Rolleinar questions

Rob Skeoch

Advertiser
Advertiser
Joined
Apr 25, 2005
Messages
1,340
Location
Grand Valley, Ontario
Format
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
 

dpurdy

Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2006
Messages
2,672
Location
Portland OR
Format
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
 
OP
OP

Rob Skeoch

Advertiser
Advertiser
Joined
Apr 25, 2005
Messages
1,340
Location
Grand Valley, Ontario
Format
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
 

dpurdy

Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2006
Messages
2,672
Location
Portland OR
Format
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
 
OP
OP

Rob Skeoch

Advertiser
Advertiser
Joined
Apr 25, 2005
Messages
1,340
Location
Grand Valley, Ontario
Format
35mm RF
Thanks.... I tried it again today... not sure if they're sharp but will know soon.
-rob
 

hal9000

Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2005
Messages
226
Location
Berlin, Germ
Format
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
 

photobum

Member
Joined
May 18, 2003
Messages
420
Location
Northern Vir
Format
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.
 

Allan Swindles

Member
Joined
May 10, 2004
Messages
253
Location
Wirral, Engl
Format
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.
 

Trask

Subscriber
Joined
Oct 23, 2005
Messages
1,926
Location
Virginia (northern)
Format
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?
 

Christopher D. Keth

Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2006
Messages
37
Format
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.
 

jasonjoo

Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
398
Location
California
Format
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!
 

EASmithV

Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2008
Messages
1,985
Location
Virginia
Format
Large 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...
 

Maxwell

Subscriber
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Messages
352
Location
White Rock, BC, Canada
Format
35mm RF
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
 

Allan Swindles

Member
Joined
May 10, 2004
Messages
253
Location
Wirral, Engl
Format
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.
 

Allan Swindles

Member
Joined
May 10, 2004
Messages
253
Location
Wirral, Engl
Format
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.
 

TheFlyingCamera

Membership Council
Advertiser
Joined
May 24, 2005
Messages
11,548
Location
Washington DC
Format
Multi Format
Allan Swindles said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 -

 

Allan Swindles

Member
Joined
May 10, 2004
Messages
253
Location
Wirral, Engl
Format
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.
 

baachitraka

Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2011
Messages
3,547
Location
Bremen, Germany.
Format
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?
 

trondsi

Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2015
Messages
454
Format
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…