Rolleiflex 3.5E vs 3.5F

[Trask]

...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

I’ve got to say that I’ve found the meter in my 3.5F to be fairly accurate, even with color film, and handy to use — I’ve never felt it inhibited me in any way, i.e., I could use my handheld incident meter if I wished, and it allowed me to shoot a bit more quickly in changing light conditions than pulling out a handheld meter. It’s all plus and, so far, no minus.🙂

 

[DownUnder]

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.

Good points here, but. But.

There was an earlier Rollei F model in, as I recall, 1956 or 1957 that did NOT have a removable WLF (unless you used a screwdriver to do it, and then where did all that work get you to?). I believe it was the first Rollei model to have a Planar. In the 3.5 range only. No 2.8.

My relevant Rollei books are all packed away in one of 50+ cartons in our garage, so I cannot easily verify this.

Again, someone please correct me if I'm wrong here. I am going by a frend (now deceased) who had one of Fs with a non-removable WLF.

The thing with Rolleis is to expect the unexpected. Most un-German!

 

[Emile de Leon]

Save yourself some money and get a Rolliecord IV or V.
Its better than the Rollieflex..any model..at F8...and is lighter weight...and usually not burnt to hell..

I own a bunch of Rollieflexes..including (2) 3.5 5 element Planars..and if I had to own only 1 for travel..it would be the Rolliecord which has very very high resolution...stunning actually...in color or B&W.

 

[DownUnder]

Save yourself some money and get a Rolliecord IV or V.

Its better than the Rollieflex..any model..at F8...and is lighter weight...and usually not burnt to hell..

I own a bunch of Rollieflexes..including (2) 3.5 5 element Planars..and if I had to own only 1 for travel..it would be the Rolliecord which has very very high resolution...stunning actually...in color or B&W.

Yes!! to everything. Blow your budget and get a Rolleicord Vb - it offers a few plusses the older 'cords lack, a removable WLF, 16 and 24 shot accessory kits. The Va may have had these kits too, but I believe it lacks the detachable finder.

The Xenar lens is not a Planar/Xenotar, but it has its own 'look' and seems to paint the detail into the mid-tones.

Then of course you'll want a Rollei prism as well as the two smaller-image kits, also the three Rolleinar close-up lenses, a Rollei grip (an odd thing that connects to the bottom plate of the camera by way of a Rollei tripod adapter, the lovely Rollei filters, and surely the Rollei panorama head which is an absolute must for panoramic landscapes. The list of 'bits' is almost endless, but they cost very little compared to say, Leica accessories, and they are fun to use.

A few years ago I lucked into a Rolleicord Vb kit from a deceased estate for a whopping A$95.00, surely THE bargain camera buy of my long lifetime.

I've taken that Vb overseas with me to Asia two, and the results from it still amaze me - I get more keepers from one roll of film (nowadays I shoot only B&W on film and do all my color work on digital, like 99.whatever% of the rest of us) than any other camera I've used in sixty years.

The one 'drawback for me with the Rollei, is I tend to shoot mostly static images with it, but as a retired architect, old buildings are my photo-passion anyway, so I go with the flow and live with it.

The Rolleiflex T is another possibility for you, but prices on these beautiful cameras (I have two) have soared in the last few years. Now they are almost as expensive as the bigger Planar/Xenotar models.

One thing for sure, is when you buy a Rolleiwhatever, and bond with it, you will never, ever look back.

 

[oldwino]

Find a 3.5E3. It’s basically built on a F chassis, has the slightly wider lens spacing (no filter issues, but the older lens caps don’t fit), and is without all the extra “F Stuff” no one really needs.

 

[CLAdictic]

I've had my 3.5F for years and it's performed very well. I tend to baby it because finding competent repair is next to impossible. I keep filters on both lenses and a lens shade is always on.

 

[Deleted member 65559]

Ozmoose:
"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."

Oz, jmpgino asked:
"The E3.5 I have although a superb camera, it will not accept a lens hood
if there's a filter on the upper viewing lens."

I ask why you'd need to put a filter on the viewing lens? (& Rolleinars don't count).

 

[Highway 61]

I am surprised that nobody mentioned the real difference between the F and the E (was it an E, E2 or E3).
This is not visible from the outside, and it regards the internal focusing mechanism. This explains the weight difference between the E and the F, this is very significant and this is not the "extra "F Stuff" no one really needs".
The E relies on the old system : a folding and unfolding parallelogram made of light alloy. Prone to get out of specs in case of a bump, even a moderate one, on the camera front plate.
The F is gifted with a pair of heavy bronze cylindrical rails on which the front plate unit slides forth and back when you focus.
F models with misaligned front plates (thus, lenses plates) are thus very seldom found (if they even exist), even if those cameras have been used extensively.
OTOH, there are lots of Old Standard, Automat, B, C, D and E Rolleiflexes with twisted front plates, even if you cannot detect the issue with your naked eye. The result ? Unsharp photos at some corners or in the center of the frames.
Don't like the coupled meter of the F ? Remove it as well as the additional satellite gear which drives it when you turn the aperture and speed dials, and that's all.

 

[besk]

Following Highway 61's post - I have a Rollieflex 3.5 Whiteface. All of the metering gear has been removed except for the extra dial on the side. If and when the camera goes in for service I will request that that dial be removed also. But a plug will have to be fabricated to cover the hole.


The meter was nice but is usually the first thing to go out of commission on these cameras. And the needle housing adds bulk to the camera.


All of that was nice when I used it - but when it comes time to sell the camera it significantly reduces its value.

 

[Dan Daniel]

I am surprised that nobody mentioned the real difference between the F and the E (was it an E, E2 or E3).
This is not visible from the outside, and it regards the internal focusing mechanism. This explains the weight difference between the E and the F, this is very significant and this is not the "extra "F Stuff" no one really needs".
The E relies on the old system : a folding and unfolding parallelogram made of light alloy. Prone to get out of specs in case of a bump, even a moderate one, on the camera front plate.
The F is gifted with a pair of heavy bronze cylindrical rails on which the front plate unit slides forth and back when you focus.
F models with misaligned front plates (thus, lenses plates) are thus very seldom found (if they even exist), even if those cameras have been used extensively.

?? The central brass rods are in the D and E models, also. Possibly the C, but my memory is vague on that one.

No Rolleiflex uses a folding and unfolding parallelogram.

Not to say that the focus rails aren't improved on the F, but I don't understand what makes you say the above.

 

[Highway 61]

Not to say that the focus rails aren't improved on the F, but I don't understand what makes you say the above.

I have opened, for service, an Automat, two MX-EVS (both types, I and II), an E and an E2. I have seen the folding/unfolding parallelogram in all of those. Hence my saying, based upon a personal observation.
The only models which I took apart in which I saw the pair of big brass rods are my F models (two 3.5F and one 2.8F).

But a plug will have to be fabricated to cover the hole.

With lots of patience, this might still be possible to find an OEM focusing knob cover designed for meterless F models (will fit the "whiteface" as well) which takes place into the hole left by the removed meter needles unit.

 

[Guest]

Someone on here said an E3 could have a lens hood on the taking lens while there was a filter on the viewing lens !!
I have three of these cameras, my F3.5 will accommodate two filters and the lens hood a Bay 11 but the two lenses on the E3.5 are so close that only two filters can fit on, no lens hood, unless I remove the viewing lens filter. Now before someone asks the stupid question of why I want a filter on the viewing lens, FOR PROTECTION, OBVIOUSLY !!!
So explain how you have achieved something that has stumped me. (I have butchered a Rollinar and got an optician to put plain glass in the viewing lens, it works but….)

 

[Deleted member 65559]

jmpgino..... guilty as charged.... i did stoop to asking the stupid question....

 

[CMur12]

I'm another one of those who puts a protective filter on the viewing lens.

Damage to the viewing lens won't affect image quality, but I prefer to avoid such damage, especially when it is so easily accomplished. 🙂

- Murray

 

[besk]

With lots of patience, this might still be possible to find an OEM focusing knob cover designed for meterless F models (will fit the "whiteface" as well) which takes place into the hole left by the removed meter needles unit.

I have the OEM focusing knob cover in place and also a blank that replaced the light sensor. What could not be removed is the dial below focusing knob which sets the ASA and meter compensation.

 

[Highway 61]

What could not be removed is the dial below focusing knob which sets the ASA and meter compensation.

Ah OK, this dial. Well, I would not bother with trying to remove it then filling the hole with a home made leatherette patch or whatever. It's flat and not that unaesthetic and can be used as a useful film speed reminder, afterall. F models which left the factory as meterless cameras had this dial installed already (as well as the internal additional satellite gear, so that it could be very easy to change the camera into a metered one by just adding and plugging the selenium cell light sensor and the meter needles unit inside the focusing knob).

 

[CLAdictic]

Shooting my 3.5f since the mid 90's. I read years ago that you need to point the 3.5f meter slightly down so that you are not reading a lot of sky. The taking lens covers a pretty broad area. Since I shoot a lot of transparencies I have to pay rather close attention to the light.

 

[x-ray]

I need to consult my Rollei book again but I don’t think they make any reference to a non meter 3.5F from the factory. I did however read there were a few special order cameras without the meter but the majority without meters were ones that had the meter removed later.

In the 60 years I’ve used a Rollei I don’t believe I’ve seen a factory non metered 3.5F. The E cameras came both ways as standard options though.

I currently have a 3.5F Planar from around 63-64. I found it in an antique store stuck back in a display case in a corner with a few junker cameras. The case looked like a Rollei soni pulled it out and sure enough it was a 3.5F with a planar. It was really a mess, the shutter wasn’t working and the leather was covered with mildew I think. It had all 3 Rolleinars and complete case with meter cover. I made an offer but the owner wasn’t there and the clerk couldn’t say ok but said she’d check the next day. We’ll come the next day I called and they accepted my offer of $75 for everything. I think they were asking something north of $500 but no way I’d pay anywhere close to that.

I wound up cleaning it up and putting around $550 into it to get it rebuilt and now it looks almost new and runs perfectly. Even the meter works perfectly. I’ve had it about 10 or 11 years and it’s probably the best Rollei TLR I’ve owned and I’ve owned about 10 I’d guess.

 

[KoNickon]

Shooting my 3.5f since the mid 90's. I read years ago that you need to point the 3.5f meter slightly down so that you are not reading a lot of sky. The taking lens covers a pretty broad area. Since I shoot a lot of transparencies I have to pay rather close attention to the light.

Yes, this is pretty standard procedure with any selenium meter. Always pays to take the time to meter carefully -- the results will be worth it if you keep the qualities of the Rollei's meter in mind. And to be sure, at this point many of those meters are going to be off and/or not linear.