Rolleiflex 3.5E vs 3.5F

[madeleineostoja]

I just bought a Rolleiflex 3.5f in need of some TLC for a bargain price, with the intention of getting it CLAd and restoring the cosmetic condition myself. But now that I have it in my hands I'm wondering whether it's worth dumping the money and time into it, or whether I should clean it up as best I can, then sell it and get a 3.5E instead. The 3.5F needs the taking lens cleaned, shutter speed dial adjusted (it's off by one stop due to a hamfisted tech in the past, shutter itself works perfectly though), shutter lock fixed, and film transport relubed.

The 3.5F is surprisingly heavy compared to the Rolleicord I've been using, and I've heard the 3.5E is lighter and a little less cumbersome. Has anyone used or handled both? If money were no object, which way would you lean?

Pros of the 3.5F:

- Coupled meter (nice, but not essential for me)
- More modern hood (love the pinch-to-close)

Pros of the 3.5E:

- Simpler
- Slightly lighter and less cumbersome (if it had an uncoupled meter, I'd remove it anyway)
- Looks better? Dunno how I feel about all the knobs and doodads on the F

 

[Guest]

The E3.5 I have although a superb camera, it will not accept a lens hood if there is a filter on the upper viewing lens. That is an issue that would have stopped my buying it had I known this. I always use a lens hood on all of my cameras.

 

[Beemermark]

The only difference between the E & F was that the F came with a built in light meter. There were various models of the E but differences were minor and all had the same body & lenses & features of the F. The difference in weight was the light meter that really has to be insignificant. Later models of the E were built and sold at the same time as of the F so you can't even say the F is newer.



As a Rolleiflex fan of many decades I say buy the nicest looking one you can find and send it out for a good CLA.

 

[Beemermark]

The E3.5 I have although a superb camera, it will not accept a lens hood if there is a filter on the upper viewing lens. That is an issue that would have stopped my buying it had I known this. I always use a lens hood on all of my cameras.

Neither will the F

 

[madeleineostoja]

The only difference between the E & F was that the F came with a built in light meter. There were various models of the E but differences were minor and all had the same body & lenses & features of the F. The difference in weight was the light meter that really has to be insignificant. Later models of the E were built and sold at the same time as of the F so you can't even say the F is newer.

I thought several E's came with a meter as well? It was just uncoupled. The E is about 100g lighter regardless of meter, I assume because the F has extra mechanics for coupling the meter, filter compensation, etc. I don't know how big a difference that makes in actual handling though. Like the Rolleicord is only a couple hundred grams lighter, but it feels completely different in the hand compared to the 3.5F

The E3.5 I have although a superb camera, it will not accept a lens hood if there is a filter on the upper viewing lens. That is an issue that would have stopped my buying it had I known this. I always use a lens hood on all of my cameras.

Yep this is the case with all Rollei's. You can get a Bay II -> filter thread adapter, so you can use any old modern filter and hood stack. I also use a hood on all my cameras, especially optics as old as rolleis.

 

[x-ray]

I’m a longtime Rollei user. I bought my first one in college in 1967 and used my dads Rolleicord in high school. I’ve owned several 2.8D’s, 3.5E without the meter, Rolleicord V, T, MX EVS, SL66’s and my current 3.5F with a planar.

I bought my current 3.5F for $75 in an antique shop after a little negotiating. It appeared to be a basket case but I figured for $75 it would be worth seeing if it could be salvaged. First off the leather was covered in white mold. The shutter was inoperable, focus very stiff and the lenses covered with a film of fog.

I took it home and started by cleaning the lenses using lens cleaner and lens tissue. To my surprise the fog as only on the outside and there was no sign of fungus or internal fog. The glass was perfect. Next I took saddle soap and started on the leather. Again to my amazement after cleaning the leather looked almost new. The body had no dents or damage and the paint and chrome were in excellent shape. It this point I decided to send it to a tech for shutter, transport and focus service.

I found a company in a Smyrna Ga that billed itself as an authorized Rollei service center. I wound up sending it to them, unfortunately, and got a quote. The quote was $450 which was ok. Short story, it was there about 7 months and when it came back the service was only partially done and the camera wasn’t fully reassembled. Parts were loose and floating freely inside the mirror box. I wound up opening the mirror box up and reassembling it myself.

As you can guess I jumped their behind about this and complained they hadn’t completed the work agreed upon. They unfortunately talked me into sending it back and again took several months to be sent back with meter and aperture coupling problems.

This time I sent it to Jimmie Koh who I used for decades doing the service on my SL66’s. Jimmy was Rollei trained and only worked on Rollei TLR’s as he was pretty much retired at that point. Jimmie fixed the meter and a couple other things and charged me something like $25.

I guess I’ve had the 3.5F 6 or 7 years now and it’s my favorite of the TLR Rolleis I’ve owned. I really love the solid feel and lighter weight compared to the 2.8’s. The Planar is outstanding, not that the other lenses aren’t but I favor the planar. The meter is ok but I find it hard to make accurate readings because it reads a very broad angle and sky fools it easily. And I like the ability to easily change focusing screens. I’m not a fan of the bright screens because the lack the contrast of traditional screens. Having said that I tried a number of screens in my F and would up using the original Rollei split image screen. It’s plenty bright and snaps in and out of focus better than any I’ve tried.

I don’t know your cameras condition but if there’s a chance of salving it I’d give it a try. Honestly I can enjoy using any of the Rolleis. They all make great images.

Best of luck.

 

[Hari]

I'm waiting in line for CLA of a
Rolleicord III in peach condition
except the focus is way off. Should have
it back by the end of the year. The 'cord III
has the focus on the right making room for
bottom attached flash bracket on the left.
The Rolleiflexes all have the focus knob on
the left and winding on the right. So it's
PITA to use flash.

 

[Guest]

Neither will the F

Well my F does. The distance between the viewing lens and the taking lens is so small on the E, the collar of the lens hood will not go on. But the F model number 11 it most certainly does fit on.

 

[Nitroplait]

A qualified Rolliflex overhaul tends to be a costly affair, especially if parts needs replacement.
Besides, even when using qualified and recommended repair people, my ratio of return to have additional work done has been 1 out of 3 repairs, which - to me - makes repairs a somewhat stressful affair because I hate to be put in a position where I have to complain.

I am trying to say that it is really not worth it to spend money/time/stress on a camera may not be restoration worthy. Just my 2 cents.

 

[madeleineostoja]

Well I just noticed what I’m pretty sure is lens separation on the taking lens of the 3.5F as well, which means game over for him. I’ll ask for a refund and return from the seller, and keep my eye out for a decent 3.5E.

 

[DownUnder]

Neither will the F

Something seems wrong here. I have a 3.5E2 I bought new in the 1960s, still use it. (The main difference between the E and the E2 is the WLF can be removed and a prism put on.)

Mine has always taken filters with a lens hood on. Are you sure you are using the right hood? It should be a Rollei bayonet II.

Or are you trying to use the Rollei with a filter on both the taking and viewing lenses? In which case, you cannot put a lens hood on it.

My E2 had an 'interesting' past. Our local dentist ordered it for himself in 1962, but sadly passed away before the factory delivered it to our pharmacy which in those days sold cameras and film and did B&W film processing in our town. It sat on a shop shelf for four years until I was offered it in 1966, less the deposit the late dentist had paid, which his widow kindly agreed to let me have. I've kept it and still use it. Over the years I bought many accessories for it, notably the close-up Rolleinars which are the best I've ever used.

It's also a very sturdy camera. My two Ts are somewhat flimsy and my 'cord Vb is a beater. But that 3.5E2 just goes on and on. It will surely outlast me.

I just checked the camera again and put a yellow filter AND the lens hood on it. All fitted perfectly.

 

[DownUnder]

Well I just noticed what I’m pretty sure is lens separation on the taking lens of the 3.5F as well, which means game over for him. I’ll ask for a refund and return from the seller, and keep my eye out for a decent 3.5E.

Mine (with the Planar 80/3.5 lens) has a small spot of separation in the taking lens, like a tiny hens's egg. I notice this around 2000-1 and took the camera to a repair shop in Melbourne, where the (Rollei trained) technician told me not to bother. Over the ensuing 20 years it has grown a little. I see absolutely no effect at all on my images.

I had a complete CLA done on the camera, which cost A$195 including the shutter speeds adjusted. My 3.5E2 has worked like a charm since then, which is a good thing, as the shop closed in 2004 and it seems nobody in Melbourne does serious work on these TLRs now. If mine ever breaks down or needs a repair, I'll have to send it to Sydney, or to a repair person I know in Singapore.

Obviously a Rollei with lens separation is worth less on the market. Two or three years ago a friend bought an early F (late 1950s) with lens separation for A$270. He still uses it and makes very big B&W prints from his negative. No effect at all on his images.

If you like the camera you could try to negotiate a reduced price from the seller, but as in all such matters, the final decision is yours.

 

[Sarcophilus Harrisii]

I thought several E's came with a meter as well? It was just uncoupled. The E is about 100g lighter regardless of meter, I assume because the F has extra mechanics for coupling the meter, filter compensation, etc. I don't know how big a difference that makes in actual handling though. Like the Rolleicord is only a couple hundred grams lighter, but it feels completely different in the hand compared to the 3.5F

Yep this is the case with all Rolleis. You can get a Bay II -> filter thread adapter, so you can use any old modern filter and hood stack. I also use a hood on all my cameras, especially optics as old as Rolleis.

You're right. Certain E and F series Rolleiflexes were sold with or without meter supplied from the factory. It's more common to find an F with a meter fitted but un-metered Fs are out there. A kit containing a matched meter cell and meter galvanometer from Gossen was made available by the Rolleiwerke for owner fitment to some models originally supplied in un-metered form, including the Rolleiflex T for example.

E series fitted with meters did not have them coupled to the setting dials, that is correct. But they were also dual range with a small lever on top focus side of the name plate connected to a blind behind the outer cell window. In high or bright light range the blind partially occludes the cell: for low light, the blind exposes the full surface area of the cell for better sensitivity in dim conditions. On the other hand the F series meters, whilst coupled, are a single range type.

 

[DownUnder]

I've always preferred Rolleis without meters. Two of my have meters, but neither work. So there you go.

The meters could always be installed by any competent tech who had the meter kit - I recall a brochure with detailed instructions on installing one at home, which dated to the 1960s. I may still have it somewhere in one of my book boxes.

My 3.5E2 is meterless. When I had it CLA'd in the early 2000s the tech told me he had one meter kit left in his shop and asked if I wanted it put on. His price for this was A$175. I declined. Money better spent on films, and have a collection of as new Weston and Gossen meters of various vintages anyway, mostly Lunasix models. All good enough for my amateur uses or to shoot architecture.

 

[JSteed#2]

3.5e vs 3.5e

3.5e vs 3.5e

There are some misconceptions in this chain.
Some 3.5e's had a meter. If your 3.5e has one, it is not coupled.
The 3.5f had a meter that was coupled.
Also, the f model accepted an interchangeable eyelevel finder and a pistol grip. It may be able to accommodate the glass plate for film flatness.
Late 3.5e(2) models have those features sans the coupled meter.

 

[KoNickon]

I have several 3.5s, Es and Fs, all metered. Any one of these cameras is a joy to use. As someone else said, get one that works well and enjoy it. Don't fret it if it has a nonfunctioning or inaccurate meter. The F has more features, but nothing that's life or death critical.

 

[paul in AZ]

Some thoughts on restoration. I have two 3.5 Rolleiflex and a couple of Yashicamats but have not needed to restore any of them. Basic CLA only on one Rollei. None are metered. meters are usually wonky anyway.

There is a parallel to collector cars, which I've also fooled with for many years. It is far cheaper to buy a superior quality antique car than it is to restore it yourself [time + money spent] or have it done for you. Also easier to sell a good one if you decide to move on.

So if possible pick the one that is in the best condition. Then a basic shutter clean and lube may be your only other expense.

 

[Sarcophilus Harrisii]

There are some misconceptions in this chain.
Some 3.5e's had a meter. If your 3.5e has one, it is not coupled.
The 3.5f had a meter that was coupled.
Also, the f model accepted an interchangeable eyelevel finder and a pistol grip. It may be able to accommodate the glass plate for film flatness.
Late 3.5e(2) models have those features sans the coupled meter.

Unless it (3.5F) didn't.

As I said:

It's more common to find an F with a meter fitted but un-metered Fs are out there.​

Here's a photo of one such. And here's another example.

I quote, in part, from my tenth edition of L.A. Mannheim's treatise on the Rollei twin lens reflexes The Rollei Way, in the chapter "The Rolleiflex in Detail". Within the paragraph "The Rolleiflex 3.5F", he writes:

This model is also obtainable without the exposure meter. This can be built in subsequently and then affords the full coupled meter operation.​

Out of interest, why would a purchaser of a new 3.5F elect to buy an example without the meter usually included? I can think of a couple of possible reasons.

1. Then, as now, some photographers preferred not to use a built in light meter.
2. The only Rollei TLR models able to be used with the various Rolleimarin underwater housings were the 3.5 Rolleiflexes. If you were an underwater photographer wanting to use your 3.5F inside your Rolleimarin, the first thing you'd have to do, in order to make the camera compatible with it, was remove the finder and then the light meter from inside the focus knob. It would not surprise me if the reasons why Franke & Heidecke manufactured meter-less 3.5F Rolleiflexes included supplying same to a customer wanting to use one in a Rolleimarin, (which was an accessory sold, and officially sanctioned by, them). (That's speculation on my part, but: it's logical.)
   See here for more details about the various Rolleimarins and adapting a 3.5 Rolleiflex for use with them.

 

[bluesun267]

From a repair standpoint, the meter coupling mechanism of the 3.5f adds an extra layer of possible failure when the old lubricant fails (not to mention the issue of whether the meter still functions or not).

When they are operational, the 3.5f is an absolute joy to use. BUT, given a choice (between 2 cameras of equal condition) I'd go for a 3.5e every time, meterless if possible.

IMO the 3.5f is one of those cases where the benefit of the coupled meter seems really minor compared to the level of complication it entails; I guess Rollei felt the feature would be enticing to enough photographers at the time to justify the engineering. In hindsight, it looks like a somewhat misguided attempt to 'update' the TLR to compete in a market dominated by increasingly automated SLRs

 

[Gregm61]

The biggest difference to me between the E and F models is the ability to use an eyelevel prism with the F vs the fixed waist level finder of the E, unless you run down an E2 or E3 that have removable WL finders for the prism.

2.8F and 3.5F units are heavy-duty tanks compared to any Rolleicord, made for completely different original user group.