Rolleiflex 3.5E – A Review and Story
Chapter 1: It was destiny….
I bought a later model 3.5E at a Kiwanis/Masons rummage sale in August. I figured that it would be a bunch of old guys, and thought they might be selling some old cameras. There were a hundred or so of those super-cheapie plastic cameras marked 50 cents each (I wouldn’t take them for free, and I’m a camera junkie, so you know they were crap). The photo pickin’s were scare.
I had almost given up when I spotted the Rollei TLR from across the room. Some guy had it and was checking it out. I hurried over, trying not to look like I was hurrying. It was all I could do not to grab it out of his hands. I pretended I was looking at something else on the table while the guy and the seller talked. There was a big sign on the table that said “Rolleiflex and accessories $150”.
I’d heard the name Rollei before, and I knew they made quality, collectable cameras, but I’d never handled one before, or really even knew much about them. After several agonizing minutes, the guy finally set it down. A quick side step and it was in my hands. It was very clean. It felt heavy and solid like only an all metal camera feels. You could sense the quality just by holding it. I just felt that it had to be worth more than he was asking.
I talked to the seller for a while. He loved it, but hadn’t used it in years. He’d gone digital. He proudly showed me how it worked. I was in love, but I didn’t let on.
I scurried off to the bank. I didn’t even know if we had $150. How was I going to explain this to my wife? The guy was surprised when I returned, and whipped out the cash. He seemed sad to see it go. It was almost like he set it out for a conversation piece, never thinking it would actually sell.
Chapter 2: The review.
I took it home and ran a roll of film through it. It was obvious from the first roll that this was an extraordinary camera. I’ve shot about 30 rolls of Tmax 100 and HP5 400 with it to date. I am amazed at the quality of the images. It’s as good as the top modern MF gear.
I researched on the web, and found out it was made in 1957. I looked EBAY and found that similar models went for about $300-$400. I’d gotten a great deal! I almost felt bad…almost.
It takes 12 6cm x 6cm images on 120 film. Film loading is a breeze. It senses the film thickness and activates the frame counter. That’s more high tech than my Pentax 67II. Film is advanced by turning a handle on the right side. It only takes about a quarter of a turn or so to advance to the next frame. Then the shutter is cocked by turning the handle backwards. You can keep turning it backwards until it folds into the body if you want. There is a switch at the base of the handle to allow the shutter to be cocked without advancing the film for multiple exposures.
The shooting lens is a 75mm f/3.5 Zeiss Planar; it’s immaculate. It doesn’t have interchangable lenses. Rollei 3.5 models come with one of the following 75mm f/3.5 lenses: Zeiss Tessar or Planar, Schneider Xenar or Xenotar. The Tessar and Xenar models are the cheaper lenses. The Planar and Xenotar are considered better, although all of them probably perform equally well around f/11. The Rollei 2.8 models come with an 80mm f/2.8 Planar or Xenotar, and they are the most expensive of the bunch. There is much debate over which is better the f/3.5 Planars and Xenotars, or the f/2.8 models. A lot of people say the 3.5s do better at f/3.5 than the 2.8s do at f/3.5. The Zeiss lenses seem to be more popular (more expensive), but the Schneiders get rave reviews.
The aperture and shutter controls are two dials on the front of the camera. The aperture and shutter display are just in front of the viewing hood. The dials can be coupled together if you prefer to work using Exposure Index (that might not be the right term). Personally, like most folks these days I imagine, I work in split seconds and f/stops, so I keep it uncoupled. The shutter speeds are 500, 250, 125, 60, 30, 15, 8, 4, 2, 1, and bulb. It has apertures f/3.5 through f/22.
It has a built in light meter which I’ve never even checked or used; I use my Sekonic 508 meter for almost all my cameras, as many don’t have built in meters. The needle on the camera wiggles as the light changes. It’s an old fashioned meter; it doesn’t need batteries. There are two settings; one for regular daylight and the other for inside or dim. It’s set up so it also displays the correct EI number. When I get another Rollei I’ll probably look for one without a meter to save weight.
The viewing hood pops up so you can look down onto the ground glass. Mine has a grid pattern on it. Even with the f/2.8 viewing lens (all models have an f/2.8 viewing lens) it can be very dim in low light. There is a focusing assist (which sort of works, sort of doesn’t), and you can fold the hood into a sport finder. My ground glass and mirror had a lot of dust on them; I removed four small screws and was able to clean them off. It’s an improvement, but I still think that someday I’ll send it in for a CLA and get a Maxwell screen put in. They are supposed to be much brighter, and you can get them with a split screen focus assist in the center.
The shutter release is on the lower right side (if you are holding the camera). There is a cable release socket, and a switch to lock the button, although a cable can still trigger the shutter, even when locked (at least with mine).
Opposite the shutter button is a flash switch. It has a flash bulb and electronic flash setting. I’ve been using mine with modern flashes and it works great.
There is a self timer, but I have had so much trouble with built in timers on vintage cameras that I just leave it alone. The timer springs always seem horribly worn out, and I get scared that it’s going to lock up the shutter. this hasn’t ever happened with this camera, but the self-timer doesn’t sound too good. I have a screw in timer if I need it.
The focusing knob is on the left side. It’s laid out in feet. There is a nifty DOF scale next to the distance ring. Mine only works part of the time; definately need that CLA.
There are lots of accessories available from Rollei and other brands. Because of the collectability of Rollei gear, you will pay more for something that says Rollei, than an off brand. I paid $20 for a Kalcor lens hood; it would have probably been $60 for the Rollei hood. But sometimes you can get good deals. Rolleis with Tessar or Xenar lenses use size bayonet I for lens accessories. 3.5 Planars and Xenotars use bayonet II, and 2.8 Planar and Xenotars use bayonet III.
The Rollinar close up lens sets are amazing. There are three sets that allow you to focus closer than the normal close focus distance of about 3.5′. I have a #1 set, and a #3. They mount right on the front of the lenses. The image quality is stunning. The #1 is perfect for head and shoulder portraits. The #3 will focus as close as 14″, almost filling the neg with my hand.
There are only two problems with this camera. The difficulty of focusing in low light (I’m hoping the Maxwell screen will solve this), and I don’t like how the case fits. You have to remove the leather case to reload. The case fits around the straps in a funny way. This requires you to have an authentic Rollei strap with the quick releases. Because these seem to go for about $60 on EBAY, I have a Pentax strap, semi-permanently attached via a trip to the hardware store. If I want to use the leather case I bought, I’ll have to fork over the bucks for a Rollei strap. But I can live with it.
Source: http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/photography-equipment-products/2289-my-rolleiflex-3-5e-planar-love-story.html
The French Approach to TLR: Semflex
I Recently noticed a new brand of TLR in the big auction site, maybe its only new to me as this is the first time and I saw some info about it. It looks interesting and claims to be the competitor of Rolleiflex.
Here are some info about Semflex:
The Semflex is a 6×6 twin-lens reflex, launched in 1949 by the French maker SEM. At a time when products imported from Germany to France were very expensive, the Semflex was a Rolleiflex copy and competitor. It was a robust and efficient machine, whose finish was a bit rough, but whose durability was very good, as well as the image quality on most of the models.
There were many Semflex variants, with button or crank advance, coupled to the shutter winding or not. The best models had 4-element 75/3.5 Angénieux or Berthiot lenses, which were nice Tessar copies. Some of the cheaper and older ones had three-element lenses.
As a rule of thumb, all the f:4.5 and f:3.8 lenses are 3-element, and all the 3.5 lenses on the crank-advance models are 4 element. Some 3.5 lenses on the older button-advance models were 3-element. Sometimes the sellers want more for a model with an Angénieux lens, but it seems there is no practical quality difference with Berthiot (it is a bit like the Planar vs Xenotar or Tessar vs Xenar situation with the Rolleiflex).
The Semflex is not well known outside France but in the country it is easy to find and quite inexpensive.
Here are some sample images from Flickr Semflex Group:
Mamiya and Rolleiflex TLR: How to Choose
Just read this good write up by Sergio Ortega , in 2010.
I’ve owned and used both cameras, in a variety of situations for over twenty years, with B&W, color negative and color transparency films, and have compared thousands of negatives taken over the years with both a C330F and 80mm 2.8 Mamiya (the newer, black lens) and a 3.5F 75mm Schneider Xenotar. Here are just a few of my impressions of these two cameras:
If you want to use additional focal lengths, other than the normal 75 or 80mm, the Mamiya would obviously be your only choice. Mamiya’s 55mm is a great WA lens for 6×6. The Mamiya 180mm is a great portrait lens. The Mamiya range of focal lengths is very good, and there are some really excellent buys to be found. With a Rollei you’re only going to have the normal lens, unless you want to spend a ton of money on one of the very rare Rollei Wide or Tele versions.
For the money, I don’t think you can get a better, more versatile, interchangeable-lens MF system than the Mamiya TLR. As a start in MF, it cannot be beat!
I would say that both normal lenses on these cameras are excellent, but would give a slight edge to the Rollei Xenotar or Planar, if only for sheer sharpness across the entire aperture range, but not by much. And this may just be a bias on my part towards the more expensive, German glass. And I am also of the opinion that the older Rollei lenses (Xenars, Tessars, etc.) are not in the same league as the newer Xenotars and Planars, unless you stop them down to f8 or f11. In comparison, I would say the newer Mamiya lenses are better than the older Rollei (non Xenotar/Planar) lenses.
It’s also my opinion that the newer Mamiya lenses perform better with color transparency films, giving greater contrast and color saturation than the older German Xenotars/Planars. The latest Rollei GX lenses are another matter. Color transparencies taken with the Mamiya 80mm have more snap, crackle and pop than the Rollei; the Xenotar has a more subdued, delicate look in color. Some folks prefer one over the other.
In B&W, with a properly focussed shot on a tripod, at the lens’ optimum aperture, I usually cannot tell the difference. But, the Rollei Xenotar does have a certain smoothness of tone and gradation that the Mamiya does not always have. For B&W work, I think the Rollei is a great camera.
For handheld work, I prefer the Rollei. It’s much lighter, smaller and easier to focus and manipulate than the Mamiya. It’s a great camera for unobtrusive photography, very quiet and very easy to handle.
On a tripod, I prefer the Mamiya. It’s really better suited for tripod work, has a stronger tripod mounting attachment, and is generally more of a studio camera. Both cameras can be used in either situation, but the Mamiya can get pretty heavy and bulky when used handheld. The Rollei is amazingly light and agile as a handheld camera.
The Bellows on the Mamiya allows for closer focussing for still lifes and some types of portraiture. To focus up close with a Rollei, you need a Rolleinar lens set attachment. I really like the bellows focussing design on the Mamiya.
Mechanically, the Mamiya feels like a truck, although a very well-built one. The Rollei feels more refined, much more precise, like a finely crafted sports car. While both are very sturdy, reliable cameras, I really think the Mamiya could withstand rougher treatment than a Rollei. I’d really hate to give a good Rollei a lot of rough use.
The Rollei is a much more complex design; the Mamiya is a very straightforward, simple design. If something happens to the Rollei’s lens, the entire camera’s out of service. With a Mamiya, you can just remove the lens, replace it or have it repaired. I think that over the long haul the Mamiya would give fewer problems with shutters, film advance, focussing, etc. Prices on good, used Mamiya equipment are extremely reasonable. Good used Rolleis are getting harder (and more expensive) to find all the time. Accessories for the Rolleis (hoods, filters, caps, etc.) are really scarce. Mamiyas take simple screw-on lens attachments/filters.
I’m sure others will add their opinions to this debate. It should be very interesting. Good luck, Sergio.
TLRgraphy 