[rollei_list] Re: Comparative Mutar 0.7x Planar 2.8 vs 3.5
- From: CarlosMFreaza <cmfreaza@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 18:59:15 -0300
2012/8/10 Marc James Small <marcsmall@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
> 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:
I never used the Duonar, but the official technical data
says it does not cover the 6x6 format, it produces a circular image
with 43mm diameter, I don't like a lens that couldn't cover the camera
format, perhaps it could be interesting for some effect sometimes, the
Report 2 says you need the Rolleikin for the Duonar to get a regular
24x36mm frame.
According the Magnar technical data, it was necessary f 22 for
sharpness right out to the edges, it is described like "astronomical
telescope for mounting on taking lens...", it converted the 6x6 75mm
lens into 300mm lens and the 4x4 60mm lens into 240mm lens, the
maximum speed was f 9 for 6x6 and f 7.3 for 4x4., the sharp image area
was 3x3cm with the lens wide open for 6x6.
Carlos
---
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:
