[rollei_list] Re: Tele Mutar & Tele Rolleiflex

Sanders, I guess you'll have to try it. 135mm x 0.7 =  94.5mm. Could be
good? Could have a lot of vignetting. Let us know....

 

John

 

PS photos are great. Depth of focus is excellent.

 

________________________________

From: rollei_list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:rollei_list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Sanders McNew
Sent: 26 April 2009 14:31
To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: Tele Mutar & Tele Rolleiflex

 

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: