Rolleiflex MX-EVS vs Rolleiflex 3.5F

<p>Just wondering what the key differences might be between these two models? Why does the 3.5F fetch almost double the price?<br>

I used to have the MX-EVS with the f3.5 Tessar lens. It was a nice camera that I only got to use for a month as it was ruined by humidity in Puerto Rico.<br>

Now I want to get back into Rolleiflex and a 3.5F came up for sale for a reasonable price locally.</p>

<p>Collectors prefer the F cameras and cause higher prices. The main differences are the Planar lens instead of a Tessar, a coupled light-meter (that may not work properly) and some F's have 220 film size capability. A late F is quite a bit younger than an MX. 220 Film is nearly gone in most markets. The Planar is the better lens. At the end of the day and from a user's point of view an MX-EVS is better value for money . In general condition is more important than model. </p>

<p>If the Tessar on the MX is clean and in good shape, it can be a stunning performer in the range of f/11 or so. Also tends to flare less than the later planar as it has fewer elements. I owned one of these awhile ago, and it was truly amazing.</p>

<p>I currently own a 3.5F, series 3, with the six element Planar. Stunning performer with a great range of useable apertures - thus versatile.</p>

<p>...but if I only needed F/8, 11, and 16, then I certainly would have kept the MX.</p>

<p>I don't see where Andriy mentions the F being with Planar. I had the 3.5F with Xenotar as well as one with the Planar and if there was any difference the Xenotar was better. <br>

If you have found one locally for a reasonable price then you should get it whichever lens it has in it. Just make sure the lenses aren't hazy or covered in fungus. There is no advantage to owing a MX-EVS over a 3.5F unless you like smaller knobs. The F has a removable finder for easier replacement of the focus screen or for putting on a prism finder. Especially if the price is reasonable and the camera in good condition, it is a good investment.</p>

<p>If they are ok, both are great picture takers. Automat (MX-EVS) has a LW-scale ("EV") that I do like, F does not. F has accurate and ergonomic light measuring device, for Automat you need a Gossen. Automat has that original and classic design, F not. Automat has superfine ever ready selftimer, F not. Both lenses (Tessar and Planar) are great, but different, already wide open. Waist lever finder of F operates more smooth, than finder of Automat. RII shades of 3,5F etc. are more difflcult to find than RI of Automat or RIII of 2,8F. F has that great alligator clip strap and detachable two peace everready case, Automat not-detachable one peace case with fixed strap. All Rolleiflex cameras are so fine, from -37 Automat to modern FXn.<br>

K.</p>

<p>The 3.5F has the Xenotar (by Schneider Kreuznach) or the Planar (by Carl Zeiss). The MX has the Tessar (by Carl Zeiss). The Xenotar/Planar are 5 or 6 element lenses. The Tessar is 4 elements.</p>

<p>The EVS feature can be turned off by pushing in on the aperture dial and turning.</p>

<p>The focusing screen on the 3.5F can be changed by the user. The hood can be removed to accept a prism, etc.</p>

<p>I have the 3.5E2 and it has the same features. I sold the prism because it was no advantage. The interchangeable screens are no big deal because, once you have the screen you are comfortable with, you are not going to change it. I also have the MX-EVS. I like them both.</p>

<p>I would look for a E2 instead of an F. It's cheaper, lighter, offers the same easily replaceable focus screen feature (takes 20 seconds to replace the screen!), and w/ a Planar lens is capable of stunning images. The MX EVS is a fine camera, I've owned one, but an E2 w/ a Planar delivers images that are in a different league.</p>

<p>Having said that, if you get a good deal on an F, go for it. Great camera, but a little heavier (because it's built like a tank).</p>

<p>I use both the Tessar (Rolleicord V) and the Planar 3.5 (F). Unless you are very picky, the difference in lens quality is slight. I shoot black and white film and make prints no larger than 10x10. Of course the Rolleiflex has more bells and whistles; but the Cord is a bit smaller and weighs less. </p>

 

<p>i love these comments about the 4 element Tessar. It is very sharp. There is nothing wrong with 4 elements. The Leica Elmar, a stunning performer uses 4 elements. (Not exactly a Tessar.)<br>

My sharpest lenses are my Macro lenses, most based on Tessar designs. It's easier to make a good lens, if one uses more elements..Easier for corrections and less fuss in centering the elements.The Planar may indeed be sharper. In Film users who were not pixel peepers, the differences are very small between the Tessar and Planar.<br>

Irving Penn used Rollei. He used the 75mm Tessar on same Automat as me..<br>

The Tessar is very high contrast. Adds to look of sharpness. Used mine professionally, at ALL apertures, often making fairly large prints. The joy of the Rollei with Tessar, is that the camera is way smaller than those with Planar.</p>

<p>I'm really thankful for this discussion so far. Can someone weigh in further on the differences in size/weight between the Tessar and Planar versions - exactly how much bigger is the Planar?<br /><br />I found the Tessar camera to be a good sized travel companion; whichever replacement I choose will also head abroad with me in November so size and volume are important ...</p>

<p>Jason,<br>

Just as you did write, nothing wrong with Tessars. Just the opposite. They are great at any aperature, also wide open. I like so much my Automat "MX-EVS". And yes, I have been taking photos with most modern Planars too.</p>

<p>Kerkko K.</p>

<p>Jason,<br>

Just as you did write, nothing wrong with Tessars. Just the opposite. They are great at any aperature, also wide open. I like so much my Automat "MX-EVS". And yes, I have been taking photos with most modern Planars too.</p>

<p>Kerkko K.</p>

<p>Good discussion! <br>

Not to go far afield, I also use a folding 120 camera called a<strong> Voightlander Perkeo II</strong>---in its case folded up, it's about the size of a Canon g12! It's four element lens is called a Color- Skopar (80mm) 3.5. I've taken it to Europe a lot. For medium distance shots, it's sharp as any 120 camera I own. And very contrasty. <br>

I'm headed to Rome next month--any one of those lenses will work magic on the ruins of antiquity---exactly what medium format does best ---separate those middle tones!</p>

 

<p>The f3.5 Planar and Tessar are about the same size and weight. If you get one with the F2.8 lens then that type is much heavier and does not have good balance because of the heavy glass in front. I wrestled with myself but finally sold my 2.8D some months ago (Planar) and today I do not miss it.</p>

<p>What is the actual weight difference? I found some numbers, but can anyone confirm?<br>

Rolleiflex 3.5F w/ Planar <strong>1220g</strong> [vs] Rolleiflex MX-EVS w/ Tessar <strong>928g-980g</strong> (unclear)</p>

<p>My 3.5E2 measures 3 lb.s exactly. The MX-EVS measures a "hair" over 2-3/4 lb.s.</p>

<p>The Planar on my 3.5F is the best lens I've ever used. And the 3.5F is a tough, flexible instrument. Its meter, made by Gossen, is dead on and can be used in incident and reflective modes. You can adapt the 3.5F to use 35mm film, and the results are hard to believe. You are using--with 35mm--the center of that Planar, and the images are equal to any coming from a Leica. </p>