras.

 

[Srahimian24]

Using this site as my guide (https://antiquecameras.net/rolleiflex.html) I was looking at the 2.8e mainly due to cost difference with the 2.8f. A 3.5f type one or a 3.5e type 2 or 3 would be ideal for what I'm looking for

Edit: will also take a 2.8c

 

[guangong]

Never encountered lens separation with Planar lens on Rolleiflex, or on any other camera. My own observation has been that, generally speaking, Zeiss and Nikon lenses stand up very well when compared with Leitz and Canon lenses ( fungus and haze). I should mention that I use lenses from all these sources.
Much of a lens’ condition depends upon how it is cared for and stored.
Over the long term, I would save my pennies and get an F. You won’t go wrong.
An I would again recommend buying from a reputable dealer.

 

[NB23]

Never encountered lens separation with Planar lens on Rolleiflex, or on any other camera. My own observation has been that, generally speaking, Zeiss and Nikon lenses stand up very well when compared with Leitz and Canon lenses ( fungus and haze). I should mention that I use lenses from all these sources.
Much of a lens’ condition depends upon how it is cared for and stored.
Over the long term, I would save my pennies and get an F. You won’t go wrong.
An I would again recommend buying from a reputable dealer.

more than 50% of the tele-rolleis on ebay have lens separation. It is a comon trait.

Many 2.8 planars have it. It’s simply how they are made, with lenses 1 and 2 being glued together with glue that is now 50-70 years old.

simply put, 100% of the tele rolleis and 2.8 planars will end up with separation somewhere in time, at least those that used canadian balsam. The difference in time is due to the environment/climate of where these cameras have been used and stored.

Look at the lens’ constructions of the Planars vs Xenotar. The planar have glued front elements while the Xenotar doesn’t. Basically, on top of being excellent optics, on par or above the planar (in no case inferior!), the Xenotar is bulletproof as far as lens separation is in question. It simply cannot separate.

The sensible recomendation to anyone in the market for a 2.8 is to avoid the planar when there’s a xenotar right next to it.

—-
if you don’t believe me, do this test: you get 5 minutes to find a planar with separation on ebay.

For the Xenotar, good luck finding one in a decade. They are rare!

——-
here is an interesting discussion onthe topic that I have just found. It highlights the Planar propensity to separation.
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/lens-separation-on-rolleiflex.147659/

 

[Srahimian24]

This is very interesting information! Thanks for all the help.

I found a 3.5F type 3, the lenses are in great shape, leather is a little worn but not too worried about that.

If anyone has a 2.8C I would be interested in one, thanks again everyone

 

[FotoMark]

In my opinion, Harry Fleenor’s “How to find your Rolleiflex tlr” is $10 well spent. Although, you will get roughly the same info you’ve been getting on this post, he lays out very clearly which models have which features. I used it before buying my first Rolleiflex, a 3.5e, and to this day, that is my favorite of every Rollei I’ve owned and used. I prefer the 3.5 for it’s overall sharpness, where the 2.8 seems better suited for portraiture. Not just wide open. In my experience, the 2.8 is a “softer” lens than the 3.5.....Planar or Xenotar.

 

[NB23]

The 3.5F are hard to beat. A Rolleiflex T is also very nice and very close to the 3.5F except it’s a Tessar lens.

No matter how I turn it, it takes at least 5 rolleiflexes to have everything covered

 

[Helge]

more than 50% of the tele-rolleis on ebay have lens separation. It is a comon trait.

Many 2.8 planars have it. It’s simply how they are made, with lenses 1 and 2 being glued together with glue that is now 50-70 years old.

simply put, 100% of the tele rolleis and 2.8 planars will end up with separation somewhere in time, at least those that used canadian balsam. The difference in time is due to the environment/climate of where these cameras have been used and stored.

Look at the lens’ constructions of the Planars vs Xenotar. The planar have glued front elements while the Xenotar doesn’t. Basically, on top of being excellent optics, on par or above the planar (in no case inferior!), the Xenotar is bulletproof as far as lens separation is in question. It simply cannot separate.

The sensible recomendation to anyone in the market for a 2.8 is to avoid the planar when there’s a xenotar right next to it.

—-
if you don’t believe me, do this test: you get 5 minutes to find a planar with separation on ebay.

For the Xenotar, good luck finding one in a decade. They are rare!

——-
here is an interesting discussion onthe topic that I have just found. It highlights the Planar propensity to separation.
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/lens-separation-on-rolleiflex.147659/

It could also just be Greshams law. “Bad money” will fill the market.
People who have good Planars hold on to them. And the ones that catch your eye because they are cheaper, have beginning separation. Either reported by the seller or not.

All the people who buy cameras “to use them” as they usually put it, but who for whatever reason never developed the tacit knowledge, fingerspitzgefühl and mechanical empathy to handle nice expensive things, will brutalize them and take them out of commission forever in short order.

Don’t bump your camera around.
Not just with direct hits, but also avoid indirect mechanical percussion.
IE don’t put the bag on the floor of a car where vibration and bumps are strong. Don’t violently handle the camera. Gentle, smooth, slow deliberate motions.

Don’t bring it to scorching hot places (NEVER direct sun in the same position, for more than a minute or two) or cold damp places.

And most of all let it acclimatize, if there is a significant temperature difference.
Most of the time just bringing it in the mandatory bag is enough. But sometimes you need to let the temperature difference equalize slowly. For example bringing it from an air conditioned room, into full summer.

 

[guangong]

more than 50% of the tele-rolleis on ebay have lens separation. It is a comon trait.

Many 2.8 planars have it. It’s simply how they are made, with lenses 1 and 2 being glued together with glue that is now 50-70 years old.

simply put, 100% of the tele rolleis and 2.8 planars will end up with separation somewhere in time, at least those that used canadian balsam. The difference in time is due to the environment/climate of where these cameras have been used and stored.

Look at the lens’ constructions of the Planars vs Xenotar. The planar have glued front elements while the Xenotar doesn’t. Basically, on top of being excellent optics, on par or above the planar (in no case inferior!), the Xenotar is bulletproof as far as lens separation is in question. It simply cannot separate.

The sensible recomendation to anyone in the market for a 2.8 is to avoid the planar when there’s a xenotar right next to it.

—-
if you don’t believe me, do this test: you get 5 minutes to find a planar with separation on ebay.

For the Xenotar, good luck finding one in a decade. They are rare!

——-
here is an interesting discussion onthe topic that I have just found. It highlights the Planar propensity to separation.
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/lens-separation-on-rolleiflex.147659/

 

[guangong]

Interesting and informative response. So far, the 2.8F I have owned for 50yrs is ok. I should mention that above all, Rolleis are extremely robust. Soon after buying camera, dropped it, cased, about 5 feet onto asphalt parking lot. Picked it up...rattle, rattle. Dared not look at camera. Took to my friend who worked at Leitz USA. The pin that secures the door on camera had sheared. He got pin from friend who worked at Rollei. He told my friend, “Manfred, that’s a design problem with that camera. Every time you drop it that pin breaks.” As if nothing should break when dropped.
As the owner of 5 Rolleis, thought you would enjoy the story.

 

[Helge]

Interesting and informative response. So far, the 2.8F I have owned for 50yrs is ok. I should mention that above all, Rolleis are extremely robust. Soon after buying camera, dropped it, cased, about 5 feet onto asphalt parking lot. Picked it up...rattle, rattle. Dared not look at camera. Took to my friend who worked at Leitz USA. The pin that secures the door on camera had sheared. He got pin from friend who worked at Rollei. He told my friend, “Manfred, that’s a design problem with that camera. Every time you drop it that pin breaks.” As if nothing should break when dropped.
As the owner of 5 Rolleis, thought you would enjoy the story.

Dropping a brand new Rollei and getting lucky, is entirely different from manhandling a sixty year old camera with aging of materials and several decades of vibration and operation.

The case is probably going to be ok, if visibly good, but the mirror alignment, the shutter, the lens and other mechanics depends on the random temperament and intelligence of previous owners.

 

[binglebugbob]

Interesting point about not placing your camera (bag?) on your car floor. I've seen more cameras damaged by putting them--unsecured--on a car seat and later having to make a panic stop--when the camera then crashes to the floor.

I suspect a lot of lens separation may be caused by people dripping lens cleaner directly onto the lens instead of onto a lens cleaning cloth. When dribbled onto the lens, excess fluid can run down around the edges of the lens and into the glued surfaces, acting as a solvent for the cement.

 

[NB23]

all very good advice. But alas, Canada Balsam has its own little mind. It manifests whenever it wishes, and its separation is pending on 100% of the lenses it has been applied on. Just a matter of time.

It could also just be Greshams law. “Bad money” will fill the market.
People who have good Planars hold on to them. And the ones that catch your eye because they are cheaper, have beginning separation. Either reported by the seller or not.

All the people who buy cameras “to use them” as they usually put it, but who for whatever reason never developed the tacit knowledge, fingerspitzgefühl and mechanical empathy to handle nice expensive things, will brutalize them and take them out of commission forever in short order.

Don’t bump your camera around.
Not just with direct hits, but also avoid indirect mechanical percussion.
IE don’t put the bag on the floor of a car where vibration and bumps are strong. Don’t violently handle the camera. Gentle, smooth, slow deliberate motions.

Don’t bring it to scorching hot places (NEVER direct sun in the same position, for more than a minute or two) or cold damp places.

And most of all let it acclimatize, if there is a significant temperature difference.
Most of the time just bringing it in the mandatory bag is enough. But sometimes you need to let the temperature difference equalize slowly. For example bringing it from an air conditioned room, into full summer.

 

[Helge]

Interesting point about not placing your camera (bag?) on your car floor. I've seen more cameras damaged by putting them--unsecured--on a car seat and later having to make a panic stop--when the camera then crashes to the floor.

I suspect a lot of lens separation may be caused by people dripping lens cleaner directly onto the lens instead of onto a lens cleaning cloth. When dribbled onto the lens, excess fluid can run down around the edges of the lens and into the glued surfaces, acting as a solvent for the cement.

Interesting point about not placing your camera (bag?) on your car floor. I've seen more cameras damaged by putting them--unsecured--on a car seat and later having to make a panic stop--when the camera then crashes to the floor.

I suspect a lot of lens separation may be caused by people dripping lens cleaner directly onto the lens instead of onto a lens cleaning cloth. When dribbled onto the lens, excess fluid can run down around the edges of the lens and into the glued surfaces, acting as a solvent for the cement.

Don’t ever put your camera or bag freely movable on the front seat in the car.
During an actual crash the airbag might save the front of your face, but the camera will become a projectile of surprising heft and power.

Strap the camera bag in with the seatbelt. Bring a cushion for the floor. Personally I roll the other front-seat all the way back, if I’m alone or the passenger doesn’t mind extra legroom.
Put the bag on the backseat and fill the remaining space as a buffer with a jacket or blanket.

Almost no matter how rich or blasé you are, having the camera go ballistic during an emergency break is terrifying, and you feel so stupid afterwards because it’s so easily avoided.

Good point about not putting alcohol directly on the lens.

These bodies and lenses often use completely different materials for glue and paint than became common in the sixties and seventies.

The old screw mount Leica manuals warns sternly about not doing that BTW.

 

[Helge]

all very good advice. But alas, Canada Balsam has its own little mind. It manifests whenever it wishes, and its separation is pending on 100% of the lenses it has been applied on. Just a matter of time.

That goes for any kind of glue. But if it’s a hundred years, someone might have found a cure (or something better than a Rollei .

Sounds almost like you are vested in it happening?
Are you trying to inflate prices of SK equipped Rolleis? ;-)
Or you have a sour grapes thing going too?

I have not heard of it being especially bad for anything else than the tele Rollei.
It is perhaps especially vexing and sad when it happens to a Planar?
But I have seen and heard of about as many Tessars with separation.
And that can happen for the same reasons.

One of the strong points of triplets. No balsam to worry about getting hazy or separating.

 

[NB23]

You know, giving good advice on forums is about the worst thing one can do. Always ends up being translated as trolling.

I BROTHERLY recommend Schneider lenses over planars. Same goes for all my recomendations, which are always brotherly. Too bad people are people.

 

[Helge]

You know, giving good advice on forums is about the worst thing one can do. Always ends up being translated as trolling.

I BROTHERLY recommend Schneider lenses over planars. Same goes for all my recomendations, which are always brotherly. Too bad people are people.

Stop being a prima donna about someone not believing you straight away. You are entirely too intelligent for that.

As always.
Exceptional claims demands exceptional evidence.

There was never any doubt that both SK and Zeiss lenses was very nearly on par, with perhaps just individual preferences separating (sic) them.

 

[NB23]

Really though, there are days where 100% of tele rolleis offered on ebay have separation... exceptional evidence...

 

[Helge]

Really though, there are days where 100% of tele rolleis offered on ebay have separation... exceptional evidence...

Yeah... Tele Rolleis.
The Wide and Tele was always outliers, and perhaps not as well considered and conceived as the normal lens ones.