What did I buy???

Confusion Circle · Dec 18, 2006

I bought this at a local camera swap meet here in Vancouver. Obviously, it's a Rolleiflex, but I can't figure out which model it is, and when it was made. The serial# is not listed in any of the sites I have been to. I'd like to know more about what I bought. I would also like to know if there is an on-line manual for it somewhere. Many thanks in advance!

Will S · Dec 18, 2006

Maybe a E or F just going from the picture.

See http://www.stutterheim.nl/rollei/text_pages/rolleiflex_compare.html

Confusion Circle · Dec 18, 2006

Arg...I've been searching the web using the serial# on the bottom lens, then I noticed the # on the upper lens....THEN I noticed the # on the top plate of the camera. The # is 1777201, which acording to different websites is either a 3.5C or a 3.5E....*sigh* which one is it?

Will S, I have no idea if it's a T or not.

Will S · Dec 18, 2006

3.5E then. http://www.siufai.dds.nl/Rolleiflex35E.htm

Will S · Dec 18, 2006

Here is the link to the serial number page: http://www.siufai.dds.nl/Rolleiflex35_TLR.htm

Amund · Dec 18, 2006

It`s not a T.
It`s a 3.5E, a really nice one, wich should give you all the Rolleiflex magic you could ever dream of... What did you pay for it?

David H. Bebbington · Dec 18, 2006

The "Collectors' Guide to Rollei Cameras" by Arthur Evans also has it as a 3.5E (assuming that you put one "7" too many in the s/n).

Regards,

David

Mike Kovacs · Dec 18, 2006

3.5C is what some of the German reference books call the 3.5E. My most used Rolleiflex is its 2.8E brother.

Confusion Circle · Dec 18, 2006

I got it for $375CDN. It seems to be in perfect working condition except for the self-timer - it won't trip the shutter.

Confusion Circle · Dec 18, 2006

David H. Bebbington said:
The "Collectors' Guide to Rollei Cameras" by Arthur Evans also has it as a 3.5E (assuming that you put one "7" too many in the s/n).

Regards,

David

D'oh! I put an extra '0'. The serial# is: 1777201.

Amund · Dec 18, 2006

Confusion Circle said:
I got it for $375CDN. It seems to be in perfect working condition except for the self-timer - it won't trip the shutter.

Wow! What a steal. Congrats!

Antje · Dec 19, 2006

What a beauty. Congratulations!

Antje

naturephoto1 · Dec 19, 2006

Nice Camera. I have the 12/24 3.5F Planar. The distinguishing feature of the F versus the E is the removable waist level finder. By the way, the f3.5 Planar that you have should be a great performing lens.

Rich

Mike Kovacs · Dec 19, 2006

naturephoto1 said:
Nice Camera. I have the 12/24 3.5F Planar. The distinguishing feature of the F versus the E is the removable waist level finder. By the way, the f3.5 Planar that you have should be a great performing lens.

Rich

Not exactly - the type E2 and E3 series also have the removable finder. The big difference between E and F is availability of no or uncoupled meter in the E, and the coupled meter in the F. Personally I think the coupled meter isn't worth paying extra for, but the F's are the newest cameras you can find, especially the later model from the '70s and early '80s.

naturephoto1 · Dec 19, 2006

Mike Kovacs said:
Not exactly - the type E2 and E3 series also have the removable finder. The big difference between E and F is availability of no or uncoupled meter in the E, and the coupled meter in the F. Personally I think the coupled meter isn't worth paying extra for, but the F's are the newest cameras you can find, especially the later model from the '70s and early '80s.

Hi Mike,

Thanks for correcting my error. I am by no means an expert on the differences in the different Rollei TLR models. I do however enjoy using them and can attest to the performance of my f3.5 Planar lens and camera.

Rich

Vaughn · Dec 19, 2006

Congrats!

Looks like you have gained a fine tool for a very good price.

If you can find someone who is a good Rollei mechanic, they can clean it up and get that self-timer working. Add the cost of the tune-up, and you'll still be ahead!

My first camera was a older 3.5 -- I seem to have skipped 35mm altogether. For its size and ease of use, one can't get a much nicer medium format camera.

Vaughn

Confusion Circle · Dec 21, 2006

Again, many thanks for the informative replies!

Sam2nd · Dec 22, 2006

Beautiful tool, photographic feeling.
Regards.

wilsonneal · Dec 22, 2006

I had that camera and traded it on the 2.8 Planar version, and regretted it. I believe the 3.5 was a tad sharper. Great camera. Hold on to it. I also have a 2.8 Xenotar that needs total overhaul and lens recoating, but probably won't happen.
Neal

naturephoto1 · Dec 22, 2006

wilsonneal said:
I had that camera and traded it on the 2.8 Planar version, and regretted it. I believe the 3.5 was a tad sharper. Great camera. Hold on to it. I also have a 2.8 Xenotar that needs total overhaul and lens recoating, but probably won't happen.
Neal

Hi Neal,

Both Planars and the Xeonotars are great lenses in either speed. There is probably enough variation that some in either speed will outperform some in the other speed.

Rich

What did I buy???

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency