dave_k6 Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 <p>Hi Rollei Users!</p><p>I went out to shoot with my Rollei 2.8e1 (bay III) during the day and after processing, realized I had a big haze problem. To hopefully remedy this, I ordered a Fotodiox hood for taking lens from Amazon. I was thinking about also putting on a UV filter. So I looked into the Fotodiox Bay III to 42mm step ring to save on filter costs.</p><p>My question is, will the step ring fit on the lens while the hood was on?</p><p>None of my emails to Fotodiox were answered unfortunately, and I haven't found anyone online that's attempted this. Possibly with good reason. I included Amazon.com links to the 2 items in question:</p><p>Lens Hood: http://www.amazon.com/Fotodiox-Replacement-Biometer-Xenotar-Rolleiflex/dp/B002K4E6OA/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1371524775&sr=8-2&keywords=fotodiox+lens+hood+rolleiflex<br><br />Filter Adapter: http://www.amazon.com/Fotodiox-Step-Ring-Bayonet-III/dp/B002KBC4G0/ref=pd_sim_p_3</p><p><br />In case anyone was wondering, I was shooting with Ilford HP5+ 400, XTol 24C 6:30min. Perhaps the haze was caused by something else, like my bad skills. But in my readings, apparently the Rolleis really need hoods during the day...and possibly UV filters.</p><p>Thanks all,<br>David</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marc_batters Posted June 18, 2013 Share Posted June 18, 2013 <blockquote> <p>My question is, will the step ring fit on the lens while the hood was on?</p> </blockquote> <p>No.</p> <p>Save some money. Buy the Bay III, to screw thread, adapter ring. Mount the ring on tour taking lens.<br> Now, you will have conventional screw-in, filter/hood capabilities, like any other non-bayonet type lens/camera.<br> From this point, you can use conventional, threaded step-up rings, to accommodate any size screw-in filter you want to use.<br> Lastly, once you have decided on what size you're going to step-up to, purchase an inexpensive ($4-$5), screw-on rubber lens hood in that size.</p> <p>Marc</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave_k6 Posted June 18, 2013 Author Share Posted June 18, 2013 <p>Wow, that's a great suggestion! I didn't even consider getting a screw in hood. Thanks!<br> <br /><br /><br> The only issue would be the fact that general screw-in hoods don't account for the shape of a TLR, so the hood will probably end up blocking part of the viewing lens. But I might be able to live with that if I can use a hood and filter at the same time (at a reduced cost). </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave_k6 Posted June 18, 2013 Author Share Posted June 18, 2013 <p>Perhaps a follow up question would be, will a UV filter be that much more helpful for color film if I already have a lens hood on it? I'm only interested in better image quality, so if a filter is not required, I'd rather not have it.</p> <p>This is something I've also researched. There's a lot of material on the benefits of UV filters for film, but they never go into how useful this would be if you already have a hood on.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marc_batters Posted June 18, 2013 Share Posted June 18, 2013 <p>A bay-adapter, 52mm step-up ring, and 52mm round hood...barely makes a shadow on the bottom of the viewing screen. <br /> Totally useable, even up to a 55mm set-up.</p> <p>For landscape work, I have multiple step-up rings...all the way to 77mm, (my most common filter size).<br /> I compose the shot I want, then put the 'stack' of rings, filter(s) and hood onto the lens. <br /> I refuse to purchase, maybe a 1/2 dozen or so filters, in every size I need (or want), to fit all my lenses, across all of my different lens sizes. If I purchased complete sets of filters for most of my common lens sizes, I would have about 5 complete or duplicate sets of filters. That's way too spendy for me.</p> <p>Addressing UV, Skylight or Haze filters...there are many variables involved. Environmental issues such as fog, smog, altitude or elevation determine the need. The difference between shots taken shortly after sunrise or just before sunset, verses shots taken at high noon can look very different based on the types of filters used.</p> <p>For me, it's been a journey of trial-and-error. You will need to try the filters that you purchase. There are many filter manufacturers, with different quality standards. What I mean by that is, a 80A or 80B filter from company 'X' could give you a very different look then the same filter(s) from companies 'Y' or 'Z.'</p> <p>Marc</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDMvW Posted June 18, 2013 Share Posted June 18, 2013 <p>There are lots of varieties of screw-in square lens hoods on the world-wide flea sale (e.g., <a href="http://www.ebay.com/bhp/square-lens-hood">link</a>). One of them should work with the bayonet-to-screw adapter.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_mareno1 Posted June 18, 2013 Share Posted June 18, 2013 <p>I've used the Fotodiox hoods. Mine was plastic w/ a metel mount, but it was well made and real cheap compared to the other Bay III hoods. I would not suggest a UV filter, as that's just adding another glass surface to flare. You'll be fine w/ just the hood. The adapters for screw on hoods make sense if you plan on shooting different filters, otherwise, if all you want do do is to tame the flare, the hood will do it.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_marvin Posted June 18, 2013 Share Posted June 18, 2013 <p>Some (but not all) Bay III series VI filter adaptors will fit under a bay III hood.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave_k6 Posted June 18, 2013 Author Share Posted June 18, 2013 <p>Thanks for the information everyone. It's a lot to chew on. Seems like rather than jumping in and buying the rings, filters, etc., I should continue shooting for a bit and add on things as I need it. I'll stick with a hood for now. Trying to avoid the GAS. I was shooting BW for a bit, which got me into the filter research, but going back into color right now.<br> <br />Just got the fotodiox hood today. It looks like a metal hood with a plastic mount, oddly enough. I had planned on returning it and getting the step ring. But now that I have it, I may just keep it. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert_Lai Posted June 19, 2013 Share Posted June 19, 2013 <p>I use the Fotodiox hoods and filter adapters on my Rolleiflex 3.5F also. They are functionally the same as the Rollei product, and a lot cheaper.</p> <p>If you are having a lot of problems with flare, check by looking through the lens with the camera back open, shutter open on B, at a strong light. If you see oil on the inner lens elements, or haze, then the lens will need professional cleaning.</p> <p>I had one Nikon 24mm f/2.8 AI lens that flared like mad. Until one day I had it cleaned, then it was as if magic had been worked on the lens. It's flaring was under far better control, or gone entirely.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave_k6 Posted June 19, 2013 Author Share Posted June 19, 2013 <p>I generally suffer from hazy pictures, but I can't tell where it's coming from. I just had my rollei serviced at Krikor's Photo Service. He said the lens was fine other than some scratches that wouldn't affect image quality. I looked at the glass myself in the same way you described, and I didn't notice anything other than a few black specks and light scratches.<br /> <br />Below, I attached a few shots I scanned using my Epson V600. None of the adjustment options were turned on, so this was as raw a scan as you can get. I used the 120 film holder. What I don't understand is why my shots look so hazy, fuzzy, and lacking in contrast.<br /> Again, I used Ilford HP5+ 400 and this batch was processed using XTOL at 24C/75F for 6:30min. The xtol is about a couple months old. Other people have reported using xtol with ilfords will results in somewhat "muddy" scans, but I'm not sure how to compare this since all I ever see on the net are pics that have been photoshopped. I've also tried processing at 20C at 8min, and 24C at 5min. All pretty much looked about the same when scanned.</p> <p>Anyways, here are my untouched test shots. No filters or hoods were used. All shots were metered using an iphone light meter app (which could be way off I supposed). The aperture and speed are from memory, so it might be off:</p> <p>http://www.photo.net/photo/17430256&size=lg<br /> Test 1 -- f2.8, 1/30, handheld. There's a translucent skylight above him and fluorescent lights behind me. But still overall dark in the room.</p> <p>http://www.photo.net/photo/17430255&size=lg<br /> Test 2 -- f/16, 1/250 (?)</p> <p>http://www.photo.net/photo/17430254&size=lg<br /> Test 3 -- f/16, 1/250 (?). Not a very good scan I know.</p> <p>As you can see, the shots seem pretty muddy and not very sharp or contrasty. Is this caused by a hazy lens? Overexposure? Improper processing? Lack of hood and/or filters? Being a crappy photographer? Or all of the above?</p> <p>Not looking for anyone to solve my problems, but any tips would be appreciated. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now