Rollei Tele vs. Mutar?

[GM Bennett]

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...

Thanks, Graham

 

[ic-racer]

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.

 

[pgomena]

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.

Peter Gomena

 

[Rolleiflexible]

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.

 

[Slixtiesix]

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

Graham,
was it the new Tele-Rollei you´ve bought?

Greetz, Benjamin

 

[GM Bennett]

Thanks...

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.

Cheers, Graham

 

[dpurdy]

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.
Dennis

 

[Rolleiflexible]

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.

 

[Bill Mitchell]

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.

 

[GM Bennett]

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

 

[GM Bennett]

So, the Rollei tele arrived from Adorama yesterday, and I must say that I place opening up boxes that have cameras (and especially Rolleiflexes) up there on the same level as Christmas morning. Glass and camera are very clean, but to my chagrin the shutter seized after 6 frames of the first test roll, so off it goes to Gerry Smith at Kindermann. Watch this space...

 

[GM Bennett]

Repaired Rollei Tele back; kudos to Adorama.

Follow up, fwiw. Gerry Smith did his usual great job of repairing my Rolleiflex tele, and Adorama refunded the cost of the repair, plus shipping, so all is well. I ran a roll of film this afternoon and the shutter and spacing are fine. Home-processed test shot attached. Kodak 160VC w/ Rolleinar .35

 

[df cardwell]

Lovely shot. The quality I love most about the Tele Rollei is the Sonnar can bite, or it can kiss.

Have fun !

 

[Rolleiflexible]

Sonnar can bite,
or it can kiss.

A poet's heart.

 

[Driving]

I read somewhere (American Photo, 94) that Avedon would use a close up lens when he wanted to move in a bit more, or, switch to a Hass with a 150 when he wanted a tele lens. But I'd rather have the Rollei, too.

 

[GM Bennett]

The quality I love most about the Tele Rollei is the Sonnar can bite, or it can kiss.

Have fun !

DF - Nicely put!

Driving - of the handful of American Photo magazines I have, I have that Avedon issue too - a great issue. I wonder if Avedon used the Rollei tele for the 1965 shot of Bob Dylan? It sure has great depth of field and a real 3D quality.

Sanders - are you using the Rolleinar 0.7 with your tele for those great headshot portraits? I've been keeping an eye out for a .7 Rolleinar, but they seem to be in the US$250 price range - I picked up a mint Nikon F5 body for about the same $$ not long ago! I have mixed feelings that the Rollei kit hasn't depreciated along similar lines...

Graham

 

[Rolleiflexible]

Sanders - are you using the Rolleinar 0.7 with your tele for those great headshot portraits?

To get really close, I stack a Bay III
Rolleinar 1 on top of the 0.35 Tele
Rolleinar.

 

[GM Bennett]

To get really close, I stack a Bay III
Rolleinar 1 on top of the 0.35 Tele
Rolleinar.

That's a neat trick, Sanders! How would that compare to the 0.7 tele in terms of closeness, light fall-off and DOF? Would you lose a stop or half-stop? Any parallax error with the addition of the Rolleinar 1? Thanks, Graham

 

[Rolleiflexible]

Graham, the numbers explain the
relationship among the Rolleinars.
The 0.35 provides the weakest
magnification, followed by the 0.70,
then the conventional Rolleinar 1
(which can be mounted directly
on the Tele), then the 1 + the
0.35, then the 1 + the 0.70,
then a Rolleinar 2.

In my experience, the parallax
correction works correctly when
you combine Rolleinars.

 

[GM Bennett]

Graham, the numbers explain the
relationship among the Rolleinars.
The 0.35 provides the weakest
magnification, followed by the 0.70,
then the conventional Rolleinar 1
(which can be mounted directly
on the Tele), then the 1 + the
0.35, then the 1 + the 0.70,
then a Rolleinar 2.

In my experience, the parallax
correction works correctly when
you combine Rolleinars.

Thanks, Sanders! Makes perfect sense (d-uh!) when you explain it - kind of like the Metric system! I guess I'd presumed that with the special Rolleinars for the tele, the regular Bay III Rolleinars couldn't be used. I'll have fun experimenting, anyway. Thanks again for the very helpful replies.

Regards, Graham