Jump to content

mutar or tele rollei?


Recommended Posts



I am thinking about expanding my camera set (3.5 F and many accessories for it) and I wish to have a longer lens. So i would like to know

your opinion about a tele rollei vs mutar 1.5X add in as i don't know if the better option will be the tele or the mutar. Is tele rollei better then

mutar in terms of optical practical performance. How much ls the luminosity loss for the mutar?

Thanks for looking,



Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Tele-Rollei has one of the best and sharpest lenses ever made whereas the mutar is a compromise that when it was tested against the 135mm lens of the Mamiya C33 it lost to the Mamiya, which is not that sharp of a lens. The mutars are collector items only today. For the best lens get the Tele-Rollei.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My wedding photog used a mutar in 1969 and I though the pics were great.


I used a tele-rollie a few years ago. I thought that was great.


Neither is a powerful tele lens. It will look as if you cropped your by 30% length and width.


The tele requires a roll of film in both, three if you get a wide. I can`t imagine carrying three or even two of them.


The tele will only focus to about 8 feet without the close up adapter and is worthless for portraits without it.


The Mutar being a negative lens should not alter the close distance. You need an expert here though.


A new tele Rolie was introduced about two years ago with a better lens and closer focusing. It will drain your bank

account pretty fast. I have seen published pics from and they are stunning. I can`t direct you to the magazine as it was

one of the expensive low volumn ones I receive you will not find in a library.




Do some reading here.




Tele Rollie 4.0 focus to 1.4 meters




Old tele Rollei. There were two versions, but I am unsure of the differences.


You might join that forum to get in touch with currently interested people.


Rollei Gallery


Flickr group

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I forgot to mention it will be mainly used for portrait. New 135 is too much for my wallet Anyway, I'll chose the mutar only if

the quality i can get is not too far fron normal lens, that ls for example the 150/4 C for the hasselblad. I already have it but

prefer rolleiflexes in many ways: no mirror slap, quiteness, lower speed handheld and so on. That's why i am also thinking

about giving the hasselblad away, or, at least give it but the 150, the body and one back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The mutar 1,5 multipies the focal by 1,5. If you have a 3,5f (for which lens the mutar was made), you will get something like a 100 mm lens. Even with the 3,5f, the 1,5 mutar vignets (the 0,7 is much better in this matter). From what I remember, the mutar multiplies also the closest focusing distance. (I will check at home and tell you), but there is no light loss

The telerolleiflex was built as a portrait camera, but you have to use the special rolleinar to have a shorter focusing distance.

In my opinion, you will have better portrait results with a rolleinar 1 than with the mutar 1,5.

On the other side, the mutar 0,7 is much more usefull, as it gives you nearly the equivalent of a 50 mm lens.

I don't agree with people that are arguing that mutars are collector items. The mutar 0,7 for example wights only 700 gr. and is quite small. With the rolleiflex togeather, you have a nice 6x6 combo for less than 2 kg. Great for hicking for example.

Look at my portfolio and you will see a picture made with the 0,7x


Link to comment
Share on other sites

i agree with your, Laurent. I have the 0.7X and for this reason i was thinking about adding the 1.5x. Vignetting will not

constitute a major issue for me, but I will not want to have images that are visibly on the soft side. Does anybody know

where i can see samples taken with the 1,5X mutar?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Mamiya might be to heavy and in this case I'll prefer to keep the hasselblad with the 150.

I'd like to get the mutar just to have a lightweight set and I am disposed to sacrifice some in terms of sharpness, unless it

is quite visible. So, I am not looking for a lightweight solution that can give me excellent sharpness, I am looking for

something that is lightweight and, at the same time, can give me acceptable results in terms of sharpness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I confirm that the mutar multiplies also the closest focusing distance. It is not a really good upgrade for portrait. I think you will be better off with a rolleinar 1. Regarding the luminosity, you don't loose anything with the mutar on, but operating manual advises to shoot from 5,6 and on.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

I have the old Tele-Rollei, along with the 0.35 and 0.7 Rolleinars that were made for it. The 0.35 is a swing-away thing so that you can switch between the bare lens and the lens+diopter quickly. The 0.7 Rolleinar doesn't have that feature. I haven't used the Mutar, so I can't make comparisons. All I can say is that I'm happy with the set of three, and often carry two, but rarely all three (wide, normal and tele).




Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 14 years later...

I am late to this topic but after reading all the responses I feel I need to add to this conversation. I own Rolleiflexs since the late ‘70s with both Mutars and had a tele-Rolleiflex.  I have owned a Mamiya C330 with 4 lenses, including the 135 and Bronica. 
to the posts:

-The best 135 in this group is the Tele-Rolleiflex. Sharp, contrasty and resolution to spare.  But limited focusing and very expensive.  Also a pain to carry in addition to another Rolleiflex. 
-The Mamiya is bigger, heavier, cumbersome and while the lenses are very good, are just is not as sharp as Zeiss. The Mamiya 135 is good and stopped down will be hard to differentiate from the Tele-Rollie, but ultimately the Zeiss is still sharper.  The Mamiya only makes sense in the field with one lens and a few lenses. It makes no sense to carry in addition to a Rolleiflex.  The Mamiya is best in a studio and optically a notch below Rolleiflex. (And many Mamiya Seiko shutters are in bad shape after 40+ years)
-I am always curious how people who never used a product pass judgement on it.  People who used crappy aux lenses on a Yashica-mat with poor results assume Mutars are the same.  Mutars are 5 and 6 elements, meticulously designed by Rollei and Zeiss to work on Rolleis.  At wider apertures they are soft at the edges so I can see where a Mamiya 55, 105 or 135 can be sharper, but stopped down (per Mutar instructions) to f8,  I have gotten very good results that yielded really good 16x20, 20x20 prints that looked the same as Mamiya results.  As good as the Tele/wide-Rollei? No, but then a Mutar is not $2-4,000.  As good as a Mamiya 55 or 135? Pretty much, without having to buy another TLR system or carrying a different TLR to achieve the same result. 

So after trail and error, a balance has to be found, a compromise struck.  If you want a versatile TLR system, the Mamiya does it with good results (though the 55 is not great).   Want the best wide or tele results?, mortgage your kids to get tele/wide Rollies.  Occasionally need a bit of tele reach or wider view that will take up little room in a field bag?  Mutars were my best solution even when I stopped down to f8.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Create New...