-
Been spending a lot of time on here!
His looks like a 2.8 too... I'm no Rollei fanboy but the lenses look bigger than the 3.5
"Some guys may ask, Why do you go through all that trouble? Why not just shoot digital?
Why? Because film is romantic"
-
05-22-2011 12:51 AM
# ADS
-
The non-taking lens is definitely a f/2.8. The taking lens looks like it may be slightly smaller. I bought a Rolleiflex 3.5F about 15 years ago for about $700 from Ross Yerkes. The meter even seems to be accurate. If you buy one with a non working meter and a non-planar lens you can get them for less. I thought they had gone up in price. I just finished a roll of Ektar 100 about a week ago. Am waiting for it to come back from Dwayne's.
-

Originally Posted by
myfotoguy
kind of large for what I want to lug around in addition to my digital gear.
The answer seems pretty clear to me. Ditch the digital gear.
-
Been spending a lot of time on here!
I have to give up then, i only have 8 film cameras [5 MF and 3 LF], seems i have to dig deeper to get something decent as yours.