[rollei_list] Re: Tele Mutar & Tele Rolleiflex
- From: Gene Johnson <genej2ster@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 14:36:34 -0700
really nice shots.
Gene
On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 2:28 PM, Jerry Lehrer <glehrer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Sanders,
>
> Really wonderful work. The only disturbing not was the piercing of some of
> the subjects.
> I have seen some of the medical consequences of those, It ain't pleasant.
>
> I can tell from the POV that a TLR was used. I would have used my H'blad
> with a
> 150mm lens. Your vignetting showed but was not distracting at all.
>
> Thanks again,
> Jerry
>
>
> Sanders McNew wrote:
>
> Jerry, Those particular images are available online only
> via Flickr. But I have a number of others on my web site,
>
> www.mcnew.net/portraits
>
> Here are direct links to a few:
>
> http://www.mcnew.net/portraits/slides/Booper101altadj.jpg
> http://www.mcnew.net/portraits/slides/Brooke209adj.jpg
> http://www.mcnew.net/portraits/slides/Gina201adj.jpg
> http://www.mcnew.net/portraits/slides/Cat108adj.jpg
> http://www.mcnew.net/portraits/slides/Jess301adj.jpg
> http://www.mcnew.net/portraits/slides/Jessica209altadj.jpg
>
> Sanders
>
>
> Jerry Lehrer wrote:
>
> Sandy,
>
>
>
> Sorry, but Flicker will not let me see those pictures that you have linked.
> I have no
>
> account with them.
>
> Will some other way for you to show them be available?
>
> Jerry
>
> On Apr 26, 2009, at 9:25 AM, Sanders McNew wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
--
Be Just and Fear Not
Other related posts:
