Rolleinar questions

Discussion in 'Medium Format Cameras and Accessories' started by Rob Skeoch, Sep 22, 2007.

  1. Rob Skeoch

    Rob Skeoch Advertiser Advertiser

    Messages:
    983
    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2005
    Location:
    Burlington,
    Shooter:
    35mm RF
    OK I dont get how the Rolleinar's work. They came with my new camera.

    Maybe I'm missing some parts.

    I have two Rolleinar 2's.

    One is very flat.. regular filter size. Has a small black dot on the bayonette size. It fits both the top and bottom lenses of the Rollei. When I put it on the top lens it allows me to focus at about 2 feet.

    The second one is not so flat... like a fat filter. It has a red dot on the front face. The mount side has an area that has a flat cut out portion to it. When I put it on the viewing lens it allows me to get very close.. less than a foot.

    Am I missing some piece to make this work....

    -Rob
     
  2. dpurdy

    dpurdy Member

    Messages:
    2,249
    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2006
    Location:
    Portland OR
    Shooter:
    8x10 Format
    The larger of the two is for the viewing lens and the red dot on the face has to be positioned at the top after you have clicked it into place. This is the parallax correction. If you have a rubber lens shade you can put it on the bottom before or after you have both parts of the Rolleinar in place. If you have the metal lens shade You have to have it in place over the bottom lens before you put on the top lens if you want to use it.
    Dennis
     
  3. Rob Skeoch

    Rob Skeoch Advertiser Advertiser

    Messages:
    983
    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2005
    Location:
    Burlington,
    Shooter:
    35mm RF
    When I don't use a Rolleinar 2 the camera just doesn't focus close enough. When I put the Rolleinar 2 on the camera it only focuses too close... what am I missing here.
    -Rob
     
  4. RobertP

    RobertP Subscriber

    Messages:
    1,130
    Joined:
    May 11, 2006
    Shooter:
    ULarge Format
    Your missing the rolleinar 1
     
  5. dpurdy

    dpurdy Member

    Messages:
    2,249
    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2006
    Location:
    Portland OR
    Shooter:
    8x10 Format
    The rolleinars are closeup diopters. If you put them on you lose the normal focus distance. It is just the same as a magnifying glass. You can see things up close with it but you can't look at anything at a distance.. unless you have bad eyes.

    There are three sets of Rolleinars; #1, #2, and #3. The #1 is the weakest so it allows the most distant focus of the three. The Rolleinars are designed so that where the focus of one leaves off the next size takes up. You will find that the #1 Rolleinar can focus to just about where the camera without a Rolleinar stops being able to focus. So for something like a waist up shot of a child you need the #1. But for a head and shoulders shot you will need the #2. And if you want to go right in on the childs face you need the #3.

    It isn't as big a pain in the rear as it sounds. You get to recognize quickly which Rolleinar you want in advance. I carry all three in my bag and on walks for nature details I will most often use the #2. When doing a studio shoot I most often use the #1. Rollei decided that the most useful Rolleinar was the #2 so they included that in some of their collectable packages. They also figure that the lens is sharp enough that you can crop the image enough to make up for the distance of the #1, so the #2 seemed the most important. The #3 is problematic because you start to have significant parallax problems. You are so close to the subject that the difference from one lens to the other significantly changes the background as well as the angle of view of the subject.

    Otherwise I hope you are enjoying your GX. Using a Rollei involves several little learning curves.
    Dennis
     
  6. Rob Skeoch

    Rob Skeoch Advertiser Advertiser

    Messages:
    983
    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2005
    Location:
    Burlington,
    Shooter:
    35mm RF
    Thanks.... I tried it again today... not sure if they're sharp but will know soon.
    -rob
     
  7. hal9000

    hal9000 Member

    Messages:
    227
    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2005
    Location:
    Berlin, Germ
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    actually, the Rolleinar I is very good for portraits, Rollei recommends that portraits not be taken from less than 1m away anyway to avoid distortion (unless of course that's what you're after). In any case, here are the focusing distances for the 75mm or 80mm lenses of the various Rolleinars from Heering's book:
    I: 45 cm - 1 m
    II: 31 cm - 50 cm
    III: 24 cm - 32 cm
    In terms of scales, the Rolleinar I is for about 1:6 to 1:10, the II for 1:4 to 1:6 and the III for 1:2.9 to 1:4 (again according to Heering).
    The lenses can also be combined to allow extreme close-ups, but I don't think the parallax correction would work properly at such short distances and of course the optical quality is reduced.
    Hal
     
  8. photobum

    photobum Member

    Messages:
    421
    Joined:
    May 18, 2003
    Location:
    Northern Vir
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    "not sure if they're sharp..."
    A couple of months ago I was reprinting some old negatives of close-ups, including a homage to Weston of a shell. I made a 16x20 and thought it was made with my Hasselblad and a close up ring. Then I noticed the lack of notches on the left side. It was shot with my 3.5 F model and a #2 Rolleinar.

    Damn these things are good. Light to carry too. I alway have a #1 & 2 in my bag.
     
  9. Allan Swindles

    Allan Swindles Member

    Messages:
    250
    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Location:
    Wirral, Engl
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    " Damm these things are good"
    They certainly are. My 3.5F has just gone in for a service after 30+ years. I've not yet seen a digital camera that can come close to producing equalivalent results. It will come, without doubt, but at what cost? Why, oh why are the public so gullible.
     
  10. Trask

    Trask Subscriber

    Messages:
    1,378
    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2005
    Shooter:
    35mm RF
    I've seen videos of Richard Avedon shooting some of his up-close square portraits with a Rollei, and it looks like he may have a Rolleinar on his camera. Either that or it's a Tele-Rollei, but he appears to be to close if that's the case. Anyone know for sure?
     
  11. Christopher D. Keth

    Christopher D. Keth Member

    Messages:
    37
    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2006
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    They're just plus diopters. A +1 diopter shifts your focus range so that the infinity focus mark on the knob is really focused at 1 meter and goes closer from that. A +2 diopter puts infinity at 1/2 meter, +3 places it at 1/3 meter, etc.
     
  12. jasonjoo

    jasonjoo Member

    Messages:
    395
    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2007
    Location:
    California
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    Don't want to bring an old thread from the grave, but your post was very helpful Christopher!

    I just purchased a Rolleinar 2, and I'm looking forward to using it!
     
  13. EASmithV

    EASmithV Member

    Messages:
    1,925
    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2008
    Location:
    Maryland
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Bringing another thread from the grave, but I too found thbis very helpful. I was about to post, but thought i'd do a search first... :wink:
     
  14. Sponsored Ad
  15. Maxwell

    Maxwell Subscriber

    Messages:
    272
    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Location:
    White Rock, BC, Canada
    Shooter:
    35mm
    A third - back from the grave Q. Does each of the diopter lenses need their own unique prism for the viewing lens?
    Thanks for any help in advance
    David
     
  16. BrianShaw

    BrianShaw Member

    Messages:
    6,710
    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2005
    Location:
    Los Angeles,
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Yes
     
  17. TheFlyingCamera

    TheFlyingCamera Membership Council Council

    Messages:
    9,522
    Joined:
    May 24, 2005
    Location:
    Washington DC
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Another item- there is a #4 Rolleinar, but it is a very rare bird.

    Here is an image with a Rolleinar #2 on my Rolleiflex 2.8E -

    [​IMG]

    Plenty sharp. Remember this was shot wide open, or at f4 at the most. Depth of field becomes paper-thin when focusing that close.
     
  18. Allan Swindles

    Allan Swindles Member

    Messages:
    250
    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Location:
    Wirral, Engl
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    TBH, I would never use a standard TLR as a portrait camera other than for a head and shoulders shot. The use of Rolleinars will only add distorted perspective.
     
  19. Allan Swindles

    Allan Swindles Member

    Messages:
    250
    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Location:
    Wirral, Engl
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Sorry The FlyingCamera,
    This image is not sharp to me. I don't understand where your point of focus was. I acknowledge the DOF problems but the outer edges of the frame seem to be sharper than the centre.
     
  20. TheFlyingCamera

    TheFlyingCamera Membership Council Council

    Messages:
    9,522
    Joined:
    May 24, 2005
    Location:
    Washington DC
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    The problem is that the DoF is so shallow that it was hard to focus. Perhaps this isn't the best example, but I was working within the limitations of what was available to me- handheld, no flash, low lighting.

    Perhaps you'll like this one better -

    [​IMG]
     
  21. Maxwell

    Maxwell Subscriber

    Messages:
    272
    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Location:
    White Rock, BC, Canada
    Shooter:
    35mm
    Brian - Thank you
     
  22. Allan Swindles

    Allan Swindles Member

    Messages:
    250
    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Location:
    Wirral, Engl
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    That's much better, TheFlyingCamera. DOF is a real problem in close-up/macro photography, particularly if using natural light. It's been a while since I used MF TLR for C/U work so I shouldn't really comment. I still have my Rollei. 3.5F and Rollinars (not the 4, which I didn't know existed) but went Hass. and tubes for C/U work. As I was into bug photography and the bugs weren't as big as the centre focussing spot I resorted to my 35mm. OM macro flash outfit, but isn't 6x6 quite superb.
    BTW, my wife, a plantaholic, is asking what plant it is? She reckons it's an orchid, but can't identify it.
     
  23. TheFlyingCamera

    TheFlyingCamera Membership Council Council

    Messages:
    9,522
    Joined:
    May 24, 2005
    Location:
    Washington DC
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Both are orchids - the white one is a Cattleya, the yellow a Paphiopedilum.
     
  24. baachitraka

    baachitraka Subscriber

    Messages:
    2,367
    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2011
    Location:
    Bremen, Germany.
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Picked the Rolleinar 3 today for €12.50. At those distance it may have parallax error or Am I thinking little too much?
     
  25. TheFlyingCamera

    TheFlyingCamera Membership Council Council

    Messages:
    9,522
    Joined:
    May 24, 2005
    Location:
    Washington DC
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    The Rolleinars have a prism in the unit for the viewing lens that compensates for parallax. I don't know if the 3 can completely correct for it or not, as I've never used one, but I've not noticed any significant issues with either the 1 or the 2.
     
  26. trondsi

    trondsi Member

    Messages:
    247
    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2015
    Shooter:
    35mm
    I like that flower picture, Theflyingcamera. What kind of film did you use?
    I have Rolleinar 1, but maybe I should try to find number 2 as well.