Meter cover for rolleiflex 2.8 f leather case

There are quite many things that can go wrong on an old Rolleiflex, and if you cannot check the camera yourself, I would recommend buying it from a respectable dealer. The difference between 3.5 and 2.8 versions and between Planar and Xenotar is minimal. Well, I have always thought that the six element Planar f3.5 was the sharpest lens on the R-flexes by a very small margin. Mechanically the T is the weakest of all the Rolleiflexes but you already have that one. For filters and such your MX will be easiest and cheapest to find those for, Bay ll and Bay lll filters command stupid prices. The image quality of the 2.8F is ever so slightly better than the 3.5F, but at a whopping perhaps not justified price difference.

Just beware that you will have to invest in separate filter types for both.

I have the Xenotar lens and I canвЂ™t see any real difference between it and the Planar. I purchased a 2.8D in mint condition for $800 a year ago. It also has a sales forum, with real people with real reputations, so it is much safer than ebay and such.ДЇor the cost of a truly minty 2.8F you could buy two, maybe three D series. Search through the forum, as this type of question comes up every month or so it seems. Most every other lens I use looks soft now.ДЄnother place on the web that has a large number of Rollieflex people. I have a 2.8C Xenotar and it has spoiled me. To warn you, though, the lenses kick some serious a**. Other than that, get the one in the best condition with clean lenses. Sample variation and alignment (i.e., condition!) mean more than any design differences.ДЈ) The main advantage to the Es and Fs is that they will be easier to resell. Small difference, but it is a difference.Дў) For all intents and purposes, yes. Selenium meters are often not working, though, and the plastic cover for the needle is often cracked.Д«y the way, the 2.8s are 80mm, the 3.5s are 75mm. I find the extra bump for the meter annoying, but many people prefer the meter cameras. I am not certain about the 3.5CвЂ™s aperture, but they are pretty rare anyway.ДЄnother issue is meter or not on later models. The 2.8C has the 10-bladed Synchro-Compur shutter. Like the depth of field indicator on the late Es (or all Es?) and the coupled meter on Fs (or only some metered Fs?). As you get into the later models, there are more and more interlocks and mechanical systems. The C has those plastic rings around the shutter release and flash port, which really annoy some people. By the time of the C, rollei had pretty well settled on most of the mechanicals. WhatвЂ™s the going price for Bay II and Bay III Rolleinar IвЂ™s? keh.com doesnвЂ™t have any and ebay prices are erratic with these things.ДЎ) Condition is key on any of these. Is the f3.5 just as sharp as the f2.8 at wide apertures?ДЈ. Are there any reasons to not pursue the C/D cameras? I heard that one of those, forgot which model, is known as the bokeh king because the number of aperture blades.Дў. Some say that they were built better than the C/D but others say that they were built just as well. I know condition is most important but the 3.5E/F seems to be the most popular models on the internet. IвЂ™m now wanting a Planar/Xenotar lens but IвЂ™m unsure on which models to pursue. I got a Rolleiflex 3.5T and just recently an MX-EVS and a Rolleinar/filter set.

Meter cover for rolleiflex 2.8 f leather case