Difference Between Rolleiflex 2.8D and 2.8F

Hi. I have been thinking of buying a classic medium format camera for the past 6 months. Before I was thinking of buying a first generation Hasselblad 500 CM with a 80mm f/2.8 Planar. But I have been leaning towards buying a Rolleiflex that will serve me well with great image quality. Ofcourse like everyone else I first thought of buying a 2.8f with a working light meter and couple of contrast filters I would use. I want the camera which I will buy in pristine condition so that I can use it in years to come with proper CLA from time to time. But as I searched the internet I realized that a 2.8f in mint condition would force my budget a little bit. So nowadays I am thinking of buying a 2.8d in mint condition and playing with it, maybe having put a Maxwell screen on it by a professional in time. I searched the internet and read a lot of things about these 2 cameras but I couldn't find a definitive thread that explains the difference between them throughly. Before making a purchase like that I wanted to hear your thoughts about this subject.

As far as I understand 2.8d is a 2.8f without a lightmeter and without the option of changing the focusing screen by hand. They have the same glass options as planar or xenotars. I am not planning to use any prism finder with a Rolleiflex. And I fear that if I buy a 2.8f the selenium cells would die on me in time. If I buy a 2.8d would I get the best quality this wonderful and historically significant brand can offer? Or are there other elements of 2.8f that make it a better crafted camera than the 2.8d? I want the best quality of craftsmanship and the best quality of image if I make such a purchase. These are my biggest concerns.

Thanks in advance...

All the 2,8 series Rolleiflex are highly sought-after collectibles today: any "pristine" example will be very expensive (esp the F which is just utterly ridiculous now). Other than being the final model and thus extra-collectible, the three advantages to the F over the D are being able to easily remove the waist level hood to attach a prism finder (which almost nobody does anymore), focus screen that is easily user-interchangeable without needing to pay a technician (OTOH, good luck finding the alternative screens), and of course the built in meter (which almost never works). If you don't need these three primary features, a 2.8D is nearly identical to a 2.8F in practical terms. The 2.8C is even nicer in some respects, and used to be even cheaper, but its now considered more desirable than the D so the D has become the most "affordable" of the 2.8s. The Es have crept up closer in price to the Fs, so not too many bargains there.

If price is an important issue, consider looking at f/3.5 Planar or Xenotar models instead (for the same cost as a random 2.8, you can usually get a 3.5 plus a proper CLA service). Actual lens speed is only half a stop slower, not a huge factor with these leaf shutter camera, but the price is much lower. Lens accessories like filters, Rolleinars and hoods are much more common for the f/3.5 models. Everybody "wants" the 2.8 but few really "need" it: think over your favorite shots and how often they were made at settings wider than f/3.5. Also, medium format 6x6 film works a bit differently from 35mm film or DSLR: the standard 75mm or 80mm TLR lens draws like an 85mm on a Nikon/Canon, and you can get soft background bokeh almost as well with f/3.5 as you can at f/2.8 with the Rollei glass.

If you haven't looked thru this site on the Rolleiflex models give it a try. Rolleiflex A - F series. Photos and Specifications. www.rolleiclub.com

Thank you for the link. I realized that 2.8d has an older cap flap mechanism for the viewfinder while 2.8f has a newer one. And also more importantly (I guess), The 2.8d has ''Compur Rapid MXV'' shutter while 2.8f has ''Synchro Compur MXV'' shutter. I wonder what is the difference between these shutters.

All the 2,8 series Rolleiflex are highly sought-after collectibles today: any "pristine" example will be very expensive (esp the F which is just utterly ridiculous now). Other than being the final model and thus extra-collectible, the three advantages to the F over the D are being able to easily remove the waist level hood to attach a prism finder (which almost nobody does anymore), focus screen that is easily user-interchangeable without needing to pay a technician (OTOH, good luck finding the alternative screens), and of course the built in meter (which almost never works). If you don't need these three primary features, a 2.8D is nearly identical to a 2.8F in practical terms. The 2.8C is even nicer in some respects, and used to be even cheaper, but its now considered more desirable than the D so the D has become the most "affordable" of the 2.8s. The Es have crept up closer in price to the Fs, so not too many bargains there.

 

If price is an important issue, consider looking at f/3.5 Planar or Xenotar models instead (for the same cost as a random 2.8, you can usually get a 3.5 plus a proper CLA service). Actual lens speed is only half a stop slower, not a huge factor with these leaf shutter camera, but the price is much lower. Lens accessories like filters, Rolleinars and hoods are much more common for the f/3.5 models. Everybody "wants" the 2.8 but few really "need" it: think over your favorite shots and how often they were made at settings wider than f/3.5. Also, medium format 6x6 film works a bit differently from 35mm film or DSLR: the standard 75mm or 80mm TLR lens draws like an 85mm on a Nikon/Canon, and you can get soft background bokeh almost as well with f/3.5 as you can at f/2.8 with the Rollei glass.

Thank you for the advice Orsetto. I was also thinking of buying a 3.5 but settled upon the 2.8 not just because of the half a stop difference but also the overall ''Rolleiflex look'' that I really like. I am also mostly a 50mm and a 28mm guy. Just after I opened this discussion in this forum I found a seller that sells a 2.8f with a slow shutter mechanism, maybe dusty lenses and without a lens cap. The seller was kind enough to have sent me more pics of the lens and told me that it was used by a professional in a studio and the photographer had not been using the camera for the last 10 years. So it needs a good CLA. I am also very concerned about the condition of the lenses. Should I buy it for 600 USD? Or should I waiT for a pristine 2.8d or 2.8f which will cost me more?

If you can inspect that $600 2.8F, or the seller has a good return policy, grab it at that price. Dust in the lenses is usually no big deal, the cap you can replace, slow speeds can be cured by a CLA. Even if you spend $600 on a complete overhaul, it is steal an excellent buy (unless it looks really bad cosmetically or there is some horrendous internal damage that cannot be realistically repaired).

Re the shutter differences between the D and the F: you have this a little bit confused (or might have read an erroneous web description). Both cameras use the same basic Synchro Compur shutter mechanism common to most modern Rolleiflexes: the Compur Rapid was a much older design that was only installed in the earliest examples of the first 2.8A model.

The only difference between the D and F shutter is in how the shutter speed and aperture dials operate. The F has completely independent shutter speed and aperture dials, like 90% of all other cameras. The D has the once-popular-in-Europe "EVS" coupling which can be a little confusing. This is the same coupled system that was used in all the first generation Hasselblad leaf shutter lenses. The idea was, instead of two separate settings, you would make only one: read the EV number off your handheld exposure meter needle, and set that on your camera. Once set, any change to either aperture or shutter would also change the other control, maintaining the same exposure no matter what. The theory being, this makes it easy for the photographer to choose a preferred aperture or shutter effect quickly without altering the chosen exposure.

In practice, this annoyed the hell out of every photographer in the world outside of Germany. If you aren't in love with this concept of twiddling the dials without changing exposure, it adds an extra step not required on "normal" cameras. In order to make separate uncoupled aperture and shutter settings, you must remember to first press a clutch release button or switch. Its a minor irritant you get used to, but it IS an annoyance, which is why 3.5 models with this EVS coupling are the most affordable in the entire Rolleiflex lineup. If it weren't for the sought-after 2.8 lens, the 2.8D would be in the same category of less-popular models.

Mechanically, the D is considered a bit sturdier and easier to repair than the F, although 2.8 models overall are more likely to need deeper service because they were more likely to be used by working pros than 3.5.

If you can inspect that $600 2.8F, or the seller has a good return policy, grab it at that price. Dust in the lenses is usually no big deal, the cap you can replace, slow speeds can be cured by a CLA. Even if you spend $600 on a complete overhaul, it is steal an excellent buy (unless it looks really bad cosmetically or there is some horrendous internal damage that cannot be realistically repaired).

 

Re the shutter differences between the D and the F: you have this a little bit confused (or might have read an erroneous web description). Both cameras use the same basic Synchro Compur shutter mechanism common to most modern Rolleiflexes: the Compur Rapid was a much older design that was only installed in the earliest examples of the first 2.8A model.

 

The only difference between the D and F shutter is in how the shutter speed and aperture dials operate. The F has completely independent shutter speed and aperture dials, like 90% of all other cameras. The D has the once-popular-in-Europe "EVS" coupling which can be a little confusing. This is the same coupled system that was used in all the first generation Hasselblad leaf shutter lenses. The idea was, instead of two separate settings, you would make only one: read the EV number off your handheld exposure meter needle, and set that on your camera. Once set, any change to either aperture or shutter would also change the other control, maintaining the same exposure no matter what. The theory being, this makes it easy for the photographer to choose a preferred aperture or shutter effect quickly without altering the chosen exposure.

 

In practice, this annoyed the hell out of every photographer in the world outside of Germany. If you aren't in love with this concept of twiddling the dials without changing exposure, it adds an extra step not required on "normal" cameras. In order to make separate uncoupled aperture and shutter settings, you must remember to first press a clutch release button or switch. Its a minor irritant you get used to, but it IS an annoyance, which is why 3.5 models with this EVS coupling are the most affordable in the entire Rolleiflex lineup. If it weren't for the sought-after 2.8 lens, the 2.8D would be in the same category of less-popular models.

 

Mechanically, the D is considered a bit sturdier and easier to repair than the F, although 2.8 models overall are more likely to need deeper service because they were more likely to be used by working pros than 3.5.

I suspect that my 2.8 D was modified at some point--one of the first things I did was to turn a knob on the front of the camera and disengage the EVS interlock so that shutter speeds and f/stops can be independently set, similar to the same thing on my 3.5 E.

And here's a photo of the EV lock/unlock knob.

I suspect that my 2.8 D was modified at some point--one of the first things I did was to turn a knob on the front of the camera and disengage the EVS interlock so that shutter speeds and f/stops can be independently set, similar to the same thing on my 3.5 E.

I saw a similiar mechanism in a video of a Japanese seller in web. Maybe it is the regular mechanism that can be found in all the 2.8ds?

If you can inspect that $600 2.8F, or the seller has a good return policy, grab it at that price. Dust in the lenses is usually no big deal, the cap you can replace, slow speeds can be cured by a CLA. Even if you spend $600 on a complete overhaul, it is steal an excellent buy (unless it looks really bad cosmetically or there is some horrendous internal damage that cannot be realistically repaired).

 

Re the shutter differences between the D and the F: you have this a little bit confused (or might have read an erroneous web description). Both cameras use the same basic Synchro Compur shutter mechanism common to most modern Rolleiflexes: the Compur Rapid was a much older design that was only installed in the earliest examples of the first 2.8A model.

 

The only difference between the D and F shutter is in how the shutter speed and aperture dials operate. The F has completely independent shutter speed and aperture dials, like 90% of all other cameras. The D has the once-popular-in-Europe "EVS" coupling which can be a little confusing. This is the same coupled system that was used in all the first generation Hasselblad leaf shutter lenses. The idea was, instead of two separate settings, you would make only one: read the EV number off your handheld exposure meter needle, and set that on your camera. Once set, any change to either aperture or shutter would also change the other control, maintaining the same exposure no matter what. The theory being, this makes it easy for the photographer to choose a preferred aperture or shutter effect quickly without altering the chosen exposure.

 

In practice, this annoyed the hell out of every photographer in the world outside of Germany. If you aren't in love with this concept of twiddling the dials without changing exposure, it adds an extra step not required on "normal" cameras. In order to make separate uncoupled aperture and shutter settings, you must remember to first press a clutch release button or switch. Its a minor irritant you get used to, but it IS an annoyance, which is why 3.5 models with this EVS coupling are the most affordable in the entire Rolleiflex lineup. If it weren't for the sought-after 2.8 lens, the 2.8D would be in the same category of less-popular models.

 

Mechanically, the D is considered a bit sturdier and easier to repair than the F, although 2.8 models overall are more likely to need deeper service because they were more likely to be used by working pros than 3.5.

Thank you for this great insight. I saw a video of a Japanese seller who pushes and turns a knob in front the left camera dial to disengage the EV coupling system. It seems that AJG's camera has the same knob. Maybe this option is on all the 2.8ds?

It seems the wording in my post concerning the 2.8D shutter was unintentionally confusing or misleading. To be more clear, all the 2.8D cameras have the same EVS aperture and shutter coupling, with a button on the aperture wheel that releases the coupling and allows setting the aperture independent of the shutter for that one time. The second you let go of the EV release button, the aperture and shutter speed become locked together again. Essentially the same functionality that you'll find on the first wave of Hasselblad lenses, and myriad other German cameras made with Compur shutters during the 50s-60s.

This can become annoying during the time it takes you to learn the muscle memory of using an EV locked camera: eventually it will become second nature for you to remember to press the release button each and every time you want to change the aperture without the shutter self-adjusting to match it. Even after memorizing this, it can still be an irritant slowing you down when you're in a hurry. Many many photographers despise constant fiddling with an EV release button or tab (it was the absolute bane of every Hasselblad user's existence from 1957 until Hasselblad finally got rid of it in 1982).

Rollei was a LOT quicker to respond to photographer's complaints than Hasselblad. The followup 2.8E model changed the EV release from a one-time button to a full-time on/off control (you could disable EV lock completely). Then the F model eliminated EVS altogether, returning to standard uncoupled shutter/aperture dials. Hasselblad went in a different direction, and simply reversed how the EV lock operated in lenses made after 1982 (instead of needing to release the coupling each time you wanted separate settings, you pressed a button to engage the EV coupling each time you wanted coupled settings).

Some photographers still really like the EV coupling concept and use it extensively, but most today don't like it and/or can't fathom why any mfr would have thought the best way to implement it was as the forced default operation.

The lenses should be similar, and the meter in a camera of this vintage is unlikely to be that useful for practical photography unless the selenium cell has been replaced recently. Other than the interchangeable finder, there isn't much to choose between them. I have both a 2.8D and 3.5 E and much prefer the balance and feel of the 3.5 E, since the 2.8D feels front heavy due to the larger lens. +1 on Orsetto's advice to look for a 3.5 version with Planar/Xenotar rather than the more expensive 2.8 variants if you're concerned about cost versus performance. I don't think I've ever taken a single exposure wide open with my 2.8 D, and I used to use my Rollei TLRs a lot for commercial work when I shot film.

There is also the 3.5E2 which has all of the features of the 3.5F except for the meter. The E2 cost is usually less.