I have a used Rollei 4.0FW in quite remarkable condition on reserve at a local camera shop. But before finalising the purchase, I would like to know if anyone is currently using this camera and about their experience(s) with it. How does it compare with the older Rollei wide angle cameras as to build quality and so on? The dealer pointed out that since this is a newish camera and lens, it does not suffer from the separation issues that are allegedly common in the older wide angle lenses. Any comment? Is the vintage model still preferable from a user's rather than a collector's point of view? I already use a Rollei 2.8F and I would like to pair this wide angle camera with it.
I have not yet been blessed with a Rollei Wide so I am not able to, as you have requested, speak to the pros and cons of using one of the late FW types. Still, I can make a few observations you may find helpful perhaps.
The 135mm Sonnar used in the classic Tele Rolleiflex is quite notorious for manifesting failure of the cement used for optical bonding. But I have personally never heard of the 55mm Distagon used in the classic Wide model being affected, ever, and I've been reading anything I can find about Rollei TLRs, obsessively, for at least a decade. That's not definitive, but suggests the dealer is overstating the point (or conflating it with the well known and well documented fault the Tele lenses suffer from, which I suspect may be the case). Frankly I would disregard the issue when deciding whether to go with an early or late Rollei Wide.
Given the choice, I would prefer the classic model. They look prettier to my eye, and have the automat film loading featured in the classic models for over forty years (excepting the Rolleiflex T, of course). These things matter to me. The latter day Rolleiflex models have always tended to be rather expensive compared to the Franke & Heidecke/Rollei GMBH made versions but with a rise in interest in film imaging in recent years, prices may be evening out in certain cases. With only (roughly) 3000 classic Rollei Wide models being produced, they have always attracted a degree of interest from collectors, as well as those photographers who prefer the Rollei way of imaging.
Bear in mind that although a Rolleiflex is very long wearing, after several decades of use, one of the originals is likely to need at least a service to be at its best again. On the other hand, a late type with only light amateur use may well be good to shoot without ado. Personally I am aware of the difference and, notwithstanding, would still take a good early model, even if I had to fix it. But if it is important to you to find something you can shoot immediately it may suggest a late model Wide is an easier proposition.
I can't recall offhand which bayonet size the modern Wide models take for hoods, filters and lens caps. Is it still Bay IV? One undisputed challenge entailed in owning a classic Wide is finding (not to mention, affording) genuine Bay IV accessories, which are by far the most expensive of all the different sizes used by the various Rolleiflex and Rolleicord versions. If, for example, a full range of filters is important to you for black and white imaging it would be prudent to investigate availability and pricing before committing to either version of the Wide.
Cheers
Brett
