Is a rolleinar useful?

[Eddie Vaughan]

Now that I am 'highly respected' for the first time in my life, I feel that I should be answering questions rather than asking them, even if it means having to pretend that I know more than I really do. I might have a go next time, but in the meantime ask members for their opinion on whether or not a rolleinar close-up lens is a useful accessory. I have never used one, but am thinking of buying one to celebrate my new status. They are expensive, however, and I do not want to waste money. My question is: Does a rolleinar close-up lens give a better quality image than you can obtain simply from enlarging part of the negative to the same scale?


Eddie Vaughan

[DPurdy]

You are a highly respected member because you can bring up a really good point like that. It is actually different to crop the image rather than move in closer. Cropping the image is similar to having a more telephoto lens. Moving closer with closer focus is giving a different perspective. You will notice with the Rolleinar taking a close up portrait of someone you will get a distortion. The nose or lips will get larger and the ears might be lost. Some people find that disturbing and others like it. Also moving in close with the Rolleinar will give you less depth of field than just cropping.
Another thing with the Rolleinar is that the difference in the view of the two lenses becomes greater so that you don't get quite what you thought in the picture from looking through the viewing lens. Especially with the #3 Rolleinar the view of the viewing lens is very different from the view of the taking lens.
I have all three Rolleinars for my 2.8 lenses but I hardly ever use them. Sometimes though they are good. I get really surprisingly good quality from them. Very sharp. Though in my experience they tend to increase the likelihood of flare.
I think the lenses on Rolleis are sharp enough to crop some so perhaps the #1 Rolleinar is not necessary if you don't mind cropping.

My opinion with all due respect to a highly respected member.
Dennis

[JanBoettcher]

Well well, highly respected ... so with all due respect:

I'm not the close-up-guy, but in case I have to do a close up, I use some SLR camera (like the SL 66 E or smaller format or a digital compact camera), not a TLR.

When comparing a crop to the Rolleinar you may at some point have to decide "increased grain" vs. "corner sharpness" (at least in theory).

Dennis does have a point when it comes to parallax compensation. In the focus plane (when reproducing a flat object) everything may be all right, but the angle of view of the taking lens will be differing from the taking lens's view (subject vs. background).

So, just get'em!

Jan (senile member)

[Eddie Vaughan]

Thanks Dennis and Jan. All of this respect is making me feel dizzy.

Differences in depth of field and perspective had not occurred to me fully when asking whether a photo taken with a 75mm or 80mm Rolleiflex lens will produce as satisfactory a result as one taken with a rolleinar close-up lens if it is cropped and enlarged to the same scale. I understand now that the results will look different.

There might still be reason to enlarge part of a negative if you want to avoid the shallow depth of field and large noses that you will get with full-face portraits taken with a rolleinar, provided grain and inferior sharpness are not too noticeable in the enlargement and that the camera and enlarger lenses are stopped down to f16 or f22.

I have bought a rolleinar 2 and will experiment. I shall try to persuade my wife to be a subject, and will report the results later.

Thanks again for your usual informative comments.

Eddie