The 2,8 was $400 to $500 more at the time, used. PS to give you an idea on price, I paid $400 in 1982 for my 3,5 E, used. Rollei folks are as bad as Leica folks when it comes to glass Planar gets a better price because it's a Zeiss Planar. About once a year you need to exercise the shutter, fire it thru all speeds a couple of times. My 1950's 3,5 E shoots as good as it did new. There are new old stock ones around and they will break $5000 mark. The 'F' started around 1960.Ī KEH price isn't too high, depends on year and condition. Type in your number and a year will pop up.
#Rolleiflex 2.8 f for sale serial number#
Do a search for Rollei serial number index. Either will perform better than our eyes will and I for one would never pay any 'extra' for a Planar just because some 'die hard' collectors like the name, but to each his own as they say.You can find out when it was built. Finding a Rolleiflex with its lens in great condition is the key, not whether it has Zeiss or Schneider engraved on the lens ring. So for us its back to our #1 Rule: "Buy the best quality you can afford". Seems reasonable to us, and it worked for them. It is generally assumed that Rollei chose two lens providers, first due to the popularity of their cameras where they may have needed two suppliers to insure production flow was not going to be interrupted should they need more than one could produce, and secondly as insurance in the event one of them had any sudden production difficulties. go figure!īOTH are some of the best lenses ever produced, anytime, anywhere, with unmatched performance. not as sharp). And I've read that in Europe (Germany) the Schneider Kreuznach are more highly valued. Zeiss charged Rollei a bit more for their lenses some of the time, so Rollei had to pass that along, could that be it? Many technical studies have been done and in most cases the Schneider lenses win out for image clarity, at least post WW2, and for some professionals its more a matter of taste, with some saying the Planar are 'softer' (e.g.
Perhaps Carl Zeiss was easier for Americans to pronounce than Schneider Kreuznach, or maybe it was Zeiss's good marketing efforts in the 50's there, but for whatever reason some pedantic 'collector's" have elevated the Zeiss fitted cameras above the Schneider, and for no good reason of which we are aware. There has been much written on this subject over the past 50 or 60 years, just Google it and you will find dozens of articles on the subject, some highly technical. The Great Planar vs Zenotar & Tessar vs Xenar debate, or "Much Ado about Nothing". A nice camera to get started with TLR photography, with an easy price. About EX++ condition for the body and EX+ condition for the lenses. It’s not for collecting but will still take nice photos and is more of an entry level user camera, which is reflected in its low price. There is no light meter on this one. It includes a nice original ERC case with neck strap and original lens cap. lt has a few signs of use/age but is still a nice camera, see the photos below. Shutter, film advance and focusing are all working great. It has quite a few signs of previous usage but is in quite decent cosmetic condition. Ī quite usable 3.5T, Type 1 that has just been CLA’d in March 2016. Rollei expert Alex Pearlman remarks that the Tessar on the Rolleiflex T utilizes Lanthanum glass for improved resolution and color correction. Synchro-Compur MXV shutter 1/500 to 1, B.
75mm Tessar 3.5 lens or Opton 75/3.5 lens.
0 kommentar(er)
