Glass Bodies a variant-level encyclopedia of vintage lenses and cameras by iwillpat

Rolleiflex 2.8C

Franke & Heidecke · Fixed lens · 1952

single source, unconfirmed

Also known as: Rolleiflex 2.8C · Rollei 2.8C · Rolleiflex 2.8 C · Rolleiflex 2,8C · Rolleiflex 2.8C Xenotar · Rolleiflex 2.8C Planar · Rolleiflex Xenotar 80mm F2.8 · Rolleiflex 2.8C 10 blade · Rolleiflex K7C · ローライフレックス 2.8C · ローライフレックス 2.8C クセノター · ローライフレックス 2.8C プラナー · ローライフレックス2.8C

Variants & identification

Variant Mount Years Serial ranges Production
2.8C Xenotar (K7C) Rolleiflex TLR 1952–1955 1260350–1299999¹ Not published separately; antiquecameras.net gives over 30,000 for the model, more Xenotars than Planars.
2.8C Planar Rolleiflex TLR 1954–1955 — Not published separately; the smaller share of the 30,000-plus total (antiquecameras.net).
  1. Serial block from ja.wikipedia with the upper bound corrected from a typographical '129999'; no page quoting Prochnow's full table was reached.
  2. Production over 30,000 and the 1954 Planar date are antiquecameras.net's, citing Prochnow; the end date is June 1955 in en.wikipedia's K-code table and 1955 on antiquecameras.net.
  3. The ten-blade diaphragm is stated by Camera Legend and Blue Moon Camera, the latter adding that the 2.8D onward have five blades; Phil Calvit, asked in his comments, believes ten but says he is no expert. No factory document was found.
  4. Weight is Camera Legend's 'about 2.5 pounds' (roughly 1,130 g) for a Xenotar camera, not a published figure, so weight_g is left empty.
  5. Dealer and auction prices quoted by the reviewers: Camera Legend paid just over $400 at KEH in 2008 and saw $400–900 in 2017; Calvit paid $300 plus $140 of repair in 2020.
How to tell them apart (expand)
  • Xenotar or Planar 80mm f/2.8 on the taking lens, with a ten-blade diaphragm — the last f/2.8 Rolleiflex with one (Blue Moon Camera, Camera Legend)
  • Aperture and shutter set by pressing and turning the two dials between the lenses, with no light-value (EV) coupling; the 2.8D added it (Camera Legend; Blue Moon Camera on the D)
  • Compur Rapid MXV, 1–1/500 s; Synchro-Compur arrives with the 2.8E (en.wikipedia)
  • Bay III bayonet for filters and hood, shared by every 2.8 model (Camera Legend)
  • Focusing knob on the left, crank on the right; no meter cell in the nameplate (Camera Legend)
  • Serial 1260350–1299999 (ja.wikipedia, corrected)
  • Listing trap: the 2.8C is sold as the 'ten-blade' Rolleiflex at a premium; a 2.8D with EV-coupled dials and five blades is a different camera

2.8C Xenotar (K7C):

  • Taking lens engraved Schneider-Kreuznach Xenotar 1:2.8/80; Heidosmat f/2.8 viewing lens (en.wikipedia)
  • Ten-blade diaphragm, a near-circular opening when stopped down (Camera Legend; Blue Moon Camera)
  • Compur Rapid MXV shutter, 1–1/500 s + B (en.wikipedia)

2.8C Planar:

  • Taking lens engraved Carl Zeiss Planar 1:2.8 f=80mm; otherwise the same body and shutter as the Xenotar camera

Serial-range notes

1260350–1299999
ja.wikipedia prints the block as 1260350–129999, which drops a digit; 1299999 is the evident reading, since the 2.8D begins at 1600000. The block follows the 2.8B's 1204000–1260000 directly and is not split by lens.

Specifications

Format
12 exposures
Finder
folding waist-level hood over a ground glass with flip-up magnifier; Heidosmat 80mm f/2.8 viewing lens
Shutter
Compur Rapid MXV leaf shutter in the taking lens; cocked by the winding crank (Camera Legend) · 1–1/500 s, B · flash sync M and X at all speeds (en.wikipedia); Camera Legend describes the flashbulb/electronic selector on the shutter
Film advance
folding crank on the right side; winding cocks the shutter (Camera Legend)
Meter
None
Country
West Germany
Original price
$385 (May 1953, Modern Photography test by Arthur Kramer, quoted by antiquecameras.net; many sources misdate the article to 1952) (today $4,520)

Phil Calvit (35mmc) finds the screen, roughly the size of the negative, glorious, but says focusing is imprecise by current standards and the screen has no split-image aid; he later fitted a Rick Oleson screen with a split dot. Camera Legend says the 2.8C does not take the later prism finder.

Where sources disagree

Last
  • June 1955 — en.wikipedia's K-code table
  • 1955 — antiquecameras.net, camera-wiki

Better supported: June 1955

Id markers
  • Ten aperture blades, the last f/2.8 Rolleiflex with them — Camera Legend, Blue Moon Camera (search result), a photrio.com poster (search result)
  • Blade count not stated; the owner believes ten but is 'no expert' — Phil Calvit (35mmc), in comments

Better supported: ten

Three independent collectors' statements against one hedge; no factory document found.

What reviewers say

History

The 2.8C is where the f/2.8 Rolleiflex became the camera people mean by the name. Launched in December 1952 by en.wikipedia’s K-code table, three months before the last 2.8B left the factory, it replaced the Jena Biometar with Schneider-Kreuznach’s Xenotar 80mm f/2.8, a five-element double-Gauss, and from 1954 (antiquecameras.net) offered Carl Zeiss’s Planar 80mm f/2.8 of the same construction as an alternative — the first Planar on a Rolleiflex. The body kept the Heidosmat f/2.8 viewing lens and the crank wind, and moved to the Compur Rapid MXV, 1–1/500 s with M and X synchronisation at every speed. Modern Photography tested it in May 1953 at $385, a date antiquecameras.net notes is often misprinted as 1952. Over 30,000 were built by the time it gave way to the 2.8D in mid-1955, more with the Xenotar than the Planar, against fewer than 12,000 for the 2.8A and 2.8B together.

What sets it apart from the 2.8D that followed is small and much discussed. The diaphragm has ten blades, which Camera Legend and Blue Moon Camera both describe as the last on an f/2.8 Rolleiflex before the five-blade iris of the D onward, and Camera Legend chose his camera for it, expecting rounder highlights in the out-of-focus field — while conceding that most people shoot a Rolleiflex wide open, where the blades do not show. The aperture and shutter dials are set independently by pressing and turning, with none of the light-value coupling the 2.8D introduced; the camera has no meter, and Camera Legend says it will not take the later prism finder. Blue Moon Camera adds a caution about early Xenotars with soft coatings, so that coating loss on the taking lens is common on this model, and it suits the account of Phil Calvit, whose 1953 Xenotar came for $300 with a sticking shutter and unreliable focus at twenty feet until Paul Ebel’s $140 service.

Both reviewers kept their cameras. Calvit found the Xenotar “insanely sharp when stopped down” with a “satiny luster” at every aperture, and the images timeless without looking antique; the waist-level screen, roughly the size of the negative, he calls glorious, though focusing on it is imprecise by modern standards and he later fitted a Rick Oleson screen with a split dot. Camera Legend, who also owned a 2.8F Planar, prefers the Xenotar for perceived sharpness and contrast on his two samples, finds the bokeh smooth but not buttery, with coma-shaped highlights he counts as character, and advises a hood against flare. He weighs the camera at about two and a half pounds and paid just over $400 at KEH in 2008, against $400–900 in 2017; the ten-blade reputation has since pushed the 2.8C above the 2.8D in dealers’ lists. ja.wikipedia gives one serial block for the model, 1260350 to what is evidently 1299999, with no split between the two lenses.

Expand Collapse

This history is AI-written, from the sources listed at the foot of the page. Where the record is silent it says so rather than filling the gap — but no human wrote these sentences.

Example photos

Sample photo wanted — shot with a Rolleiflex 2.8C? We'd love to feature it (with credit).

Live listings

Listings updated 2026-11-02. Links go to the shop or marketplace that carries the item.

Related: Rolleiflex 2.8A · Rolleiflex 2.8B · Rolleiflex 2.8D

Lenses for this body: Xenotar 80mm f/2.8 (Rolleiflex) · Planar 80mm f/2.8 (Rolleiflex)

Sources (7)

Every page here is assembled from public sources, and the gaps are real ones. If you own this camera, know a serial number I'm missing, or can see where I have it wrong, tell me — corrections, serials and sample photos are all worth having.