River Dog
Always looking
I am looking at a Rolleiflex 3.5f Planar Model 3 with missing meter cover.
Other than that, it is supposed to be in excellent condition, reduced to £250 ($373) for the missing cover. It sounds like a deal but I wanted to check here first.
I got a 2.8e with broken meter glass from the same classifieds for £220 that I love, but have always wanted to try a 3.5f.
The seller is long distance and I am waiting for some more photos. Think it's worth a punt for that kind of money?
Other than that, it is supposed to be in excellent condition, reduced to £250 ($373) for the missing cover. It sounds like a deal but I wanted to check here first.
I got a 2.8e with broken meter glass from the same classifieds for £220 that I love, but have always wanted to try a 3.5f.
The seller is long distance and I am waiting for some more photos. Think it's worth a punt for that kind of money?
ray*j*gun
Veteran
I have become a cynic when it comes to user Rolleiflexs. I would factor in the cost of a proper service which as you probably know is pretty expensive.
valdas
Veteran
Well, if missing cover is really the only issue then it is quite good price, but if it needs CLA or even some repair then it depends....
Photo_Smith
Well-known
I paid £450 for my user grade 3,5F so factor in a service by the wonderful Mr Mickelboro (£75-100ish) and you'll have a nice user camera.
I have a working meter on mine and have never used it (the meter).
I would say buy a broken meter Rollei; have a transport and shutter service and use the spare change for a lightmeter.
I have a working meter on mine and have never used it (the meter).
I would say buy a broken meter Rollei; have a transport and shutter service and use the spare change for a lightmeter.
If you're prepared to take a punt on a fixer-upper it sounds OK. It depends on who is selling it, though. In my experience so many sellers (assuming they actually care in the first place) simply do not seem to understand how to check a Rollei correctly. Even so-called "professional" sellers frequently overlook or talk down significant problems. Apart from examining any images with a fine-toothed comb, you have to examine the seller as much as the camera, in some ways.
If it has been in regular, recent use, with images taken with it testifying to its condition, that is certainly a plus. Frequently, this is not the case though. Are there return privileges? If I was not in a position to repair the camera myself, this would be a major factor. When I buy one these days, I generally expect undescribed faults to be present. I am rarely disappointed.
Lens problems, focus misalignments, and bent backs are some of the most time consuming and annoying problems to fix. Slow escapements are common, but actually not that big a deal to sort out (if you're OK at going inside one, that is). Trouble is, unless the lens board is bent to the ****house, it's almost impossible to pick alignment faults from the photos. Even the oft-referred to alignment of the trim plate around the edge of the board is not an infallible indication (it's shimmed separately and it is entirely possible to have a badly out of parallel lens board with a perfectly aligned trim plate--or vice versa). Of course, one wants their purchase to be perfect in every possible way, but these are a few of the more time consuming, and, hence, expensive problems to rectify.
Regards,
Brett
If it has been in regular, recent use, with images taken with it testifying to its condition, that is certainly a plus. Frequently, this is not the case though. Are there return privileges? If I was not in a position to repair the camera myself, this would be a major factor. When I buy one these days, I generally expect undescribed faults to be present. I am rarely disappointed.
Lens problems, focus misalignments, and bent backs are some of the most time consuming and annoying problems to fix. Slow escapements are common, but actually not that big a deal to sort out (if you're OK at going inside one, that is). Trouble is, unless the lens board is bent to the ****house, it's almost impossible to pick alignment faults from the photos. Even the oft-referred to alignment of the trim plate around the edge of the board is not an infallible indication (it's shimmed separately and it is entirely possible to have a badly out of parallel lens board with a perfectly aligned trim plate--or vice versa). Of course, one wants their purchase to be perfect in every possible way, but these are a few of the more time consuming, and, hence, expensive problems to rectify.
Regards,
Brett
River Dog
Always looking
Thanks for all your considered and helpful comments. Seems I have 3 options:
- Try the seller with a very low offer.
- Stick with my 2.8E Planar, just as it is.
- Spend the money on the 2.8E - a CLA, remove the "bumps" from under the skin, fit a Maxwell screen and install the meter blank I already have.
T
Todd.Hanz
Guest
IMHO (In My Hairy Opinion!) the 2.8F and 3.5 are different enough to own both cameras if your budget allows. I'm a kook for shallow DOF so if I had to own only one it would of course be the 2.8. BTW...I own and use both of those models. The meters are not reliable enough for critical exposures but can work in a pinch for averages. I have a few accessories for the 3.5 that are useful (filters, rollienars, etc.) that I don't have for the 2.8 Planar, another reason to have both cameras as accessories are sometimes hard to come by. Good Luck!
Todd
Todd
raid
Dad Photographer
Many people are selling their TLR cameras at very good prices, so it may be tempting to go with options 2 or 3. Meter covers are often found on sale at ebay, but if also a CLA is needed, then it is not worth it to buy this camera.
On the other hand, the 3.5F has a cult following, and its prices can be much higher than what you have been asked to pay. It may be worthwhile to get the 3.5F. Go and get it. You have always wanted the 3.5F. I also waited many years before I got a broken 3.5F, which I got fixed.
On the other hand, the 3.5F has a cult following, and its prices can be much higher than what you have been asked to pay. It may be worthwhile to get the 3.5F. Go and get it. You have always wanted the 3.5F. I also waited many years before I got a broken 3.5F, which I got fixed.
FrankHarries
Well-known
Even if you count in the money for a CLA its a pretty good price - an a cover for the lightmeter isn' t that expensive. And even buying a different but more expensive one may force you to get a CLA done (i paid 150 Euros for mine) - still: buying gear without tje oportunity to test by yourself will always bear some risk - good luck !
River Dog
Always looking
I spoke to Brian Mickelboro in the UK about repair/inspection/CLA etc. and decided to pitch a slightly lower offer, unseen. Even though my cash is tight at the moment, I think it's worth a punt.
I'll let you know how it turns out.
I'll let you know how it turns out.
River Dog
Always looking
The seller has accepted £220 ($327) so I will soon see what I am getting
Other cameras that I am just not using enough will have to go to make room for fixing up the 2.8E and this bad boy.
Other cameras that I am just not using enough will have to go to make room for fixing up the 2.8E and this bad boy.Brian Legge
Veteran
I picked up a 3.5 Planer with a missing meter cover here last year. The meter cover had been replaced with a 35mm film cap. Its worked fine. I've considered a proper meter cover but haven't had any reason to buy one (and film cap looks like it adds less width to the body than a proper cover).
If the camera is otherwise in good condition you landed a killer deal. If it needs service you are probably still in for less than a an average 3.5F Planar costs.
If the camera is otherwise in good condition you landed a killer deal. If it needs service you are probably still in for less than a an average 3.5F Planar costs.
River Dog
Always looking
UK-wise, the well-respected Mr. Mickelboro said I would be "stupid not to chance £250 on it" the way prices are going.
Good enough for me. I'll check out the 35mm film cap. Thanks!
Good enough for me. I'll check out the 35mm film cap. Thanks!