Rolleiflex 3.5E

[luisarguelles]

Hi all, I'm going to buy a Rolleiflex 3.5E with 75mm f/3.5 Planar

lens. Is there a noticeable quality difference between this camera and

the 3.5F model?. I've tried to find this info in the archives, but

without success.

[mike_elek]

I think the 3.5E uses the EV system, which links the aperture and shutter speeds. I believe this can be overriden.

 

The 3.5F controls operate independently.

 

Optically, there should be no difference.

[mskovacs]

Do you happen to know which subtype of 3.5E? There were three. Someone should confirm but I think the type I doesn't have a removable finder.

 

The E have the option to couple the shutter and aperture together and the F do not. The lock can be disabled unlike on some models and the T.

 

Does it have an exposure meter? The E exposure meter is uncoupled, the F is coupled to the shutter/aperture. Some don't have exposure meters.

 

Honestly, my advice is to shop by condition, not by model number. Any of the Planars/Xenotars are going to work well if they're not beat to death.

[tony_brookes]

Go to the Pacific Rim Camera site. www.pacificrimcamera.com/pp/rolleiflex They set out all the Rollei models and their differences. I think the E does not hav a couple meter but the site will tell you.

[siu_fai_au1]

The main difference between the three types of models is that only the E2 and E3 have removable screen and finder. The E and E2 take the slightly smaller size lenscap while the E3 share the same cap size as the F. The E and E2 are equiped with a 5 elements taking lens while the E3 is a 6 elements. All E models can be equiped with an uncoupled meter and have EVS lock that can be disabled.

 

HTH,

 

Siu Fai

[jay_.]

E3 have removable finders, so a prism can be used and a Beattie screen can be installed easily by the user. F's have the added coupled selenium light meter. Some F's can be found without the meter, it was probably removed when it died. Some E's have a meter but it is not coupled. None of these meters is worth considering when purchasing. Look for clean, clear lenses and no evidence of dents on the front standard.

[luisarguelles]

Thanks a lot for so much valuable info. The 3.5E I'm after (near mint condition) has S/N 1,767,xxx and it has an exposure meter, although as Jay says, it probably will not offer good readings (no problem since I'm used to my Gossen digital lightmeter). The important thing for me is the build quality of the camera and the quality of the lens. Actually I use a Rolleiflex T and everything goes superb, except using the lens wide open, where it's a bit soft and lacks a bit of contrast. This is the reason I'm going to "upgrade" to the 3.5E. From the serial #, does anyone know what sub-type is it?

[ross_macdonald]

From the Rolleiclub page (http://www.rolleiclub.com/rollei/tlr/index.htm), it would seem to be the first version.

[gary_ferguson1]

I believe that there are some optical differences between early 3.5 E's and late 3.5 F's, but I've shot with both and couldn't honestly choose between them based on the results. There are however two reasons why I personally prefer to use the 3.5F.

 

Firstly, as has been pointed out, the focus screen is better on the F and the waist level finder is removable which facilitates additional screen upgrades. The screen on the E is much, much dimmer, especially in the corners. Oddly it doesn't really affect focusing accuracy in good light, but it does affect composition.

 

Secondly, the ever ready case for the F is a better design, the front hinges down and is easily removable, on the E it flaps about and in a breeze can actually blow up and obscure the lens!

[fwstutterheim]

The optical differences between the several 3.5 E models are insignificant. Later

lenses are not better, they were easier to produce to the same quality level. Yes, this

is the first model 3.5 E, in Europe refferd to as 3.5 C (1956 - 1959). No removable

finder hood. This is a very fine camera . The drawback of "near mint" is that it must

have been resting for most of its life. A CLA would be a good thing. When you have

the camera CLAed by one of the known Rolleiflex specialists, you can have him

replace the screen, if you want to.

[classcamera]

Hello All,

 

My practical experience (taking them apart and putting them back together) has taught me the difference in most of the Rolleiflex models.

 

All of the E models were available with coupled meters, without a meter, or with the uncoupled accessory meter. On the E1, E2, the focus hood is fixed in place, and on the E3 and later models it is removable as on the all F models, and G models. As for the interlock on the f stop and shutter speed E models, this can be defeated by turning the center of the f stop selector wheel 90 degrees. On the F models I have come across, this is done by pushing a chrome piece beneath the f stop selector wheel while you turn the wheel. This leads to more drag, and makes the wheel harder to turn. Also on any coupled meter model the speed and f stop selection will be stiff, do to having to drive the differential for the meter, and the shutter speed cam, and diaphragm.

 

In terms of repair cost you will pay at least one more hour to do the F because of the way the front end is put together, and how difficult it is to remove the shutter for cleaning.

 

My personal preference is for the unmetered E1 with either Planar or Xenotar, fine reliable camera, well made in every way (remember Rollei never put anything cheep in there cameras), attractively finished, no big bulky meter, to get in the way, and fast to adjust.

 

Oh, one last thing, On any of the 3.5 letter models the lens cap is a Bay II (bayonet two) and on the 2.8 models it is a Bay III, the Automats, Rolleicords, and T model are Bay I, the Telerollei, is bay IV, and the Rolleiwide is Bay V. Also if your camera does not come with a lens cap, expect to pay 50 bucks for a good chrome cap.

[luisarguelles]

Hi again. The seller told me that my future Rolleiflex 3.5E is not only in mint status, but it works perfectly (shutter, focusing system, etc). It seems that the camera has had regular amateur use and has been always used with care. It has the lens cap and Rollei lenshood. The deal includes also the leather ERC, strap and Rollei tripod adapter. Hey, at $610 it was not cheap at all!. Again under the point of view of taking pictures, it happens that I like a lot to portrait people inside rooms, with available light (near a window), and for this use, the Tessar lens from my Rolleiflex T was prodicing a bit soft results (although from f/8, the Tessar is incredible, see for example: http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=293193)

</p>

About smoothness of operation, I'm very hppy with my T. May I expect an even smoother operation with the 3.5E (if in good working conditions or after a CLA service?)

[mskovacs]

I don't know Luis, I think you may be better off with a 2.8 if you really want to shoot in available light. As you know, I have a 2.8E1 (with broken meter) but that was largely by shopping for a camera in good condition within my budget. For my needs, I would have settled for either 2.8 or 3.5.

 

Since you use a T and are familiar with the cameras, do yourself a favour and shoot a test roll as soon as you get the camera. You want to shoot something like a ruler from 45 degrees taped on a wall and make sure that the frames are properly spaced too. My 20x loupe fits inside the focusing hood and it helps to get the focus exact.

 

Sounds like a nice camera though and having recently acquired one, I can tell you that the Rolleifix tripod mount is an engineering masterpiece. The scissor strap is a nice bonus too, just make sure it isn't close to breaking. Many break close to where the clips are rivited to the strap. (I'm getting a custom strap made from my broken strap)

 

I think if I ever send the camera for a complete makeover I'd see if Fleenor or the other "Rollei Meister" could remove the meter and replace with components (meter cell cover, knob) from a unmetered E. The knob in particular is just bulky.

[fwstutterheim]

Just for the record: <br><br>

The Tele-Rolleiflex has a Bayonet III. <br>

The Wide-Angle Rolleiflex has a Bayonet IV.<br>

No Rolleiflex has a Bayonet V, this size must have been reserved. <br>

Most SL66/SLX/600x lenses have a Bayonet VI. <br><br>

Ferdi.

[luisarguelles]

Hi Mark,

Yes, a 2.8 would have been better, but at an extra price (specially in mint condition), and since I've taken shots with the T even at 1/2s exposure with good results, I think I'll be rather happy with the 3.5 Planar.

</p>

About testing the camera, you can bet an Ilford XP2 and a Fuji NPH will go through the camera no more than 30 minutes after arriving to home. I know these films so well (and the Tessar from the T), that I'll know immediately if something goes wrong. Specially important will be to analyze the contrast of the lens wide-open.

</p>

By the way, does anyone know if B+W manufactures UV filters in Bay-II size?

[mskovacs]

YES B&W has a full line of bay 2 filters including UV.

[kaiblanke]

Luis,

<p>

I just aquired a used 3.5E with a similar number as yours last week. Unfortunately the meter is broken but the price was just to good not to take it. I have not yet finished my first roll since I spent only 3 hours at home since, but I will compare it to my 2.8E asap. From a handling point of view I prefer the 3.5, it is a little bit lighter and the controls are placed a bit better for my hands.

<p>

If interested I can post some results in about 4 weeks (when I get my prints back).

[luisarguelles]

Hi Kai, I'll love to see your results with the 3.5E. By the way, I think you mention a very important point: weight. F models weight about 1250 grams, while the 3.5E is about 100 grams less (the T model weights 1000 grams). This difference can be seen small at first, but I suspect is important when you decide to go with your camera everywhere. For example, my Bronica ETRSi is light with normal lens and waist-level finder, but if I attach the prism-finder and the quick action grip, then I no more feel comfortable with it. Of course, the prismfinder weights more than 100 grams, but the point is the same: Less weight means more pictures.

[victor_randin]

Luis:

 

"...the Tessar lens from my Rolleiflex T was prodicing a bit soft results..."

 

Are you sure your Rolleiflex T is perfectly adjusted? I would test and adjust the viewing and the taking lenses using a GG on a film channel before taking decision of purchasing the E.

[ray ishido]

hi luis,

perhaps I came a bit latter, but it seems that your rolleiflex is a 3.5 C and not a E (http://www.rolleiclub.com/rollei/tlr/027.htm)

does it make a difference?

I ask it because I will perhaps buy one ( a C model )

 

Eric

[ray ishido]

after some research, it seems that the "3.5 C" model is the european model/name,and the "3.5 E" model is the us model/name.

is it right?

 

Kai, I am very interested by the comparison you can do.

 

Eric

[john_philllips]

Luis -- Came across your thread and wanted to respond. I own a 3.5F with Planar and several 3.5E models and use them all. All take satisfyingly sharp and contrasty photos, and I can not see any difference between an 8X10 taken with a Xenotar lense vs. a Planar lens, or a six element vs. a 5 element lense. The removable finder of the E2, E3 and F simplifies mirror cleaning and view screen upgrade. The E3 is essentially an unmetered F without the filter compensation dial below the focus knob. The E2 is essentially an E with a removable finder. I use them all, but find I prefer the slightly lighter E models with my trusty Gossen LunaPro.

[clark_roberts]

<p>It is a great thread, I do have a 3.5E now and was thinking of getting a 3.5F but now I think I'll <br>

use the E for awhile and see how it works.</p>

<p>Clark</p>