One would assume the 3.5 is a lesser camera, because of all the hype enjoyed by the faster 2.8 lens Rolleiflex. Be that as it may, but this 3.5E is holding its own against the much sought for faster brother. I am by no means an authority when it comes to Rolleiflex cameras (and this is true for any camera), but even an amateur such as myself could see that the 3.5 can be a really contender to the more expensive brother from the same mother.
Why ? Well, for me at least, the thing that makes or breaks a camera deal is its lens. Indeed, the glass determines the quality of the photograph. In this case, give me a Planar anytime, and I will be forgetting the other versions of glass Rolleiflex put on their TLRs. Granted, the faster the better, but the modern film rendered the minute difference between 2.8 and 3.5 almost indistinguishable. I say almost because it is so. And to be honest, i haven’t met with a lot of situations where the 2.8 did what 3.5 could not.
Just as a side note, I own several Nikon cameras (F2 to F4, going through FE2, FM3a) and of course, what’s a Nikon camera without a good lens? I always wanted a 50/1.2 to go with my FM3a, believing it to be one of the Graal of the Nikkor lens line. Well, I got one, and shot half a film. That was it, half a 35mm film roll. I got rid of it very fast. I could not use it to my liking, best bokeh or not. It did nothing better than my 50/1.8 or 50/2. The narrowest depth of field made it useless, for me that is. Bokeh is said to be exceptional; I do not know about you, but I do not shoot for bokeh. So, yes, 50/1.8 or 50/2 are much suitable to my amateur style of taking photographs. The same thing happened with my Zuiko 50/1.2, sold very fast right after buying it, for the same reason as above. Never owned a 50/1.4 either Nikkor or Zuiko, and to be honest, never felt the need for these.
I shoot mostly above f4, and so the 2.8 is not a must, for me that is. True, faster lens allow you to get better low light photographs, but then again if you do not shoot in low light, the 3.5 may be the Rolleiflex for you. The Planar is tack sharp above f4, really sharp. I haven’t compared the 2.8 with this 3.5, but I will, out of curiosity. Others, better educated than me in photography and optics did this tests, and they appear to have reached the conclusion there is not much difference.
And, apparently, according to the more knowledgeable people out there, the other lenses Rolleiflex had installed in their TLRs (like Tessar, Xenotar) are pretty much up to par with the Planar. True or not, I would not know, but to my eyes, there is not a sliver of difference between the 2.8F’s Planar versus this 3.5E, beside the obvious focal (75mm versus 80mm).
So is this Rolleflex 3.5E a good alternative to the more expensive 2.8F? From my point of view, I believe so.
