Mutar 1.5X

Hi,

Does anybody have any experience or maybe images taken with the mutar 1.5 on a

2.8f? The purpoose is for closer scenes/portraits, have read threads on

Rollinars but that would only (If distortion was no issue) suite the portrait

side of things.

Thanks for sharing

TG<div></div>

No experience, sorry. The Mutars were designed for Rolleiflex 3.5 not the 2.8. Their optical

formula is optimised for the 3.5. That also means they were offered to fit a Bay II lens. You

can use them on a 2.8 but you will need a Bay III adaptor ring. When buying a Mutar make

sure you can get the suitable adaptor ring at the same time otherwise you have succeeded in

purchasing a door stop. People say optical performance is quite good but handling of the

combo is not. It is front heavy.

That is a beautiful camera. I have a 295 series Xenotar as well and love it. I think I saw

yours on ebay in Poland in perfect condition. Congratulations.

I have seen jpgs on line of images shot with the mutars and they look good. I would get

them if they weren't so expensive. I am not sure if mutars were all made for the 3.5 lens

and then used with adaters on the 2.8s but I have heard that and that there is a bit of

vignetting. Though as I said I am not sure that is true.

Well Ferdi verified it as I was leaving my posting. I didn't read his response before writing

mine.

I learnt that mutars came for 3.5 & 2.8's from bay 1 to By III, you must get the correct model. Agree they are expensive.

This is the thread Andy M, Feb 27, 2002; 09:35 a.m.

Mutar converters question - two versions?

Dear Rollei users, Are there three seperate versions of the Mutars: Bay I, Bay II, and Bay III? Do you have to use the specific size for your particular taking lens? Example, a 3.5 Planar Rolleiflex can only be used with a Mutar with the Bayonet II mount. Thanks!

The vignetting happens on 42 mm lens distance models. The Mutars were made for 45 mm

models. Viewing lens and taking lens are 45 mm apart. That would be later 3.5

(Planar/Xenotar) models and all 2.8 models. Your Whiteface will be fine. The mutar is

mounted on the taking lens. On 42 mm models the viewing lens is not correctly covered

leading to partial vignetting.

A bit of confusion here - -if Mutar's are for the 45 mm lens distance models - that covers

all the 2.8 models?

So would a GX and a 2.8 Rollei D both be able to use either tele or wide angle Mutar?

Thanks!

Literature (Prochnow) mentions the 2.8 D as a suitable camera. There is no positive

confirmation for the GX and FX. There are no records and I have never tested it. <p>

It appears that one later 3.5 model with Planar or Xenotar is a "42 mm" camera: the 3.5

E2.<p>

So, standard issue Tele-Mutar is Bay 2 - 45 mm. Adaptor sets: Bay 1 - 42 mm, Bay 2 - 42

mm, Bay 3 -45 mm. <p>

Standard issue Wide-angle-Mutar is Bay 2 - 45 mm. Adaptor set: Bay 3 - 45 mm. <p>

<EM>List of suitable cameras for both Mutars (dated 1963 - 1967?). Cameras of later date

are not mentioned for obvious reasons.<p>Bay 2 - 45 mm</EM><br>

Rolleiflex 3.5 F, 3.5 E3<p>

<EM>Bay 1 - 42 mm</EM><br>

Rolleiflex 3.5, Standard, 3.5, T<br>

Rolleicord II, III, IV, V, Va, Vb <p>

<EM>Bay 2 - 42 mm</EM><br>

Rolleiflex C, E2 <p>

<EM>Bay 3 - 45 mm</EM><br>

Rolleiflex 2.8 A, B, C, D, E, E2, E3 <p>

Ferdi.

<p>Let's keep this simple: <br>

1-All mutars come standard in a bay II set up, but many can be found with a bay I or III adapter or you can purchase a bay II mutar and then get a bay 1 or III adapter. A 1.5 mutar will only give you a small amount of increase, to 120mm on a 80/2.8 so for me I'd rather use a tele-rolleiflex with the 135/4. The wide mutar, however, gives you approx a 55mm so comes very close to the wide-Rolleiflex<br>

2- A GX has a bay III filter size as do all 2.8s, so a bay III mutar will fit. Someone has a nice web page on the GX and on using it with the .7 wide mutar with very good results. I find if you are careful with them and use at least f5.6 -11 (no more or less), you will get very slight vignetting (a tad more on 2.8s as the mutars were designed for 3.5 lenses) but very good results. I find they are prone to flare if you shoot into a light source.</p>

<address>3-There has been a lot of ink (pixels?) spilled on the quality of the mutars with many saying they can't be very good as they sit in fromt of the lens. Most of this comes from folks who have never used them. Those who do use them find them almost the equal if not the equal to a prime lens. Zeiss designed them to work perfectly with the 4-5 element TLR lenses and Zeiss would not put thier name on something mediocre. I have found that once in a while I will get a poor result (flare, camera shake etc) but if on a tripod or a shutter speed of at least 1/250, I get fine results.</address>