furcafe
Veteran
Agreed, the closest focusing distance on the original, "classic" Tele-Rolleiflex is pretty darn far. Even the 0.7 Rolleinar only brings you to a tight "head & shoulders" portrait distance. The 0.35 gets you close enough to do environmental portraits:
PMCC
Late adopter.
Thank you Brett and Johan, this is very helpful and informative, and goes way beyond my original question. But use of the Tele Rolleinars on an 80mm 2.8 lens raises yet more questions to boggle my tiny brain.
I gather from Johan that the 0.7 Tele Rolleinar decreases close focus on the 2.8F to 0.6m. What about the .35 Rolleinar on the 80mm? How close can you get with that combination?
Brett, you mention that use of the two Tele Rolleinars on a normal lens are "weaker" than the Rolleinar I, II and III "respectively". Can you spell out how this maps from each of the Tele Rolleinars to each of the normal Rolleinars, and what "weaker" in this context means? What do each of the Tele Rolleinars do to relative magnfication of the normal lens, relative to that of the I, II and III?
Part of my confusion may arise from the nomenclature. I, II and III seem to index to progressive degrees of magnification, but .35 and 0.70 suggest an actual ratio of some kind, but I don't know what the ratio is comparing, and how that would apply to a normal lens.
i appreciate your patience in indulging my bonehead questions!
P.
I gather from Johan that the 0.7 Tele Rolleinar decreases close focus on the 2.8F to 0.6m. What about the .35 Rolleinar on the 80mm? How close can you get with that combination?
Brett, you mention that use of the two Tele Rolleinars on a normal lens are "weaker" than the Rolleinar I, II and III "respectively". Can you spell out how this maps from each of the Tele Rolleinars to each of the normal Rolleinars, and what "weaker" in this context means? What do each of the Tele Rolleinars do to relative magnfication of the normal lens, relative to that of the I, II and III?
Part of my confusion may arise from the nomenclature. I, II and III seem to index to progressive degrees of magnification, but .35 and 0.70 suggest an actual ratio of some kind, but I don't know what the ratio is comparing, and how that would apply to a normal lens.
i appreciate your patience in indulging my bonehead questions!
P.
yukio
 
I use the II as a frame-filling portrait lens. i think of the I as 'close-up' and the II as an 'extreme close-up'. Looking through the Rolleinar II and ballparking, it's focus range is about 22" to 12". The Rolleinar I is about 36" to 18". If i start with the I, i will typically bump up against the minimum focus distance, so i prefer to start with the II (if i think the subject can stand a lens that close to their face!).
To give you an idea of both ends of the range with the II:
y
PMCC
Late adopter.
Thanks, most helpful! So, there's a bit of focus distance overlap in the near range of the I and the far range of the II. Will image sizes in the overlap range be comparable between the I and the II? Or will the II images be more magnified at the same distance? I hope this is not a truly lame question.
raid
Dad Photographer
Thanks for this tip, Brett. I like Sander's work, and I have the Rolleinars 1,2,3.
yukio
 
Good question. Looks like the II is more magnified at the same distance. This reminds me to mention that especially at the near end of the II's range, you must take care in the angle you shoot as distortion comes into play.
Sorry, I saw this a few hours ago because of time differences, and actually got my 2.8 and a tripod out to do some measurements for you when a friend called by, etc. etc. I'll set the camera up against a target for you tonight or tomorrow, and come back to you with some measurements of min & max focus distances and lens coverage.
Regards,
Brett
david.elliott
Well-known
OK, sorry for the delay. I set my 2.8C up on a tripod in front of the refrigerator earlier and tried to get it as square as possible. Armed with a nice contrasty black and white magnetic calendar, a tape measure, and a 8x magnifying loupe, I've done some measuring for you.
As the camera has some film in it, I couldn't calculate dimensions through the taking lens with a ground glass, so this data is based on the view through the focus screen and the focus of the viewing lens, which should be substantially the same if all is well, and—as I haven't had any focussing problems with the camera at any distance, to date—I am assuming that it is.
Distances are measured back to the film plane, not the front of the lens. (On this point: without an actual reference mark for the film rail position on the outside of a Rollei, it wasn't possible to calculate its exact location with the camera loaded. The tape was measured off the front of the polished aluminium surround on the rear of the camera body, adjacent to the removable back. Thus, the precise distance to the actual film plane is likely to be just a few millimetres less than my quoted dimensions).
First off: the minimum focus distance (of my particular example) at the close stop, with only the standard lens, is 1002 millimetres. That's three feet four inches, or very close to it, for the metrically challenged. From left to right, across the centre of the viewfinder screen the field of view extends for 581 millimetres or one foot eleven and 7/16 inches.
With the 0.35 Rolleinar pair in mounted over the lenses, minimum focus distance decreases only slightly, to 795 millimetres or two feet seven 1/8 inches—a reduction of 207 millimetres. The field of view across the centre is similarly reduced to 441 millimetres or one foot five and 3/8 inches—a reduction of 140 millimetres.
With the focus knob set to the infinity stop, after extended checking with the loupe, the best measurement I could get was a distance of 3000 millimetres or nine feet ten & 1/8 inches (being the maximum usable distance of the 0.35).
This gives a working range with the 0.35 attached of approximately 2205 millimetres from minimum to maximum, and an overlapping range of 1998 millimetres where either the 0.35 or the 80 millimetre lens alone can be selected.
From these figures it's apparent that if extra magnification is needed, the 0.35 is a non-starter. On the plus side, it gets you just a little closer to the subject without being too intrusive. The reason I like to use it some times is because it offers a reasonable reduction in depth of field when desired, and I also have a Tele Rollei to put it on (when it is back in one piece...) Being a paired set mounted on hinged bayonet the 0.35 is also very convenient, as they can simply be flipped out of the way when not in use.
I wouldn't encourage most 2.8 owners to lash out on a set unless they feel they have particular reasons for believing they need one. If close up portraits are an interest, this might justify a set—they're not as tight as a Bay III Rolleinar 1. For most owners who don't have a Tele to also attach them to, they're unlikely to be a priority.
Strangely, they are often easier to find on line than the standard 1, 2 & 3 Bay III Rolleinars. There are usually at least a half a dozen on offer on ebay at most times. I managed to find mine for under USD$200, but they are often listed with a BIN price over $300. So they're out there if you want them—but are not the cheapest accessory—arguably essential for the Tele Rolleiflex, though.
Ferdi Stutterheim kindly hosts some depth of field and focus tables for the standard Rolleiflex with or without Rolleinars, and also for the Tele Rolleiflex with various combinations of the 0.35; 0.7; and Bay III Rolleinar 1,2 or 3 attached. Here are the links to these.
http://www.rolleigraphy.org/rolleinar_table.htm
http://www.rolleigraphy.org/dof135.htm
Hope this helps.
Regards,
Brett
Dan Daniel
Well-known
Note- there IS a mark for the actual film plane position on the outside of the Rolleiflex. It is the back of the silver edging band. This is noted in the manual for the 2.8C as item 32 on pages 2-3 calling out various parts of the camera. Measurement with calipers on the inside and outside will confirm this- the distance from the outer lip to the film plane rail and the back of the silver edge are the same. Sighting from the bottom also shows this.
Thanks! I was sort of expecting this from Rollei but didn't see a unique mark so that all makes sense Dan. Unfortunately I'm half way through a film, so couldn't open it up to inspect. In that case I should have measured from the other side of the edging...
Regards,
Brett
Regards,
Brett
PMCC
Late adopter.
Thanks, Brett, that's very helpful and even more answer than I was hoping for -- more than I ever needed to know about the .35 and 0.7. You've reinforced the practical approach I've adopted, namely, using my Rolleinar I on my 80mm for portraits and noticing if and when that combination doesn't seem to fill the frame enough, which will be my signal to consider seeking out the tighter Rolleinar II. For myself, I don't forsee the utility of the Rolleinar III for portraits -- too tight and too close for comfort in the type of things I do -- and for other very close up work as such, I have non-TLR alternatives available.
rolleica1
Newbie
quoted from:
http://rick_oleson.tripod.com/index-207.html
"A lens with overcorrected spherical aberration will render FOREGROUND highlights smoothly while those in the BACKGROUND will appear as donuts. In a lens with undercorrected spherical aberration the reverse is the case. Because we more often have out-of-focus backgrounds than foregrounds, in most cases this means that lenses with undercorrected spherical aberration have better bokeh."
I don't quite understand the above statement.
A bad or good bokeh, all depends on the 'taste' of the viewer.
It seems nowadays, many people favor 'donuts' shaped background andd consider it's 'good' bokeh.
According to the write: overcorrected spherical aberration -- BACKGROUND will appear as donuts.
But in reality, many of the older lenses such as those in the 2.8C era, have donuts background. AND these lenses are NOT overcorrected in terms of spherical aberration.
In fact, it might be the existence of uncorrected spherical aberration that lead to the donuts highlights in the background.
Am I wrong? Or did I misread the write?
Comments welcome.
http://rick_oleson.tripod.com/index-207.html
"A lens with overcorrected spherical aberration will render FOREGROUND highlights smoothly while those in the BACKGROUND will appear as donuts. In a lens with undercorrected spherical aberration the reverse is the case. Because we more often have out-of-focus backgrounds than foregrounds, in most cases this means that lenses with undercorrected spherical aberration have better bokeh."
I don't quite understand the above statement.
A bad or good bokeh, all depends on the 'taste' of the viewer.
It seems nowadays, many people favor 'donuts' shaped background andd consider it's 'good' bokeh.
According to the write: overcorrected spherical aberration -- BACKGROUND will appear as donuts.
But in reality, many of the older lenses such as those in the 2.8C era, have donuts background. AND these lenses are NOT overcorrected in terms of spherical aberration.
In fact, it might be the existence of uncorrected spherical aberration that lead to the donuts highlights in the background.
Am I wrong? Or did I misread the write?
Comments welcome.