Rolleiflex 2.8C vs. 3.5E
Greetings all! I am currently looking for a good old Rolleiflex camera to get into medium format. I am debating between a 2.8C or 3.5E, and i need some opinions.
1st, I have a question- I saw someone on Photo.net say the 2.8C has 10 aperture blades... can anyone confirm this? This is one of the main reason's im interested in this camera, aside from the price. I'm looking to compare the bokeh from the C with that of my friends F, which has 5-6 blades, if i remember correctly.
I'm drawn to the 3.5E with a Planar because i've heard that the 3.5 Planar is the sharpest of all the rolleiflex lenses, and there is a dealer in my area selling one for $425, which seems reasonable.
I guess i want to know people's opinions on these cameras.. which models you have/own, how they handle, ect. Also, if you were me what would you go for? i'm positive i'm getting a Rollei, i just need a bump in the right direction at this point.
I have both. The 2.8C is pretty but
I prefer to shoot with the 3.5E. The
shutter and aperture are a bit easier
to set, and the viewfinder magnifier is
much better-designed. I am completely
reliant on the magnifier, so this is a big
issue for me -- maybe not for you.
If it's a newer "E" with a removable view-
finder hood, that is an added plus. The
removable hood permits you to upgrade
the viewscreen yourself, without sending
the camera out to a repair shop.
I've not seen any useful difference in bokeh
between the two models, but others might
have a different experience.
Last edited by Rolleiflexible; 06-09-2008 at 05:30 PM. Click to view previous post history.
hmm, so which would you say produces sharper photos?
Toss-up. User error, manufacturing variances, and state
Originally Posted by Master_of_Reality
of repair will obliterate any discernible difference between
Rolleiflexes fitted with a 2.8 and a 3.5 Planar or Xenotar.
Conventional wisdom has it that the 75mm f/3.5 version is
the original, that the 80mm f/2.8 was adapted from it, and
that the original is the better design. But I've yet to see it
in my own photography.
Another thing to consider when choosing is accessories.
The 3.5 series takes Bay 2 filters and hoods, while the 2.8s
take Bay 3 accessories. The Bay 2 accessories are more
plentiful and less expensive.
ok, makes sense. i guess it'll just come down to price at this point.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Yes, Rolleiflex's with a Compur Rapid shutter have a round aperture opening due to more blades being used. However, most people do not see bokeh differences, mainly because without Rolleinars, Rollei's dont focus close enough to emphasize bokeh. If you want a great Rollei with a meter, get an F model with coupled meter. The early meters are a pain to transfer settings to the aperture and shutter. Frankly, I think the 3.5F planar's are the best lens in the line up, not the 2.8 lens
See my Rolleiflex Price and Info Guide
The 3,5 Planar on my late 3,5F is sharper and contrastier than the 2,8 Planar on my 2,8F. But my 3,5F has the six element Planar, and there are small variations between lens samples...
I have a 3.5T that I enjoy using, along with other formats. I followed this thread out of curiosity. What is bokeh? Never heard that one.
George, Its a Japanese word that means "fuzzy"
For our purposes, it refers to the manner
Originally Posted by George Collier
in which a lens renders out-of-focus areas.