Rolleiflex advice

[mbetea]

Hello,

I recently found a Rolleiflex 2.8E (80mm Xenotar and meter) at a

camera shop. It's condition is listed as "Average wear, may have

small marks but no brassing". I know it's hard to tell without

actually seeing it, but would I be wrong in thinking that for $500,

with a return policy and warranty this would be a really good deal? I

appreciate the help. Thank you!

 

matt

[kelly_flanigan1]

Here I paid 500 dollars for My used Rolleiflex E3; about 23 years ago; from a camera shop. I shot a roll inside the camera shop; all at F2.8; to check the focus at several different distances. I also shot a roll; just outside the front door; at several different apertures; to check the camera out for light leaks; with the camera body in direct sunlight at times. I developed the film at home; and found no problems with framing; focusing; or light leaks. A decent camera store should allow you to test the camera; before purchase. I paid at the time probably about at least 100 bucks more than going shutterbug ad price; but I knew exactly what I was buying; because I tested it myself before purchasing it. <BR><BR>Common problems maybe film sense roller not adjusted correctly; so tha the film skips the first several frames. Also look for slow speeds that are sluggish. The miss focus issue can be simple; or complex. (like a mis mash of mixed parts; ie a taking and viewing lens that are not matched) This is a non fixable problem.

[mbetea]

Thanks Kelly. It's actually a camera I found online at Adorama's. They list it as an E-. I see that B&H have the same Rollei rated with their 9 for $799. I guess part of my initial question too should have been, how accurate or fair maybe are Adorama's ratings. But failed to put that in. I'm familiar with B&H's ratings and Keh's. Not sure how Adorama's falls in there.

 

But yes, I got a few rolls of film sitting here for whichever camera I get to run through it and see how it is. Thanks again.

 

matt

[kelly_flanigan1]

Matt; On these older cameras; condition is everything. I bought my E3 from Frank himself; at Franks camera 5715 North Figueroa St., Los Angeles, California 90042.<BR><BR> He originally wanted 550 for it; but came down to 500; when I offered him cash. It has been a good camera for the last 23 years. His store was once an S.S.Kresge store. Click on the Frank's photo below to see this old store; which looks like is up for sale today; if the link is current?<BR><BR><a href="http://www.czechrealty.com/EnglishVersion/FranksCameraStore-LosAngeles.htm"><img src="http://www.czechrealty.com/EnglishVersion/IMAG0000-FranksFamousClassicPhoto.jpg"></a>

[gary_ferguson1]

Matt, the Rolleiflex focus screen went through some significant upgrades about the date of this camera, and often earlier cameras were subsequently updated with later screens. You might want to establish what screen is fitted and what condition it's in before buying.

[mskovacs]

My experience with Adorama is that an E- camera is probably significantly beat up. I lived 17 weeks in NYC last year so I visited the camera stores a fair bit. I've bought used from Adorama in the store but I wouldn't risk it online.

 

I paid $300 for my 2.8E from a photo.netter and I'd say it was Adorama E+. I put another $150 or so into it getting the focus calibrated (after my tests) and getting the shutter overhauled.

[mbetea]

Thank you very much for the help guys. What I was looking for. I had another question about different versions. Upon doing a couple searches through photo.net, it seems the ones most talked about or praised (when it comes to vintage 2.8 at least) are the 2.8C and 2.8F. My question is are there significant build differences between D and E and these two or lens designs? Just wondering because I've even read some posts here and there saying the 2.8E isn't that great compared to C or F versions. Thanks again guys.

 

matt

[oskar_ojala]

Generally the models after 1950 and before the seventies are those considered best, but opinions will vary. Since I live in northern Europe, I can't say much about US prices, however I wouldn't expect $500 to buy a 2.8E in excellent condition (just how far from excellent depends on the price level there.)

 

If you choose to buy, check the focus, film transport mechanism and if the optics are in shape. An eventual CLA needs to be done by a craftsman, so budget for that.

[mbetea]

Thanks again everyone for the help. I was looking some more and found a Rolleicord V that's been recently overhauled and from the pics looks to be in great shape. I figure it'll be a nice camera as long as everything that is said to have been done actually was. I still will keep looking for a nice 'flex. Just a couple other things would be, from what I've read, the Planar in the 2.8F would be the only Planar lens to consider (I've read that starting with the F the Planar was the 6 element)? Metering doesn't bother me much as I really like my SpotF, but the F again would be the only one to consider with a decent meter? Whew, a lot of info to keep reading. Thanks again.

 

matt

[runkel]

"[F]rom what I've read, the Planar in the 2.8F would be the only Planar lens to consider (I've read that starting with the F the Planar was the 6 element)"

 

Someone who really knows this stuff may correct me, but my impression is that all of the Rolleiflex 80mm f/2.8 Planars have 5 elements, including the versions used in the modern 2.8 GX and 2.8 FX. A sixth element was added to the 75mm f/3.5 Planar at some point during the production run of the 3.5 F and there is debate about how much difference that made.

 

I've never seen anything to support ruling out all Planars but the one in the 2.8 F. If there is any consensus, it seems to be that the f/2.8 and f/3.5 Planars and Xenotars are all so fine that differences among them are likely as not due to sample variation or the condition of a particular example. There seems to be a milder consensus that the 3.5s yield a better handling camera and, all other things being equal, may be a shade better optically at apertures of f/3.5 and smaller.

[kelly_flanigan1]

The 75mm F3.5 Planar version was/is? once a favorite as a wedding camera; and one for also for groups photos. It has slightly wider coverage than the 80mm Xenotar/Planar lenses; and better EDGE sharpness than the 75mm Xenars/Tessar lenses. <BR><BR>There will always be a discusion/debate whether the Xenotar is Better or worse than the Planar. BUT; it is alot far better to dwell/worry on the condition of the used; decades old camera you are buying; than the subtle differences of these two great lenses; when they were brand new; clean; and came from the factory..

[witold_grabiec]

Planar or Xenotar is basically a no different lens. You will find many who swear by one, and just as many who swear by the other. Planar is a more "exotic" name but optically not superior to Xenotar. Either is a 5-element lens (only Rollei-Wide had more elements, which is 7), and original prices varied by less then 10% (Planar being higher).

 

The trick to buying a Rollei is not its cosmetics but rather its mechanics (provided you want one for use not display). A great looking Rollei was likely not used much, and these cameras don't like siiting around. It's thus possible that a nice Rollei may double your original budget before you can take it out, while an average looking one may be ready to go the moment you receive it.

 

If you really want to do your research prior to purchase, buy "Complete Rollei TLR collector's guide" and/or "Complete Rollei TLR user's manual". Both by Ian Parker and available from amazon for about $18 each (check marketplace on amazon for often better prices).