New to MF got a bunch to use

[Alex_Holland]

His looks like a 2.8 too... I'm no Rollei fanboy but the lenses look bigger than the 3.5

 

[DaveO]

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.

 

[Josh66]

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.

 

[Professional]

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.