Tele/wide angle lens attachments for TLR's

[nolan woodbury]

Has anyone had any experience using a Rollei 2X, 4X Magnar or

varients thereof? How about the different Sun, Yashica tele or wide

angle lens attachments? I don't think a long, drawn out diatribe

about ultimate image quality is really necessary but I would like to

hear comments good, bad, or otherwise. Any preferences as to which?

Is there any effect on standard (otherwise correct) exposure

settings? Post 'em if you have them...

[solja]

I shoot MF with a YashicaMAT-LM TLR - I have some Rollei close-up lenses and a Yashica wide angle lens attachment.

<p>

The close up lenses do what they're supposed to, but it doesn't sound like you're interested in those. The wide angle attachment is good, but you get some pretty noticeable vignetting beginning at around f/11. The Yashinon lens on my camera is an 80mm, I'd say the wide angle takes it to a 55mm or 60mm equivalent. I don't know for sure, that's just my best estimation. Aside from the vignetting, when used between f/3.5 and f/8 (and sometimes f/11), the image quality actually doesn't seem to suffer too much. I've done some informal testing setting up the camera on a tripod and taking photos, first without the attachment and then with. Between the two, no noticeable softness was to be seen and the color rendition was the same. That was using the same speed/f-stops as well.

<p>

Anyway, just my experience. I'm glad I purchased it, as I was beginning to feel a little confined with just one focal length with MF. Makes ya think more, tho!

[doug_bennett]

Hey Nolan,

 

Cheers to a fellow Autocord buff!

 

I've used the Rolleinar close-ups with decent results, although you'll get best results shooting something fairly flat. Anything with depth distorts badly.

 

As to telephoto: I bought a Yashikor telephoto set for my Mat 124G. It's pretty much unusable. I can get decent sharpness at the center of the image, but the rest is not sharp, with ugly bokeh. Also: the Yashikor brand will not fit on the Autocord (Sun or other budget lines may).

[jon_harkness]

hi, i have had both the wide and tell mutars and something caled a magnar. i liked the quality of the tell mutar but the wide mutar cut off at the corners and after you crop the image you are not left with much of a wide angle. the magnar is circa 1939 and is not easy to use.

[a m]

I tried a Sun wide angle device on a Rolleiflex with a 3.5 Xenotar. The results were hopelessly poor, dismal, unusable.

[i_liang_siu1]

Jason - would you mind posting some comparisons of the Yashica with and without the wide-angle converter? A lot of people have posted that they found the converter to be dissapointingly soft (I haven't seen any posted examples of those either).

 

I'd like to be able to add wider-angle capability to my yashicamat, but not if there's alot of image degradation.

 

Thanks,

I-Liang

[nolan woodbury]

I have used both the Rollei and Minolta close-up lens sets, to good effect. My questions regarding wide angle or tele attachments came about when looking for other options and/or ideas to help "expand" my TLR shooting. What I was hoping to find, was a solid stream of information as to which of these attachments gives the best image. So far, there seems to be a equal number of both fans and detractors for each. I'm hoping to find a Rollei Magnar 4X to try, as I have a hunch it is probably the best bet (optically) of the tele attachments.

 

<img src="http://www.photo.net/photodb/image-display?photo_id=1369702&size=md">

 

Until then, I'll test the Yashica and Sun wide-angle devices, like this one shown on my Kalloflex. Please, if you have a image to share, post it! I'm not necessarily looking for razor-sharp optics, but perhaps a bit of a image-spin with unusual or even a slight fisheye effect.

[john lehman, college alask]

I tried a Sun tele attachment on a Rollei a few years ago; the results were significantly worse than those from enlarging the negative with the regular lens. I have had some good experiences tho using binoculars as described in Field photography : beginning and advanced techniques / <1976> Author: Blaker, Alfred A., 1928-

Published: San Francisco : W. H. Freeman, [1976]

[solja]

I-Liang,

<p>

Here's a good comparison of my YashicaMAT with/without the wide-angle attachment:

<p>

Without - <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/1156779">http://www.photo.net/photo/1156779</a>

<p>

With - <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/1156764">http://www.photo.net/photo/1156764</a>

<p>

The "with" image shows a bit of softness in the rocks, but it's not bad. Here are some other photos taken with the wide angle attachment:

<p>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/1252497">http://www.photo.net/photo/1252497</a><br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/1250332">http://www.photo.net/photo/1250332</a><br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/1267734">http://www.photo.net/photo/1267734</a><p>

Hope this helps!

[i_liang_siu1]

Thanks Jason! Those photos are food for thought. Assuiming all other variables equal (focus/exposure,film,scanning,etc), the wide-angle is not as bad as I had thought, although it is softer than the reference. Have you made large prints (greater than 12x12) from the wide-angle?