Rollei 3.5E vs 3.5F

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Steven Woody - 29 Jun 2006 04:52 GMT

sorry, i these days always ask similar questions :(

how to compare 3.5E and 3.5F. i like you used both give me some info.
i already know components of both body.

-
woody

Reply to this Message

Sarah Brown - 29 Jun 2006 12:31 GMT

>sorry, i these days always ask similar questions :(
>
>how to compare 3.5E and 3.5F. i like you used both give me some info.
>i already know components of both body.

I have both a 3.5E (Xenotar) and a 3.5F (Planar). Both have the split image
focus aid, the F has a lightmeter where the E does not, and the F also has
the removable focus hood, the one on the E being fixed. Apart from that,
there's little to chose between them. I prefer my E because it's in slightly
better condition, and the Xenotar seems to give slightly better images,
although that's not a sicentifically backed viewpoint.

Reply to this Message

Bandicoot - 29 Jun 2006 18:28 GMT

> >sorry, i these days always ask similar questions :(
> >
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> also has the removable focus hood, the one on the E being fixed. Apart
> from that, there's little to chose between them. I prefer my E because

it's

> in slightly better condition, and the Xenotar seems to give slightly

better

> images, although that's not a sicentifically backed viewpoint.

Es with exposure meters do also exist, but the F is the first model where
the meter is coupled to the speed and aperture settings on the camera. The
coupling of the meter (when a meter is fitted) and the removable focusing
hood are the key differences.

I too have a 3.5E, and it's a fine camera. I don't need the coupled meter,
and while the removable hood might be nice, I have other cameras for eye
level viewing and anyway, the prism is very expensive so I'd probably never
bother to get one. On that basis, tha fact that Es can be found for a lot
less money than Fs was the deciding factor for me.

Peter

Reply to this Message