I think that it was well understood, and that Rolleiflexible and i disagree quite a lot about how good these close-up lenses are.
Just an aside: all i get is "You must be signed in to see this content."
Originally Posted by karl
I have no Yahoo/Flickr account, so can't sign in.
Don't forget a Mamiya RZ with 110/2.8. The bellows focusing gets you in amazingly close, if your subject doesn't mind and the results are amazing...just thought I'd throw that out there since the OP was thinking about a different camera anyway.
Strange I have no Yahoo or Flickr account but I can see them...
Originally Posted by Q.G.
Anyhow I have to agree with Sanders, those close up Rolleinars are way better than they would at first seem- I use them often. They are in no way 'crappy' and certainly fall in the precision instrument category.
Possibly you are confusing them with cheap converters?
I have no problem with them 'distorting' faces so can't really advise.
Sanders, on that last shot, were you using a .35 and 1 Rolleinars with the Tele? And how far do you have to stop down in order to keep the face in focus? I'm experimenting with this combination (per some of your other posts) and haven't yet had that much success.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Peter, yes: A 0.35x Tele Rolleinar on the camera,
and a Rolleinar 1 on the Tele Rolleinar. I do not
remember the aperture I used with that photo but
it was probably wide-open, at f/4. At times I would
stop down as far as f/8. But my lighting required a
1/15 shutter at f/8 and I found that restrictive. I
find it easy to refocus continuously as I shoot, and
the faster shutter permits more spontaneity without
fear of losing an image to motion blur.
What sort of problems are you having? If you can
be more specific, and perhaps post an image or
two, I might be able to offer suggestions.
I'm trying to figure out the depth of field. I shot some wide open and all that was in focus was an eyelash (subject facing 1/3 away). I'm not at my office, but will try to post a pic or two. I appreciate the help. BTW, I bought the tele because of your portraits -- good work.
If you want to go cheap and like tlr's why don't you get a mamiya c330 with the 135mm or 180mm lens?
That will save you a lot of money compared to either a hasselblad or a tele rollei plus the quality of the mamiya c lenses are very very good.
FWIW, these bodies commonly come with 80mm lenses which aren't half bad at all.
Originally Posted by loman
I may not be in the majority here but I really like normal to short tele for tight portraits I find lenses longer than 150 on 6x6 compress too much, I stopped using my 180 years ago because I did not appreciate the flattening out of facial features to that degree. They may be a little more forgiving than something shorter compositionally but that is a matter of taste - I like portraits that show a little depth and feel like you are close to the subject (because you are close to the subject) any more than about 3-4 feet and it starts feeling more distant.
That being said I have had fantastic "quality" using my Zeiss 80/100/120/150 using both extension tubes and closeup attachments - as long as the attachment lenses are of decent quality. I have personally settled on tubes but would not hesitate to use a close up lens of good quality if that were the only option I had. I would say for the last 5 years or so my favorites have been the 120/150 on 6x6. Just a note you can pickup 120s and 150s for a song now. My CFi's were a ton of money when I bought them new in the late 90's/2000 to replace my aging CF's (impulse buy and I liked the handling a wee bit better) You may also give the 160 CB a whirl if you want something dirt cheap - fantastic quality - good handling and a tiny bit more distance. That lens is the red headed step child of Hasselblad people that have never used it for NO good reason.