[rollei_list] Re: Rollei Zeiss 0.7x Mutar & Carlos' pics
- From: CarlosMFreaza <cmfreaza@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2013 07:18:56 -0300
Steve:
There is a "made in home" test about the Mutar 0.7x
attached to a Rolleiflex 2.8GX with CZ Planar 2.8/80 lens in the Web.
The combo was compared versus a Nikkor 35-105 zoom on a Nikon FX90
camera, the combo Mutar- Planar 2.8/80 got better results:
http://www.grafikogfoto.dk/photographical/rollei_mutar07.html
Carlos
2013/10/12 CarlosMFreaza <cmfreaza@xxxxxxxxx>:
> 2013/10/12 Steve Dunn <bicycle551@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
> ...
>> I wasn't aware they were 'corrected' only for the Zeiss Rolleiflex Planar
>> 3.5 lens. Of course, Rollei made adapter rings to allow using them on many
>> models. I wonder if there were tests or assessments released by Rollei
>> comparing the use with Planar 3.5 vs 2.8 or use with the Schneider
>> counterparts?
>>
>> BTW Carlos, very nice shots!
>
> Steve:
> Claus Prochnow wrote about the Mutars in the Rollei Report
> 2, page 24-502 : "Carl Zeiss put the optimal optical calculus for the
> best selling Planar 3.5 (Carl Zeiss legte die optische Regnung optimal
> für das meistverkaufte Planar 3,5 aus)". Mutars 0,7x and 1,5x for the
> Rollei TLR were manufactured from 1963 to 1967, the 3.5F was the best
> selling Rolleiflex at the time and it used the Planar 3,5/75 six
> elements as the 3.5E3 used the same lens too; the 3.5E3 was
> manufactured up to 1965 only. I don't know about available comparisons
> tests now, but there is no doubt they were made by Zeiss and Rollei.
> I'm very satisfied about the Mutar 0.7x-Xenotar Schneider 2.8/80 combo
> results.
>
> My Mutar 0.7x came with Bayonet III adapter rings and then I use it
> with the 2.8C, perhaps I could use it with the 3.5F 75mm since the
> original Mutar mount is for this camera. I disassembled the taking
> lens BIII adapter ring and I found the original BII mount there, but I
> couldn't disassemble the viewing lens BIII adapter ring because there
> is a problem with a screw head, I did not insist to avoid some
> "accident" putting the screwdriver on the glass, anyway I need to
> disassemble this adapter ring some day to verify if the viewing lens
> has the original BII mount or if it would be necessary a BII adapter
> ring, some sources say it has the BII original mount as the taking
> lens, other sources say the viewing lens does not have any original
> mount and it would need a BII adapter ring anyway (there are different
> BII adapter rings according the lenses distance, 42mm or 45mm).
> Thank you Steve for the kind comment.
>
> 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:
