Rollei Bay II Rolleinar?

Discussion in 'Medium Format Cameras and Accessories' started by mjs, Sep 27, 2008.

  1. mjs

    mjs Member

    Messages:
    1,125
    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2005
    Location:
    Elkhart, Ind
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Hi, folks. A local camera store is moving to a new location and had a pre-moving sale today, after cleaning out the basement. I got a lovely Bay I lens hood for my New Standard Rolleiflex (and with that uncoated lens, it needed one!) I also got another widget which I'm going to sell but am not completely sure what it is. I'm hoping that you can help.

    It's NOS -- new, never used, and still in the box. The box says "Rolleinarsatz" with "D 2" underneath, and "2 x Bajonett" beneath that. On the filter itself it says "Rolleinar 2 - 28.5" and has the "diameter" symbol following, on the topmost metal ring. On the bottom ring it says, "Rolleinar 2 - 28.5" again with the "diameter" symbol following. (Of course, it also says "Franke & Heidecke" and "Germany" here and there.

    I think that it's a Bay 2 Rolleinar #2 -- am I right? It won't fit my camera -- it's too small.

    Thanks for your help! I'll be listing it here tomorrow (Sunday.)

    Mike
     
  2. JPD

    JPD Member

    Messages:
    843
    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2007
    Location:
    Sweden
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    It sounds to me that they are an early Rolleinar set for Bayonet I.

    • Bayonet I Rolleinars and filters are marked "28,5" because the lenses on the early Automats, and the New Standard, also could use 28,5mm slip-on accessories. Bay II is marked "34" and Bay III "38" (plus the diameter symbol). Later filters and Rolleinars were not marked with diameter, only "RI, RII or RIII".
    • "D 2" probably means "Diopter 2" as in "Rolleinar 2"
    • "2 x Bajonett" means that both Rolleinars have bayonet mounts. There were also sets with one slip-on and one bayonet Proxar/Rolleinar for the Rolleiflexes and Rolleicords with bayonet on the taking lens only.
    • Your New Standard Rolleiflex has Bay I, so it's strange that the Rolleinar set is too small. If the set had Bay II they would be to large to fit.

    Can you post pictures of the set? It *should* fit your camera, so I'm curious why it doesn't.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 28, 2008
  3. Mark Antony

    Mark Antony Member

    Messages:
    790
    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2007
    Location:
    East Anglia,
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Does it look like this:
    Rolleinar close up lens

    Sounds like a bay 1 although I find it strange it doesn't fit on your Standard, although some post war Rollei cameras can have parts from earlier series so can have a slight variation, this is very true for cameras made 1946-49 apparently.
    Mark
     
  4. mjs

    mjs Member

    Messages:
    1,125
    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2005
    Location:
    Elkhart, Ind
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    It looks very much like the one in your example, except that yours has a black bevelled ring with writing, while mine has no such ring. And no case.

    I just looked again and it definately does not fit the lens on my New Standard: it's just a few mm too small in diameter. As I said, the lens hood I bought fits perfectly. I suppose that I'm assuming that the lens hood is Bay I, since other than the Rollei logo there's no writing on it or the box which would indicate size. On the other, other hand, I bought a cheap plastic "Rollei" lens cover on Ebay last week and it fits perfectly as well.

    Let's see if there's enough juice in the digicam to post a couple of photos...

    Mike
     

    Attached Files:

  5. JPD

    JPD Member

    Messages:
    843
    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2007
    Location:
    Sweden
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    Very strange, as these are Bay I Rolleinars. Let's have a look at your camera and the lens hood?

    Did you mount them the correct way? The lens hood goes on the outer bayonet on the camera, and the Rolleinars in the inner bayonet.
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 28, 2008
  6. Mark Antony

    Mark Antony Member

    Messages:
    790
    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2007
    Location:
    East Anglia,
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    From you photo it looks like a bay 1 Rolleinar. Early versions had a lens for the view and one for the taking lens and a parallax correction lens (with black bevelled ring and red dot) which was separate and mounted on the top (later ones had all in one view/correction)
    I'll bet your set is missing the 'Rolleiparkeil' correction lens.
    As to why it won't fit? I can't answer.
    mark
     
  7. JPD

    JPD Member

    Messages:
    843
    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2007
    Location:
    Sweden
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    It was sold separately.

    My guess is that he tried to mount them with the wrong side on the outer bayonet. The only other possibility is that the bayonets on the camera aren't original, but the Bay I lens hood did fit so that's not likely. :wink:
     
  8. mjs

    mjs Member

    Messages:
    1,125
    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2005
    Location:
    Elkhart, Ind
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Inner bayonet, you say? The thought never occurred to me. By George, you're right! Solved. Thank you, I appreciate iy very much.

    Mike
     
  9. JPD

    JPD Member

    Messages:
    843
    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2007
    Location:
    Sweden
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    :D Great! Why not keep the set? Get a Rolleiparkeil 2 for the parallax correction and shoot some close-ups. :smile:
     
  10. mjs

    mjs Member

    Messages:
    1,125
    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2005
    Location:
    Elkhart, Ind
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I might! I've seen some very interesting portraits in the TLR group. Wife said the same thiing earlier this evening.

    Mike
     
  11. Nick Merritt

    Nick Merritt Member

    Messages:
    421
    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2007
    Location:
    Hartford, Co
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Rolleinars are great fun, and quite useful, but a Rolleinar 2 is going to be too close for portraits. Much better for macro stuff. Look for a Rolleinar 1 for portraiture.
     
  12. mjs

    mjs Member

    Messages:
    1,125
    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2005
    Location:
    Elkhart, Ind
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I'm going to try it with the Rolleinar 2 anyway; it occurs to me that since I don't have the parallax correction widget, possibly with the 2 I can let the subject be further away and reduce the parallax error. We'll see: it won't harm anything to try it.

    Mike
     
  13. Mark Antony

    Mark Antony Member

    Messages:
    790
    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2007
    Location:
    East Anglia,
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Nick
    I like the Rolleinar #2 for portraits
    [​IMG]

    In fact I think the 2 is actually my favourite, not got a 3 so I can't say if thats too close but the 2 is fine by me!
    Mark
     
  14. mjs

    mjs Member

    Messages:
    1,125
    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2005
    Location:
    Elkhart, Ind
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Mark, it was your portraits which convinced me that a 2 wasn't too strong for portraits in the first place!! A question, though, if I could: how much of a problem is parallax? Not having the corrector, will very much correction (in the viewfinder) be necessary?

    Mike
     
  15. Mark Antony

    Mark Antony Member

    Messages:
    790
    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2007
    Location:
    East Anglia,
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I think you need the correction lens, the closer you get the more important.
    I wasn't aware that they even sold the Rolleinar without them, mine was so cheap I'd just get a set (I paid £10)
    Alternatively you could shoot a test film with a tape measure, note the markings at the top and bottom of the frames. When you look at the negs you should see how far out you are, and if you have a grid screen you could approximate....
    I think that might work
    Mark