portrait lens for 2.8 planar rollei?

[allison_mills]

This is probably a silly question but I thought I would ask here and

see if anyone knows how to locate a portrait lens for my 2.8? Are

they in existance? Were they ever? Where do I get one? Is there a

place to buy used Rollei accessories? I am looking for the

equivalent of a 140mm lens. Something in that range. Thanks

Allison

[pensacolaphoto]

Hi Allison,

Are you referring to a Rolleiflex TLR or SLR camera?

[dan_kreithen]

If you are referring to a TLR (twin-lens reflex), there were afocal attachments produced in the 1960's called Mutars that work with your camera. They were produced in two varieties, 0.7x (so converting an 80mm lens to 56mm) and 1.5x (converting the 80mm lens to 120mm). They are relatively rare collectables, however, and are quite expensive. They have a pretty good reputation as these attachments go, but are not stellar performers. Unfortunately, any of the off-brand attachments you will find will probably not be worth it, as they are uniformly bad. That said, have you used your camera for portraits? It will not give you a "head shot" but backing off will give you a 1/2 length portrait, and cropping the negative is always possible with good results. I urge you to give it a try if you have not yet, you may like the results. Part of the lure of a Rolleiflex is that there is only a single focal length available. You can make it work for you, if you give it a try.

[kaiblanke]

For the SLR's there is the 150 Sonnar, a very nice lens. <p>

For the TLR's there are besides the Mutars also the Rolleinars, which is a 2-component close-focusing set. They do not give you another perspective, but allow you to go closer. The Rolleinar 1 is the one with the widest distance to the subject, the Rolleinar 3 allows you to go closest (about 30-40 cm afaik). These Rolleinars also somewhat correct for the parallax error. For headshots the Rolleinar 1 or 2 should be enough.

<p>

That said, why don't you step back and take a half-body portrait and crop afterwards ? The negative should be large enough and closer cropping gives you a longer focal length.

[siu_fai_au1]

Have you considered the Rolleikin 35mm adapter? It turns your Rollei into a great 35mm portrait camera.

[bacsa]

<i>"For the TLR's there are besides the Mutars also the Rolleinars, which is a 2-component close-focusing set. They do not give you another perspective, <b>but allow you to go closer</b>."</i> -Kai Blanke<p>

 

So, they DO give you another perspective. Perspective is related to subject-to-camera distance, afaik...

<p>

grtz

[uli_mayer]

Since Mutars have become prohibitively expensive and older attachements were optically poor, isn't there a way to get a Portrait-Rolleiflex by using one ( i.e. two ) of the better tele adapters, as they are made today for digicams for example by Zeiss or Century? I am sure there would be some loss in resolution and probably some vignetting, but may be not to an extent to make such a combination useless for portraits. It's just an idea. Is there somebody who tried it and likes to tell his(her) experienbce? Thanks Uli

[olivier_reichenbach]

If I may, Csab, perspective - in that it is the way distances between objects and distant

objects are perceived (which can be equated to a sense of «depth») - is NOT related to

camera-to-subject distance. Moving back and forth only changes your point-of-view and

the frame of the picture, not

the perspective per se. Using different focal lengths from the same point, DOES change the

perspective, though. Witness the false sense of depth and distance a wide angle creates,

as opposed to the sense of compressed distances a tele does.

 

If you shoot with a zoom, moving back and forth with the same focal length will change

the point of view and the frame, but not the perspective. The general sense of depth will

remain the same. But zoom in while staying in place, now both the frame AND the

perspective will change. This is something you see in movies, when they use either

travelling or zooming, with entirely different effects.

 

The Rolleinar does not change the perspective at all. Everything remains the same. It just

allows focusing from closer to you subject. Exactly like different lenses of the same focal

length may have very different closest focusing distance.

[bacsa]

I still respectfully disagree, Olivier.

<p>

A short focal length ("wide")lens makes lots of objects that are close to the camera all fit into the image frame, by creating a smaller image of everything within the angle of view. Everything is tiny, you have to move close to make something big on the frame. The subject depth gets comparable to (or bigger than) the camera-to-subject distance. Therefore, the perspective looks different than the one of a long lens, which would crop the image to the middle part, and enlarge it to fill the same frame, where the camera-to-subject distance is much larger than the subjec-to-subject distance. Example: the classic "portrait lens" stuff. Take a picture with the widest lens you have. Take one with the longest lens you have. Crop the wide image and enlarge so that the two frames are identical(same size, same subject size). There's no difference (apart from resolution of course), though you took them with different lenses.

<p>

If you want to fill the frame using a wide-angle with a face, you will have to go very close to the subject. Then the distance of the nose to the camera will be much shorter than the dist of the ears from the cmaera. Therefore, the nose will be more enlarged than the ears. If you do it with a long lens, they are approximately at the same distance, so approximately enlarged the same way. BECAUSE, to fill the frame, you have to step back.

<p>

If everything that fits in the image frame with an ultrawide lens is at equal distance from you when taking the photo, there will be no distortion, one will have no idea that you used a wide angle.

<p>

 

OR, when you have a photo with the wide angle perspective: make it BIIIG enlargement and go VERY close to it. The wide angle perspective will suddenly get back to normal view. Same thing happens.

<p>

Ultimately, think about the focal lengths and the film format. A 50 mm lens is always 50 mm lens; that is, a parallel light beam will be focused at 50mm from its main optical plane; however, depending on how much of the image is put on the film frame, for large format it's ultrawide angle(if exists...), for medium, it's wide angle, with lots of wide angle perspective, for 35mm it's "normal", and for a small digital p&s, it's a looong tele with "compressing" perspective. The SAME piece of lens... always different perspective. Why? because with a smaller format you crop off the sides of the image which would show a wide perspective.

<p>

It's not something I made up myself. Check it even here in the Learn section:

<br>http://www.photo.net/learn/optics/lens<br>

<i>FAQQ26. How does focal length affect perspective?<p>

 

A. It doesn't; it is subject distance that affects perspective.

However, a longer lens provides more subject magnification at a given

distance, so you can get farther from your subject without having the

image be too small. By moving back, you make the magnification ratio

between the front and back of your subject smaller, because the

distance ratio is closer to one. So, in a portrait, instead of a nose

that's magnified much more than the rest of the head, the nose is

magnified only very slightly more than the rest of the head, and the

picture looks more pleasing.

<p>

You can get the same perspective with a shorter focal length lens by

simply moving back, and enlarging the central portion of the image. Of

course, this magnifies grain as well, so it's better to use a longer

lens if you have one.</i><p>

Cheers.

[johnmarkpainter]

Allison,

 

What you are looking for is a set of "Rolleinar"

 

People will get distorted if too close though. To see what it looks like, check out this guy:

 

www.pyke-eye.com

 

jmp