Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,536   Posts: 1,544,158   Online: 901
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 22
  1. #11
    Paul Sorensen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Saint Paul, MN
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,895
    Images
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by Ulrich Drolshagen View Post
    I think, we should post in all photography related forums how uncomfortable the Rolleiflexes are to work with, how bad the lenses are compared to modern lenses on d*tal cameras and that the outcome does not justify the hassle working with them. Our praising the Rolleiflexes is misleading too much people into wanting one.

    Ulrich
    Sounds great, we can do some sort of search engine spam/link bait system of web sites to get the word out.

    This could work!!!

    Of course, once everyone hates film cameras and film sales drop even further and film becomes generally unavailable we will be sorry.

    To quote Emily Litella ... "...never mind..."

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    New Jersey (again)
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    1,976
    The "T" is a cross between the Rolleiflex Automat and the Rolleicord. I found it be a good but not outstanding camera and certainly not deserving of its lofty price.

    A Planar lens does indeed render differently from a Tessar at larger to medium apertures. I had a 3.5E with a Planar and working meter that took forever to sell.

  3. #13
    Paul Sorensen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Saint Paul, MN
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,895
    Images
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by elekm View Post
    The "T" is a cross between the Rolleiflex Automat and the Rolleicord. I found it be a good but not outstanding camera and certainly not deserving of its lofty price.
    Yeah, when I bought mine I was very open to a "T" but the prices were high. I bought an Automat with a Tessar and have been very happy with it. I didn't recommend it because the OP said he really wanted a 2.8. If I had that in the budget, I would probably want one and not be willing to consider the 3.5 myself.

  4. #14
    mhanc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    267
    Images
    10
    I have a 3.5F planar [best camera EVER] and given the results would have absolutely no interest in a 2.8 if I were buying again.

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Istanbul, Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    361
    I have a 2.8GX and a T, and I think the T is better from a design and ergonomic point of view. Both the Planar and Tessar lenses are oustanding IMO, although they do render differently. Some GX's have a rather stiff shutter release. I had mine modified; it's a bit smoother now.

    Considering the price difference, if I had to choose today I would take a T any time.

  6. #16
    JPD
    JPD is offline
    JPD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sweden
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    772
    Quote Originally Posted by mhanc View Post
    I have a 3.5F planar [best camera EVER] and given the results would have absolutely no interest in a 2.8 if I were buying again.
    I've owned two 2,8 Planar Rolleis, one E and one F. I sold them both and kept the minty 3,5F with the six element Planar. They are all good, but I liked the 3,5 Planar a tiny bit more. If I were to buy a 2,8 today I would choose a 2,8D, only because of its looks.

    The 3,5F is an excellent camera, but I have my "Tessar and Triotar days" sometimes, when the "soul" of the lens is more important. The uncoated Triotar isn't bad at all.
    J. Patric Dahlén

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    1,338
    I have owned and used a 2.8C/Xenotar for 30 years. I will never sell it. What else would I use while my Hasselblad is in the shop?

    Peter Gomena

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Richmond VA.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,840
    I inherited a Rolleiflex 2.8f from my father after he passed away. A great camera.

    Jeff

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,066
    I wouldn't worry too much about the difference in speed between the 3.5 and the 2.8, nor between the T and the F. I have a 3.5T and a 3.5F, and when using the same film and developer (everything with the Rollei is on a tripod, or at least a monopod for me), I honestly could not tell you which 20x20 inch print came from which camera/lens. The 3.5F is newer, so it's finder is brighter, and mechanically superior, but I use both. No matter where you buy either, expect to put some money into it within a year or so. They are old, and sometimes need a bit of work, even if well cared for.
    A good source is Ken Hansen, who has sold to other APUG members. He doesn't mind being mentioned here. khpny19@aol.com
    One tip - if you buy one, go through all shutter speeds with compensating aperture to achieve equal exposure, while it's cold outside, if possible. Both cameras I bought needed a shutter job just because of age, and it shows up in slow speeds in cold weather.
    Oh, and did I forget to say - they are great cameras!

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    6
    I have a Rolleiflex MX Automat from 1951 that I love. I want to get a 2.8 or a 3.5 at some point though. As for Rolleis going for a ton of money on ebay, they are really "Hip" right now, everyone wants one. Even older Automats in good shape are going for $500 which I think is ridiculous, but still a great camera.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin