What did I buy???

[Confusion Circle]

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]

Maybe a E or F just going from the picture.

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

 

[Confusion Circle]

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]

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

 

[Will S]

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

 

[Amund]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

What a beauty. Congratulations!

Antje

 

[naturephoto1]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Again, many thanks for the informative replies!

 

[Sam2nd]

Beautiful tool, photographic feeling.
Regards.

 

[wilsonneal]

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]

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