thinking about taking the plunge...

T

thomob

Established
Local time
11:23 AM
Joined
Aug 19, 2010
Messages
84
So my thoughts have been consumed for the last two weeks thinking about this Rolleiflex 3.5F (planar) TLR in a shop near me...

Even though i have a c330 with a few lenses, the idea of having a rollei, and how light they are... how nice they are to use... blah blah, i cant get it out of my mind. ha ha

I know I won't be able to get it out of my head unless I buy it, so I am thinking its time to just go for it...

(wallet... be prepared!)
 
If the focal length works for you, and the lack of closer focusing works for you, and the budget works for you, a 3.5F is a no-brainer. The smaller size and lighter weight do make a difference in many ways of shooting.

(I don't think she said this exactly, but Mae West certainly hinted at the fact that sometimes the only answer to an obsession is to give in to it?)
 
If you like TLRs -- I'm no great fan, because the ergonomics don't suit me -- then it is highly disputable where there is anything better than a 3,5F. Maybe I'm seeng what I want to see but I've never seen a 2,8 Planar match up to the 3,5s. Even I'd consider a 3,5F, and as I say, I'm no great TLR fan.

Cheers,

R.
 
I started with a Rolleicord and was seriously tempted by the 220 for the lens flexibility. I couldn't get over the size though, as the compactness of the Rollei (and later Autocord) was a huge draw to the style of camera for me.

I think its worth experimenting to see if it has a similar impact on you. :)
 
Go for it. Close ups are no problems either, Rolleinars 1 and 2 take care of that. Mutars for elongating or forshortening the focal length if need be. There are tons of accessories for Rolleiflexes. They are more versatile than you would think.
 
I have both the 3.5F (Xenotar) and the MX with Xenar. I really like the MX better. The Xenar has a beautiful, lower contrast way of drawing and it's a LOT lighter in weight. OTOH, my MX has been pretty repair-intensive with shutter overhaul and transport repairs, etc. Thank heaven for Harry Fleenor! I use the 3.5F for strobe-lit pictures here in my home "studio."
 
Do it. From all that I've heard, the 3.5F is the one to get.

As always with used equipment, if you don't like it, you can just sell it again and not really lose any money :)
 
well i ended up making the purchase today... so excited!

took it for a first go today with some trix. Haven't filled the roll yet, so once i have and develop it. Ill put up some results.

Its in shmick condition with case and lens cap, although I just want to find a strap for it, so i can give my arms a rest when not shooting.
 
Congrats!

Remember to feed the film between those two rollers. I tend to forget that. I think there's no good substitute for the 'crocodile head' strap clips b/c they help to keep the strap away from the crank.
 
Unlike y'all, I'm much too vain to ignore the allure of the extra stop :D , so I jumped at the chance to own a 2.8d at a *very* reasonable price.

Besides, I already have a sharp f/3.5 TLR, the Ricohmatic 225 (why don't they stick with less goofy sounding "Ricohflex," I wouldn't know).
 
My 3.5E Planar is amazing. I've only shot with it for about a week total but I'm astounded by what it can do.

As for the strap, I found that an older style Leica strap works perfectly for my Rolleiflex.

Phil Forrest
 
Last edited:
I acquired a 3.5F a few weeks back and I have to say it is probably the nicest camera I have ever owned and that list is long and exotic . I'm so impressed with the Planar lens.
I have even been using the camera from a helicopter and Cessna, it goes everywhere with me now.
What a fantastic camera Rollei made all those years ago.
If anyone gets a chance to use one or own one grab the opportunity in both hands and run with it.

Kevin.
www.treewithoutabird.com
 
Just to chime in, I have Rollei MX-EVS Xenar and a 2.8F and love the clarity and crispness from both cameras. I sold my Mamiya 330F and have not regretted it.
 
Vics said:
I have both the 3.5F (Xenotar) and the MX with Xenar. I really like the MX better. The Xenar has a beautiful, lower contrast way of drawing and it's a LOT lighter in weight. OTOH, my MX has been pretty repair-intensive with shutter overhaul and transport repairs, etc. Thank heaven for Harry Fleenor! I use the 3.5F for strobe-lit pictures here in my home "studio."
Click to expand...

I have the 3.5F Planar and an MX with a Tessar. I use the 3.5F more often.
 
shadowfox said:
Unlike y'all, I'm much too vain to ignore the allure of the extra stop :D , so I jumped at the chance to own a 2.8d at a *very* reasonable price.

Besides, I already have a sharp f/3.5 TLR, the Ricohmatic 225 (why don't they stick with less goofy sounding "Ricohflex," I wouldn't know).
Click to expand...

Bad news I'm afraid, 2.8 to 3.5 is only half a stop, 2.8 to 4 is a stop. When you need the extra half you can't do without it of course:eek:

Kevin.
www.treewithoutabird.com
 
Ezzie said:
Go for it. Close ups are no problems either, Rolleinars 1 and 2 take care of that. Mutars for elongating or forshortening the focal length if need be. There are tons of accessories for Rolleiflexes. They are more versatile than you would think.
Click to expand...

I agree... Rolleinars are great for close ups, it's no macro but what the hell.

Rolleiflex 3.5F + Rolleinar 3
4591307345_b36d0673d0_z.jpg


4609174047_cc8490bbed_z.jpg


Todd
 
noeyedear said:
Bad news I'm afraid, 2.8 to 3.5 is only half a stop, 2.8 to 4 is a stop. When you need the extra half you can't do without it of course:eek:

Kevin.
www.treewithoutabird.com
Click to expand...
I think the coolest thing about the 2.8 is not the speed, but the extra 5mm of FL. Portraits seem to work better, seems to display less architectural distortion. I only have my two 3.5s, but I'd love to have a nice 2.8 80mm as well!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom