Rollei 35 advice [yes I know this is Leica forum...]

Hi, some while back I recall a few of you Leica users also having a

Rollei 35 as a pocket camera, I am looking to buy one as a present,

any advice gratefully received...Thanks

I picked one up a week ago as a supplement to my M6. What can I say -- it's smaller, more compact, and thus is more likely to go places with me.

 

But I'm not too sure about zone focusing. Not a fan of that. It prevents me from shooting wide open for effect, like I would with my Summicron 35. This sets it apart from the M6.

 

I haven't decided, but I may eventually sell the Rollei 35 because I'm not having as great a time with it. It's a different animal completely.

Look out for the standard issues with other mechanical cameras: Shutter speeds, clear finder, aperture links, collapsible lens mechanism and overall state. Also meter accuracy. I prefer the 'E' models to the standard ones due to their in-finder LEDs, but others like the meter-on-top better. Having both a S with a sonnar and a TE with a tessar I have to say that there is no real noticable difference in lens quality in practice - maybe the same amount of difference like between an Elmar and a Summicron. But since with the Rollei you have to guesstimate the distance this is a much bigger point in the final picture quality than the lens type.

Easy shots in a crowded subway train. Rollei 35 Classic, Kodak T400CN.

I own the Rollei 35S. These are quirky cameras that people either love or hate. The pros- The Sonnar lens in the 35s and the 35se is a remarkable performer. The small size makes it great for a carry around camera. You have total exposure control. Unlike modern point and shoots, you can get them repaired and worked on. The cons- The camera is fiddly to operate. The aperture and shutter controls are on the front of the camera and are easy to knock out of position when adjusting focus. Hot shoe is on the bottom of the camera, but I don't know why anyone would use flash with this camera anyway. The size makes it hard to handhold comfortably. In addition, it is kind of bulky for its size. It's really a little too thick to put in a pocket. In fact you see a lot of them with dings on the corners, presumably from the owner knocking into something. The rangefinder is not coupled. Depending on the shooting you do, this may or may not be a problem. All in all, I love the camera for the quality of the optics in such a small package. In fact, I tried to buy another yesterday (the store owner wasn't selling). If you run a Google search on the Rollei 35 you will come up with a great many websites devoted to this camera. You may also want to read the comments at the Cameraquest website. Most people believe the Sonnar lens to be a slighly better performer that the Tessar, although I have talked to a number of people who say the Tessar is outstanding. Finally, the most desireable model is the 35SE. This has the Sonnar lens and LED readouts for the meter in the viewfinder.

I've thought about getting one, and have also considered the Minox 35GL or 35GT. They are slimmer and more pocketable; but I don't know how the color-minotar lens compares with the Zeiss lenses for the Rollei, and that holds me back. The Minox has a 35mm lens compared to the 40mm lens of the Rollei, though, which should make focusing slightly less critical. I find myself not using my minox 9.5mm, because of the inconvenience of having to send the film to New York for processing. In fact, I'm thinking that a digital P&S might serve the purpose better.

I had one for awhile - a 35S - and thought it was totally impractical, from the non-eyelevel metering (i.e., you need to bring the camera down to chest-level to match the needles displayed on the top deck of the camera), to the film-loading, to the flimsy-feeling retractable lens, to the lack of rangefinder coupling (and thus, dead accurate focusing). Yes they're purported to have nice Zeiss glass (well mine did, a Sonnar 40/2.8) but...without rangefinder coupling, what good is that if you're not able to get *a* sharp image every single time, let alone the sharpest image the lens is capable of delivering (unless you're doing all your shots at infinity, of course)? Of course with practice you can become very good at it, like anything else, but unless you live with this camera and just this camera for a year, or unless you're already a master of guestimating focus, plenty of your shots will be OOF, esp. at closer distances and wider apertures. To have one for display as a totally odd throwback retro toy they're cool. To buy one to use as a miniature shooter I'm thinking there have to be plenty of better options out there, like an Olympus XA or a Contax T.

Another vote for the Olympus XA as a very practical carry-everywhere pocket camera. Rangefinder coupled, aperture priority with electronic shutter (some override), decent 35mm f2.8 lens, clamshell design, easily fits into a pocket. Fairly decent viewfinder too. I've carrying one around for about twenty years now and it's still working.

I've got an old Leitz rangefinder than slips into the Rollei's flash shoe. Without it it's good only for daytime scenic shooting at f8-11.

The meter in mine works but as was said, you can't use it at eyelevel so for me it's useless (the same is true of the VC meter people want to rave about BTW). The bottom flash shoe is weird but usable, you just turn the camera upside down. I like the LH wind lever as a leftie, but it's above the viewfinder so you've got to take the camera away from your eye to wind. Flash sync all the way to 1/500 so daylight fill is a piece of cake. I haven't used it much since I picked up a Yashica MC which is about the same size but has aperture-priority AE and a meter cell just inside the filter rim.

Richard - you are aware this is a Leica forum, I hope?

Someone above has described the Rollei 35's perfectly. Quirky! I collect all the 70's cameras that had high quality 40mm lenses. So I have all of the three lens types, triotar, tessar and sonnar. The later 2 are capable of great shots but not consistantly great shots. The guess focus does not seem to produce consistantly great keeper pictures. My Yashica T5 (T4 super for the USA members)produces higher quality pictures and more so it does it consistantly. I do love the little Rollei's but they simply arent a replacement for a good rangefinder (or even a good compact like the T5 for that matter). Its true the CL is larger but when you shoot with it, you feel confident of the results. When I shoot with a Rollei 35 I am just not confident its going to capture that special image how I expect. The Sonnar cant really be shot close up wide open and needs to be stopped down to be sure you have covered any errors in focus. The CL can be shot at f2 with ease and can offer a backup when your M is in for repair. It maybe a slightly larger camera but the security of good results and versatilty of interchangable lenses are worth the extra size.

I've had a 35s for a couple of years now and really like it. It stays in my briefcase and goes everywhere...too work, just driving around, etc., whereas the Leica goes when I know I'll be shooting. The thing is quirky, but not much more so than any rangefinder Leica, and the lens is excellent. In the beginning you will take numerous photos while forgetting to focus, or miss focus by yards (meters), but with practise this gets better. I've got a number of shots that are close-up (under 3 meters), wide open that are tack sharp (as in as sharp as a pre-aspheric Summicron), but it takes practice. Great camera in my opinion. And Rob...heaven forbid we help someone on this forum!

Sorry, I should clarify (since it seems that people have different definitions of what "close-up" is): I consider close-up to be 3-3.5 feet or approx. 1 meter. I can guestimate 6-10 feet (2-3 meters) of focus and 10-15 feet (3-4.5 meters) with fairly decent accuracy (DOF covers small mistakes, so we're talking acceptable unsharpness here, not tack-sharpness), be it the dinky Rollei or any other camera.

The Olympus XA is really the ticket for this use. The lens (very compact 35/2.8) is quite sharp, and any marginal difference in optical quality compared to the Tessar or Sonnar is made up tenfold by the fact that you have rangefinder focussing. A focussed Zuiko will be sharper than an unfocussed anything, any day. Zone focussing is for the birds at this focal length.

 

Plus the XA is more compact, and has a fine electronic shutter with very smooth release. Unfortunately no manual exposure control, but the aperture priority system is ok -- shows the automatically selected shutter speeds in the finder. No exposure lock, but there is a 1.5 stop backlight compensation.

 

This is as nearly perfect a pocket camera as has ever been made. If you tried it, you would never want a Rollei 35.

I would agree with the last poster: why Rollei, with lacking functionality and ugly as a pug - why not a better-made compact?<br>

Study http://www.cameraquest.com to see what is available. I did, and sorting out Canonets for the lack of metered manual and spot metering, picked up several Olympus 35SPs - liked them enough to get several.<Br>

Really nice - the only one with spot from those times, high-quality, sharp lens, central shutter, and I could actually open and repair them myself, like in the good old times. No nonsense about "repair technicians". Handles much faster in real-life situations than Leica.

<br>

Also cheap enough not to worry about.

I have owned several Rollei 35's for over 20 years. I purchased a 35 SE new about 20 years ago and have run over 1,000 rolls of film through it to date, and it is still working like the day it came out of the box. IMO they are capable of producing fantastic images. Although initially difficult to use, once you get used to it, it becomes second nature. Like my M6, this is a camera I will never sell.

I've been shooting with Rollei 35s for a very long time and love them. As I've now moved away from 35mm, my Leica kit is gone but I still have a small brace of Rollei 35s ... my favorite 35mm camera for most standard shooting.

<br><br>

I've written about them at length here and other places, don't really feel like repeating it all again.

<br><br>

I would be willing to sell a Rollei 35 S Silver Anniversary that I don't use. It's a special edition camera, one of 1500 brought to the US without a retail price. It's all silver with black trim and carries the Silver Anniversary laurel wreath symbol. This one is in darn near MINT condition, works perfectly, and has not been used much. I have camera plus case, strap, and lens cap for sale.

<br><br>

If you're interested, send me an email.

<br><br>

Godfrey <a href="mailto:ramarren@bayarea.net">ramarren@bayarea.net</a>

here's a picture of the 35S Silver Anniversary ...<div></div>

I have owned many of the various Rollei 35s. The one I really didn't like was the 35SE model, because the meter operation is via the shutter release, and this makes the release too stiff. Note that the Leica M6 has the same deficit. I found that the Tessar 3.5 lens did not provide as pleasing hyperfocal distance focussed pictures as I had hoped - the best pictures I have taken with the Tessar lens were those focussed at infinity. The Sonnar lens really is much better. For a long while, I was only using a 35S. It is true that you really miss not being able to focus, the longer you use this camera.

 

I would say, that there are definitely better options out there. Either a Leica M body with a Voigtlander 35/2.5 pancake lens (or for that matter, one of the Voigtlander bodies instead if you want to go cheaper). Or, any manual Pentax SLR with the 43/1.9 Limited Edition auto focus lens. Both these options will provide a compact camera with fantastic optics which can also be focussed. One can go a bit cheaper as well, and use a Pentax SLR with the 40/2.8 pancake lens, but the optics won't be quite as good.

I wanted to add a few comments on the subject of the light meter of the Rollei 35s. It is a crude CdS meter, and you need the obsolete PX625 batteries to operate it. You can use a CRIS adapter if you wish, to solve that problem. In designing the last of the Rollei 35s, the Rollei Classic, Rollei deserves bad marks for not changing the battery type, because at the time (early 90's), it was already well known that the PX625 battery was on its way out, all over the world. So, in addition to the lack of focussing, the lack of a good operational meter with available batteries is also a serious problem with this camera, and one should be aware of the other possibilities for choosing a manual compact 35mm camera, in which both of these concerns (focusing, exposure and battery type), are amply addressed.

Richard.

 

Well, the camera is nice but better offer a Leica PnS.

 

Not only the Minilux takes good picture but it offers a ease of use. Even A Minox, not so reliable but the light metering is fantastic.

 

Ah? Wanna a mechanical Camera, eh?

Take a Leica CL or a CV Bessa R/R2. More expensive but you will like it.

 

 

Had a 35TE and 35SE Rollei for a while.... Cheers.

The Rollei 35S was one of the most delightful cameras I ever used. If it focused to 27". like a modern Leica lens, the zone focus feature might have been more problematical for me; but with the 1 meter closest focus, I can't recall losing many shots, including some taken wide open.

 

It is the only camera anyone ever complimented me on as being a "cute" camera. The very light weight and the fact that you won't have a kit with extra lenses, made this a take-anywhere camera, and take everywhere, I did.

 

The collapsible lens feature seemed merely a selling point as I left it extended all the time, just as I do with my 50mm Elmar-M on my M4-P, now.

 

The on-board meter was not working when I bought my mint 35S, which was just as well anyway, as I prefer to have shutters tested, then meter according to speeds I actually am getting with any particular camera. That gives a more accurate exposure. So, I would recommend prospecive buyers get a 35S with the meter not working and use the $ saved to buy a good hand held meter.

 

After a few years of this camera going everywhere with me in a Tamrac bag, one day it just gave up. Focusing quit and the shutter jammed. Estimate for repair ran about $110. That included repair of the meter. That would have given me a minty camera with meter that was then fetching about $350 in a camera store (retail), but take a camera like that into a Chicago camera shop and see what the bandits offer you!! And, in Chicago, you do not put an ad in the paper and welcome folks to your place; not a good idea! So, I put the repair money into my M4-P. If the Rollei 35S were made with a 28mm f/2.8 Zeiss, I'd just have to take another look at the wonderful Rollei 35S.

P.S.-- Godfrey, what type of camera did you use to shoot the picture of your 35S? Not d------, I hope! It is an excellent shot.

I am no pro. I have to use a rangefinder for my titanium classic. It's inconvient I must say. But if you can live with that, it's a great gem. Just the thick history behind rollie 35s make it interesting to play with. I understand that "playing with it" is secondary for a lot of people, especially pros. As a hobby to past time, yes, go for it. Karl Lagerfield and Newton uses his a lot. So it depends which school you are in. It's just my opinion. It might be lame to a lot of people.

<i>The Rollei 35S was one of the most delightful cameras I ever used. ... </i>

<br><br>

I second that notion. After extensive testing against a Leica CL with Summicron-C 40/2, the Rollei 35S returns pictures that are absolutely identical and it's 1/3 the size.

<br><br>

<i> ... zone focus ...</i>

<br><br>

The key thing to keep in mind is that it has a 40mm lens and is not designed to compete with a rangefinder or SLR for close focus capability. Stick to f/11 and you only have to remember two distance settings: 6m gets you 3m to infinity, 2m gets you 1m to 3m. As you gain experience estimating distance, focus becomes easy.

<br><br>

<i> ... meter limited ? ... </i>

<br><br>

Someone said something about the meter being "crude". It's not the widest range in the world, about EV 3 to EV 17, but it's very accurate and couples with the shutter and aperture, the dual pointers allow one to easily set exposure with precision. I personally prefer the S over the SE ... the camera was designed for you to be setting the focus and exposure with the camera held at waist level. The eye level indicators in the SE and TE models require un-ergonomic motions of your hands to work.

<br><br>

<i> ... The collapsible lens feature seemed merely a selling point ... </i>

<br><br>

Collapsing the lens makes it compact enough to slip into a jacket pocket and not damage the lens tube, which is a mite bit fragile. It's also best to keep the camera in a case when not in use ... saves battery life by effectively turning off the meter.

<br><br>

<i> ... If the Rollei 35S were made with a 28mm f/2.8 Zeiss, I'd just have to take another look at the wonderful Rollei 35S. </i>

<br><br>

The Rollei 35S has a Zeiss Sonnar 40/2.8 lens. It doesn't say Zeiss on it because Rollei worked a deal to reduce the price ... Essentially, completed lens assemblies were shipped from Zeiss to Rollei's Singapore assembly plant and the rest of the body was fitted to them. There are a few pre-production 35S cameras around that say "made in germany" and carry the Zeiss name on the lens, a rarity. But all of them were made on the same Zeiss production line.

<br><br>

<i> P.S.-- Godfrey, what type of camera did you use to shoot the picture of your 35S? Not d------, I hope! It is an excellent shot. </i>

<br><br>

grin ... Thanks for the compliment. Yes, it was taken with a Sony Cybershot DSC-F707 digital camera, fitted with a B+W +2 close up lens and sitting on a tripod. I took it by natural light with the camera sitting on my dining room table. It's amazing what you can do with a digital camera in 20 some odd minutes ... I pulled the Rollei out, set up the digicam, took the shot, downloaded and edited the photo in Photoshop, posted it. I've now printed it for my scrap book, looks beautiful and is making me not want to sell the Rollei... sigh.

<br><br>

Godfrey