This may not be everyone’s experience, but even after a respected person’s CLA, the 3.5F’s controls are not near as buttery smooth as my 3.5 MX model from a decade earlier. I truly love the Tessar of the MX and the Planar of the F for what they are known for excelling at, but just wish I would have received the monetary value I paid in excess for the F Model in smooth action(and the light meter still works!). I have no desire to upgrade to the 2.8F for a 1/2 stop of light, and I like wider angles of the 75mm anyway. So as he said, all of these are “Swiss Watches,” if you want one, go for the version in best shape. Rollei Company didn’t produce crap, and any of the camera’s CLA’d or rebuilt will serve your grandchildren if film is still being produced then. They will all blow your mind in sharpness, depth, bokeh, character, clarity, and even words English hasn’t yet found to describe their magic, ability, and I have heard it described as “One Fantasy Realm Removed from Ours,” they are able to catch on film. And, that’s been my experience no mager the model!
yes, very clear. The sound track is distracting, as someone has already pointed out. I think it is a choice that reflects the fear of natural sound, beautiful as it is, in case it puts viewers off. The voice is fighting with the music on a loop. That said, clear exposition. Hopefully this feedback will help address this criticism.
In the picture at 3:34 the cameras are reversed. I would suggest the f3.5 E. The f2.8, to get half a stop, is much larger and heavier. The Tessar is actually an excellent lens, it's just that the Xenotar and Planar are phenomenal. The 3.5 Planar and Xenotar are better than the 2.8 of the same.
A welcome video for folks looking for a used Rolleiflex. I’ve been using Rolleiflex for 50 some years. It has been said that any Rolleiflex is a good camera, but condition, condition, condition… (as a factory trained older German man once told me). The 3.5 Planar/Xenotar changed from 5 to 6 elements in the later production, probably the best sharpest lens, with lighter weight than the 2.8, but the Tessar design is a great lens too with a cost savings. The Maxwell screens are a good upgrade for brightness (I have a grid/micro/split in my 3.5F), especially compared to the older Rollei, but the later production was improved and I feel easier to focus on. The premium priced late ‘white-face’ were actually a slight cost savings (told to me by the German Rollei factory trained service person mentioned above), without the style rings and some engravings.
Great job. I've got an f/2.8 Rolleiflex TLR with tessar lenses. After watching a documentary about Vivian Maier I wanted to have a Rolleiflex TLR camera. I even started shooting from the hip using the monitor of a mirrorless camera as a form of training and it paid off. Thanks.
I have an older Rolleiflex Automat X from the late 40s with a Tessar lens and I am very happy with it. Amazing how well something 70 years old is holding up. Definitely a quality piece of equipment.
Great job on this comparison my man, I also did a thorough comparison of the MX-evs vs the Rolleicord. I have since actually preferred carrying the Rolleicord as its lighter and has the brighter screen. them having the same Xenar lens had something to do with it also. All Rolleis take stellar images tho as you said
I have both cameras and although dimmer, the 3.5b ground glass screen pops into focus more positively than the Fresnel in the 2.8f but the 2.8f is sharper wide open. The mx-evs is a steal compared to the 2.8f and at f5.6 the image quality is equal, although the mx-evs renders a somewhat more vintage looking image.
Another "review" video where the presenter seems to have picked up some random facts on YT and just repeated them, without an in-depth knowledge of the subject. For example, he finds the Xenotar to be superior to the Tessar, but not up to the 2.8 Planar. Well he should, as the alternative to the Tessar was the Xenar, a 4 element Tessar copy from Schneider. The Xenotar is a 5 element alternative and very close design to the Planar 80mm 2.8. Note that Rollei used these lenses interchangeably in the F models, depending on what was available to them at time of manufacture. If you are looking for the best of the best, the F with late version of 75mm 3.5 Planar is considered the best lens/Rolleiflex model, and is priced accordingly. The Maxwell screens are very bright, but the trade off is that they are harder to focus because of their finer "grind" on the focusing glass. They were a much more interesting alternative when you could buy them years ago for $60 rather than $350.
Xenotar is in fact superior to Planar, you can search for "Rolleiflex Lens Test - The Photo Palace blogspot", they are only indistinguishable from f8 onwards. I would like to add that if you want to get a 75mm 3.5, you can get a Minolta Autocord or Yashica-Mat cheaper, aside maybe a bit prone to flare (not much) the quality of photo is indistinguishable, while there is no equivalent for the 80mm 2.8 in the market. I personally shoot a Rolleiflex T because I got one cheap with all the accessories from an estate sale. I admit I haven't have any experience with the 6 elements Planar 3.5 before, but there are so expensive these days and can cost as much or more than the 2.8.
Hi Kenny, thanks for this very interesting video! As always, your tips are very helpful and I really enjoy watching your posts. However, I have to say that just under eight minutes of this 'music' in the background is pushing the pain threshold. Maybe you could turn the music down a little, or maybe not play it at all - like many other successful RUclipsrs ;-) Many thanks for your efforts! Best regards, Lutz
As for the Fred Astaire movie, just watched it. The Devil Wears Prada sure is brimming with parallels. As for Fred using a Rollei TLR it looked like they put tape over the brand name, so no free ads for the Germans! Also Fred i believe didn't focus the camera once. And dunking prints into their baths for 1 second each was so unrealistic! Ha
You’re confusing apples with pears. 3.5 B is an older version, thus simpler, of Rollei TLR than a 2,8 F. 3.5 F, the later version, is completely similar to 2.8 F, except for a 1/2 stop slower lens. What your cameras had in common only was that they are Rolleiflex TLRs.
I just picked up the MX I think, it's the K4A, the one before the MX-EVS. There's 3 different ways people name these lol. Anyway, I haven't put a roll through it yet. There was a sticky shutter button, but I cleaned it from the outside with alcohol then applied lighter fluid to the shaft of the button and now it works well. Question: I can still pull out the shutter button further, and I can twist it. Is this normal?
7:21 HAHAHAHAHA "soft brass parts that can easily break". You realize the dials on the 2.8F are made from aluminum right? Brass is more durable than aluminum, my guy. Aluminum's advantages are that it's more lightweight and easier to machine.
Thanks for the video! I'm currently in the market for a Rolleiflex and I just saw these two models and was confused which one to buy. I'm definitely going for the 2.8F model :) Now, if I could only get more cash for that Maxwell screen..., you got a subscriber ;) (y)
I have a 3.5mx and 2.8f. 3.5mx is lighter and friendly to the neck. I think it is more suitable for outdoor use. In large indoor exhibitions, I will use 2.8f(｡･ω･｡)ﾉ♡
Have no money?- go for Zeiss Ikon Ikoflex - you can have it for $150 with exactly same tessar 75mm 3.5 or 80mm 2.8 ;-) and buy yourself something nice with saved dough. It is much simpler and because its not as overengineered as rolleis does not need CLA as often. Mine 1939 one needed only $8 mirror replacement.
The HUGE elephant in the room is of course that there is something called Post... and with a good program you can tweak ANYTHING...Almost no pro will just use the images right off the negative. so honestly, your 25MP digital camera pics can be made to look like a 100MP X2D and the Rollei 3.5 pics can look just like the 2.8. Just tellin the truth.
My experience with my fully original 3.5 F, bought in 1974, is that the « upgraded » maxwell only gives a brighter image when you down at very very narrow angle. I got rid of it quickly.
Not sure the 4 element Tessar is in a fair fight with the 6 element Planar there... An interesting comparison would be the 2.8f Planar with the 3.5F Planar - I have heard that the latter is insanely sharp with the 2.8 design be a bit of a stretch. The Schneider Xenotar equipped cameras are also less sought after than the Planars and it would be interesting to compare quality.
I've had the 3.5f & the 2.8f simultaneously, both Planar lenses in excellent condition. I chose to keep the 3.5 version mainly because how balanced it was compared to the 2.8. It was also a wee bit sharper and had a little less nervous bokeh. Today I use a 3.5f with a Xenotar after having compared it to the Planar it was pretty much indistinguishable in terms of image quality but I would argue that the bokeh was the smoothest I've seen from any Rolleiflex. Why the Xenotar isn't as desirable as the Planar I have no idea. Perhaps people confuse it with the inferior Xenar lens.
3 minutes and 35 seconds of introduction and produced placement before you actually compare (basically half the video). That's the problem nowadays : Introductions and teasers take too much time compared to the actual content. Half the time to rephrase the title in so many ways, it's too much. Otherwise, the ACTUAL content is nice. Thank you.
Terrible review. Said the same thing for the first 3-4 minutes. Also, in comparison shots, he listed the film type as Portra 120… clearly not a big film photographer. We already know it’s 120 because you’re shooting a rollieflex, perhaps provide the speed (160,400,800)? Would not trust this review to save my life.
Rubbish review. I used Rolleiflexes professionally since 1956 The first was a 3.5 tessar model of that year unusually fitted with an east German tessar which was fantastic and a version much caught after. I generally found the later models to be more convenient as they had interchangeable screens and viewfinders including the excellent pentaprism eyelevel finder.. In practice there was very little difference between the Xenotar and planar lenses. It depended more on the sample that you had more than the make. Generally the 3.5 lens was considered sharper than the 2.8 at most apertures. Today A 3.5 planar or Xenotar is likely to be in better condition as it is more likely to have been owned by an amateur and so less heavily used, and abused. But any of them that looks mint was probably hardly if ever used at all, but will definitely need a full service as all the lubricants will have dried out. Itt might still work but using it like that will cause excessive wear. Serviced it will last another lifetime
They are in the same family. The good news is that the cheaper Rollie has a tremendous value. A lit of people wonder what the true differences are. Hope you liked the video..
@@TheKensusi thanks, I found the video informative and helpful. I'd rather say it depends on the situation and type of photography. For BW works, the Tessar with contrast color filters works excellently, while for color works, I use my Planar or Biometar version. For me it's not difficult to choose which one to use for which purpose.
Good comparison, but that background track is insanely annoying
Agree!
Wholly agree, I only want to hear what he is saying, not his shitty taste in music 😐
and that continuous digital zooms tf
Yes super annoying music would much sooner just listen to you talking, but that aside thankyou a helpful video
This may not be everyone’s experience, but even after a respected person’s CLA, the 3.5F’s controls are not near as buttery smooth as my 3.5 MX model from a decade earlier. I truly love the Tessar of the MX and the Planar of the F for what they are known for excelling at, but just wish I would have received the monetary value I paid in excess for the F Model in smooth action(and the light meter still works!). I have no desire to upgrade to the 2.8F for a 1/2 stop of light, and I like wider angles of the 75mm anyway. So as he said, all of these are “Swiss Watches,” if you want one, go for the version in best shape. Rollei Company didn’t produce crap, and any of the camera’s CLA’d or rebuilt will serve your grandchildren if film is still being produced then. They will all blow your mind in sharpness, depth, bokeh, character, clarity, and even words English hasn’t yet found to describe their magic, ability, and I have heard it described as “One Fantasy Realm Removed from Ours,” they are able to catch on film. And, that’s been my experience no mager the model!
yes, very clear. The sound track is distracting, as someone has already pointed out. I think it is a choice that reflects the fear of natural sound, beautiful as it is, in case it puts viewers off. The voice is fighting with the music on a loop. That said, clear exposition. Hopefully this feedback will help address this criticism.
In the picture at 3:34 the cameras are reversed. I would suggest the f3.5 E. The f2.8, to get half a stop, is much larger and heavier. The Tessar is actually an excellent lens, it's just that the Xenotar and Planar are phenomenal. The 3.5 Planar and Xenotar are better than the 2.8 of the same.
A welcome video for folks looking for a used Rolleiflex. I’ve been using Rolleiflex for 50 some years. It has been said that any Rolleiflex is a good camera, but condition, condition, condition… (as a factory trained older German man once told me). The 3.5 Planar/Xenotar changed from 5 to 6 elements in the later production, probably the best sharpest lens, with lighter weight than the 2.8, but the Tessar design is a great lens too with a cost savings. The Maxwell screens are a good upgrade for brightness (I have a grid/micro/split in my 3.5F), especially compared to the older Rollei, but the later production was improved and I feel easier to focus on. The premium priced late ‘white-face’ were actually a slight cost savings (told to me by the German Rollei factory trained service person mentioned above), without the style rings and some engravings.
Great job. I've got an f/2.8 Rolleiflex TLR with tessar lenses. After watching a documentary about Vivian Maier I wanted to have a Rolleiflex TLR camera. I even started shooting from the hip using the monitor of a mirrorless camera as a form of training and it paid off. Thanks.
I have an older Rolleiflex Automat X from the late 40s with a Tessar lens and I am very happy with it. Amazing how well something 70 years old is holding up. Definitely a quality piece of equipment.
I love both of these cameras! As part of my collection they have never let me down over the years. Get out and make good memories!
The MX-EVS often goes for $800+ these days in good condition.
Am hoping for a Rollei for Christmas. Because of your video, Kenny, I now understand the differences between the 2.8 & the 3.5. Thanks!
Great job on this comparison my man, I also did a thorough comparison of the MX-evs vs the Rolleicord. I have since actually preferred carrying the Rolleicord as its lighter and has the brighter screen. them having the same Xenar lens had something to do with it also. All Rolleis take stellar images tho as you said
Your MX EVS is fogged/fungus. I service these camera's, can tell by the blooming.
This should be retitled to Bill Maxswell's superior focusing screen.
you're correct, they are that great! Should have its own video. It's a huge upgrade to my camera!
I have both cameras and although dimmer, the 3.5b ground glass screen pops into focus more positively than the Fresnel in the 2.8f but the 2.8f is sharper wide open.
The mx-evs is a steal compared to the 2.8f and at f5.6 the image quality is equal, although the mx-evs renders a somewhat more vintage looking image.
Thanks Kenny, one of the best comparison content videos I have seen.
Another "review" video where the presenter seems to have picked up some random facts on YT and just repeated them, without an in-depth knowledge of the subject. For example, he finds the Xenotar to be superior to the Tessar, but not up to the 2.8 Planar. Well he should, as the alternative to the Tessar was the Xenar, a 4 element Tessar copy from Schneider. The Xenotar is a 5 element alternative and very close design to the Planar 80mm 2.8. Note that Rollei used these lenses interchangeably in the F models, depending on what was available to them at time of manufacture. If you are looking for the best of the best, the F with late version of 75mm 3.5 Planar is considered the best lens/Rolleiflex model, and is priced accordingly. The Maxwell screens are very bright, but the trade off is that they are harder to focus because of their finer "grind" on the focusing glass. They were a much more interesting alternative when you could buy them years ago for $60 rather than $350.
Xenotar is in fact superior to Planar, you can search for "Rolleiflex Lens Test - The Photo Palace blogspot", they are only indistinguishable from f8 onwards.
I would like to add that if you want to get a 75mm 3.5, you can get a Minolta Autocord or Yashica-Mat cheaper, aside maybe a bit prone to flare (not much) the quality of photo is indistinguishable, while there is no equivalent for the 80mm 2.8 in the market.
I personally shoot a Rolleiflex T because I got one cheap with all the accessories from an estate sale.
I admit I haven't have any experience with the 6 elements Planar 3.5 before, but there are so expensive these days and can cost as much or more than the 2.8.
Hi Kenny, thanks for this very interesting video! As always, your tips are very helpful and I really enjoy watching your posts. However, I have to say that just under eight minutes of this 'music' in the background is pushing the pain threshold. Maybe you could turn the music down a little, or maybe not play it at all - like many other successful RUclipsrs ;-)
Many thanks for your efforts! Best regards, Lutz
Comparison starts at 4:00
I own both models and have been pleased.
The comparison actually starts at 3:35 ya'll
Nice to see a video on exactly the topic I've wondered about dozens of times since i got my 3.5 Rollei
As for the Fred Astaire movie, just watched it. The Devil Wears Prada sure is brimming with parallels. As for Fred using a Rollei TLR it looked like they put tape over the brand name, so no free ads for the Germans! Also Fred i believe didn't focus the camera once. And dunking prints into their baths for 1 second each was so unrealistic! Ha
That's awesome. Check out my other videos and give them a like. I have a lot of other reviews coming up
Years ago I had the 3.5. It was a fun tlr while I had it.
Keep praising the 2.8 Rolleiflex cameras. 3.5 models might come down in price then I can afford to buy one.
Helpful video in deciding which camera to save up for, I think I'll go with the 2.8F. Thank you!
You’re confusing apples with pears. 3.5 B is an older version, thus simpler, of Rollei TLR than a 2,8 F. 3.5 F, the later version, is completely similar to 2.8 F, except for a 1/2 stop slower lens. What your cameras had in common only was that they are Rolleiflex TLRs.
Watching this in 2021.. the prices have gone up considerably since this video. In just a short 2 years.
I just picked up the MX I think, it's the K4A, the one before the MX-EVS. There's 3 different ways people name these lol. Anyway, I haven't put a roll through it yet. There was a sticky shutter button, but I cleaned it from the outside with alcohol then applied lighter fluid to the shaft of the button and now it works well. Question: I can still pull out the shutter button further, and I can twist it. Is this normal?
Not sure but contact mike for a CLA and modification!
7:21 HAHAHAHAHA "soft brass parts that can easily break". You realize the dials on the 2.8F are made from aluminum right? Brass is more durable than aluminum, my guy. Aluminum's advantages are that it's more lightweight and easier to machine.
I gotta get a 3.5b good review!
For the $, it's awesome. Make sure to get the MX-EVS
It's a great camera!
Great reviews. Just subscribed.
Thanks for following!!
Thanks for the video! I'm currently in the market for a Rolleiflex and I just saw these two models and was confused which one to buy. I'm definitely going for the 2.8F model :) Now, if I could only get more cash for that Maxwell screen..., you got a subscriber ;) (y)
Trying to locate a Rolliflex 3.5 B...Any suggestions?
I'm 3 minutes into the 7 minute video and there hasnt been a single comparison made yet lol
Hola. Soy nuevo en tu canal, no hablo inglés, cual de las dos recomiendas?
Las dos son buenísimas, pero la 2.8 es mejor pero a precio mucho más costoso.
I have a 3.5mx and 2.8f. 3.5mx is lighter and friendly to the neck. I think it is more suitable for outdoor use. In large indoor exhibitions, I will use 2.8f(｡･ω･｡)ﾉ♡
Have no money?- go for Zeiss Ikon Ikoflex - you can have it for $150 with exactly same tessar 75mm 3.5 or 80mm 2.8 ;-) and buy yourself something nice with saved dough.
It is much simpler and because its not as overengineered as rolleis does not need CLA as often. Mine 1939 one needed only $8 mirror replacement.
should have used a Jazz music background..
The HUGE elephant in the room is of course that there is something called Post... and with a good program you can tweak ANYTHING...Almost no pro will just use the images right off the negative. so honestly, your 25MP digital camera pics can be made to look like a 100MP X2D and the Rollei 3.5 pics can look just like the 2.8. Just tellin the truth.
My experience with my fully original 3.5 F, bought in 1974, is that the « upgraded » maxwell only gives a brighter image when you down at very very narrow angle. I got rid of it quickly.
All I could hear was music
It sounds like you get what you pay for as long as you get one in great shape!
what is that annoying sounds at the background? Difficult to watch your video. Please next time speak slowly and no irritating sound. Thx.
Not sure the 4 element Tessar is in a fair fight with the 6 element Planar there... An interesting comparison would be the 2.8f Planar with the 3.5F Planar - I have heard that the latter is insanely sharp with the 2.8 design be a bit of a stretch. The Schneider Xenotar equipped cameras are also less sought after than the Planars and it would be interesting to compare quality.
I've had the 3.5f & the 2.8f simultaneously, both Planar lenses in excellent condition. I chose to keep the 3.5 version mainly because how balanced it was compared to the 2.8. It was also a wee bit sharper and had a little less nervous bokeh. Today I use a 3.5f with a Xenotar after having compared it to the Planar it was pretty much indistinguishable in terms of image quality but I would argue that the bokeh was the smoothest I've seen from any Rolleiflex. Why the Xenotar isn't as desirable as the Planar I have no idea. Perhaps people confuse it with the inferior Xenar lens.
He compares two different lens designs, lol. Apples to oranges.
Why the music???
Maxwell screens are well over 400 now!
Thanks bro
3 minutes and 35 seconds of introduction and produced placement before you actually compare (basically half the video).
That's the problem nowadays : Introductions and teasers take too much time compared to the actual content. Half the time to rephrase the title in so many ways, it's too much.
Otherwise, the ACTUAL content is nice.
Thank you.
I would like to ask you a few questions how can I contact you
kennycameraphoto@gmail.com
Background music is very distracting. Im struggling to hear properly
Cool video 🙃
Thanks!
Terrible review. Said the same thing for the first 3-4 minutes. Also, in comparison shots, he listed the film type as Portra 120… clearly not a big film photographer. We already know it’s 120 because you’re shooting a rollieflex, perhaps provide the speed (160,400,800)? Would not trust this review to save my life.
these prices are great
Nice video
very good video
Your thumbnail is reversed. You labeled the 3.5 as the 2.8 and vice versus.
The cameras are the wrong way around Kennylad!
Rubbish review.
I used Rolleiflexes professionally since 1956
The first was a 3.5 tessar model of that year unusually fitted with an east German tessar which was fantastic and a version much caught after. I generally found the later models to be more convenient as they had interchangeable screens and viewfinders including the excellent pentaprism eyelevel finder..
In practice there was very little difference between the Xenotar and planar lenses. It depended more on the sample that you had more than the make. Generally the 3.5 lens was considered sharper than the 2.8 at most apertures.
Today A 3.5 planar or Xenotar is likely to be in better condition as it is more likely to have been owned by an amateur and so less heavily used, and abused. But any of them that looks mint was probably hardly if ever used at all, but will definitely need a full service as all the lubricants will have dried out. Itt might still work but using it like that will cause excessive wear. Serviced it will last another lifetime
The video is nice, but the music is anoying.
the background music is not doing any good
Stop the god awful music so we can hear you
Can't concentrate on what your saying for the horrible jangling music in the background.
Super annoying background music!
I got the 2.8 who’s interested in buying it? 2k minimum
why would it be necessary and relevant to compare apple to pears?
They are in the same family. The good news is that the cheaper Rollie has a tremendous value. A lit of people wonder what the true differences are. Hope you liked the video..
@@TheKensusi thanks, I found the video informative and helpful. I'd rather say it depends on the situation and type of photography. For BW works, the Tessar with contrast color filters works excellently, while for color works, I use my Planar or Biometar version. For me it's not difficult to choose which one to use for which purpose.
Agreed! Thanks for watching
The video is too long…
To much fluff.