Buying Arri 35mm

[Daniel Schurr]

Hello everyone,

My name is Daniel, I’m 21 years old and I’m from Germany.

Some time ago I inherited an Arriflex 16BL with an Angénieux 12–120mm lens. I have already shot one 400ft roll with it, and it was honestly a lot of fun. I really enjoyed the whole process of shooting on film and using such a classic camera. I should mention that I only do this as a hobby and not professionally.

However, I am not completely satisfied with the image quality of the lens, and I am planning to get a Zeiss 10–100mm lens in the future. But that is a different topic.

For quite som time, I have been dreaming of owning a 35mm Arriflex, and I would realy like to get one. Unfortunately, I still don’t know much about the different models, especially because I mainly want to use it for hobby purposes. Ideally, I would like something a little more compact and lighter than the Arriflex 16BL.

During my research, I came across several models:

• Arriflex 35 II
• Arriflex 35 II A
• Arriflex 35 II C
• Arriflex 35 III

Or would you recommend something completely different?

What would you recommend for a beginner with moderate expectations, who mainly wants to own and use a 35mm Arriflex for the enjoyment and nostalgia of shooting with a classic film camera?

I have also been looking at a few lenses. What are your opinions on these?

• Cooke Speed Panchro Series III 25mm f/2
• Angénieux Type LA2 35–140mm f/3.5
• Zeiss 85mm f/2

I also inherited three rolls of Kodak Vision3 500T, and I am planning to use them with the camera.

I would really appreciate any advice, recommendations, or personal experiences you can share.

Thank you very much!

Best regards

Daniel

[Daniel J. Fox]

Hi Daniel

Of the three lenses you mentioned

• Cooke Speed Panchro Series III 25mm f/2

• Angénieux Type LA2 35–140mm f/3.5

• Zeiss 85mm f/2

I've used / owned all three. You're looking at three of the classic cine lens brands, all which have their own look and feel. The Zeiss is the cleanest, the Angenieux zoom has the most "character".

Of the three I have the most experience with the Angenieux 35-140mm, which was the first zoom made for 35mm cinematography back in 1958.

It's so small you'd swear it was made for 16mm - light weight and with lovely rendering. To have decent resolving, you need to stop it down a bit and it's weak at the 140mm end, but it's really a lovely compact zoom. I had my copy modded with a shimmable PL mount by BurningEye AV in the Netherlands, with custom gearing and we use it alongside rehoused Angenieux cine primes.

[Daniel J. Fox]

The rendering especially at mid range distances is really beautiful, just don't expect good close focusing, for that you will need a prime.

[Giray Izcan]

1 hour ago, Daniel Schurr said:

Hello everyone,

My name is Daniel, I’m 21 years old and I’m from Germany.

Some time ago I inherited an Arriflex 16BL with an Angénieux 12–120mm lens. I have already shot one 400ft roll with it, and it was honestly a lot of fun. I really enjoyed the whole process of shooting on film and using such a classic camera. I should mention that I only do this as a hobby and not professionally.

However, I am not completely satisfied with the image quality of the lens, and I am planning to get a Zeiss 10–100mm lens in the future. But that is a different topic.

For quite som time, I have been dreaming of owning a 35mm Arriflex, and I would realy like to get one. Unfortunately, I still don’t know much about the different models, especially because I mainly want to use it for hobby purposes. Ideally, I would like something a little more compact and lighter than the Arriflex 16BL.

During my research, I came across several models:

• Arriflex 35 II
• Arriflex 35 II A
• Arriflex 35 II C
• Arriflex 35 III

Or would you recommend something completely different?

What would you recommend for a beginner with moderate expectations, who mainly wants to own and use a 35mm Arriflex for the enjoyment and nostalgia of shooting with a classic film camera?

I have also been looking at a few lenses. What are your opinions on these?

• Cooke Speed Panchro Series III 25mm f/2
• Angénieux Type LA2 35–140mm f/3.5
• Zeiss 85mm f/2

I also inherited three rolls of Kodak Vision3 500T, and I am planning to use them with the camera.

I would really appreciate any advice, recommendations, or personal experiences you can share.

Thank you very much!

Best regards

Daniel

Honestly, 35mm will be prohibitively expensive for a hobbyist. Unless you are wealthy or make a lot of money, you will most likely get to shoot on 35mm a handful of times a year at best. If anything, you can actually shoot more stuff on 16 as opposed to have it just sit there most of the year. 

Edited Wednesday at 08:02 PM by Giray Izcan

[Daniel Schurr]

Vor 2 Stunden sagte Giray Izcan:

Honestly, 35mm will be prohibitively expensive for a hobbyist. Unless you are wealthy or make a lot of money, you will most likely get to shoot on 35mm a handful of times a year at best. If anything, you can actually shoot more stuff on 16 as opposed to have it just sit there most of the year. 

Yes, I’m aware that the costs are high. My plan is to use the camera for only about four or five rolls of film per year. Of course, that’s still very expensive, but unfortunately that’s just how it is.

[Tyler Purcell]

35mm cameras are very different then 16mm, because most of the inexpensive ones are very loud (MOS) and are too loud for recording dialog. So if you just want to mess around, yes a 35 B or C model would be ok. However, they are absolutely not lighter than a 16BL because the film is twice as wide. So sure, the body maybe lighter alone, but once you're kitted out and shooting, it's heavy. Plus, the older Arri 35 cameras, require a lot of accessories to work well. You'll most likely not save any money buying an older camera like that and trying to make it work. Better to buy something like an Arri 35-3 or Aaton 35-III, the ladder is very nice, small, compact, lightweight, pretty quiet and modern. The older Arri's are bulletproof and 'cool' to look at, but there are WAY better cameras for not much more money. 

[Daniel Schurr]

28 minutes ago, Tyler Purcell said:

35mm cameras are very different then 16mm, because most of the inexpensive ones are very loud (MOS) and are too loud for recording dialog. So if you just want to mess around, yes a 35 B or C model would be ok. However, they are absolutely not lighter than a 16BL because the film is twice as wide. So sure, the body maybe lighter alone, but once you're kitted out and shooting, it's heavy. Plus, the older Arri 35 cameras, require a lot of accessories to work well. You'll most likely not save any money buying an older camera like that and trying to make it work. Better to buy something like an Arri 35-3 or Aaton 35-III, the ladder is very nice, small, compact, lightweight, pretty quiet and modern. The older Arri's are bulletproof and 'cool' to look at, but there are WAY better cameras for not much more money. 

Thanks for the tips! Whether the camera itself is noisy doesn’t really matter for the kind of projects I want to shoot. I’m just not entirely sure what the differences are between the 35 IIA, IIB, and IIC. An Aaton 35III is probably out of my budget. An Arriflex 35 III would definitely be an interesting option, though.

Daniel

[Giray Izcan]

9 hours ago, Daniel Schurr said:

Yes, I’m aware that the costs are high. My plan is to use the camera for only about four or five rolls of film per year. Of course, that’s still very expensive, but unfortunately that’s just how it is.

Fair enough. If you are set on getting a 2c, try to find one with a flat base. Cinema electronics has flat base for 2c so you can use with any fluid head with ease without having motor stick down. 

Edited Thursday at 08:06 AM by Giray Izcan

[Giray Izcan]

For an MOS canera, you should look for Arri 35-3, which came out after 2c, but has orientable viewfinder, pin registration and pl mount. I wouldn't bother with anything older than a 2c.. 

[Tyler Purcell]

21 hours ago, Daniel Schurr said:

Thanks for the tips! Whether the camera itself is noisy doesn’t really matter for the kind of projects I want to shoot. I’m just not entirely sure what the differences are between the 35 IIA, IIB, and IIC. An Aaton 35III is probably out of my budget. An Arriflex 35 III would definitely be an interesting option, though.

Daniel

The A and B are very similar, the C has a better movement and gate mostly, with a better viewfinder. They all struggle from an unorientable viewing system. Plus the design is very front heavy, meaning it does not work well on tripods or hand holding since it does not use a shoulder mount like your 16BL. It sits in front of the operator, with all the weight of the magazine and body on your hand. So single hand holding whilst you turn a focus knob is umm, not fun. They do make shoulder brackets and flat bases which can help, but you can't really hand hold with a flat base. The Arri 35-3 has all the same issues, only exacerbated because it has NO way of hand holding, unlike the standard 35, which has a stick motor. You need a lot of accessories to make either camera work in hand hold AND tripod. Tho the 35-3's orientable viewfinder is way nicer. 

The Aaton 35-III is a hand hold and tripod camera, more similar to a 16mm camera like your 16BL. 

I love hand holding and run and gun shooting, the older Arri cameras, with their battery belt requirement and huge weight factor, they are just not fun to run. For 35mm workflows, there isn't much out there which checks off as many boxes as the Aaton 35-III. The only ones it struggles with are the entry price and high speed. 

It's true that the older Arri's are cheap, but they are for a reason. Most of them will require more money to get working than you could ever imagine because they are very old. Modern cameras with more easy to service components, are WAY easier to find already in working condition. 

Edited Thursday at 08:06 PM by Tyler Purcell

[Fabian Schreyer]

2 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

The A and B are very similar, the C has a better movement

In what aspect is the movement of the IIC better? To my (non professional) eyes they always seemed to be almost identical. Maybe better (and encapsulated) bearings for the drive shafts, but that is it. But quite likely I am missing something.

 

[Tyler Purcell]

1 hour ago, Fabian Schreyer said:

In what aspect is the movement of the IIC better? To my (non professional) eyes they always seemed to be almost identical. Maybe better (and encapsulated) bearings for the drive shafts, but that is it. But quite likely I am missing something.

 

The A and B models I've seen have been entirely different claw assemblies. Maybe they were 35I's and not 35II's? But the A and B bodies are very easy to recognize from a distance simply due to the viewfinder. 

[Geffen Avraham]

If your goal is occasional shooting a few times a year, a Konvas 2M is cheap and easily converted to PL mount. These cameras are tanks and were flown to space in Soviet times. They do not have many servicepeople west of Berlin, however.

But if what you're looking for is a tool for recreational 35mm cinematography and not a feature production machine, it's a good choice. I have a 1M and shoot on it occasionally when I can. It works great.

Edited Friday at 12:54 AM by Geffen Avraham

[Jon O'Brien]

I've got a 2C and a 35-III, but haven't filmed with either yet. I keep waiting for someone to say to me "Jon, film my short film for me and I will pay for the film stock" but it's frankly a 'Waiting for Godot' thing. I've recently had Dom fix up the 35-III as it had some internal electronics problems (sluggish and intermittent motor). When I finally get around to it I will film something on them so I can put the footage on the Examples page of my website. They were both converted to 2 perf and Nikon F mount by Bruce McNaugton in Melbourne, who is now retired.

Another great little option, if you want 4 perf, is the solid little meat pie of a camera known as the Bell & Howell Eyemo. Had one in my hand just the other day, at a movie museum (the owner let me check it out). A truly great little camera.

Edited Friday at 03:44 AM by Jon O'Brien

[Jon O'Brien]

But with the Eyemo you would need to 'decant' little 100 ft spools of film in a darkroom, to fit inside its tiny film compartment.

[Tyler Purcell]

1 hour ago, Jon O'Brien said:

But with the Eyemo you would need to 'decant' little 100 ft spools of film in a darkroom, to fit inside its tiny film compartment.

Well, the eyemo does have a lot of other issues, 90 second loads being the largest. The other being the lack of daylight spools on the market, it's hard to get them. The final being that nobody sells film in 100ft spools without a custom order, so you're always spooling them down, which easy but requires a bit more than just a rewind table in a tent. 

If you're referring to the reflex Canadian made versions with Nikon mount and motor drive, they are very nice, but go for around $7k used. Kinda crazy considering I sold a pair of them for $4k in 2018. 

 

[Dom Jaeger]

5 hours ago, Fabian Schreyer said:

In what aspect is the movement of the IIC better? To my (non professional) eyes they always seemed to be almost identical. Maybe better (and encapsulated) bearings for the drive shafts, but that is it. But quite likely I am missing something.

 

Yeah some misinformation being given here.

The Arriflex 35 movement was changed from a simple circular cam to the better cardiod cam design with the introduction of the IIA in 1953. It made the pulldown quicker with a linger at the end to help with stability. Initially Arri fitted a 180 degree mirror but the new pulldown was not quite quick enough for such a shutter angle and with the IIB Arri quietly reduced the angle to 165 degrees along with some other minor changes.

 

On 7/9/2026 at 8:50 AM, Daniel Schurr said:

Thanks for the tips! Whether the camera itself is noisy doesn’t really matter for the kind of projects I want to shoot. I’m just not entirely sure what the differences are between the 35 IIA, IIB, and IIC. An Aaton 35III is probably out of my budget. An Arriflex 35 III would definitely be an interesting option, though.

Daniel

 The IIA and IIB are quite similar, the IIC introduced in 1964 had a better viewfinder and removeable ground glass, changes made to accomodate anamorphic filmmaking. But they're all essentially the same movement. 

The IIC is the classic iteration that really changed how movies were shot, led by films like Easy Rider and Bullitt. Other versions have a variable shutter, one Bayonet mount and two Standard mounts (instead of three Standard mounts) or a hard front with a single PL or Nikon mount. There are high speed versions and others that are converted to 2 perf. 

They are incredibly durable and pretty easy to service, fantastic cameras. There is a reason the IIC became so ubiquitous on movie sets in the 60s and 70s and beyond. 

You used to be able to pick them up fairly cheaply, but like with all movie cameras lately prices have skyrocketed. 

For mounting on a tripod you either need a flatbase or the special tripod plate Arri made that accomodated the handle - those are a little rare but there's actually one on ebay at the moment. 

There are cheaper 35mm movie cameras - the Bell and Howell Eyemo for example, which is also very durable but mostly came as a spring powered camera and it's not reflex like the Arriflex.

If you only want to shoot occasionally, it might be more economical to rent something for a weekend here and there. That way you're guarateed a working camera and lenses, and you could try out a few different ones to see what suits you. It also saves you going down the rabbit hole of endless ebay searches, trying to find all the compatible accessories you might need and potentially wasting money on a boat anchor.  Renting the equipment is how the majority of movies get shot. 

[Giray Izcan]

Aaton will be more expensive than the said Arri MOS cameras. As far as Mos cameras are concerned, I would go for the Arri 3 because of its pin registration and its orientable viewfinder. You can of course get an orientable viewfinder adapter for a 2c but that's another item to search. Just to make it clear, I am not suggesting the 2c cameras are bad or unusable in any way, but, given the choice, I'd go for an Arri 3. Also, Arri 3 will most likely be in PL mount configuration as opposed to a 3 lens turret on the 2c. You can get steadicam magazines for the Arri 3, so it extends back, which makes it better ergonomically. Bear in mind though,  the steadicam magazines may not be the easiest to find these days. 

Edited Friday at 09:33 AM by Giray Izcan

[Giray Izcan]

I agree with Dom in opting for a rental camera when the need arises. Shooting on 35 is not expensive, it is VERY expensive that the camera will most likely be a nice decorative piece for an average person. 400ft of film gets you 4 and a half minutes of footage in 4p configuration, which will cost you around 800 dolars, which includes purchasing the stock, processing and scanning. That's rent for some people or near it. 

Edited Friday at 09:34 AM by Giray Izcan

[Daniel Schurr]

am currently leaning towards a 2C.
What would you consider a fair price for such a camera with 2 magazines, shoulder support, battery, and case?
In working condition.

I don’t want to overpay.

I would also appreciate any tips and advice regarding this camera. I do think the viewfinder of the III is better, but the 2C looks cooler with its turret, and since I would only use it occasionally, I think it would be completely sufficient.

[Giray Izcan]

3 hours ago, Daniel Schurr said:

am currently leaning towards a 2C.
What would you consider a fair price for such a camera with 2 magazines, shoulder support, battery, and case?
In working condition.

I don’t want to overpay.

I would also appreciate any tips and advice regarding this camera. I do think the viewfinder of the III is better, but the 2C looks cooler with its turret, and since I would only use it occasionally, I think it would be completely sufficient.

You shouldn't buy a camera because it looks "cool." Either way, good luck.

[Tyler Purcell]

7 hours ago, Daniel Schurr said:

What would you consider a fair price for such a camera with 2 magazines, shoulder support, battery, and case?
In working condition.

It depends on if it has PL or Arri Standard mount, if it has a good Cinematography Electronics base or the stick motor. There are too many variables. I've seen 100% stock 1970's variants with Arri Standard mount go for $3k and I've seen the same camera with PL and CE base go for $10k. The prices vary widely, there is no direct answer because it's based on how much you can afford frankly.