Rolleinar ll ??

[Hammer]

Just purchased a Rolleinar ll and am having issues with the pics being blurry, I have the thicker filter on the viewing lens with the red dot on top and the thinner one on the taking lens...im reading about minimum distances and such but am confused as I thought this would be a simple process of just putting the filters on and shooting, what am i missing.

 

[Bolo Kukus]

My Rollei reference books are packed away and unavailable, but I recall there were two different sets of Rolleinars.

The earlier set had three pieces, two (thinner) shooting lenses and the (thicker) viewing lens with parallel correction. To use this version, you put one thinner lens behind the thicker lens and mount this on the top lens of your Rollei. The other thinner lens goes on the bottom lens of the camera.

The later set had only two pieces. The viewing and shooting lenses were cemented together as one unit and are mounted on the top lens of the camera.

This is really a sort of kindergarten explanation and I hope it makes sense to you. Rolleinars are a handy tool. They came in four different bayonet sets (I to IV) with three units available in each set. I have the Tessar 3.5 and Planar 3.5 sets and find I use the medium range (2) 90% of the time, the longer (1) 10% and the super close (3) rarely as it puts me too close to things I prefer to stay away from, like angry bees on flowers. The II is ideal for most close-ups, the I is useful for cat portraits and the like.

Both your thinner lenses should have the same number (2). If not, they are mismatched.

 

[Larry H-L]

To see if you might have a three piece version, but only two parts, try a test. (Tripod or camera sitting on a tabletop).

First put the thin filter on the top viewing lens, then also add the thicker prism piece to the front of the thin filter and focus on an object. Be careful not to change anything.

Then carefully remove those from the view lens and put only the thin filter on the taking lens, and shoot.

This should result in a sharp photo. Fingers crossed.

 

[Richard G]

I think if your thicker Rolleinar is labelled Rolleiparkeil you need another thin Rolleinar lens between it and the viewing lens. The older Rolleinar sets had three components as mentioned above.

 

[Hammer]

Its the one marked Heidosmat which I believe is the 2 piece one, does the bottom lens have to be in a specific orientation like the top one?

 

[Richard G]

No. The red dot will be uppermost on the taking lens but the orientation won’t affect the photograph.

 

[Hammer]

Any other ideas as to what im doing wrong, frustrating not being able to use this properly

 

[CharlesDAMorgan]

Just as a matter of interest, which Rolleiflex is it for - I have Rolleinar IIs in Bayonets 1,2 & 3 so can have a look at the one you've got.

 

[Hammer]

It’s for the 2.8

 

[Larry H-L]

I suppose it’s possible that you have a mis-matched set. Is the thin close-up filter labeled?

 

[Hammer]

Don't have it with me but it says Rolleinar 2 on it

 

[Richard G]

Rolleinar 2, not II, is what we’re talking about. If the other piece is Rolleinar 2 then look at it to see if it is indeed a convex lens or somehow damaged earlier and turned into a mere filter. Has to be some rational explanation of this.

 

[Richard G]

I’ve never separated these components. Have you lost it? Did you lend the other one to a friend? Did it work on their TLR?

 

[Hammer]

no its there just not seperated in pic

 

[CharlesDAMorgan]

Sorry, I've searched high and low for my Bayonet II and III Rolleinars - moving temporarily is always boring. I think a proper photo of the kit is essential to see what you've got there. Out of focus could be mismatched Heidosmat to close up lens or just a viewing lens that has got out of alignment. I once bought what was advertised as a bayonet 11 Rolleinar 2 to find it was actually a Bayonet III for the 2.8F. His mistake, as that should have been a lot more expensive!

If it's a Rolleinar 2 in Bayonet III - it should be capable of a focussed image from 50-32 cm, depth of field will depend on aperture - this table helps on that.

 

[Hammer]

Charles, thanks for the info; if the image in the viewfinder is in focus is it possible the picture could be out of focus due to a wide open aperture or not being stopped down enough? Due I need to be closer or farther away from my subject?

 

[CharlesDAMorgan]

It shouldn't be the case that if the viewfinder is in focus the image isn't (with the exception of some shake). I would test it at the various apertures shown in the chart at the centre point of the image distances on a tripod. If it's still out of focus you've got a duff close up lens if the image is in focus in the viewing lens at the distance shown, or if it's out of focus in the viewfinder at the distances measured, but in focus on the image, it's the viewing lens.

I think though an image of the lenses involved showing the details on them would really help save you a roll of film to start with.

 

[Emile de Leon]

If you get it working..its a nice closeup lens.

 

[Hammer]

Charles, I'm looking at the chart and when you say a focused distance of 50-32cm does that mean my object must be that close to the lens? which would give me a DOF depending on aperature; if thats the case i might have had to large of an aperature that is causing my blurriness

 

[Robbie Bedell]

It sounds as if you are not getting close enough. I have the same Rolleinar 2 (in Bay2). Your setup sounds fine. It should be working. You have to walk in quite close!