Which one to keep the Rolleiflex 2.8C or 2.8F?

<p>Hi,<br>

I'm going to move across continents and can't take everything along, in addition I need the money. So one of my Rolleiflexes has to go. But which one shall I sell? Which one is better and should I keep? Why? The 2.8F light meter is of course great, but I do like the age of the 2.8C. From your experience which one makes better pictures, has better glass? (I don't notice the difference myself yet as shoot only about 3 photos a month).</p>

<p>2.8F (type 1 1960-1966)<br />Serial 24024xx<br />Heidosmat 1:2.8/80 (serial 8525xx)<br />Carl Zeis Planar 1:2.8 f=80mm (serial 27283xx)<br />"made in Germany" Franke & Heidecke<br />Synchro Compur<br />light meter working accurately<br />using it with good results, but maybe due a CLA/overhaul</p>

<p>2.8C (type 2 1954/55)<br />Serial 14681xx<br />Heidosmat 1:2.8/80 (serial 7295xx)<br />Carl Zeis Planar 1:2.8 f=80mm (serial 12435xx)<br />Franke & Heidecke Braunschweig<br />using it with good results, but maybe due a CLA/overhaul</p>

<p>Your advise with reasoning is much appreciated. Thanks,</p>

<p>Kris</p>

<p> </p>

<p>(i) All things being equal, keep the camera that makes better images. That will have more to do with condition than whether it's a C or an F. The key thing is matching the focusing of the viewing and taking lenses, or what people (erroneously) call getting them 'in sync'. It may be hard to compare them if they haven't been recently overhauled, but good overhauls are expensive.</p>

<p>(ii) If one of them shows heavy wear, I would lean toward unloading that one. Many Rolleiflexes saw professional use. Dan Colucci has a good way of estimating wear on a Rolleiflex-- <a href="http://tinyurl.com/RolleiflexWear">click here</a>.</p>

<p>(iii) If you don't know which one takes better images, put them on a tripod and put a test roll through each, using stringent conditions (big aperture, near and far distances).</p>

<p>(iv) If they're still equal in all measurable respects, it doesn't matter. You'll get a few hundred dollars more for the F, I believe, so that might weigh into your decision.</p>

<p>Funny, I'm having exactly the same question with cameras that have almost identical registration numbers. Except that my 2.8F has had a CLA and a lightmeter that was restored (and now works very well). My 2.8F looks more beaten, but the pictures of the Planar are very sharp, and I put a Mamiya screen in it. The 2.8C is a Xenotar, but I do not discern any difference of quality between both lenses, even in very similar circumstances, both are astounding performers ... no lightmeter, obviously, in the 2.8C, and an old screen. Because I do sometimes use the lightmeter, I tend towards keeping the 2.8F.<br>

Both have no scratches, fungus or haze, or marks on their lenses. I would figure that in. Although in some cases you could argue that you get more for a perfect glass, whereas one with a slight mark would still operate for you.<br>

I would have kept both if I had not also purchased the 6008i and Certo Six recently. Something has to give. </p>

<p>You'll get more for the F. The C is arguably more significant historically as it was the first model to debut both the Xenotar and Planar lenses that really cemented Rolleis reputation for stellar quality. If it matters to you, the C also has a ten bladed aperture, the F, five. I prefer the C simply because I think many specular highlights look better when they're round, as opposed to pentagonal. The C is also better looking, but I say that because I think Rolleiflexes without meters look better in general: cleaner; simpler; purer design; etc. Ie. personal preference.</p>

<p>At the risk of stating the obvious, you should be able to carry two Rolleiflexes onto an aircraft as carry on baggage. Do you <em>really</em> need the money that badly? Moving across continents is one thing but I should have thought one more or less camera would be neither here nor there in the overall context of transporting household effects. </p>

<p>To simplify the question tremendously (and assuming the condition of the two is similar), if you don't notice the difference between the two for your usage (including results and the light meter convenience), sell the one that will get you more money.</p>

<p>One other little consideration. If you think at some point you might want to get a prism then the F is the one to keep. I had Rolleis for several years but never used them much until I finally got a prism. That made all the difference to me and now it is my main roll film camera.</p>

<p>To keep the thread complete this was the advice by Ferdi S:<br /><em>The lenses of both cameras are basically the same and it will be very difficult to see any difference in quality. The C is quite a bit lighter and that is a reason a number of users prefer it. Generally speaking condition is more important than type. Basic quality of both cameras is the same, the F has more refinements like the light-meter. The best choice would be the one in best condition. Assuming there is not much difference in condition the lighter camera is a better travel camera especially when you can live without the light-meter. From a seller's point of view selling the F will generate substantially more cash. At the end of the day I feel there is no good reason not to keep the C. Unless off course you find the F in better condition.</em></p>

<p>I would like to thank everyone for their advice. It's very useful as it's easy to make an emotional decision (keep the 2.8C) rather than an objective informed one. Not that your advice makes it any easier.</p>

<p>I would like to keep both. However, on the other hand so far they seem very similar in performance. And why keep both as I would only use one at the time. In addition the moving and money plays a role as well. I would feel better finding one a new home rather than storing it. I think I will keep the 2.8F as it has the light meter and when needing to make quick shoot or not shoot decisions that's handy.</p>

<p>I've decided to get the 2.8F CLA once back in Europe. If the technician gives the all clear at the time I will get rid of the 2.8C which I will keep until then just in case. Yes, it's going to be a struggle with getting it as carry on. Keep in mind that I have more cameras and lenses to carry than just the Roleiflexes.</p>

<p>OK... changed my mind while writing this. The heart wins. Will keep both, ... or.... <em>(you would wonder if I ever take the picture)</em></p>

<p>Anyone have good experiences with a technician in the UK or Netherlands?</p>

<p>Greetings from Melbourne, Australia<br>

Kris</p>

Not quite in the Netherlands, Kris, but about 60 km over the Dutch-German border, in Düsseldorf, <a href="http://www.paepke-fototechnik.de/">Paepke Fototechnik</a> is good.

<p>The 2.8C has the absolutely round aperture of the taking lens and gives more pleasant "bokeh", while the 2.8F has the pentagonal aperture and you can see its sign on the out of focus zone. </p>

<p>I second Mr Paepke. I do list two adresses in the Netherlands and one in the UK.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.rolleigraphy.org/repair.html">Rolleiflex repair shops</a>.</p>

<p>I have sent a 2.8F to Mr Klinkhamer in the Netherlands, who did an excellent job for a reasonable price.</p>

<p>Assuming both are in good shape and the lens is good, the major discriminator is the removable hood on the F to take a prism. Hence I would give the nod to the F.<br>

Personally, I like my 2.8C with the Xenotar, which I think is a sharper lens (subjective opinion), than the Planar - even though the Zeiss name has more status.<br>

Zeiss made some (relatively unsuccessful) 2.8 lenses for Rolleis prior to the Planar. Schneider gave them a lesson with the Xenotar, which took the old standby 3.5 Zeiss Tessar to the cleaners. I haven't confirmed this, but I think the Planar is essentially a copy of the Xenotar.</p>