Rollei 35S vs 35T?

[sterioma]

I have had my eyes on this Rollei 35 series of cameras for a while, and I have decided that it's now the time to pull the trigger, after selling some other piece of equipment that I was not using enough.

I have narrowed down my choice between these two models (35s vs 35T, that is a 2.8 sonnar vs a 3.5 tessar). Help me make my choice, considering that I will be mostly shooting black and white (9 films out of 10 or so), in natural light, using it as a lightweight travel camera or maybe for some environment portraits of my teenager kids at home if I get comfortable enough with zone focusing at wider apertures.

I have read a bit here and there and there seem to be different opinions on whether the 35S justifies the difference in price (at least 50% more from what I have seen). There's even an interesting video of someone using a contraption to take digital photos with a sample of each cameras, where the Tessar proved to be slightly superior in terms of sharpness and vignetting.

 

[Huss]

Honestly I'd concentrate on getting the one that is in the best shape. For some reason these cameras are the most dropped cameras I have ever seen. Very rare to find one without a dinged up corner.
Also...it is very hard to find one that has correct slow speeds. I gave up my search for a Rollei 35 after every single one I checked out having issues with the low speeds (I think it was 1/15 or 1/30 and under). Basically acted like it was on B.

But if you get a good one, they are very sweet pieces.

 

[Arthurwg]

There's a guy in the UK selling "refurbished" ones for about $400.00. Well worth it IMHO. I had a 35S for awhile and yes, I dropped it. Took great pictures with it and I've thought about getting another.

 

[sterioma]

There's a guy in the UK selling "refurbished" ones for about $400.00. Well worth it IMHO. I had a 35S for awhile and yes, I dropped it. Took great pictures with it and I've thought about getting another.

Yes, this is where I plan buying mine from. I don't mind to spend a bit more for the piece of mind of 12 months of warranty.

 

[Arthurwg]

I've lost that contact. Could you please post it? Thanks Sterioma.

 

[Huss]

https://www.35mmc.com/12/11/2020/ne...-35-cameras-also-available-on-the-35mmc-shop/

 

[DonW]

I had both. Sold the S and kept the T. Both worked perfectly, just preferred the look the T gave me.

 

[beemermark]

I had both. Sold the S and kept the T. Both worked perfectly, just preferred the look the T gave me.

Same with me. Sold the Sonnar because people are willing to pay top dollar and I never (or rarely) used the 2.8 setting. Scale focusing is tough even at 3.5. I do like the Tessar.

 

[r-brian]

I had the Sonnar a few years or more ago. One of the sharpest lenses I ever had.

 

[Huss]

I had the Sonnar a few years or more ago. One of the sharpest lenses I ever had.

I have the Rollei Sonnar 40mm 2.8 in LTM mount. It is the same lens as in the 35S/SE.
It's nice but definitely not the sharpest lens I have.
I think the way it makes an image 'look' is more important.

 

[flavio81]

I have had my eyes on this Rollei 35 series of cameras for a while, and I have decided that it's now the time to pull the trigger, after selling some other piece of equipment that I was not using enough.

I have narrowed down my choice between these two models (35s vs 35T, that is a 2.8 sonnar vs a 3.5 tessar). Help me make my choice, considering that I will be mostly shooting black and white (9 films out of 10 or so), in natural light, using it as a lightweight travel camera or maybe for some environment portraits of my teenager kids at home if I get comfortable enough with zone focusing at wider apertures.

I have read a bit here and there and there seem to be different opinions on whether the 35S justifies the difference in price (at least 50% more from what I have seen). There's even an interesting video of someone using a contraption to take digital photos with a sample of each cameras, where the Tessar proved to be slightly superior in terms of sharpness and vignetting.

Trying to get sharp pictures at f2.8 is pointless without a rangefinder.

I owned a Rollei 35 (original) and that Tessar lens was damn sharp at f8, like, extremely, extremely sharp. Can't imagine the Sonnar being any better,, forum opinion will tell you contradicting things, and an optical designer would probably tell you that a 4-element f3.5 lens can easily be made better perforning than a 5-element f2.8 lens, all else being equal, and particularly at stopped down apertures.

in short, Tessar. Hey, if you check out flickr, you'll see some Triotar rollei B35/etc cameras deliver quite sharp and contrasty images!

 

[dpurdy]

The Sonnar in my 35S is dead on sharp but the difficulty in exact focusing makes it a moot point if sharpness is your concern. I spent a lot of time practicing and learning to judge distances and of course infinity is no problem but the shorter the distance the more you are likely to miss focus.

 

[Iodosan]

I have a rollei 35 te. soon I will start a one camera one Lens one year project and I have to decide whether to use the rollei or a kiev with helios 103. Both cameras have very sharpness lenses. Maybe you can find the rollei 35 te at a lower price since it has the light meter with the LEDs in the viewfinder (even if it works perfectly I never use it because I am annoyed by the lights shot in the viewfinder and also because it is completely mechanical. and I love cameras that don't depend on electricity) p. S. For the lack of the rangefinder there is this solution https://tomchuk.com/rf/

 

[Arthurwg]

Use fast film and the smallest F-stop.

 

[Spinosaurus]

I had a Rollei 35S that I used for several years as a backpacking/climbing camera outdoors. It took beautiful slides and was a real workhorse. Always used the strap around the wrist when shooting so it wouldn't be easily dropped. Got reasonable at guessing distances but they used to have optical rangefinders I used once (it may have been for golfing) which was compact and pocketable that I borrowed that helped. To be honest most of my blurry shots were at low shutter speeds, i.e. to keep the aperture smaller, and because of it's small size camera shake seemed mostly responsible. I suspect you would really enjoy using it as a pocketable go everywhere camera. As far as the S vs T question it's going to be a toss up and to some extent dependent on the condition of the camera as the pull out lens can ultimately lead to decentering etc. Have fun and go with your gut.

 

[sterioma]

Lots of useful comments, thank you. I am leaning towards the Tessar, and my understanding is that there is not much difference between the Zeiss and the Rollei so it should not be a deciding factor, right?

 

[Tony of Plymouth]

I have the Rollei Sonnar 40mm 2.8 in LTM mount. It is the same lens as in the 35S/SE.
It's nice but definitely not the sharpest lens I have.
I think the way it makes an image 'look' is more important.

My 35S produces incredibly sharp photos too, although I do wonder if that is partly down to the hinged pressure plate

 

[beemermark]

.For the lack of the rangefinder there is this solution https://tomchuk.com/rf/

Fantastic. I’m going to try it.

 

[outwest]

I have somehow ended up with 4 Rollei 35 cameras. One is a black S and the last one I used (it had film in it). I really believe that a good Tessar is a hard lens to beat and probably my favorites among the four. I might also lean towards the ones made in Germany, just because;-)

 

[Huss]

I have somehow ended up with 4 Rollei 35 cameras. One is a black S and the last one I used (it had film in it). I really believe that a good Tessar is a hard lens to beat and probably my favorites among the four. I might also lean towards the ones made in Germany, just because;-)

The Tessar in my Rollei A110 is incredible.

 

[flavio81]

Lots of useful comments, thank you. I am leaning towards the Tessar, and my understanding is that there is not much difference between the Zeiss and the Rollei so it should not be a deciding factor, right?

The Rollei-manufactured lenses are good and i think i read this was done with a quality inspection process which involved the Carl Zeiss people.

The famed (and hyped) 40/2.8 HFT Sonnar was only manufactured by Rollei!

 

[Huss]

The Rollei-manufactured lenses are good and i think i read this was done with a quality inspection process which involved the Carl Zeiss people.

The famed (and hyped) 40/2.8 HFT Sonnar was only manufactured by Rollei!

My Rollei 40/2.8 HFT looks EXACTLY like my Voigtlander 50 2.5, 35 2.5 and 28 2.5 in design, feel and construction.
So while it does say "Made in Germany" on it, I'm wondering how accurate that is. Perhaps the final step of assembly which therefore qualified it for that declaration?

 

[flavio81]

My Rollei 40/2.8 HFT looks EXACTLY like my Voigtlander 50 2.5, 35 2.5 and 28 2.5 in design, feel and construction.

But we're talking about optical quality... I also have some Canon New FD lenses that at first look appear cheap, weight extremely light and are mostly plastic. They are also of very high optical performance.

When i mean "quality inspection" i mean making sure that the optical quality is OK.

 

[zanxion72]

I have both the T and the S. I have to admit that in close focus the 2.8 is quite of a risk, but both of them perform nicely. I would go for the one in better shape.

 

[Huss]

But we're talking about optical quality... I also have some Canon New FD lenses that at first look appear cheap, weight extremely light and are mostly plastic. They are also of very high optical performance.

When i mean "quality inspection" i mean making sure that the optical quality is OK.

The optical quality is also excellent with the Voigtlander lenses. Rollei 'made' so few of these lenses in LTM mount (I think they were part of the kit that went with the BessaR I mean Rollei RF35 - same exact camera but with different badge).
I doubt anyone showed up from Zeiss to inspect anything. Seems more like folk lore to make Rollei peeps feel good about their purchase.