mingkookoo
Well-known
1959 Rolleiflex 2.8E/ Kodak Portra 160/ Rolleinar 3
Last edited:
Rolleinar?
- Thread starter Kyle
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 198
- Views 145K
mingkookoo
Well-known
One from last year, Rolleinar 3 @ F/2.8.
Thomas78
Well-known
Rolleiflex 4x4, Xenar 60mm f/3.5
Rolleinar 2, Rollei Crossbird 200:
Rolleiflex 4x4_06_Rollei Crossbird 100_002 von thomas.78 auf Flickr
Rolleiflex 4x4_06_Rollei Crossbird 100_004 von thomas.78 auf Flickr
Rolleinar 2, Rollei Crossbird 200:
Rolleiflex 4x4_06_Rollei Crossbird 100_002 von thomas.78 auf Flickr
Rolleiflex 4x4_06_Rollei Crossbird 100_004 von thomas.78 auf Flickr
leicapixie
Well-known
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1220656#post1220656
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1220656#post1220656
A very bad idea to use Rolleinar/close up lenses for portraits.
These lenses allow close-up but make the lens a different focal length! Shorter,? i.e wider ?. There will be terrible distortion..
Avedon cropped. I think there are a few examples of his contact sheets on the internet and certainly in some of his books.
There is one portrait by Penn of a man, with steel rimmed spectacles, that probably done with a close up lens. Distortion.
Avedon mentions that many of his photos are not what they seem to be! He cropped, he shot the Beatles separately and then mounted them as a group, re-photographing.
Those of you happy with Photoshop beleive we old film guys never had control. You have no idea..
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1220656#post1220656
A very bad idea to use Rolleinar/close up lenses for portraits.
These lenses allow close-up but make the lens a different focal length! Shorter,? i.e wider ?. There will be terrible distortion..
Avedon cropped. I think there are a few examples of his contact sheets on the internet and certainly in some of his books.
There is one portrait by Penn of a man, with steel rimmed spectacles, that probably done with a close up lens. Distortion.
Avedon mentions that many of his photos are not what they seem to be! He cropped, he shot the Beatles separately and then mounted them as a group, re-photographing.
Those of you happy with Photoshop beleive we old film guys never had control. You have no idea..
Well, you might want to tell Steve Pyke that. He uses a Rolleiflex and Rolleinar for portraiture frequently. In the trailer for his film Moonbug, you can clearly see a Rolleinar fitted to his Flex at the :45 second mark of the video as he is photographing Buzz Aldrin, and also at the end of it, while he talks to Gene Kranz...A very bad idea to use Rolleinar/close up lenses for portraits.
These lenses allow close-up but make the lens a different focal length! Shorter,? i.e wider ?. There will be terrible distortion..
Avedon cropped. I think there are a few examples of his contact sheets on the internet and certainly in some of his books.
There is one portrait by Penn of a man, with steel rimmed spectacles, that probably done with a close up lens. Distortion.
Avedon mentions that many of his photos are not what they seem to be! He cropped, he shot the Beatles separately and then mounted them as a group, re-photographing.
Those of you happy with Photoshop beleive we old film guys never had control. You have no idea..
His shot of Iggy Pop, taken (by the looks of it) with a Rolleiflex & Rolleinar is a classic, I reckon. So I wouldn't necessarily agree with your remarks.
Cheers,
Brett
mingkookoo
Well-known
@ Brett: Thanks for the info on Steve Pyke.
With Rolleinar 2.
With Rolleinar 2.
leicapixie
Well-known
i stand by the distortion.
One can shoot portraits with a wide angle.
A 28mm on 35mm, a 40~60mm on 120.
There will be distortion, if one come close.
A portrait should attempt a truth.
Too often i've seen caricatures..
Many folks don't see distortion from lenses..
One make in 120 has severe distortions.
Leica and Zeiss seem to have the least,
and what there is, is pleasing.
Enjoy using Proxars, Rolleinars or close-up lenses.
They are fun and useful.
One can shoot portraits with a wide angle.
A 28mm on 35mm, a 40~60mm on 120.
There will be distortion, if one come close.
A portrait should attempt a truth.
Too often i've seen caricatures..
Many folks don't see distortion from lenses..
One make in 120 has severe distortions.
Leica and Zeiss seem to have the least,
and what there is, is pleasing.
Enjoy using Proxars, Rolleinars or close-up lenses.
They are fun and useful.
Thomas78
Well-known
Rolleiflex 4x4, Xenar 60mm f/3.5
Rolleinar 2, Rollei Crossbird 200:
Rolleiflex 4x4_06_Rollei Crossbird 100_005 von thomas.78 auf Flickr
Rolleinar 2, Rollei Crossbird 200:
Rolleiflex 4x4_06_Rollei Crossbird 100_005 von thomas.78 auf Flickr
wilonstott
Wil O.
I'm always happy when someone posts on this thread, and it pops back up.
I've got a #2 and have used it on a Yashica-Mat 124g--mainly for portraits.
You'll have to pardon the haze on a lot of these. The damned lens on the MAT is dirty. I have been putting off sending it to Mark Hama for a CLA.
On a related note, I recently found out that Irving Penn used a Rolleinar extensively for his portrait work, primarily a #2 and occasionally a #1. His famous portraits of Picasso, Truman Capote, and Tennessee Williams (among others) were taken with this setup.
You can look here:
https://www.google.com/search?q=irving+penn+portraits&aq=f&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=UIZ-Ud6cGcPM0gH754DoDg&biw=1274&bih=702&sei=U4Z-UfKoO4Tq0QHAgIG4AQ
I've got a #2 and have used it on a Yashica-Mat 124g--mainly for portraits.
You'll have to pardon the haze on a lot of these. The damned lens on the MAT is dirty. I have been putting off sending it to Mark Hama for a CLA.
On a related note, I recently found out that Irving Penn used a Rolleinar extensively for his portrait work, primarily a #2 and occasionally a #1. His famous portraits of Picasso, Truman Capote, and Tennessee Williams (among others) were taken with this setup.
You can look here:
https://www.google.com/search?q=irving+penn+portraits&aq=f&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=UIZ-Ud6cGcPM0gH754DoDg&biw=1274&bih=702&sei=U4Z-UfKoO4Tq0QHAgIG4AQ
Dan Daniel
Well-known
It's not hard to open up and clean the oil off-
http://www.usedcameradb.com/blog/2009/08/yashica-mat-124-cleaning-1-of-4-taking-lens/
wilonstott
Wil O.
Thanks! Interesting read. I've never ventured to take apart a lens before, but this guy makes it look fairly straightforward.
If I get my nerve up, I may give it a try.
Have you done this yourself---or anyone, for that matter?
miragem5
Well-known
Yes I have 4 TLR cameras and my first job after recieving the camera is to clean the lenses and mirror box.
The tool I use is a modified pair of circlip pliers shaped up on a grinder to fit the slots , works well for me.
miragem5
Well-known
Lovely native to our country a Weta
Lovely native to our country a Weta
Autocord and Rollinar 2 by steveod2007, on Flick
Minolta Autocord and Rollinar 2
Lovely native to our country a Weta
Autocord and Rollinar 2 by steveod2007, on Flick
Minolta Autocord and Rollinar 2
miragem5
Well-known
sreed2006
Well-known
I have. Dan Daniel provided the same link to me when I complained that none of the pictures from my Yashica 124G were sharp. Cleaning all the haze off of the glass made a big difference.
Nevertheless, there were other things wrong, and the Yashica 124G went off to Mark Hama for CLA, and he cleaned the lenses to "like new" condition.
Thomas78
Well-known
Rolleiflex 4x4, Xenar 60mm f/3.5
Rolleinar 2, Rollei Crossbird 200:
Rolleiflex 4x4_06_Rollei Crossbird 100_009 von thomas.78 auf Flickr
Rolleinar 2, Rollei Crossbird 200:
Rolleiflex 4x4_06_Rollei Crossbird 100_009 von thomas.78 auf Flickr
TheFlyingCamera
Well-known
Rolleiflex 2.8E, Rolleinar #2. Ilford Delta 400, Pyrocat-HD.
Larry H-L
Well-known
Leicapixie,
You make a good point about distortion on portraits.
Some lenses have more distortion than others, but it is usually a slight difference between brands and lens designs.
The larger factor with portraits, to me, is the working distance from camera to subject.
If one uses a longer lens, say 2x or 3x the normal focal length for your format, your working distance is substantial. This creates a situation where the subject's nose and ears are, as a proportion, about the same distance away from the camera. This keeps the ears and nose looking proportionally correct in size and creates a flattering portrait.
However, if one uses a lens that is normal or wide, the working distance to the subject is much shorter. Now the nose is much closer to the camera, proportionally, than the ears. Big nose, small ears, not too flattering… but it can still create an interesting portrait.
A close up lens, such as a Rolleinar, shortens the working distance, and that creates part of the "distortion."
You make a good point about distortion on portraits.
Some lenses have more distortion than others, but it is usually a slight difference between brands and lens designs.
The larger factor with portraits, to me, is the working distance from camera to subject.
If one uses a longer lens, say 2x or 3x the normal focal length for your format, your working distance is substantial. This creates a situation where the subject's nose and ears are, as a proportion, about the same distance away from the camera. This keeps the ears and nose looking proportionally correct in size and creates a flattering portrait.
However, if one uses a lens that is normal or wide, the working distance to the subject is much shorter. Now the nose is much closer to the camera, proportionally, than the ears. Big nose, small ears, not too flattering… but it can still create an interesting portrait.
A close up lens, such as a Rolleinar, shortens the working distance, and that creates part of the "distortion."
Bobfrance
Over Exposed
I really like using the Rolleinar 1 on my 3.5F.
I find having one makes an already great camera an extremely flexible great camera. I think the addition of a Rolleinar to one's camera bag means that nothing 6x6 (or larger) can match its combination of portability and flexibility. Not a Hassy or a Mamiya 6/7.
Untitled by Bobfrance, on Flickr
I also find that when stopped down the Rolleinar can still have a fair amount of reach. This girl was on stilts and so about 12ft high (her head 6ft above mine) but I still managed to get her in focus with the aperture at around f11/f16 and the focus at infinity. It might not seem like a big deal but that extra flexibility can be a help when you're doing street shooting.
Untitled by Bobfrance, on Flickr
I've recently been wondering about picking up a prism finder, just to give me that extra degree of focus accuracy.
Bob.
.
I find having one makes an already great camera an extremely flexible great camera. I think the addition of a Rolleinar to one's camera bag means that nothing 6x6 (or larger) can match its combination of portability and flexibility. Not a Hassy or a Mamiya 6/7.
Untitled by Bobfrance, on Flickr
I also find that when stopped down the Rolleinar can still have a fair amount of reach. This girl was on stilts and so about 12ft high (her head 6ft above mine) but I still managed to get her in focus with the aperture at around f11/f16 and the focus at infinity. It might not seem like a big deal but that extra flexibility can be a help when you're doing street shooting.
Untitled by Bobfrance, on Flickr
I've recently been wondering about picking up a prism finder, just to give me that extra degree of focus accuracy.
Bob.
.
Brian Legge
Veteran
I agree with everything Bob said above; and fantastic shots by the way.
If this is an example of a portrait with the 'Rolleinar distortion', distort away! 🙂 The Rolleinar is coming whenever I take the Rollei out from now on. I posted this shot in another thread but it seems worth sharing in the context of this Rolleinar focused thread as well.
If this is an example of a portrait with the 'Rolleinar distortion', distort away! 🙂 The Rolleinar is coming whenever I take the Rollei out from now on. I posted this shot in another thread but it seems worth sharing in the context of this Rolleinar focused thread as well.