Rollei teleconverter 1.5x for 2.8 80mm lenses

[TheFlyingCamera]

Has anyone here ever used one of the Rollei 1.5x converter lens sets that bayonet on to a standard Rolleiflex, and how does it compare to a Tele Rolleiflex? I would assume it is not as good image-quality wise as a regular Tele-Rolleiflex, but what is the minimum focus (I know the Tele's have a rather abysmal close-focus without the Rolleinars). Is it close enough quality-wise to be worth it, or would you be better off saving the extra pennies required to get a Tele with a set of Rolleinars?

 

[ic-racer]

extra pennies required to get a Tele with a set of Rolleinars?

Or perhaps extra thousand-dollar bills? I just crop when I need, or you could get a used 6000 system with a myriad of lenses for the price of a TELE TLR.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I was just being understated by calling it pennies A tele-rollei goes for about $1500-$2K, but the 1.5x teleconverter runs around $1K. So if you're in for the one, it isn't THAT much further to the other. But is the quality improvement of the tele-Rollei worth the difference?

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

With some patience I think you can find a Tele-Rolleiflex for $1000-1200. Easily one of my favorite cameras of all time. Amazing lens.

 

[piu58]

I have both converters (the "Mutars"). The wide angel converter I use reglarely but the tele converter rarely. Both are of decent quality. A tele Rolleflex, of course, has a better lens in comparison to the Planar/Mutar.

If you use the Mutars you should stop down to f/8. This is the price you pay using an additional lens instead of an additional camera. The viewing mutar lens is slightly too small so you get dark corners (only at the ground glass of course).

I paid around 400€ (500$) each. I read there were produced not many, only around 1000. Mutars are equipped with different adapters for fitting at different bayonet types. It seems to exist adapters for BayI, BayII(45mm) BayII(42mm) and BayIII. It is said they work best with the 75/3,5 Planar.

 

[Slixtiesix]

I would not pay 1000 USD for this kind of thing! Never!

Here are the specs from Walther Heerings Great Rolleiflex Book:

Mutar 1,5x with Rolleiflex 80/2,8: focal length=116mm (not that much of an improvement IMO), angle of view= 38°, minimum focusing distance= 1,86m, exposure compensation necessary= -0,5 EV

It is further stated that one should stop down at least to 5,6 to get full sharpness and that the Mutars are highly susceptible to flair and should therefore be used well shaded.

 

[piu58]

> are highly susceptible to flair
Not that much. Of course, they have more glass-air-boundaries. But the Mutars are not especially prone to flare. You have problems if the sun is in the image. But then you may have problems with and without mutar. Mutars contain some kind of sun shield.

> at least to 5,6
As written, I recommend f/8 for full sharpness at the edges and in the corners.

> exposure compensation necessary= -0,5 EV
I use no compensation at all and could not detect any difference of negativ density of the same subject taken with and without Mutar.

> not pay 1000 USD
That is quite a lot, of course.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Well, sounds like it's no improvement over the Tele-Rollei, and not particularly worthwhile at the price point they're going for. I don't want to have a minimum focus of almost 2 meters AND need to shoot at f8. I like shooting in that f5.6-f2.8 zone. So I'll just keep saving until I can afford a Tele-Rollei.