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....
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.
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.
Your missing the rolleinar 1
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.
Thanks.... I tried it again today... not sure if they're sharp but will know soon.
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.
"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.
" 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.
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?