Can anyone compare Rolleiwide/55mm Distagon and Rolleiflex FW 50mm

<p>I'm trying to get feedback from people that have used both the Wide Angle Rolleiflex (Rolleiwide) and the newer FW cameras.</p>

<p>I'm wondering what if any differences there are between the 55mm Distagon and the 50mm Super Angulon/W-Apogon. I'm sure both are wonderful lenses. I would think the 50mm, being a more modern production, with multicoating might be technically advanced. But the image examples I've seen online from the 55mm Distagon can be spectacular.</p>

<p>My main question is how much difference there are in their angles of view in practical use. So far I have thought the 55mm would obviously have an angle of view that is notably less than the 50mm, and a bit more natural perspective for a wide angle lens. (Similar to how a 35mm lens looks a bit more natural than a 28mm on a35mm camera.)</p>

<p>But I've also seen one review comparing these lenses that suggested they had practically identical angles of view, and were perhaps closer in actual focal length then the lens labeling. (I do know that most lenses are usually not exactly what is written on the lens, but rounded off. In other words a lens labeled 50mm might actually measure to be a 52mm, and a 53mm could be rounded off to a 55mm.)</p>

<p>This sounds all rather geeky, but I'm interested in finding the one with the most natural perspective for my work. And if the FW will work it will make my life a lot easier than trying to find a Rolleiwide, having it serviced and so forth.</p>

<p>I have used neither, so can't really help, except to suggest that supposing the nominal focal lengths were the true focal lengths, then the difference in (horizontal) angle of view between 55mm and 50mm (roughly 57° and 62° respectively, the 50mm being 8% wider than the 55mm) would be more like (in 135 terms) the wider angle of view provided by maybe a 32mm lens as compared to a 35mm lens. Wider yes, but not as significant as the difference between 35mm and 28mm.</p>

<p>Colin,</p>

<p>Good point about the slight difference in angles of view. Yes, I had been thinking of the 50mm vs. the 55mm similar to comparing 28mm and 32mm on a 135 camera. Certainly not a huge jump, but still some of the image samples I've found on Flickr seem to show quite a difference in the look between the 55mm Distagon and the FW's 50mm Super Angulon. Part of the look might be due to the differences in contrast and so forth. The Distagon is a 50 year old design after all. Still there's something about the Distagon I really like. The Distagon seems gentler, less stark. I suppose it's personal, very subjective, and not at all rational, given the rarity and high cost of a Rolleiwide.</p>

<p>There are of course other 6x6 cameras with a 55mm possible, like the Voigtlander 667W and Mamiya C330 with a 55mm. These are all very good cameras, but a Rolleiflex has all of the qualities I'm looking for—compact, low vibration, quite—and with through a lens focusing. </p>

<p>I have a Mamiya 6 with a 50mm right now. It's a great camera and the lens quality is tops. But I want to go back to the Rollei so I can focus through a lens instead of the rangefinder. That's why I'm researching the Rolleiwide and FW before selling my Mamiya and finding a Rollei.</p>

<p>Make sure to check out the shutter release on the FW - for a while the GX was stiff, making handheld shots at 1/30 a bit tough, unlike the older Rollei shutters which were like butter. They may have changed this for the FW - as I think there were three different shutters used in the GX. </p>