Stand-alone Rolleinar Bayonet III Viewing Lens Attachment

<p>I have a rather innocent (read dumb) question on the subject. The Rolleinars come as pairs for the Bayonet III, and are numbered 1, 2, and 3, and are used for increasing order of close-up photography, e.g., #1 is for head+shoulders, #2 is for head, and #3 is for very close-up shots. Each numbered pair has one component for the taking lens (the thinner component), and the thicker component is attached to the viewing lens. I also believe that the numbered pairs are not interchangeable due to their "strengths" (diopter power), i.e., cannot (or, should not?) mix the individual numbered components. Having written all this, can I use any viewing lens Rolleinar attachment as a stand-alone protection "filter", and mount a regular Bayonet III UV filter on the taking lens (again, to protect the taking lens). Two issues: (1) Will such a combination (however odd as it may sound/look) overcome the design limitation of not being able to mount two regular (UV) filters at the same time due to lack of clearance for the two filters?? (2) If the clearance issue is resolved, how would this work from an optics viewpoint: will there be any distortion in the viewing lens, focusing problems, etc. At the time of this writing, I cannot answer either question as I don't have any Rolleinar attachment for the viewing lens (I have a 2.8F Planar, bayonet III type); I did purchase a Rolleinar Bayonet III viewing lens attachment #2 only (the sale didn't have the other component), and will try it out, and provide answer(s) to (1), and (2) - in that order. <br>

Thank you for your experience on this subject, and best regards to everybody.<br>

Roy Ramavarapu, 26 April 2013</p>

<p>I believe the viewing lens has the same diopter as the matching taking lens; skipping one would throw off focus. I also believe the viewing lens has a slight wedge in it to compensate for parallax error, so I would think using it without its mate for more distant subjects could throw off your composition. </p>

<p>I seem to remember having only one of the close up lens attachments once myself. You can do it, but you won't like it. I had to lock the camera on a tripod, put the attachment on the viewing lens, get everything in focus, then carefully take it off and put it on the taking lens. If nothing moved, I got my shot. Medium format gives you such a big neg, I just decided to crop from then on.</p>

<p>No way to use a Rolleinar as a regular protection filter because the Rolleinar is a lens and changes the focus. I suppose you could take the lens out of the larger piece, viewing part of the Rolleinar pair and put in a plain glass and then yes you could use a filter or lens shade with it on. But it would be far cheaper and better to get a UV filter and file the one edge down so another filter will fit on below it.</p>

 

<p>If your objective is to take portraits, using close-up lenses is not a great idea. The perspective view with a telephoto lens to get the same usage of the negative size is more pleasing; the closeup perspective tends to make the nose appear much larger by comparison with the rest of the face in a full-frontal portrait.<br>

Some people have argued that putting UV filters on any lenses is simply buying into a scam to sell hugely profitable items while slightly degrading image quality. If you want to protect your lenses, get a lens cap, a camera case, or a sunshade [much recommended].</p>

 

<p>Yeah, forget using the viewing lens as a protective filter. Hold on to it and some day you'll find an orphaned taking lens and make a set for a decent price.</p>

<p>My solution for a protective filter on my 2,8C was to grind down a clear glass filter. Here's a thread elsewhere that shows this-<br /> http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=122243&highlight=dremel</p>

<p>The reason I did this is because I like to carry the camera with lens hood in place while in a small bag. I started out removing the hood and putting the cap in place whenever I was putting the camera in the bag. But I ended up dropping the hood or cap a few times, putting my finger on the viewing or taking lens, etc. (I shoot in the street and such, so waiting to be at a quiet table isn't always an option).</p>

<p>I also made a cap for the hood. The one problem with this system is that there isn't the automatic safety to prevent you shooting with the lens cap in place because the viewing lens is covered. A few lost shots taught me soon enough to check.</p>

<p>Thank you all for the informed and experience-based opinions. The above responses should answer my questions (1) and (2). I can't help writing why Rolleiflex didn't consider using two protection filters at the same time as a design feature for the 2.8F/3.5F series; I believe (based on some reader comments) that the earlier models will accept two filters. Using an UV filter as a protection is my preference - I prefer to clean the filter and not the lens. Thank you all for the information; I think Dan Daniel's solution would be the most preferable. Also, thanks to D. Purdy for information and experience elsewhere in this forum on the filters with plain glass and the flat bottom edge sold on the auction site from S. Korea: I didn't try any of them. Best regards to all. </p>

<p>I am reporting on my question (1) above. I received the Rolleinar #2 attachment for Bay3 viewing lens only; this #2 has the usual bayonet type flat "prongs", and one flat edge on the circumference, and has a painted dot on the metal body; see any picture. The reference orientation is: facing the Rolleiflex, and the taking and viewing lenses are facing me. I understand that this #2 has to be mounted on the viewing lens (of the Rolleiflex, mine is a 2.8F Planar), and rotated so that the painted dot is at the 12noon position. Did this, and was somewhat surprised that the flat edge is now at the 9o'clock position. I was under the impression that the flat edge is to provide clearance for any attachment(s) made to the taking lens - this is not the case. The #2 is now mounted. Next, without any hindrance, I was able to attach my Heliopan Bay3 UV filter - there is no interference from the #2 on the viewing lens. Next, I mounted my Bay3 shade (hood) on the taking lens (with the #2 and UV filter still attached), and the hood mounted without any hindrance. Everything worked out fine as far as the (1) question is concerned. Note: I was even able to un-mount/remove the #2 from the viewing lens with the UV & hood (both) still on the taking lens. Works fine, and this is the experimental result for (1) question. Coming to (2) question on the optical performance. Dave Thomas is correct: the combination does not serve the optical performance. I removed the #2 only, focused on an object, mounted back the #2, and the focused image is distorted/out-of-focus. Experiment failure confirmation for question (2). D.Purdy's observation (remove the as-found glass/lens from #2, and replace with UV or plain glass) would work out great, but would involve quite some effort. (There is a write-up in this forum on dismantling a Rolleiflex filter and removing the glass and re-assembling after cleaning). With my best regards to everybody.<br>

Roy Ramavarapu, 02 May 2013</p>

<p>I completed my project: I have a Rolleinar#2 housing with a Hoya 37mm UV filter that I can mount on the viewing lens, and a UV filter + shade on the taking lens - all at the same time. I provided all the details with three photos in a separate listing: search in this forum with string "Dismantle Rolleinar" and should bring up the listing. PN: All this is for Rolleiflex 2.8F Planar with Bayonet III (3). Works great.<br>

Best regards, Roy Ramavarapu, 13 July 2013</p>