Rollei Tele vs. Mutar?
Hi, folks -
I love my Rollei 2.8F and 3.5F. Until seeing some of Sanders McNew's terrific Rollei tele portraits on APUG and elsewhere, I hadn't really seen much of the tele. Anyway, inspired, I now have a tele on its way to me from Adorama, and in reading up on the tele I came across the Mutars. Would anyone who's used both the tele and the tele mutar care to compare/contrast image quality and characteristics, etc.? Enquiring minds need to know...
This does not answer you question, but may be of interest. With the TELE conversion lenses (vs the WA lenses) you can compare any loss of image quality with the results from just cropping/enlarging the center portion of the frame. My experience with the (lesser quality) Yashica brand tele-lens is that its not any better than just cropping the 80mm view.
Good luck with your Tele-Rollei. I have always wanted one.
The only Rollei Mutars I ever saw cost about $800 used. Huge things, too. Hard to find and expensive. At that price you might shop for a used tele model, although those are not cheap either.
I have a wide Mutar and it is a nice
piece of kit but the images I've shot
with it are not quite up to the standards
I expect from an unmodified Rolleiflex.
The Mutar is a compromise. OTOH, the
Sonnar on the Tele is really special,
with or without Rolleinars.
The old Tele-Rolleiflex only has a minimum focussing distance of about 8 feet,
which many buyers of it found annoying back then. Special close up lenses where available to reduce focussing distance. Franke and Heidecke solved the problem in the actual model somehow, but I myself found using a SLR more comfortable although I can´t stand the charme of the twin lens reflexes
was it the new Tele-Rollei you´ve bought?
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
for the replies!
Sanders - I am looking forward to making images with that Sonnar. Do you use yours with or without the glass plate?
Benjamin - a new one?! I'd never get that one past my wife! No - there was a type 1, meterless model on ebay (260291500160) that no one else bid on, so I got it for about CDN$1200 (+ taxes and shipping, sigh) - probably not too much more than a set of mutars might have cost. It hasn't arrived yet and I don't have a body serial #, but I'm guessing it's about a 1960 vintage. Fingers crossed that I can use it for a while without having to have a CLA right away.
I have noticed the Tele is a bit unappreciated in ebay. I saw one go for under a thou once. I have seen several go around 1200 USD. It makes me wonder how many of the new 5000 dollar ones are selling. Maybe made on demand. Sanders images make me want one too and there is one in a local shop for 1400.
Graham, no, I don't use the glass plate.
I am shooting very close at f/4 and I
never have focus issues. I do not find
a need for the glass plate.
And Benjamin is correct: To shoot at
distances of eight feet or less, you must
use Tele Rolleinars. They do not degrade
the image and I have found them easy
to use, but some may differ on that.
I'm sure that the Rollei-Wide and Tele-Rollei are probably better, with less curvature, but not by much.
Both my tele-mutar and wide-mutar gave superb results when stopped down 2 stops. They were made before multi-coating and have a tendency to flare if pointed toward the light source. My biggest complaint was that filters couldn't be used.
I used mine with a f:3.5 Planar, can't speak for the f:2.8, or the Xenotars. Loved them, but lost them in a home burglary.
I've read that the glass plate option (on those Rolleis in which it was an option) has marginal film flattening benefits that may be offset by an increased risk of film scratches, but I'm glad to hear you confirm that you don't use one, Sanders. Your tele portraits are certainly sharp at the the focal plane even wide open. I see that there's some light fall off at the edges wide open, but it's a nice effect and I expect you could hold back those areas when you print if you wanted to.
I do have a .35 tele Rolleinar en route from another auction, so I think I'll be set.
Thanks again, Graham