1955 Rolleiflex 3.5F vs. new 2.8Gx

I have a 1955 Rolleiflex 3.5F. I am thinking about getting the new

2.8Gx. Is it a big difference in image quality? Is worth it if I

don't care about the TTL metering? Does the new 2.8GX still have the

Carl Zeiss lens or the lens from Rollei?

 

Thank you for the reply,

 

James

You get modern HFT coating instead of the older single coating. I would be surprised if you saw a difference in image quality, except thru the eyes of someone trying to justify having spent almost $3k

i have both a 2.8f and a gx, and consistently get sharper results from the latter. modern coatings make a huge difference in micro-contrast performance, yielding much higher PERCEIVED sharpness (i know that resolution performance will likely be the same for the two cameras, but it's PERCEIVED sharpness that counts, right?). in fact, it's primarily in the area of lens coatings (along with the use of pressed aspheric elements) that optical design has moved forward since WWii. as for who makes the lens on the gx, it is a zeiss design licensed to rollei. rollei applies its own proprietary coatings instead of t*. if you are really thinking of getting a gx, ken hansen in nyc (212-317-0923) has them new for 2200. good luck. p.s. there is a new rollei available in japan, the fx. it is identical to the gx, except that it has retro body styling features, including the old style strap system. it won't be here for a couple of months, and although nominally priced the same as the gx, will likely command a much higher street price. there are also rumblings about a rolleiwide and a rollei tele for photokina next year. p.p.s. don't underrate the value of the meter in the gx, it is a real dandy -- basically a 7 degree spot. very accurate. the ttl flash is pretty useful too.

Roger:

 

Can you please clarify what do you mean by:

 

PERCEIVED sharpness (better)

resolution performance(Same)

 

Thanks,

 

James

James,

 

A BIG difference? I doubt it.

 

Besides the improved TTL metering (and a better meter itself) and what is likely to be an improved screen (assuming you still have the original in your 3.5F) I'm thinking the only optical difference would be improved image quality wide open, due to the 2.8GX's faster lens. A good argument could be to save yourself many hundreds (thousands?) and get your 3.5F fully serviced and CLA'd. If the lens is clear, its one of the better ones out there...including the new tack.

 

Another argument could be made for reliability; the new camera is, well....*new* and that is definitely worth something. Some vintage Rollei's are better than others, and I suppose the same holds true for the new models. I could part with any of my old Automat's; except one. The special one. If your 3.5F is a similar kind of shooter, it makes no sense to replace it with something else. You run the risk of spending large amounts of money and going backwards. If your really serious about improved image quality, why not make the jump to large format? You can get a very decent used 4x5 for half the cost of a 2.8GX. Oh, by the way James; I doubt your 3.5F is from 1955. According to my resourse material, the first 3.5F (Type 1) was introduced in February of 1959...right about the time I was introduced.

James

 

The difference between the vintage and modern lens will lie mostly in the way it performs under adverse lighting conditions. The newer lens with modern coating will handle backlight better, such as a bare light bulb in the picture, or the sun just outside the frame. It will exhibit higher contrast, visible as darker shadow areas (not always an advantage). The actual resolution may not be much different, but the higher contrast of the modern lens gives a greater impression of sharpness because its higher contrast leaves a greater density difference on either side of an edge, making the edge seem crisper. That's what he means by higher perceived sharpness. Don't sell the older camera until you're sure the new one can deliver the same sort of image you've come to value the older one for. All lenses excel in some way.

 

Regards,

I borrowed many Rolleiflexes/Rolleicord (2.8 Planar, 3.5 Planar, 3.5 Tessar) before purchasing a GX. And afterwards, I did a side by side comparison with a Rolleiflex F.

 

My impression of GX comparing to other Rolleiflexes:

 

1) The shutter release is stiffer. The older Rolleiflexes was silky smooth.

 

2) The operation is different. I think the GX is based on the Rolleiflex T. But I cannot say one is noticeably better than the other.

 

3) The GX viewfinder is much-much brighter than the other Rolleiflexes I used.

 

4) The GX images has higher color saturation. I haven't tried B/W yet.

 

5) The GX has a very accurate exposure meter.

 

The main reason I bought the GX rather than the older models was there was a brand new sample sitting on the shelf for a long long time, and selling at a huge discount. If there wasn't a discount, I probably would have bought the older models.

I've heard many people say that the six element 3,5 Planar on the later 3,5 F cameras was the sharpest lens ever on a Rollei. I have one, and it's superb! But I love my pre-war Rolleis and use them more often than my 3,5 F and 2,8 F, just for the feeling... For the moment I'm in love with my 4x4 Rolleiflex from 1938.

James --

 

another contributor has already answered your question, but i will expand a little. many factors affect a viewer's perception of sharpness of a photo. resolution of fine structures -- one of the parameters described in mtf graphs/info -- might seem to be the key ingredient in a razor sharp shot. this turns out not be so. many basic photography textbooks have two shots of the same subject side by side. one is taken with a lens that has very poor resolution (fine structures are not rendered with any detail), but very high micro-contrast or edge acutance (that is, there is crisp delineation of light and dark areas with little or no "bleed"). the other shot is taken with a lens with excellent resolution (fine details are rendered accurately), but very low contrast (gradual movement from light to dark areas). at first glance, EVERY viewer would pick the high micro-contrast/low resolution shot as the sharper image. before 1960 (i.e. before the rise in popularity of japanese lenses/cameras), most optical engineers (i.e. zeiss/leica/goerz/voigtlander) opted for very high resolution, with somewhat lower micro-contrast (for various reasons you can read about on your own, as you increase resolving power of a lens you necessarily lower micro-contrast). a good example is the leitz summarit or the voigtlander heliar. part of the magic of these lenses for some photographers is the odd smoothness of tone they put on film, which is a function largely of their resolution/contrast compromise. nikon, however, went the other way (olympus even more so). their lenses are VERY contrasty, giving very high PERCEIVED sharpness, but none of that creamy smoothness some leica photographers, for example, cherish (part of the japanese emphasis on contrast rather than resolution probably has to do with their marketing decision [likely correct] that high speed lenses are what most customers want -- it apparently is easier to design a contrasty high speed lens than a high resolution high speed lens). due to the overwhelming success of the japanese camera companies, just about everyone these days produces lenses in the japanese mold -- even zeiss and leica (the turning point for leica probably came when they "secretly" redesigned the summilux in the '60s, opting for a more contrasty image and better wide open performance). i'm sure i've gone on too long, but i hope this clarifies what i meant. and p.s. multicoating don't help only under adverse lighting conditions -- flare robs sharpness even when it doesn't show up in negs as obvious blotches of light. always use a lens hood. always go for MC when you can. and pps, i do agree that the gx release is too stiff, but this is not rollei's fault. the seikosha and copal shutters made today have stiffer releases than the compurs of yore (which are no longer available).

<p>Japanese optics are generally sharper than German optics, but German optics have higher contrast. This is my experience having shot a dozen different brands of lens. Overall I prefer Zeiss lenses, and Nikkor second.</p>

<p>You revived a 9 years old thread to say something about lenses that are completely irrelevant to that thread, Dave?</p>

<p>Uhm... why?<br>

;-)</p>