I'm new to the old camera game, and I've been playing with a Rollei 3.5F that I really like. It is going for $1200 Cdn, and I wonder, after numerous threads regarding CLA etc of old models, if this is a typical price for a good condition Rollei...thanks everyone...shawn

-- shawn gibson (shawngibson_prophoto@yahoo.com), June 05, 2000

Answers

I'm not sure about the exchange rates, but Hadley Chamberlain has two of these on his web site at $650 each. http://www.hecphoto.com/

-- Darron Spohn (dspohn@photobitstream.com), June 05, 2000.

Thanks Darron. I've been reading good things about these cameras. And I love the feel of it, way 'better handling' than my Pentax 67.

What is the general concensus from you guys, just experiences, etc...? I'm sure the lens is great for BW candid poses...

-- shawn (shawngibson_prophoto@yahoo.com), June 05, 2000.

Shawn,

I have one of these great cameras, so I follow the used prices rather closely. It was a gift from my father; he bought it new.

I agree, $1200. seems on the high side. (How much is that in US$?) The price range, which is usually totally determined by its condition, can be from about $500. to well over $1000., in US$.

But, several other factors can also determine the asking price:

Is it the CZ Planar? That's usually more expensive than the Schneider Xenotar. But, both are just about as good. This alone can start a heated debate.

Which version is it? The date of manufacturing is very important. Mine is a type III, which puts its date of manufacture at around 1965, or thereabouts. Newer versions are more, older versions are less. The most recent versions of the 3.5F, and consequently the most expensive ones, have the 12/24 capability. A nice feature, but hardly necessary.

The CZ Planar lens design added an additional element around 1965, or so. (Maybe earlier, I'm not sure of the precise date.) The six element Planars are more expensive than the earlier five element versions. Some say the six element Planars are better with color films than the older design. I don't know about that since I don't have the Planar.

Does it come with a good Rollei leather case? That will boost the price. Good Rollei leather cases can sell for up to $100. They will always advertise the camera with a case if it comes with one. The old leather cases usually smell funky, so it's no great loss if the case is not included. And they are a real pain in the ass to put on and take off, particularly if they have the meter cover attached. Collectors like them, though.

How about the original leather strap, with the impossible to find Rollei clips? That will also raise the price somewhat. You can fit a regular, thin camera strap through the strap lugs on the body if you don't have the Rollei strap. That's what I do, even though I have the original strap. I don't really trust those strange Rollei strap clips; you'd have to see one up close to know what I'm talking about.

How about an original Rollei chromed, hinged lens cap? These can cost over $75. alone, if you can find one. Most used Rolleis are sold without the lens cap; ones with the cap are usually advertised as such, and cost more. And if you don't have the cap.....well, I don't have to tell you what can happen to the lens.

Any other accessories?...filters?...hood? Both of these are sometimes included with a camera, but not often. A hood is almost a necessity, given the lens' tendency to flare without one, and Rollei Bay II hoods can be very hard to find, as well as expensive. Filters are Bay II, and can be purchased new from B+W, through B&H Photo, for less than original Rollei filters. They can run about $30-$40 per filter.

In the end, the camera's condition is the most important determining factor when it comes to price. All the 3.5F's will be about equal in their picture-making ability, regardless of model, type, year of manufacture. If in good shape, they will all make wonderful images.

Good luck with your choice, Sergio.

-- Sergio Ortega (s.ortega@worldnet.att.net), June 05, 2000.

Thanks Darron and Sergio, it's $1200 with NO accessories, no hood, no filters, no nothing. I was just there (at Alt Camera) again. It is a 3.5 Planar, and the whole thing is mint. It's beautiful.

The only thing which worries me, is that the viewfinder is not very contrasty, and there is a lot of falloff (or whatever its called) in the viewfinder as well. Can I replace this with something a little more punchy?

-- shawn (shawngibson_prophoto@yahoo.com), June 06, 2000.

Shawn,

I replaced the original, dark and depressing screen with a Beattie Intenscreen. Replacement bright screens will completely transform a Rollei's viewfinder for the better. You won't believe the difference it makes.

Others will likely tell you that the Maxwell screen (I've never used one, so I cannot comment on it, but everyone says they're great)is the way to go. It's reportedly more contrasty than the other bright screens. Check out the threads on the Medium Format site on this issue.

However, I find the Intenscreen extremely bright, and the contrast is very good, as far as I'm concerned. But, if the Maxwell provides more contrast for easier focussing, then I suppose that's the way to go.

The Beattie (about $120. from B&H--make sure you measure the screen before ordering, the Beattie screens come in several sizes, and the B&H folks don't know which one fits which model Rollei) replaced the original screen in seconds. I believe all the 3.5F cameras had the removeable hood feature, which makes switching screens a breeze.

Good luck with your (?) new camera, Sergio.

-- Sergio Ortega (s.ortega@worldnet.att.net), June 07, 2000.

Thanks again, Sergio.I'll get one of the screens; which one sounds like a mere matter of preference. I would guess a contrasty screen is all the better for focusing without the aid of that little pop up thingie.

I'm a little worried about finding a hood. Using a camera without a hood is like asking to get the exposure equivalent of an STD, if you'll pardon the gross analogue...

I'm putting half down today, and picking it up next Wednesday...can't wait...shawn

-- shawn (shawngibson_prophoto@yahoo.com), June 07, 2000.

The 3.5F with the Planar lens has become somewhat of a collector item. I'd guess that what you're seeing is an overly-inflated price to exploit that fact. I'd also think that pulling the screen out of a mint collector-quality camera would do much to degrade its resale value.

Think about watching ebay for a while. There's a huge trade in Rolleis there, many collector quality, many user quality. Usually substantially less than the price your looking at (around $812.50 US). CLA's going to be $100 to $150US, plus the cost of a new screen (I think the Brightscreens and Maxwells are more than the Beatties).

Also check out the Rollei TLR Club, and the aforementioned Medium Format Digest...

-- Scott (bliorg@yahoo.com), June 08, 2000.

For that price it ought to be gold-plated and covered in Axolotl skin dyed with Saffron, in a mink-lined case trimmed with ivory and tortoiseshell! Even excellent condition 2.8 F Planar versions don't fetch that sort of money here in the UK. Leave it for a collector with more money than sense, and get a "user", especially if you're going to bugger up its original condition by fitting a new screen.

-- Pete Andrews (p.l.andrews@bham.ac.uk), June 08, 2000.

Fitting a new screen on any mint condition Rollei 3.5F, which has the removeable hood that allows you to do this in about 10 seconds with no tools, does not alter its collector's value one bit.....unless you're dumb enough to throw the original one away. Sergio.

-- Sergio Ortega (s.ortega@worldnet.att.net), June 08, 2000.

oops, i threw it away...Just kidding...

I just put half down on the camera. It is, from what I can tell, in very good condition, and I don't mind paying top dollar for it, especially since it comes with a 1 year warranty from Alt Camera--I can bitch like crazy at the slightest problem. Can you tell me where to find info on when the F's were made, from when to when, and, with serial info, when specifically 'mine' was made? It's not on the pages indicated above...thanks again. shawn

-- shawn (shawngibson_prophoto@yahoo.com), June 08, 2000.

FYI, It's from 1960, according to the serial #...

Thanks to everyone who responded and emailed me personally.

-- shawn (shawngibson_prophoto@yahoo.com), June 08, 2000.

Lately have been looking at rolleis as well (although in Spain), from what I have seen, I have been offered a xenotar 2.8 for less than 900$ so Im not so sure about 1200$ for a 3.5. Another Issue is garantee, from what I saw over here, no body want to open a rollei unless its absolutly necesary, cameras I have seen in shops where garanteed and (cleaned( (but only from the outside) as I see it their logic is as follows, they garantee a camera that worked well for the last 40 years, why should it get broken now, so I have been offered cameras that went from the owner to the shelf and stay there till someone buys them. and if the sellers gets unlucky and the camera fails, then they clean it. that is my experience here in spain. where Rolleis in good shape are raelly hard to come by.

Good luck. Diego K.

-- Diego K. (heuristica@yahoo.com), June 09, 2000.

Yikes. A red and a yellow filter, and a hood, just cost me $200Cdn. But at least I FOUND them; I was not going to shoot w/o a hood. I get the camera tomorrow; I'm extremely anticipatory (?)...sweaty even...ok that's too much info...:-~

-- shawn (shawngibson_prophoto@yahoo.com), June 15, 2000.