rolleiflex 3.5E (K4C)

[panam]

hi,

i don't know if this is the right place to ask this but,

i was offered a rolleiflex 3.5E in good condition, went through an overhaul couple of months ago, for 450 euros,

since i don't know much about this particular camera was wondering if it's a reliable camera that won't have much issues in time and it's overpriced at 450 ?

have a nice day,


p.

 

[darkosaric]

With overhaul - it is a good price. It is awesome and reliable and gives excellent quality. Go for it.

And welcome to APUG .

 

[baachitraka]

If you are not interested, can you forward it to me? ;-)

 

[ohnewton35]

Hear about anyone selling a 2.8e or f in moderate condition around 500 by chance? Sorry to be off topic but yes that's an awesome price for one. Do it.

 

[trondsi]

Make sure the shutter speeds work. I roughly timed two rolleiflexes at a local store (using a stopwatch) and found that one had a slow shutter, and the other was dead on at 1sec, 1/2 sec and (as far as I could tell) 1/4 sec. I bought the latter and I am very happy with it.

 

[pschwart]

Check the serial number and make sure it's actually an E and not some other model that might be worth considerably less. I certainly would not pay 450 fror an Automat, even if it had been overhauled.

 

[panam]

the guy said that everything is in working condition, checked the serial number, seems to be the first model with light meter, concerned little bit about the lens though, the only thing that i used close to this was a crappy kiev 66 with 80mm lens, how does this 3.5 planar compare to the 2.8 one?

 

[Paul in Arizona]

I have a 3.5E and at that price I'd jump at it. If it has been overhauled it is for sure worth it, and much more.
You will have no complaints about the Planar [mine is a Xenotar]. Great optics.
I also had a 2.8C for a while and could see no difference in optical quality. That extra half stop of speed may have been meaningful when film speeds were ASA 50 but no longer. The main difference is that a 2.8 looks 'sexier' to some folks and that explains the price difference. A bonus for the 3.5 is that Bay I filters etc. for a 3.5 are more widely available and much cheaper.

 

[trondsi]

I have a 3.5E and at that price I'd jump at it. If it has been overhauled it is for sure worth it, and much more.
You will have no complaints about the Planar [mine is a Xenotar]. Great optics.
I also had a 2.8C for a while and could see no difference in optical quality. That extra half stop of speed may have been meaningful when film speeds were ASA 50 but no longer. The main difference is that a 2.8 looks 'sexier' to some folks and that explains the price difference. A bonus for the 3.5 is that Bay I filters etc. for a 3.5 are more widely available and much cheaper.

Im just curious here; I already have a 2.8E that seems to work exactly as expected with my meter (i.e. I expose as the meter tells me and its usually accurate). If I buy a 3.5, as I also have been thinking about, should I add half a stop?

 

[ic-racer]

should I add half a stop?

Add to what?

 

[baachitraka]

I think 3.5E take Bay II filters...

Sent from my GT-I9301I using Tapatalk

 

[trondsi]

Add to what?

My light meter readings when using a Rollei 3.5. I notice that this is th second time someone mentions that 3.5 is half a stop different from 2.8.

 

[Paul in Arizona]

Tronsi:
My Rolleis do not have meters. I use a hand held meter. My preference.

If your meter is accurate you use whatever exposure factors the meter tells you. By a half stop faster I meant that the diaphragm is capable of opening a half stop wider when wide open.

Check the meter on your camera body. A 50 year old meter may either be non-functional or inaccurate.

 

[Paul in Arizona]

Baachitraka:
My mistake. The 3.5E does indeed use Bay II filters. It is the earlier models with Tessar and Xenar 3.5s that use Bay I. I also have an MX with Tessar for which I found several bargain Bay I filters.
2.8 lenses use Bay III.

 

[panam]

how much would one pay for a bay ii UV filter? also i'm wondering since i don't want to use the lens cover, should i buy 2 filters? i mean which lens effects the image quality?

 

[baachitraka]

I may get a hood and light-yellow filter at first.

 

[darkosaric]

also i'm wondering since i don't want to use the lens cover, should i buy 2 filters? i mean which lens effects the image quality?

One filter is enough, on bottom lens that takes the picture. With good and clean filter you will not see drop in picture quality. Lens hood (as baachitraka suggest) is also very good idea.

 

[Xmas]

No same aperture as /2.8

 

[panam]

why light yellow?

 

[baachitraka]

I use three filters mostly, light yellow, light green and seldom light orange.

But I attach light yellow all time to the camera and shoot mostly on bright days to get separation of the clouds other than that it protects the taking lens.

Sent from my GT-I9301I using Tapatalk

 

[baachitraka]

I have medium yellow, green filter and role pol and they all loose 1.5stops of light. So I use them when I mount the camera on tripod.

Rollei pol can give the cloud separation and doesn't darken the foliage.

Sent from my GT-I9301I using Tapatalk

 

[panam]

ok, verstanden

 

[baachitraka]

gut.

Sent from my GT-I9301I using Tapatalk