[rollei_list] Re: Tele Mutar & Tele Rolleiflex
- From: Michiel Fokkema <michiel.fokkema@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 19:52:28 +0200
It might have to do with the safety filter.
I'm a big fan of Sanders. He makes amazing portraits.
Get an account. Sanders alone is worth it.
Cheers,
Michiel Fokkema
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
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
---
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.287 / Virus Database: 270.12.4/2081 - Release Date: 04/26/09 09:44:00
---
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:
