rolleiflex hasselblad for head shoulder portrait

danzyc · Sep 25, 2009

hello friends! i have one question to ask...i d like to make with my rollei a very tight head shoulder portrait...i have rolleinar but deform a lot a women's face,
mutar is the final solution?

i f i bought an hasselblad with 150mm +proxar? i d like to make a fashionbeauty portrait with no deformation...

thanks

Venchka · Sep 25, 2009

150mm + extension tube would be my choice. Which tube? No clue. I'll wait for the answer.

Q.G. · Sep 25, 2009

21 mm.

mgb74 · Sep 25, 2009

Looks like you didn't have to wait too long for an answer. This may also be useful:
Dead Link Removed

Q.G. · Sep 25, 2009

Or this and this.

karl · Sep 25, 2009

I often used a 16mm tube with my 150/2.8. Then I picked up a 110/2 and have hardly touched the 150. The 110 focuses down to .8 meter, whereas the 150 stops at 1.4 meters.

Q.G. · Sep 25, 2009

For tight head-shots, i like the 250 mm with 32 mm tube best.

Rolleiflexible · Sep 25, 2009

Or a Tele Rolleiflex.

Q.G. · Sep 25, 2009

Rolleiflexible said:
Or a Tele Rolleiflex.

If one of those, than better make it the very latest version.
The older ones have a minimum focussing distance of over 2.5 m, which combined with the 135 mm lens produces a minimum field of view of about 1 meter square.
Tight head shoulder portraits only with cropping.

The latest version has a minimum focusing distance of 1.5 m, and a minimum field of view of about 0.5 m. Good.
But at 1.5 m... wil work. But i'd rather be a bit further away still, with a longer lens.

Rolleiflexible · Sep 26, 2009

danzyc · Sep 26, 2009

rolleiflexes great portrait.....i i should apply a mutar 1.5 on my 75 mm planar?? ...rolleinar deform the femine beauty.....it doesn t work sorry...

thanks

Slixtiesix · Sep 26, 2009

I would recommend buying a system camera like Hasselblad+150mm lens instead. I can also recommend Rolleiflex SL66 but it will not be as suitable for flash work as the Hassy will be, unless you buy the special lenses with leaf shutter, which are only two (80+150mm). Mamiya should also be a good try, as is the Rollei 600* series, if you have nothing against batteries.
The Mutar is not easy to find and overpriced IMHO. It is also recommend to use it with f5,6 or smaller to get acceptable image quality. Parallax compensation does only work for objects farther away than 4m and you have to compensate exposure for 1/2 f-stop.
Best Regards, Benjamin

Q.G. · Sep 26, 2009

Rolleiflexible said:
Hey, QG, I must've missed that memo.
Here are a few tight headshots from my old Tele Rolleiflexes, full-frame.
[...]
... and so on.

They have these things called Rolleinars.

Next time I'll be sure to use right model.

So many links that go nowhere, while one that would go nowhere would have sufficed.
(Your Flicker portfolio appears no to be public)

You may like to use close-up lenses, and a short lens for 'tight' portraits.
I don't like either; close-up lenses (even) less than a too short lens. Pay for a great lens, and then put those crappy lenses in front of them? Makes no sense to me.

Rolleiflexible · Sep 26, 2009

Q.G. said:
Pay for a great lens, and then put those crappy lenses in front of them? Makes no sense to me.

I rarely say something like this but
you really don't have a clue what
you're talking about on this one.

There is nothing "crappy" about a
Rolleinar. I have shot hundreds of
close headshots with a Tele Rollei
and a combination of Rolleinars. I
defy you to improve on the results
with any camera or lens.

Rolleiflexible · Sep 26, 2009

danzyc said:
rolleiflexes great portrait.....i i should apply a mutar 1.5 on my 75 mm planar?? ...rolleinar deform the femine beauty.....it doesn t work sorry...

No: The Mutars do degrade image quality
-- at least the 0.7x Mutar I have degrades
the quality of what I get out of my 3.5E.
If you want to shoot tight, and you do not
like the perspective of the 75mm lens, and
you want to shoot with a Rolleiflex, you
will want a Tele Rolleiflex.

karl · Sep 26, 2009

Those links all work for me.

People. Listen to Sanders. He knows what he's talking about.

I love Rolleiflexes, but you can pick up a user 500C/M body, back and 150 for less than a Tele-Rolleiflex. Plus it gives the flexibility of different focal lengths and multiple backs.

I found I wasn't using the 2 Rolleiflexes I had after I bought a Hasselblad outfit. Just sold them about a month ago.

Chazzy · Sep 26, 2009

Rolleiflexible said:
I rarely say something like this but
you really don't have a clue what
you're talking about on this one.

There is nothing "crappy" about a
Rolleinar. I have shot hundreds of
close headshots with a Tele Rollei
and a combination of Rolleinars. I
defy you to improve on the results
with any camera or lens.

Mr. McNew, I might need your advice about the Rolleinars shortly. If I'm not mistaken, I'm going to be given a tele-Rolleiflex as a gift and it's a sure thing that I'd like to use it at portrait distances.

papagene · Sep 26, 2009

Hey Sanders... that was one of my favorite portraits of yours. Thanks for re-posting it.

gene

Trask · Sep 26, 2009

I remember seeing a video of Richard Avedon doing heads and shoulders portraits with a Rollei. He had the camera on a tripod, focussed, then engaged the subject in conversation and such while shooting. From what I remember, it looked like a Rollei 75/80mm with Rolleinar -- or it could have been a Telerolleiflex.

I think Mr. Avedon knew how to take portraits.

ic-racer · Sep 26, 2009

Rolleiflexible said:
.

There is nothing "crappy" about a
Rolleinar.

Nice photograph... a picture is worth a thousand posts

Sirius Glass · Sep 26, 2009

I believe that "crappy" was referring to close up filters that are available for many lenses and cameras. These close up filters are no match for the Zeiss lenses that Rollei and Hasselblad owners might put the close up filters on. [I think that something was lost in the translation].

Steve

Q.G. · Sep 26, 2009

I think that it was well understood, and that Rolleiflexible and i disagree quite a lot about how good these close-up lenses are.

Q.G. · Sep 26, 2009

karl said:
Those links all work for me.

Just an aside: all i get is "You must be signed in to see this content."
I have no Yahoo/Flickr account, so can't sign in.

PVia · Sep 26, 2009

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.

Mark Antony · Sep 26, 2009

Q.G. said:
Just an aside: all i get is "You must be signed in to see this content."
I have no Yahoo/Flickr account, so can't sign in.

Strange I have no Yahoo or Flickr account but I can see them...

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.
YMMV

rolleiflex hasselblad for head shoulder portrait

Membership Council

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency