Mutar 1.5x on a Tele-Rolleiflex?

[Richard S. (rich815)]

Has anyone tried this? Does anyone known if it even fits or works?

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

You'd end up with an f8 lens at best once you did that. Not that the Mutar cuts the light, but that you'd have to stop it down to f8 at least to avoid vignetting, from what I understand.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

Hmmm, got it. Yes, you're right. Just curious. I often shoot on a tripod so it would be fun to try sometime anyway but they are so rare and expensive now it's not a simple no-brainier to try it. Maybe I can find someone in the San Francisco Bay Area to lend me one sometime...

 

[Brett Rogers]

Yes they fit if you have the Bay III mount for the Mutar. Image quality isn't too bad from the sample shots I have seen. One of the members of Club Rollei in the UK wrote an article about it for their magazine a few years ago with some images taken with the combination. I can't recall what aperture the lens was set to, sorry.
Cheers
Brett

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

Yes they fit if you have the Bay III mount for the Mutar. Image quality isn't too bad from the sample shots I have seen. One of the members of Club Rollei in the UK wrote an article about it for their magazine a few years ago with some images taken with the combination. I can't recall what aperture the lens was set to, sorry.
Cheers
Brett

Brett, was that with a Tele-Rolleiflex or Rolleiflex? They are specifically made for typical Rolleiflexes with the 80mm lenses. Loads of articles and info on that around. I'm wondering if and how they would work with the Tele-Rolleiflex with the 135mm lens...

 

[ic-racer]

According to "Practical Accessories" 1967
With respect to the Mutar 1.5 bay III: "Not for Tele-Rolleiflex"

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

Thanks ic, I also just came across this in another forum from a few years ago: "Mutars were carefully designed to work with the 4 and 5 element lenses in Rolleiflexs with 75/80mm lenses and will not work on different lens designs (e.g. you can't put the 1.5 on the 135 tele-rollei as the results are not sharp)."

Thanks all for your thoughts.

 

[Brett Rogers]

Brett, was that with a Tele-Rolleiflex or Rolleiflex? They are specifically made for typical Rolleiflexes with the 80mm lenses. Loads of articles and info on that around. I'm wondering if and how they would work with the Tele-Rolleiflex with the 135mm lens...

Fitted to a Tele, Richard. Unlike some forum posters (this is a general observation) I do try to read what people write and stay "on topic".

Within the limitations of the sample images tendered I thought there was a slight but acceptable loss of sharpness resulting from the approx 200mm focal length that resulted. I have a Tele myself, and rather like the idea of a Rolleiflex with a 200mm lens. It's a pity the Mutars tend to fetch at least USD $750 or so. Money I'm unlikely to invest without quitting other cameras I'm rather fond of as I'm not much good at selling gear. Otherwise I'd certainly buy one for both my 2.8s and my Tele Rolleiflex.
The relevant articles by David Morgan and photos (which were made on Fujifilm Provia 400X) are to be found in issues number 12 and 15 included crops from images made with and without the 1.5 Mutar fitted to the 135mm Sonnar. It noted some vignetting and edge flare, but I thought that overall, sharpness looked rather good.

The back issues of the magazine used to be available for free download from the site. This appears to have changed to club members only.
Cheers
Brett

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

Thanks for the follow up post Brett and sorry for implying that you had not read my original post accurately, but you are correct in often people do NOT read the detail and answer quickly and I wanted to confirm.

Great clarification, thank you! I'll check that out.

 

[Brett Rogers]

No probs. Being the camera pack rat that I am, I saved all the back issues available years back, before they were locked down. PM an email address if you can't grab them, they're only 3 or so MB each.
Cheers
Brett

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

No probs. Being the camera pack rat that I am, I saved all the back issues available years back, before they were locked down. PM an email address if you can't grab them, they're only 3 or so MB each.
Cheers
Brett

Thanks Brett! I just joined. Not sure how I'd never heard of this club before being such an avid Rolleiflex user that I am. I signed up for the international delivery of the magazines too.

 

[Brett Rogers]

The jpeg images in the magazine could be higher quality, but as best as I could tell, quality with the 1.5 fitted to the Sonnar was good enough to put to use if one possessed the combination. In some ways I'd say that if one already had a Tele there would be little incentive to get the 1.5 for a 2.8, as you're getting an effective 120mm to the Sonnars 135mm, and I don't know if any other lens made can compete with that. On the other hand, I could definitely see situations where you could use the effective 200mm of the Tele + Mutar combo with the quietness and smoothness of the lens shutter. Eg. stage and musical performances, where a medium format focal plane shutter/mirror isn't an option. I'd definitely use them together, if I had them both. Let me know what you think when you've read the articles please, I'd be interested to know. Koh's had a couple of quite reasonably priced .75 & 1.5s at one stage, I wouldn't be surprised if they are still available...
Cheers
Brett

 

[piu58]

> Koh's had a couple of quite reasonably priced

Please keep in mind that there were at least 3 type of fittings: For Bay II, distances 42 and 45 mm and for Bay III. The lenses are the dame, the fittings can be changed (if you have one).
I have both mutars, both for bay II (Rolleiflex 3,5F) but one of them had 42 mm distance between the lenses and did not fit. I found a solution for this, but I recommend looking detailed before you buy.

 

[Brett Rogers]

The ones I had seen on offer at Koh's had the Bay III mounts needed for the 2.8B--> F (and, if you wanted to, the Tele).
Cheers
Brett