[rollei_list] Re: Tele Mutar & Tele Rolleiflex
- From: Sanders McNew <sanders@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 09:25:44 -0400
John, that's an interesting idea. And if I mount
my 0.7x Mutar on my Tele, I get ... something
like my 2.8E?
I shoot the Tele for portraits all the time. I find that
the 0.7 Rolleinar does not get me close enough
for a tight headshot. However, you can mount a
Bay III Rolleinar I on top of either Tele Rolleinar
and the combination gets you real close -- I use
the 0.35 Tele Rolleinar with a Rolleinar I all the
time, for photos such as these:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandersnyc/3076791496/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandersnyc/2957173694/
Apart from some vignetting (which does not bother
me) I find the combination very accommodating.
Sanders
John Wild wrote:
Although not recommended (or even mentioned by Rollei) a friend used a
Tele-Mutar (BayIII) on his Tele-Rolleiflex to get an approximate
200mm lens.
The results were good, better than enlarging the standard Tele
negative to
the same magnification. The results did show some slight vignetting
which
probably would be eliminated by stopping down a little. Light
conditions did
not permit this though and they were only of buildings. Someone
could try
this combo for portraiture?
The other alternatives to taking out a bank loan to purchase a new
Tele-Rollei with close focusing are to use one of the Rolleinars (.
35 or .7)
for the old Teles which give head & shoulder and head shots
respectively.
John
On 16/04/2009 23:30, "Robert Meier" <robertmeier@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> The problem with the Tele-Mutar for portraits is that the minimum
> focusing distance is magnified along with the focal length, so
it's a
> little more than five feet. And that is not close enough for a
head
> shot.
---
Rollei List
Other related posts:
