Rolleiflex 6008 wide angle: 40, 50, hassie SWC?

[javier_saturno1]

I have an important question that can only be answered from first

hand experience, so here it goes: I have a Rollei 6008 integral with

90 Apo Macro Schneider lens, and I need to go wider. However, I cant

rent this type of equipment where I live, so I need to decide wisely:

 

1.- is there a lot of difference between 40 and 50 Schneider lenses

(perspective wise) and

2.- Being the 40 Schneider super angulon only 10% cheaper than the

Hasselblad 903 SWC (still a whole lot of money), and taking into

account the inherent inferior quality of retrofocus wide angles, what

would be your advise?

or, in other words, how much do you 40mm owners use that focal

length? is it only suitable for landscape? Has anyone compared it

directly with the Hasselblad Biogon? and, last, does anyone own both

a 40 and a 50 in 6x6 formats, if so, which one and why?

Sorry for the long post, but I cannot afford to make a mistake for

such amount of money!!

I see that the Rollei users normally have the 40/90/180 trio, but I

cant see a reason for that, except for double/half focal lengths,

what doesnt mean a lot to me.

P.S.: I only have 35 mm experience, where both 24 and 35 are my most

used focal lengths, but I know that the square format is a totally

different game.

Thanks in advance, Javier.

[andy_ongun]

There is a bit of a difference in regards to perspective between 40 and 50, but not a lot. You can go to www.zeiss.de and look at their interactive lens selection to get an idea about the perspective differences.

 

I would not say the wide angles have inferior quality. I use both the 40 (Scheneider) and the 50 (Zeiss), sometimes you just don't have enough room to move forwards or backwards and this way I don't have to compromise. I do not use either lens for landscape, but for industrial work.

[thomas_diekwisch]

Difficult question I have also been wrestling with for a while. I have both, a Zeiss 50mm Distagon and a Schneider 40mm Super-Angulon.

 

You might know that roughly the 35 in 35mm translates into a 60mm 6x6cm and the 24 into a 40mm 6x6cm. Since these are the lenses you like most this might be a good first approach.

 

You will find that many Rolleiflex owners prefer the Schneider 40mm. It's a tad wider open (3.5 instead of 4), it's compact and lightweight , and the floating mechanisms are integrated. Altogether it's a very convenient lens to use, almost like a wide angle standard if such a thing exists. It's definitely great for landscape but its real strength is in reportage/news photography. In addition, the depth of field of the 40mm provides for lots of focusing reserve. Together, the 6008i and the 40mm are an extremely fast, compact, and versatile combination.

 

The 40 Super-Angulon is also incredibly sharp and I seriously doubt whether anyone would ever be able to tell the difference from a Hasselblad Biogon in real life. The Biogon's angle is just a few degrees wider than that of the Super-Angulon or the 40 Distagon for that respect. I hardly believe it would make much of a difference at all.

 

The things I am wrestling with are of a different nature. While you can trim 6x6cm any way you want, wide angles don't always fit the square in a real harmonious fashion. There are of course motives that fit right into the square and others you can trim neatly. But I believe there is a reason for all these medium format panoramics coming up. It would be nice to have a camera deliver the 120 wide angle perspective directly on the negative or slide without cropping. So, sometimes both the 40 and the 50 don't feel right.

 

In 35mm I really like a 28mm wideangle and a 20mm wideangle, and sometimes, but rarely, a 15mm on the extreme end. I'd love to have something that translates into a 20mm lens/35mm format. The Mamiya 7 with the 43mm Biogon copy might be the right answer. Or any of the panoramics. At times also, the 40mm is just too wide, too extreme. In this case, the 50mm gives you a closer and more natural perspective.

 

If you like the 24mm lens in 35mm I believe you will be happy with the 40. But don't set yourself for just one camera system. Another camera for wideangle photography might just be the answer. I have both worlds, the 40/90/180 Schneiders for the 6008i and the 50/80/150 Zeiss for the SL66E, and sometimes it is hard to choose one or the other. The Schneider combo gives you more extreme pictures and unusual perspectives, but you might sometimes loose out on a simple shot. The Zeiss combo is the proven standard for decades and there is a reason to that as well. Of course, you can get most of these focal lengths from both manufacturers...

[jerry_lehrer]

Javier---

There is no question in my mind. I have,and use the 50mm Distagon.

I have tried the 40mm, but it is heavy, cumbersome and expensive.

I very much prefer a Hasselblad SWC,as it is sharper, lighter and

gives a complete camera to your arsenal. I use a H'blad 500C/M and

find that a 50mm,80mm,150mm, together with my SWC is ideal for my

work. Once you shoot with a SWC you will never want to give it up.

 

Jerry

[edward_s_carmick]

Javior:

I can speak for the 40 mm Super Angulon, 50 mm f 4 Distagon(non FLE), and 60 mm f 3.5 Curtagon. I generally take and use the 40 mm and 60 mm as they are really excellent and fit nicely with the 90 mm. If you were only to get one wide-angle perhaps the new 50 mm f 4 Distagon (FLE)would be the way to go. The 40 and 60 mm Schneiders are truely exceptional.

[javier_saturno1]

That seems to be the consensus: each lens has a different taste to it and you can only make up your mind by choosing all of them!!!. I see that 40 is more or less a standard for Rollei 6008 users, although I have not found any direct comparison with the SWC. However, the only wise choice seems to be to get SWC+50+60 Schneiders (as per Eds, Andy and Thomas advise)...if only I won the lottery!!.

Lets formulate the question differently: would you go stepwise wider and wider (first 60 and then 50 or 40 or SWC if needed: this is the expensive way) or would you go widest from the beguinning (40 or SWC) and then get a 50 or 60 if theres a need for something in between?

The amount of money we are talking about here is too big to make mistakes!!

And, Ed: what Schneider 60 are you talking about? I only find the Zeiss one in the Rollei catalog (new, I mean)

[kornelius_j._fleischer]

"Once you shoot with a SWC you will never want to give it up." Gerald, I experience the very same! Even with an Alpa + Biogon in parallel (with its 66 x 44 cassettes it can deliver the rectangles some might miss with the square SWC.)

 

If I were to start over, I would begin with the widest (which would, again, be the SWC), add the Distagon 60, and up from there. Just my 0.02.

[andy_ongun]

Yeah, getting them all is a good idea if you have unlimited funds <g>. I would get the widest and fill in the gaps as needed, in this case start with the 40 and get the 60 later if needed (seeing that you already have the 90). One major thing to consider (which you haven't mentioned) is your application, how do these lenses fit in in the system you are building?

[william_mitchell]

Javier,

Random thoughts...

For landscapes, I'd go with the 40 Schneider. Be mindful though that the lenshood for it is large. The 60 Schneider is a sweet lens-- but only available now in the used market. Yes, for the purist, the 'Blad SWC deserves all the accolades that it receives. However, from a practical point of view, are you REALLY going to carry another body & back, relatively small as they may be?

Generally speaking, I'd pose the question to you: how much foreground do tend to include in any given image? My initial reaction to the square format was to eye the bottom third of the image. If you wish a slightly wider, "normal" perspective, with no distortions, go with the 60.... Better still rent the "Blad equivalent 40/50/60 lenses.... Assuming your shooting chromes, I'd bet that you'd have difficulty in separating one German brand from the other.

Personally, my 3 are all Scheiders: 40, 60, 90.

Good luck,

BILL

[raymond_tai]

I used to have the 903 SWC to complement my 6008i setup, but like the above post wisely said: are you really going to carry another body and back around? The answer for me was no so I sold my SWC and decided on a 40mm for the Rollei instead. Aside from the obvious drawback of having to carry extra backs for multiple systems the biggest hassle was having to remove the Rollei from the tripod and mount the SWC whenever I wanted to switch to wide. I am sure when stopped down either 40mm for the Rollei will just as good as the Biogon. Other issues include the lack of accurate framing of the SWC and the pathetic external finder but that is another thread.

[don_douglas]

The opinions on lens performance above seem to relate mainly to questions of relative sharpness. That´s interesting, but what about other factors such as spherical aberration, etc. When you shoot with 40mm lenses on your Hassy and Rollei bodies, are the verticals near the film edge nice and straight? They are when using a true wide angle such as the Biogon.

[desmond_kidman]

Hello,

 

The last poster asked about straight verticals with the retrofocus 40mm lens. For general use I don't think anyone is going to notice the 1% distortion of these well corrected, modern wide angle lenses, even if it is for publication. Only for mapping or work where measurements are to be taken from the photo should the low distortion of the swc be necessary.

 

The swc is a little more contrasty, has more natural background blur (obviously the blur is not very blurry with these wide angles, but the swc is a little more natural in its transition from in-focus to out-of-focus areas), and has more depth of field (optical design produces more depth of field at same aperture!) and these, along with the usefulness in highly accurate measurement applications, are the optical pluses.

 

However, I believe the swc is loved for reasons that go beyond optical. The overall camera, which is non-slr, becomes a handy, quiet street shooter using zone focusing. It can be hand-held to 1/8 second in low light situations.

 

For me it does not take the place of a wide angle lens for my slr, I use it in addition to the slr.

 

Unfortunately, Rollei does not have an equivalent camera, so for a Rollei user who wants interchangeable backs it means carrying an additional 2,3,or 4 backs, and a different series of filters. Although I am intrigued by some aspects of the Rollei system (non-reverse curl backs, other features) the lack of an SWC equivalent is one of the reasons I don't consider switching.

 

Continuing on the SWC, don't let the finder scare you away. I am amazed at the number of complaints about this. For me, it roughly outlines the frame, and for visualizing I look beyond the barrel distortion. Any good photographer needs to be able to visualize through a viewfinder, and forget what they saw with their binocular vision. Visualizing through the SWC finder is the same discipline, like getting used to a reversed image of a waist level finder, or the reversed, upside-down image of a view camera.I would be surprised to see any good photographer, after spending some looking at the world through this finder, continue to have a problem.

 

Armando Conti

[henrik_rundgren1]

I second the opinion of the previous poster.

I have two Superwides, one for travelling and general abuse and

the other as... ...well let's call it back up. The SWC is truly superb

and I have yet to have a (technically) poor shot even close up. It is

fast and produces great pictures with great depth of field and a

smooth transition (bokeh or whatever you would like to call it)

into out of focus areas. Yes, one can always argue that the 40 is

as good as the SWC Biogon stopped down but if you use the

SWC you don't have to care about any aperture being

significantly better or worse - just click away - the lens itself is

flawless. That's the difference. To me it is not negligible. Too

many people get tied up in technicalities and look for flaws in the

SWC as a whole. It is not a perfect camera, it is a near perfect

lens though. And the viewfinder is semi crap but I can live with

that. As for the other end I got hooked on the Rollei 6008 with the

APO 90/4 and will have one delivered next week. Hassle with two

systems? Yeah, slightly, but I can live with that. I can't afford more

than the SWC's and the 6008 w 90/4, and I have had to forsake a

lot to get here. I don't lie awake thinking of all the shots I'll be

missing with all the gear i don't have - I like thinking of all the

shots I can get with what I do have - much more rewarding -

happy shooting folks!

 

Former gear junkie settling for less, but the ""best"" ;-)

Henrik Rundgren