Rolleiflex 3.5 E2 vs. 3.5 F Type 1/Type 3

[mcblue]

<p>Hi,<br>

I'm still doing my homework on Rollei TLRs.</p>

<p>Given the choice between a 3.5 E2 and a 3.5 F given the F is $150-$300 more than the E, is the light meter on the F worth the price difference? The 3.5 E I mentioned is actually in a slightly better condition than the F model (Type 3) though not by much. I also saw a really minty 3.5 F (Type 1) that's even pricier than the Type 3.</p>

<p>These all have Xenotar lenses.</p>

<p>Thanks in advance!</p>

[rogerwb]

<p>F's are pricey because they were the last "real" Rolleis produced, which puts them in the collectible category. The meter will eventually poop out anyway. Go for the E2, it will likely outlast you, regardless of what your age may be.</p>

[mcblue]

<p>Roger - thanks for the feedback. So the meter doesn't matter -- i.e. might as well bring my Sekonic all the time?</p>

[User_1172872]

<p>It has been several years since I sold my Rollei E2, but if I remember correctly, the E2 and E3 (but not the E) were built on the same body as the F, i.e., they had user interchangeable screens and hoods, but not the coupled meter. I'd recommend the E2 over the F.</p>

[egon_kirincic]

<p>There is no difference in the picture quality from an E2 or an F, especially if they are all Xenotars. Even if the meter is working, it isn't terribly accurate in low light and just about all the meters are past their 30 year expiration date anyway, so it's only a matter of time before they fail. I have one 3.5F with a working meter and one that has a dead one and I carry a hand help meter in either case. I think the most important consideration is if the shutter, transport and focusing are working correctly. The less expensive camera can easily turn into the most expensive camera if you have to do an entire overhaul rather then a typical CLA. A camera with major problems can easily cost you $300+ in repairs and if you add a Maxwell screen, something I highly recommend, then you can easily be looking at adding an extra $500+ to your initial investment. Long story short, ask the seller(s) if they mean "good condition" functionally and cosmetically and if you can get refunded if the camera doesn't actually work as it should. These are percision instruments.</p>

[mcblue]

<p>Thanks Canon user and Egon for all the info. I'll get to see all three cameras soon and will keep this in mind.</p>

[d_purdy]

<p>Open up the camera backs and hold the taking lens open in B and look through it to see scratches and haze.</p>

[mcblue]

<p>D Purdy, thanks for the tip.</p>

[cpj]

<p>All the above answers are correct. I've owned more than 20 Rolleis over 40 years and still have 6, some of which will be coming up for sale soon. The E-2 with the removable hood (via two push buttons on the side) is the version you want. The meters are not very accurate as they are all the old selenium type and even though they might still work after all these years, they will be the first thing to go after you start using the camera, either due to vibration or electronic connection problems. With the removable hood, you can just slip it off to the rear, drop in a Maxwell Screen and reinstall the hood in less than a minute. Without that system it will cost you$100+ just to have someone take the hood off and replace it.</p>

[mcblue]

<p>CPeter, thanks for the info.</p>

<p>Just an update - I picked up the E-2 yesterday as I figured I'll be bringing a light meter anyway especially when using slide film. I'll be looking for a hood and maybe some filters and rolleinars. Will be testing it this next week. Thanks everyone for the help.</p>

[mcblue]

<p>About the screen, I observed that's it's slightly brighter and larger than the one on my first TLR (a Yashica Mat 124G in like-new condition). But I'll consider a Maxwell (Or Beattie?) later. Thanks.</p>

[d_purdy]

<p>A beattie is good too. And you don't actually need a new bright screen at all unless you have already seen the difference and know how much better it is. another case of ignorance is bliss.</p>

[mcblue]

<p>Hi,</p>

<p>Actually, I have a question about the E-2's screen. I noticed that the image is dimmer along the edges, especially at the bottom. Is this normal for this kind of Rolleiflex or is it indicative of a run-down screen, a dirty mirror or some kind of problem?</p>

[paul_neuthaler]

<p>I agree with Michael: I find the LF much less interesting than it used to be. Tony, and I mean this with all due respect & appreciation for your efforts -- maybe it's time for some new administrative blood.</p>

[john_philllips]

<p>My two cents tho you probably made a decision by now. I'd opt for the E2 over the F. optically it is the same camera. The F meter is probably not accurate and all the interconnect mechanics of the F are interesting but not particularly useful as a result. In paring down my Rolleis from 6 to 3, I sold my 3.5F and kept an 3.5 E2, a 2.8 E and a 3.5 E3 since I use a handheld meter for all three anyway.</p>

[mcblue]

<p>Hey John, I chose the E2, as it seemed like a better buy. Really happy with it! Here are pics of the E2 (along with my Yashica Mat 124G):</p>

<p>http://www.flickr.com/photos/marvincarlos/sets/72157617922616275/</p>

<p>It's in great condition even cosmetically. There was some slight loss of dye in bits of the leather which I actually fixed (I'm anal about my equipment).</p>

<p>Here are some shots I took with it while testing both the camera and different film:</p>

<p>http://www.flickr.com/photos/marvincarlos/sets/72157619138263817/</p>

<p>I'm really pleased with the results, both color (mostly Ektachromes) and black and white (Tri-X and Delta 400). Can't wait to take it out for personal projects. I use my old Sekonic for metering.</p>

<p>Thanks everyone again for the advice...</p>