Rolleiflex 3.5

[sherm]

In my quest for a TLR I have an opportunity to purchase a Rolleiflex 3.5 F with Planar Lens. I've done a lot of reading as of late about these cameras and the question that looms largest for me is the image quality of the 3.5 Planar vs. 2.8.

I know there are more than a few users of these cameras here and would like to get some opinions. Other than the obvious difference of speed, will one see that much difference in image quality for the standard 6x6 print?

Thanks for the help

Scott

 

[Meleica]

See my Rolleiflex TLR Price and Info Guide

http://members.aol.com/dcolucci/rolleitlr.htm

Dan

 

[Todd.Hanz]

I have both a 3.5F and 2.8E with Planars, to me the 3.5 may be a tad sharper. the lens speed is a non-issue with me because the leaf shutter allows me to shoot as slow as needed.

Todd

 

[Michiel Fokkema]

Hi,
I use a 3.5.
80 is too long for me, i really like 75.
2.8 is way more expensive for only a slight advantage on speed.
i've been told the 3.5 is as better lens, but I don't know from my own experience.
Cheers,

Michiel Fokkema

 

[GeneW]

Back in the day, the 3.5F Planar was reckoned to be the sharpest lens that ever graced a Rollei (and that's saying something). Some disagreed, saying that honour should be given to the 3.5F Xenotar. If you get a 3.5F it doesn't get any better ...

Gene

 

[FrankS]

My Rollieflex 3.5E with Planar is the sharpest lens I have. It beats out my Hasselblad 80 f2.8 Planar. I'd say go for it.

 

[rolleistef]

5mm in MF is no difference. The only difference between a 2.8 and a 3.5 is that a 2.8 is faster than a 3.5. That's all. And it's not half a stop that makes a difference, really. You can take pictures at very slow speeds with a TLR, down to 1/8th, so you'd better not bothering about how fast the lens is. Now take the cheapest and the best one 😉

 

[thafred]

I have the E 3.5 Planar for some weeks now and couldn´t wish for a better lens. It´s so excitingly sharp and creamy

I you´re interested, go to my Flickr page were I´ve uploaded some shots at reasonable 2000x2000 pixels (scanned with a Epson 3200 I can´t even touch all the detail on the Negs but for 400ISO film its enough..thats ca. 8000x8000pix btw....for finer Film I need a much better scanner...Velvia50 looks sharper than reality through a magnifier)

In this photo you can see the enormous resolution of the Planar, pretty close up and at 5.6...TriX400 dev in Rodinal 1:25, pretty grainy but look at the back of the lady´s coat were you can make out the single fibers wich are smaller than the grain of the scan!

My other Rolleiflex E 3.5 Planar pics: http://www.flickr.com/photos/57493810@N00/tags/rolleiflexe/

 

[harry01562]

I have a Xenotar 3.5E and a Planar 2.8F, and they are both excellent. There is a difference in heft and size, that many will take into account. I enjoy both, and really can't see that one is better than the other. The 3.5 will obviously be cheaper, so go for it. If you enjoy it, you might want to add a 2.8, for the times when it seems to be appropriate, or just for the heck of it...

Harry

 

[marcust101]

I've had a 3.5F for a couple of years though I don't use it much, it is very sharp fantastically creamy when used for portraits. I remember why I love it every time I pull the negs out of the developing tank. Brilliant camera

My biased 2 cents