Early or late Rolleiflex 3.5f TLR

[peewee]

Hi..Is there a difference in optical quality between mint Rolleiflex 3.5F cameras ranging from type 3 early 60's and type 5 early 70's.

Glad of any advice, many thanks.

[kully]

I had one of each (I still have a very late 'white face' one) and I could not tell the difference.

The only thing I can remember being different was the wind-on lever. The newer one was might light-weight than the older one.

[D.O'K.]

I recall reading that the later cameras had a 6 rather than 5 element planar lens. To what extent this might have affected the optical quality however I know not.

Regards,
D.

[rlouzan]

Yes,

I own a type5 Planar and it's actually a warming filter. Sharper than a Blad.

Regards,
Robert

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FS: Hand Made Leather Camera Wrist Straps
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/phot...a-wrist-straps

Originally Posted by D.O'K.

I recall reading that the later cameras had a 6 rather than 5 element planar lens. To what extent this might have affected the optical quality however I know not.

Regards,
D.

[Calzone]

Type 3 was the transitional version. After 2753002 the Planar had six elements. After 2299547 the Xenatar had six elements.

Cal

[Rayt]

Originally Posted by Calzone

Type 3 was the transitional version. After 2753002 the Planar had six elements. After 2299547 the Xenatar had six elements.

Cal

That's good to know. Thanks!

[D.O'K.]

Thanks. That numbering means mine has 6 elements.

And if the additional element was actually a warm-up filter it would also explain why the camera gives distinctly (er) warmer results than an earlier version I once had...

Regards,
D.

[Calzone]

Originally Posted by D.O'K.

Thanks. That numbering means mine has 6 elements.

And if the additional element was actually a warm-up filter it would also explain why the camera gives distinctly (er) warmer results than an earlier version I once had...

Regards,
D.

The 3.5F is highly regarded. I own a 3.5F "WhiteFace" that I had Harry Fleenor overhaul and at the same time got a Maxwell screen upgrade. What a camera!

Cal

[peewee]

Many thanks for your replies..Does warmer mean better?

[Steve M.]

I think warmer just means warmer. I've owned a couple of the Rolleiflex cameras w/ Planars, both early and late, as well as a 2.8 Xenotar. They all were, w/o a doubt, the best lenses I ever shot in medium format, excepting the Heliars on Voigtlander folders. The Heliars aren't necessarily better, they just image w/ more of a 3-D look.

[f16sunshine]

Originally Posted by Steve M.

I think warmer just means warmer. I've owned a couple of the Rolleiflex cameras w/ Planars, both early and late, as well as a 2.8 Xenotar. They all were, w/o a doubt, the best lenses I ever shot in medium format, excepting the Heliars on Voigtlander folders. The Heliars aren't necessarily better, they just image w/ more of a 3-D look.

+1
Heliar different not better. The 6x9 aspect and 105mm lens lends to the 3D as well (I love that Bessa ii Heliar).

My favorite Rolleiflex having owned several 3.5 and 2.8 both planar and Xenotar is a D with Xenotar f2.8 it too looks "warmer".

I think as these cameras age and change hands.
The condition of the camera you buy is as important or maybe more important than the minor unique design features of individual models.

[D.O'K.]

"The condition of the camera you buy is as important or maybe more important than the minor unique design features of individual models."

Absolutely.

Regards,
D.

[peewee]

Many thanks for the good advice

[Sarcophilus Harrisii]

There has previously been some discussion about the change to the six element design and the reasons for this on the Rollei list. I can't recall the precise details off the top of my head. Cheaper to manufacture with an additional single piece of glass than corrected bonded pairs, perhaps? It wasn't carried out because the previous versions were considered lacking, I remember that much. If anyone is really interested in the change to the 3.5, the list has more details.
Regards,
Brett

[JPD]

No, the six element Planar and Xenotar have no warming filters. They were new designs, with one element split in two and the flat surfaces cemented together. It's said that this was done to simplify the production, and that the quality was the same as the earlier five element versions.

[Sarcophilus Harrisii]

Originally Posted by JPD

No, the six element Planar and Xenotar have no warming filters. They were new designs, with one element split in two and the flat surfaces cemented together. It's said that this was done to simplify the production, and that the quality was the same as the earlier five element versions.

Thanks for posting that! I've seen it before at some point but couldn't recall the precise details.
Regards
Brett

[rlouzan]

Hi,

I respectfully disagree, it's a subject that has been disscused to death. The lens diagram shown differs significantly from my particular sample.
I would also check the lens serial n., since many early 3.5F Planar cameras have been factory upgraded to a six element Planar - as in my Rolleiflex TLR.

Regards,
Robert

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FS: Hand Made Leather Camera Wrist Straps
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/phot...a-wrist-straps

Originally Posted by JPD

No, the six element Planar and Xenotar have no warming filters. They were new designs, with one element split in two and the flat surfaces cemented together. It's said that this was done to simplify the production, and that the quality was the same as the earlier five element versions.

[JPD]

Originally Posted by rlouzan

I respectfully disagree, it's a subject that has been disscused to death. The lens diagram shown differs significantly from my particular sample.
I would also check the lens serial n., since many early 3.5F Planar cameras have been factory upgraded to a six element Planar - as in my Rolleiflex TLR.

Can you show us your 3,5F and its Planar? I doubt that owners had their Rolleiflexes upgraded with a six element lens. That would have been very expensive for minimal gain.

[rlouzan]

Hi,

I'll see if I can post a picture over the weekend. From the Serial numbers Mark James Small confirmed to me that it was a factory upgrade.

Regards,
Robert
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FS: Hand Made Leather Camera Wrist Straps
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/phot...a-wrist-straps

Originally Posted by JPD

Can you show us your 3,5F and its Planar? I doubt that owners had their Rolleiflexes upgraded with a six element lens. That would have been very expensive for minimal gain.

[rlouzan]

http://photo.net/medium-format-photography-forum/001CcP

http://photo.net/medium-format-photography-forum/001v5d

[JPD]

Originally Posted by rlouzan

http://photo.net/medium-format-photography-forum/001CcP

http://photo.net/medium-format-photography-forum/001v5d

Marc James Small wrote: "Check out Prochnow 16-369 for diagrams of the 5-element lenses and 16-376 for diagrams of the 6-element designs. There is no "flat glaass color correction filter" in the 6-element lenses: they are both six lenses in four groups. Parker is, at best, a very unreliable source. Marc"

My source is also the Rollei engineer Claus Prochnow, and the drawings of the lenses look correct to me. I have a six element Planar on my 3,5F and had the six element Xenotar on my 3,5 E3. Sadly, Claus Prochnow passed away a couple of years ago, but it's possible that Zeiss can dig in their archives and clear things up. Schneider Kreuznach helped me with info about the old five element Xenar (Rolleis didn't use them, but early Kodak Retinas II cameras did)

[JPD]

I emailed Carl Zeiss and asked about the reason behind the redesign of the 3,5/75 Planar to a six element one. This is the reply I got:

Dear Patric,
Thank you for your inquiry to Carl Zeiss.
Well, the reason for the change of the lens design was an improve of the lens performance (less vignetting, more consistent performance across the image field) as well as an easier production. The splitting of the second lens element into two cemented elements with a plain surface in between is easier in production than the meniscus element.
Hoping to be of service to you we kindly ask you to contact us again should you need further assistance.
Sincerely,
Bertram Hoenlinger

[Sarcophilus Harrisii]

Originally Posted by JPD

I emailed Carl Zeiss and asked about the reason behind the redesign of the 3,5/75 Planar to a six element one. This is the reply I got:

Dear Patric,
Thank you for your inquiry to Carl Zeiss.
Well, the reason for the change of the lens design was an improve of the lens performance (less vignetting, more consistent performance across the image field) as well as an easier production. The splitting of the second lens element into two cemented elements with a plain surface in between is easier in production than the meniscus element.
Hoping to be of service to you we kindly ask you to contact us again should you need further assistance.
Sincerely,
Bertram Hoenlinger

That is an impressive level of customer service in response to an enquiry about a legacy product. Thanks for passing the information on, too.
Regards,
Brett

[D.O'K.]

Thanks JPD for taking the time to resolve the issue.

Regards,
D.

[rlouzan]

Hi JPD,

As promiseds Rolleiflex TLR 3.5F type2 w/ 6-element Planar (factory upgrade).

Regards,
Robert