[rollei_list] Re: Comparative Mutar 0.7x Planar 2.8 vs 3.5
- From: Marc James Small <marcsmall@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 16:29:22 -0400
At 04:13 PM 8/10/2012, CarlosMFreaza wrote:
>2012/8/10 Marc James Small <marcsmall@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
>> Thanks, Carlos. My Mutars work well with my 2.8F and GX but, then, so does
>> my Duonar.
>
>Yes Marc, I have no doubt Rollei Mutars work fine on 2.8/80 lenses
>from f/8 (factory says f5.6), the tests quoted previously found
>differences for enormous enlargements out of the regular photographic
>world, otherwise I did not buy a Mutar 0.7 with the BIII adapter, I
>also have the 3.5F anyway. I don't like the Duonar, it only produces a
>43mm image circle, it does not cover the entire 6x6 format, perhaqps
>it works fine with the Rolleikin.
Carlos,
I am not arguing with you: the Mutar was
optimized for the 3.5/75 CZ Planar. I was simply
noting that it works well with the 2.8/80 Planar
as well. Now, Mister Critic, having bashed the
rather neat Duonar (CZJ contemplated a 4X version
but this never entered production, though I
understand that the Zeiss Jena works has a single
example, dated from around 1950), what do you
think of the Prewar Magnar? I find mine useful
on occasion, albeit it is in Bayonet I mount: it
is a converted telescope eyepiece, I believe.
Marc
msmall@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Cha robh bàs fir gun ghràs fir!
---
Rollei List
- Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at
//www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
Other related posts:
