There is a slight catch to the use of close-up lenses (aka diopters or dioptres, eg Rolleinars, ie expensive) for portraits. I mentioned it in the comments on Sanders' arresting portrait of Violetta, but that won't stop me from boring you with the trivial details here as well.
As you add diopters to your lens (call it a prime lens, in the old sense) you shorten the focal length. This is what enables you to focus more closely without increasing the lens extension. It is easy to calculate the new focal length - you just add up all the diopters. The diopter of a lens is the reciprocal of its focal length in metres, so a 135 mm lens is a 7.41 dioptre lens. The Rolleinar numbers equal their power in dioptres, so if you add a 0.35 and a 1 Rolleinar to a 7.41 diopter prime you get an 8.76 diopter lens, which is a 114 mm lens. Therefore to get the same magnification/framing you have to get closer than you would if you had the ability to extend the naked 135 mm lens far enough.
The new version of the Tele-Rolleiflex, the 4.0FT, focusses closer than the original. It is rather more expensive though, even if you add the cost of a full Fleenor/Krimar makeover plus a Van Stelten lens shampoo and set to the cost of an original Tele. I'm happy with my Tele-Rolleiflex and the swing-away 0.35 Rolleinar. It is a lovely camera to use, despite its limitations.
Best,
Helen
