Rolleinar?

[Ong]

Ey guys! I'm not sure but the correct Rolleinar for my 3.5F Xenotar is the Bay II one? With the rolleinar 2 i get two lenses? One for the viewving lens and one for the taking lens? How close with the Rolleinar 2 I can take the picture?

Thanks!

You've gotten it right with it being a Bay II filter.
Rolleinars tend to cover where the previous one leaves off.
From memory it should be something like
Rolleinar I = 1m-0.5m
Rolleinar II = 0.5m-0.3m
Rolleinar III = 0.3 - 0.1 (?)
Rolleinar IV = 0.1- (????)
(I could be wrong with the distances for the III and IV but they seem about that focusing distance)

 

[Bruno Gracia]

thanks Ong!

 

[miragem5]

Merry Christmas , Prettige Kerstdagen everyone. by steveod2007, on Flickr

 

[Ron (Netherlands)]

Rolleinar 1 (bay III) on a 2.8C (don't have that set anymore):


Lightstudy I by Ron (Netherlands), on Flickr


Hedgehog by Ron (Netherlands), on Flickr

 

[johannielscom]

Ow, I need a Rolleinar set for the Tele Rolleiflex that's coming my way... any type, just to get closer than 2.8 meters in focusing...

Great stuff on this page. I love the shots from Sandersnyc, way back when...

Got some selling and saving up to do 😉

 

[rjbuzzclick]

Not a Rolleinar, but a set of Yashica Bay 1 close-up lenses on a Yahsica D:

 

[RBullCZ]

Bay III Rolleinars are a bit spendy, I'll agree. But well worth it for what they do.

Here's a profile shot taken with a Rolleinar 2 -
No distortion here 🙂

The perspective distortion is there - simply by principle of being at that particular close distance to the subject. The optical quality of the close up lens does have nothing to do with this - it is simply law of optics. That is why the "beauty" portraits are taken with longer lenses (85-200mm on 35mm film equivalent), because they enable to shoot from further distance to the subject and getting more flattering perspective of the subjects face. 🙂

 

[Sarcophilus Harrisii]

Ow, I need a Rolleinar set for the Tele Rolleiflex that's coming my way... any type, just to get closer than 2.8 meters in focusing...

Great stuff on this page. I love the shots from Sandersnyc, way back when...

Got some selling and saving up to do 😉

For versatility you might consider seeking a 0.35 or 0.7 first, simply because they get that minimum focus distance down from its normal 8 1/2 feet or so. You can fit standard Bay III Rolleinars as well (Sanders has made some great tight portraits with a 1 on top of a 0.35). But of course it depends on how close you want to get and how you like to shoot. Sanders is the guy to ask about portraiture with one.
Cheers,
Brett

 

[teddy]

They are very useful. They are very high quality, I wouldn't hesitate to save and buy them. They can be pricey, and can be cleaned easily.

Testing Plus-X in low light stopped down
Rolleiflex 75/3.5 Xenotar, f5.6, Rolleinar 2 (closeup), Kodak Plus-X (1992), Rodina; 1:100

 

[orimage]

Rolleiflex 2,8 E3 | Rolleinar 2 | Tri-X

 

[Ron (Netherlands)]

Rolleinar I (just bought from ThreeToedSlothLuke - aka Colin): shot on Velvia 100 asa

Tulips II by Ron (Netherlands), on Flickr

 

[Greyscale]

Rolleiflex Automat K4A, Rolleinar 1, Fujichrome Velvia 100F by Mike Novak, on Flickr

 

[Greyscale]

Rolleiflex Automat K4A, Rolleinar 1, Fujichrome Velvia 100F by Mike Novak, on Flickr

 

[k__43]

I used to have a full set in Bay RI now with the Flex 3.5E I realize that RII is the worst mount to get stuff for. RIII is much easier to get (although already much pricier than RI). I only have a type 3 now which I don't need, I want type 1 which almost unavailable. I've been hunting for a while.

For the person that thinks perspective distortion in portraits is the worst thing since that Austrian maniac running Germany in the 30/40ies last century: look at photos with your eyes and heart first and then with your "knowledge" about photography. There are masterpieces out there taken with 28mm lenses or even wider.
Also I don't think that a 75/80mm in MF even with close-up attachment is terribly wide.

 

[k__43]

I finally got an RII Rolleinar 1 - now the collector in me wants the 2 to complete the set and the realist in me says sell the 3 you never need it (except for camera p0rn🙂
Untitled by Kay K, on Flickr

 

[k__43]

Rolleinar 1 bayonet R2 (I actually thought I loaded Portra400 and deliberately underexposed, which is ok for that film, but there was Astia in the camera)

Untitled by Kay K, on Flickr

 

[ki_]

Rolleinar 1 on a 3.5 E. Out of focus but still I like the picture a lot.

Rolleinar 2 on my Rolleiflex 3.5 F:

 

[graywolf]

Some time back I bought a rolleinar from a guy on ebay. It turned out to be a +1 viewing lens and a +3 taking lens. He refunded my money, but did not want the rolleinars back, so no actual complaint.

However, when ever I try the finding lens I really wish I had the +1 taking lens. Any idea where I could find the taking lens, or better yet trade the +3 for a +1?

 

[Ron (Netherlands)]

Some time back I bought a rolleinar from a guy on ebay. It turned out to be a +1 viewing lens and a +3 taking lens. He refunded my money, but did not want the rolleinars back, so no actual complaint.

However, when ever I try the finding lens I really wish I had the +1 taking lens. Any idea where I could find the taking lens, or better yet trade the +3 for a +1?

2 weeks ago there was one on German Ebay....might be gone

 

[mitch.]

I settled on the Rolleinar 2 as a starting point, looking forward to using it more.

Rolleiflex MX-EVS w/ Rolleinar 2 + Fomapan 200 in Fomadon R09


Untitled by Mitchell Sampson