I might have read it somewhere but not sure about it. Are there any plastic components in it?
Rolleiflex 3.5C: Are there any plastic components in it?
-
A
- Thread starter baachitraka
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Fuji Fujica GM670 with 100mm f3.5 lens 6x7 Medium Format
- Started by Oldwino
-
For Sale Nikon Nikkor AF-S 70-200 f4 G ED VR Lens
- Started by Oldwino
-
Sold Nr Mint Leitz Leica SBLOO 3.5cm/35mm Finder with Case
- Started by Oldwino
-
For Sale Aviphot 4x5, Techpan 120, 2x3 2422 films
- Started by MCB18
-
Want to Buy Voigtlander Perkeo w/ Color Skopar
- Started by aconbere
Forum statistics
A few of the pieces on the face are plastic not sure about the inside. I can check my C when I get home tonight.
3.5C is also called a 3.5 E-1 in the US, yes? I am not certain if there is plastic used in the focus knob travel limit bushing/lever and the meter holding plate.
The 2.8C has plastic rings around the flash sync and shutter release; that's it.
Why do you ask?
The 2.8C has plastic rings around the flash sync and shutter release; that's it.
Why do you ask?
OP
OP
I got an offer for a near mint 3.5C at a price around €500. I don't know whether I should go for it or go for higher models 3.5E->3.5F
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2014
- Messages
- 56
- Format
- Multi Format
I've had both a C and E. Still have the 3.5E.
The C was a 2.8 so not strictly identical. As far as function I think the only difference is that the C has a small bar on each of the f stop and shutter wheels that is depressed to change a setting. I guess that prevents accidental change of settings. I found that a bit irritating until I got used to it.
The 2.8 was more of a priority back when film speeds were much slower. I rarely use either one wide open.
Doubt if there will be much or any difference in optics or mechanicals in C vs E..
Condition matters more than the alphabetic designation.
To my mind the F has become an overpriced collector's show-piece. Same optics as far as I know.
The C was a 2.8 so not strictly identical. As far as function I think the only difference is that the C has a small bar on each of the f stop and shutter wheels that is depressed to change a setting. I guess that prevents accidental change of settings. I found that a bit irritating until I got used to it.
The 2.8 was more of a priority back when film speeds were much slower. I rarely use either one wide open.
Doubt if there will be much or any difference in optics or mechanicals in C vs E..
Condition matters more than the alphabetic designation.
To my mind the F has become an overpriced collector's show-piece. Same optics as far as I know.
In my experience. all the Rolleiflexes between the C and F series are comparable. By that time Rollei had the winding and focusing mechanisms down solid and were adding new toys... uh, features I guess is the marketing term. The two major changes were the removable hood and the coupled metering.
As I thought back to when I worked on a 3.5C last year and looked at my record shots, I lean towards me being wrong about these parts being plastic. One is a bushing that is under compression and is also used to establish the focus limits- you'd be a fool to make that out of 1950s plastic, and the Rollei guys may have been a bit silly at times but fools they were not. And the other piece establishes critical alignments for the focus knob and the meter block. Again, not a place to run a test on plastic.
If you are thinking of some of the cost-cutting measures on the Rolleiflex T, then no. The 3.5C is in line with Rollei's top cameras of the period.
'Mint' can mean sticking shutters and overall gumminess from old grease and such. Test it. The most important thing with this whole range of Rolleiflexes is condition, much more important than model name. They were all about as good as it ever got.
As I thought back to when I worked on a 3.5C last year and looked at my record shots, I lean towards me being wrong about these parts being plastic. One is a bushing that is under compression and is also used to establish the focus limits- you'd be a fool to make that out of 1950s plastic, and the Rollei guys may have been a bit silly at times but fools they were not. And the other piece establishes critical alignments for the focus knob and the meter block. Again, not a place to run a test on plastic.
If you are thinking of some of the cost-cutting measures on the Rolleiflex T, then no. The 3.5C is in line with Rollei's top cameras of the period.
'Mint' can mean sticking shutters and overall gumminess from old grease and such. Test it. The most important thing with this whole range of Rolleiflexes is condition, much more important than model name. They were all about as good as it ever got.
I have a 2.8C Xenotar. They are not bad at all and I'd take a good condition C over a beaten up E or even F. If you can find an E in good condition, all things being about equal I'd take an E over a C every time but would never pass up a good price on a C if the condition was good (do not buy if it smells like mildew).
The 3,5C is one of the sturdiest and most reliable Rolleiflexes. If it has the light meter (some do and some don't) it has a transparent plastic cover over the meter needle on the focus knob.
The model with the plastic tape for the speed/aperture scales is the T.
The 2,8C has plastic locking levers for the shutter button and flash connector.
The 3.5E in North America is called 3,5C in Europe. That didn't cause much confusion back in the 1950's, but it does today.
The model with the plastic tape for the speed/aperture scales is the T.
The 2,8C has plastic locking levers for the shutter button and flash connector.
The 3.5E in North America is called 3,5C in Europe. That didn't cause much confusion back in the 1950's, but it does today.
OP
OP
Thanks for clearing out the confusion and have asked about the condition of shutter and lens. Let see how it goes...
Hello,
Rollei engaged an young mechanical engineer who had gained experience with the application of plastics at Volkswagen. He worked at the development of the Rolleiflex T, a cheaper model with Tessar lens whereas the more expensive models had Planars or Xenotars, and this model has some plastic parts inside.
Rollei engaged an young mechanical engineer who had gained experience with the application of plastics at Volkswagen. He worked at the development of the Rolleiflex T, a cheaper model with Tessar lens whereas the more expensive models had Planars or Xenotars, and this model has some plastic parts inside.
OP
OP
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |