$300 Rolleiflex 3.5

[raydm6]

Didn’t pull the trigger… …yet.

Been at a local antique store a few weeks and it’s still there. I still may buy it - but not sure yet.

I have a Vb and can dry fire it, but couldn’t get the ‘Flex working to fire the shutter etc.

Does it need a film loaded to operate?

Everything else looked pretty good. I was able to open it and the lens looked clear but will give it a closer inspection after the holiday.

I’m past the GAS stage and if I acquire it, it would be to shoot with it - but I’d like to avoid a CLA. If someone else snatches it up, I’m ok with that.

 

[Muggins]

I'm curious about the script on the case - is it me or is it more like the badging for an Old Standard?

 

[Cascadilla]

You don't need film in it to operate it--just a swing forward and then back with the crank to cock the shutter and wind the film. You should be able to test the shutter speeds and focusing to see if they need work and also look for any signs of impact that could mess up the alignment of the lenses with the film. I've had a 3.5 E w/Planar since the mid 80's and it has been a great camera for me. If I didn't already own one that one for $300 would be very tempting...

 

[Muggins]

I'm curious about the script on the case - is it me or is it more like the badging for an Old Standard?

I've looked at my Old Standard, and it's the same font. I don't think it's the right case for that Rollei but:

1) I know jack about Rollei cases, and not much more about Rolleis.

2) If it fits, it looks pretty damn nice

3) If it doesn't fit, and you buy it, I bet there's an Old Standard owner out there somewhere who would pay you for it, and the camera will be even more of a bargain.

 

[raydm6]

I've looked at my Old Standard, and it's the same font. I don't think it's the right case for that Rollei but:

1) I know jack about Rollei cases, and not much more about Rolleis.

2) If it fits, it looks pretty damn nice

3) If it doesn't fit, and you buy it, I bet there's an Old Standard owner out there somewhere who would pay you for it, and the camera will be even more of a bargain.

Good catch on the case. I need to look at the lens again. It was a 3.5 but I thought it said Tessar but I could be wrong.

 

[TenEleven]

The case with the silver badge is for later models. Earlier models had a simpler more plain leather case.

It 100% is a Tessar lens - this type of self-timer arrangement was only made with Tessar lenses.
The camera pictured is an Rolleiflex MX-EVS automat or model K.4B in Rollei parlance.

The question is which type:
- Zeiss-Opton / Carl Zeiss
- Xenar (from Schneider, but also a Tessar type - the rarest of the three for this model)

Edit: To my knowledge they retained the script font even for the leather case of the 2.8F and 3.5F Mod.4 - it was a nod to their origins and the "Old Standard". I think only the GX/FX etc series finally did away with it.

 

[hellojamin]

I have this exact camera, I bought mine from Jimmy Koh about a year and a half ago, it was under $500. He is a former Rollei tech and CLA's all the rolleis he sells. I would call him and see if he has any first, would be cheaper than buying that one and getting it serviced. Koh's camera 516-853-8479

great lens! Here's one from mine:

 

[hellojamin]

Maybe you could bring in a roll of film and shoot through it in the store? Antiques stores are a crapshoot when it comes to haggling but you could make a lower offer as well. I love these cameras. Pretty darn light for a TLR and they look so clean without the meter.

 

[jaredangle]

I have this exact camera, I bought mine from Jimmy Koh about a year and a half ago, it was under $500. He is a former Rollei tech and CLA's all the rolleis he sells. I would call him and see if he has any first, would be cheaper than buying that one and getting it serviced. Koh's camera 516-853-8479

great lens! Here's one from mine:

View attachment 4881733

I need to go back to the Foro Romano, I did an okay-ish job photographing it last time but I know I can do better. I love your photo of it!

 

[KoNickon]

The case with the silver badge is for later models. Earlier models had a simpler more plain leather case.

It 100% is a Tessar lens - this type of self-timer arrangement was only made with Tessar lenses.
The camera pictured is an Rolleiflex MX-EVS automat or model K.4B in Rollei parlance.

The question is which type:
- Zeiss-Opton / Carl Zeiss
- Xenar (from Schneider, but also a Tessar type - the rarest of the three for this model)

Edit: To my knowledge they retained the script font even for the leather case of the 2.8F and 3.5F Mod.4 - it was a nod to their origins and the "Old Standard". I think only the GX/FX etc series finally did away with it.

Exactly, it's an MX-EVS. Really nice cameras, but not a 3.5E. $300 isn't a bad price, but if it were a 3.5E that would be a very good price.

 

[Sarcophilus Harrisii]

Didn’t pull the trigger… …yet.

Been at a local antique store a few weeks and it’s still there. I still may buy it - but not sure yet.

I have a Vb and can dry fire it, but couldn’t get the ‘Flex working to fire the shutter etc.

Does it need a film loaded to operate?

Everything else looked pretty good. I was able to open it and the lens looked clear but will give it a closer inspection after the holiday.

I’m past the GAS stage and if I acquire it, it would be to shoot with it - but I’d like to avoid a CLA. If someone else snatches it up, I’m ok with that.

View attachment 4881653

View attachment 4881654

Yes—it needs a film loaded to operate. By this, I mean that—whilst it may be possible to fire the shutter empty—it is an Automat Rolleiflex. You want to use it, yes? OK. So—not only does the shutter need to work—but the transport must: find the bump when the film passes the rollers; start the first frame at the correct position, and; give you 12 well-spaced frames on a roll.

It is difficult, but possible to check the frame spacing without shooting a roll. (An extra pair of hands to firmly push the counter reset down without the back fitted, and to keep some decent tension on a scrap roll certainly would help a lot, while you mark out the film gate ends on the paper). That said: if you can send a roll through it with the back fitted; if it does not wind too far after it trips the counter, if the lever stops at regular (although they should not be identical) degrees of handle rotation throughout the roll, and; the shutter sounds right at all the speeds, then—it is probably a goer.

 

[hellojamin]

I need to go back to the Foro Romano, I did an okay-ish job photographing it last time but I know I can do better. I love your photo of it!

Thank you!

 

[TenEleven]

Yes—it needs a film loaded to operate. By this, I mean that—whilst it may be possible to fire the shutter empty—it is an Automat Rolleiflex. You want to use it, yes? OK. So—not only does the shutter need to work—but the transport must: find the bump when the film passes the rollers; start the first frame at the correct position, and; give you 12 well-spaced frames on a roll.

It is difficult, but possible to check the frame spacing without shooting a roll. (An extra pair of hands to firmly push the counter reset down without the back fitted, and to keep some decent tension on a scrap roll certainly would help a lot, while you mark out the film gate ends on the paper). That said: if you can send a roll through it with the back fitted; if it does not wind too far after it trips the counter, if the lever stops at regular (although they should not be identical) degrees of handle rotation throughout the roll, and; the shutter sounds right at all the speeds, then—it is probably a goer.

To what he said, if you have a scrap roll you can also pop open the back when the counter reads "9" or something. The backing paper facing you (towards the back) should have the same number on it. At least that's how I store test them. It will likely not be dead center on the number but the number should, in general match what the frame counter says.

In my example the "9" sort of coming around the corner would be still OK since it depends on the film.
If it's on 7 or 8 or 11 or some nonsense that's no good however!

 

[raydm6]

Thank you all for the feedback and to @TenEleven for the MX-EVS identification. Now that I think of it, I'm pretty sure it's a Tessar because my brain was expecting to see Xenar or Planar.

I believe this camera would take Bay 1 accessories? My 'Cord Vb Type 2 w/Xenar 3.5 takes Bay 1 as well - so I could share accessories. How do the lenses compare given both are clean?

I may take another look at it after the holiday and try and fire the shutter and test etc., then decide what to do. If it needs service, a full service for $450 is offered by the gentleman below ↓.* That would be a bit north of total of $750 for the camera ($300 plus about $20 for sales tax + $450 CLA) and I'm not sure that would be a good investment.

I do remember when I advanced the crank clock-wise, there was a slight bit of resistance towards the end of a 360 deg. travel - like a high-point resistance feeling - then, when I cranked it backward - as the arrow indicates - the shutter button would depress, but there was no shutter action or firing.

*I am fortunate that I am within driving distance of a well-regarded/reputable Hasselblad/Rolleiflex repair person (Jim Kilroy):

Repair Service – Barn Owl Cameras

barnowlcameras.net

Very nice article about th MX-EVS and film loading tip:

Classic Camera Review: Rolleiflex MX-EVS - The Noisy Shutter

“I had rescued the moment by using my camera and in that way had found how to stop time and hold it. No one could take that image away from me because I owned it.” ― Alice Sebold, The Lovely Bones

thenoisyshutter.com

 

[raydm6]

Oh, I almost forgot to add; while I was looking at the camera at the antique store yesterday, a middle-aged lady was looking at me a bit hesitantly and I could tell she maybe wanted to talk - so I softened my gaze a bit and she approached me and asked me if I am a photographer?

I told her no, I am just a hobbyist, and she then asked me if I ever heard of Vivian Maier? Well, it seems she watched a PBS special or newscast or something with her daughter whom she said was a photographer, and she made the connection with the Rolleiflex. We had a nice short chat.

If she asked dibs on the camera for her daughter, I would have had no problem giving it to her. Maybe she will return...

I thought that was kinda' cool interaction.

 

[hellojamin]

Correct, it takes bay 1 accessories (the cheap ones!). Also I am preeeetty sure that Vivian Meyer used this exact model. I remember it coming up when I was doing a bunch of research about the one I ended up purchasing.

 

[TenEleven]

There will be no difference in the lens between a Tessar type equipped 'cord and this 'flex. As stated the "Xenar" is just Schneiders spin on a Tessar, it performs very similarly in my experience.

The differences are in features and shooting comfort, where - naturally the 'flex wins.
This is not just creature comforts like the crank wound automatic shutter charge, but also things like having the option to focus the camera at eye-level, a provision for multiple exposure, etc.

IIRC, Vivian Maier used a Rolleiflex T, not an MX-EVS. The Tessar in the T - was reformulated to use rare earth glasses which makes it perform a bit better at wide apertures than the original Tessar models.

Why this was done I am not sure, Prochnow's Rollei Report and other literature I have on it are mum on it.
My personal speculation is that the T came out when the 3.5 Planar/Xenotar already eisted, and thus it was done to be at least competitive optics wise. This would have tiered the optics in a way that made sense. Cord (which still used the old Tessar formulation) > Flex T > Flex 3.5 > 2.8.

However the T is still a "cost cut" model compared to the MX-EVS so it's not immediately "better". However, I would say in the real world you'd be hard pressed to find a difference at apertures f/8 and up.

 

[KoNickon]

There will be no difference in the lens between a Tessar type equipped 'cord and this 'flex. As stated the "Xenar" is just Schneiders spin on a Tessar, it performs very similarly in my experience.

The differences are in features and shooting comfort, where - naturally the 'flex wins.
This is not just creature comforts like the crank wound automatic shutter charge, but also things like having the option to focus the camera at eye-level, a provision for multiple exposure, etc.

IIRC, Vivian Maier used a Rolleiflex T, not an MX-EVS. The Tessar in the T - was reformulated to use rare earth glasses which makes it perform a bit better at wide apertures than the original Tessar models.

Why this was done I am not sure, Prochnow's Rollei Report and other literature I have on it are mum on it.
My personal speculation is that the T came out when the 3.5 Planar/Xenotar already eisted, and thus it was done to be at least competitive optics wise. This would have tiered the optics in a way that made sense. Cord (which still used the old Tessar formulation) > Flex T > Flex 3.5 > 2.8.

However the T is still a "cost cut" model compared to the MX-EVS so it's not immediately "better". However, I would say in the real world you'd be hard pressed to find a difference at apertures f/8 and up.

The T debuted in 1958, when the 3.5E was already on the market.

 

[TenEleven]

The T debuted in 1958, when the 3.5E was already on the market.

That's literally what my post says?!

[...]The Tessar in the T - was reformulated to use rare earth glasses which makes it perform a bit better at wide apertures than the original Tessar models. [...]
My personal speculation is that the T came out when the 3.5 Planar/Xenotar already existed, and thus it was done to be at least competitive optics wise. This would have tiered the optics in a way that made sense. [...]

 

[KoNickon]

That's literally what my post says?!

Well, you said that was your "personal speculation," which I confirmed. Not the same thing as what I said.