ray_nieves2

January 12, 2023

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.

November 2, 2011

Prices have come down a bit in 2011 and you can find a good 0.7 or 1.5 Mutar for around $500. As I have a tele Rolleiflex, I do not use the 1.5 (at 120mm, it is not a very big improvement) but I do use the 0.7 which yields about a 56mm result on my 80/2.8, close to the 50mm on the wide Mutar and the same as the 55 lens on the Mamiya. Given the limits of an add-on supplimentary lens, I am always amazed at how good they are!!! Yes, you need to stop them down to get good results, they are heavy and there is some vignetting, but I have compared my photos taken with them to the ones taken when I had the Mamiya C330 and the 55 and both are good, but the Mamiya is not worth keeping; it's a clumsy, balky system over the smaller, lighter Rollei (if I need a 150 or 250mm I dig out my Rolleiflex SL66). Some people dismiss the Mutars as impossible to give good results as an add-on, but these folks tend to theorize and have never used them. Those who have, can attest that if used properly (stopped down to 5.6-11, lens hood, tripod), they can deliver very good results up to 11x14 and decent results to 16x16. How can add-ons be that good? Mutars were carefully designed to work with the 4 and 5 element lenses in Rolleiflexs with 75/80mm lenses and will not work on different lens designs (e.g. you can't put the 1.5 on the 135 tele-rollie as the results are not sharp). Get them before the collectors do!

February 11, 2010

A bit late, but I am into TLR's and have used different medium format gear. Having used Leica M's and Contax Gs, they are great for street photography in 35. Going to MF is a compromise; huge enlargements but a porportionate jump in gear size. The Mamya 6/7 and Bronica RF 645 are great if you like Leica's, but pricy and I have heard from many the Mamya RF is delicate and not built to last. I can vouch, however for the quality of the old Koni-Omega's as noted here. Old, solid, fairly simple and almost bullet proof, the lenses are every bit the equal of Zeiss and will hold up very well to the Mamya 6/7. What makes them worth while is the build quality, the 6x7 larger film format and the very low used price. The 4 lenses made by Konica: 60/5.6, 90/3.5, 135/4.5 and 180/4.5 are all excellent and affordable.

The automatic exposure on the Mamiya do make them faster and easier to shoot on the street, but just don't ever drop them or get them wet!

February 2, 2010

I found the Mamiya 55 to be very sharp. MF lens tests I have read comparing TLR lenses rated the Rolleiflex 55/4 sharpest with the best LPM results, followed by the 58/5.6 Hexanon for the Koni-Omegaflex. I have never owned the Rollei wide but have the 58 Hexanon and can attest to it's great qualities and do prefer it over the 55 Mamiya, but the 55 is a fine lens, better when stopped down.

February 1, 2010

When I used the C330, I found the 55 to be good, the 80 and 135 very good and the 180 Super excellent. All gave fine results that in most cases match any MF system. But if truth be told, the TLR lenses on the Omegaflex M and Rolleiflexes were better.

February 1, 2010

Hi

A bit late to the party, but as I have posted elsewhere, I have used TLRs extensively (many Rollies and Mamiya C330s) and note one TLR was forgotten: The Koni-Omegaflex M. It needs a reverse prism viewer to be a true TLR as it works more like a view camera, but it qualifies as it has two lenses: viewing and taking. It is big and heavy, but the fact is optically the Konica Hexanars are every bit as sharp as my Zeiss/Schneider glass and better than the Mamiyas, which were very good indeed. Let me list the pros:

-6x7, so you get more out of the negative, as 6x6 after cropping leaves you with a 6x4.5 usable negative

-4 interchagable lenses: a 58 wide, a 90 normal and 2 teles of 135 and 180. Crazy sharp and great wide open! Absolutley the equal to Zeiss, but in a bigger package.

-Interchagable backs in 120 or 220 that slams a film plate flat on the film for optimum flatness. Careful interlocks so you can't accidently ruin a shot. The backs can be a weak spot as they are somewhat complex and over time get worn. (the rest of the camera is solid aluminum: wonderfully designed, simple and indestructible)

-Advancing the film cocks the shutter, flattens the film with a push-pull I find faster than a crank: this was designed for press and wedding photographers who needed speed. A well designed grip helps hold the beast, but it is heavy.

-Automatic pararllax correction via a moving mask in the viefinder, set when a lensboard is fitted and the camera "Reads" which lens it it. Brilliant!

When I want to travel light, I take a Rollie E2, soemtimes a wide mutar and/or a telerolleiflex: but all that together is a big, heavy package. If I plan to use a tripod, then is the versatility of the Koni for me.

February 1, 2010

Hi

I came across this late and just had to come in. I have owned Rolleiflex TLRs (C, E2 and Tele) as well as Mamya C system and Koni-Omegaflex. My personal experience matches different lens tests I have seen on the net. Mamiya lenses are very good and up to 11x14 you will not not a difference. BUT once you get into really large enlargements, you will see it. The sharpest TLR lenses belong to Rollei (Zeiss and Schneider), but they are fixed and un or single coated, so any glare can affect color. Then the Hexanon lenses are sharpest after that, but the Koni is a big, heavy beastie. For many photogs the differences are small and I got very good results from the 55, 135 and 180-Super Mamiya lenses and the C sytem offers the most in a TLR system.

FWIW I kept the Koni system as I think it offers the best between all TLR systems, but that is just me.

November 13, 2009

Let's keep this simple:

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

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.

<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>

November 13, 2009

RECANT: It has been years since I posted, but over time I have had issue with the Omegaflex (too big, heavy and clumbersome, the backs kept breaking down) and the Mamiya (clumbersome, heavy and the wind gear broke). I have to say that upon closer look at my old prints, the enlargements taken with the tele-Rollei were a bit sharper. I also rememeber I could carry the tele-Rollei all day, while the Omega and the Mamiya were a pain to carry and really needed to always be on a tripod to get good results. I got better hand held results at 1/125 on the tele-Rollei than with the Mamiya at 1/250 (with the 135 Mamiya lens).

So, this is a recant: I can now say I prefer the Tele-Rollei over the Mamiya C300f and the Koni-Omegaflex I had, so much so I went out and bought a tele-Rollei (I was a fool to sell my first tele...it was in mint shape, much better than the well-used but fully functinal model I got to replace it). I now have a complete TLR outfit that meets my needs and that I can carry around all day. I wish I could afford the new tele-Rolleflex with the 135 Xenotar that close focuses down to 1.5 meters!

November 12, 2009

While years late for this debate, I had a C330F with the 55, 80, 135, 180 and 250 lenses. It is just too big a camera to hand hold, esp. with the bellows racked out to take on tele lenses. This is a camera that is only comfortible on a tripod. The same is true for the wonderful Koni-Omegaflex TLR with 4 excellent Konica lenses. The black lenses for the Mamiya are very, very good and up to 11x14 one would be hard pressed to tell the diffference from a Rolleiflex.

Now, having said that and having used all 3 TLR systems for years, what I kept were the Rolleiflexs. In the end, later versions (D-F model Xenotar/Planar's) just were better made with great lenses when you blew them up...and afterall, why bother with medium format if you are not going to enlarge past 11x14? I once carried a tele-rolleiflex (134/4 Sonnar) with my C330F and a 135 Mamiya. After a while, the C330 felt so much bigger and heavier that if not on a tripod, I preferred the Tele-Rollei. Stopped down the Mamiya was very good, but wide open, even at 8x10, the Rollie was just sharper. I got consistantly good hand-held shots (1/125) on the Tele-Rollei but fuzzy shots with the larger, heavier Mamiya at 1/250. Hey, this was my experience. I know there are some who prefer the Mamiya and are happy with the results provided. All kinda moot today with digital, but I still love & use my Rolleis!

Just consider that after the Mamiya C cameras came out, one would think with good, interchangable lenses, Mamiya would have put an end to the Rollei TLRs. In time Mamiya stopped making the Cs (late 80's I think) while the FX and GX Rollei models were made past 2001.

November 11, 2009

I must disagree with the comments made here on the Mutar. If you can't afford a tele or wide-Rolleiflex and don't want to buy another camera (the C330 w/55 is a good option), I think a Mutar is a good option. I have the .7 wide Mutar and stopped down it gives very, very good results between f4-11. I have blown up images to 11x14 and they are very good with only some slight vignetting. Only on really big enlargements (16x20) will you note any image loss. On a 75mm lens, it becomes a 113mm with the 1.5 Mutar (hardly worth the effort) and with the .7 Mutar it is 55mm. There is a very good website where the owner of a GX tests the Mutar and finds it does a really good job for what it is. Do NOT compare the Mutars to the crap aux. lenses that were made for Bay I TLRs in the 60s and 70s. Remember, this is a Zeiss optic, custom designed & made to go on a Rolleiflex with some 5-6 elements. Zeiss does not make junk and would not have sullied their fine name with anything that would severely degrade quality. Do some research on the web before you rule it out by folks who have never used one.

November 11, 2009

I only use the pistol grip on my tele-rolleiflex and prism. Like the others here, I prefer an L-bracket with my 2.8 models. I find the tele-Rolleiflex balances and works better with a pistol grip and prism. In addition, I find the pistol grip only works with the 90 degree prism and not with the waist finder or a 45 degree prism.

November 11, 2009

He IS the best! After some years of only shooting 35 and deciding I just didn't want to get into digital (where a camera is obsolete within a year), I dug out my metal system case where I keep my trusty old Rolleiflex's: a 2.8E1, a 2.8E2 and a tele-Rolleiflex plus a ton of accessories. I missed these old workhorses and of all the MF gear I have tried over the years, this is what I kept. They have NEVER been servised and after sitting in a case for some years, it was time. I took them to Marfax as I lived fairly close. While a tiny little store, it had varius old Rollie gear in different display windows. Kirkor was very nice. While not cheap, he brought my 3 Rolleis up to spec, replaced the screens with Maxwell's (what a difference!) and they will be good for another 20 years! (or until I can't get 120 film anymore). Worth every penny!!!!! I can only get 120 Fuji now, but so long as I can get it developed, I will still enjoy using them.

Thanks Kirkor!

June 22, 2009

BTW, many former Leica M users have moved to the G system for many reasons. I find the autofocus to be spot-on accurate in 98-100% of shots taken...if you are careful to select the AF focus spot.

June 22, 2009

It was a Contax G2. I have read that in other sites AND in one photo in the book, Delaheye is seen in a mirror and you can see he is holding a black G2. Look closely and if you know what the G2s look like, it is unmistakable.

I found this surprising as some (many) photos are just not sharp. Many if not most shots were in dark places, so the widest opening on the 35/2.8 was used with nittle to no DOF. If he shot from the hip, the autofocus would still give him sharp photos ONLY if the intended subject got the IR beam. Or it may be this was the effect he was looking for, fast and from the hip. One thing is for sure, some photos showed continuous sequence as can be expected from the 1-3 FPS motor on the G2.

May 27, 2009

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=2253636">Ray Nieves</a> <a href="http://www.photo.net/member-status-icons"></a>, May 27, 2009; 01:26 p.m.

Oh good grief! I am tired of seeing posts that totally dismiss the Gs as not rangefinders but only point-n-shoots. A P&S camera you are only using the VF to frame the photo while the camera focuses the lens. The Gs are not manual rangefinders, but do operate as rangefinders, albeit electronically:

1-In a manual RF, two windows bifocally see the image and the user manually turns the lens until a tiny mirror triangulates/aligns the images in the the windows onto a small RF patch. When the images selected in the RF patch are aligned as one, the lens is in focus.

2-In the Gs, the camera uses two windows bifocally see the image, shoots out a beam, triangulates the distance, automatically turns the lens until the images in the the windows are triangulated/aligned as seen in a small patch. The user must select the focus point in the small patch (as in a manual rangefinder) and this is the mistake people make: if they use a G as a P&S and not use the focus patch (as in a manual RF) they will mis-focus. If they use the patch to select the point of focus (again, as in a manual RF), that is what will get focused, barring the usual AF issues such as flat walls (which won't manually focus either): you just then pick a clear focus target and hold the focus (like in a manual RF!). As with an AF SLR, you must carefully select to point of focus...or are you also saying an AF SLR is not a real SLR but a only fancy P&S?

One is automatically done, the other is manually done.

AFs can miss the focus or have issues, true...but as we get older and as bright as the FV can be, we may not clearly see the RF patch and on those very fast lenses Leica fans love, will not have a perfectly focused shot. Also, Leica recommends the RF in their cameras be CLA'd every 3-5 years as the RF system can get out of alignment, especially if knocked around.

One you must trust the AF system, the other you must trust your eyes/RF system.

I contend the G IS a rangefinder...just not a manual rangefinder.

May 27, 2009

Oh, and by the way Gus, Stuart and Alan,

I and many other G users have not had issues focusing the superb 90...assuming the camera is working properly, it really takes a new skill, but once learned the 90 Sonnar will deliver great results. I will agree that at under 3 meters and wide open it can be flakey.

May 27, 2009

Oh good grief!

I am tired of seeing posts that totally dismiss the Gs as not rangefinders but only point-n-shoots. A P&S camera you are only using the VF to frame the photo while the camera focuses the lens. The Gs are not manual rangefinders, but do operate as rangefinders, albeit electronically:

1-In a manual RF, two windows bifocally see the image and the user manually turns the lens until a tiny mirror triangulates/aligns the images in the the windows onto a small RF patch. When the images selected in the RF patch are aligned as one, the lens is in focus.

2-In the Gs, the camera uses two "windows" bifocally to "see" the image, shoots out a beam, triangulates the distance, automatically turns the lens until the images in the the windows are triangulated/aligned as seen in a small patch. The user must select the focus point in the small patch (as in a manual rangefinder) and this is the mistake people make: if they use a G as a P&S and not use the focus patch (as in a manual RF) they will mis-focus. If they use the patch to select the point of focus (again, as in a manual RF), that is what will get focused, barring the usual AF issues such as flat walls (which won't manually focus either): you just then pick a clear focus target and hold the focus (like in a manual RF!). As with an AF SLR, you must carefully select to point of focus...or are you also saying an AF SLR is not a real SLR but a only fancy P&S?

One is automatically done, the other is manually done.

AFs can miss the focus or have issues, true...but as we get older and as bright as the FV can be, we may not clearly see the RF patch and on those very fast lenses Leica fans love, will not have a perfectly focused shot. Also, Leica recommends the RF in their cameras be CLA'd every 3-5 years as the RF system can get out of alignment, especially if knocked around. So you can miss the focus on either type.

One you must trust the AF system, the other you must trust your eyes/RF system.

I contend the G IS a rangefinder...just not a manual rangefinder.

May 27, 2009

Oh good grief!

I am tired of seeing posts that totally dismiss the Gs as not rangefinders but only point-n-shoots. A P&S camera you are only using the VF to frame the photo while the camera focuses the lens. The Gs are not manual rangefinders, but do operate as rangefinders, albeit electronically:

1-In a manual RF, two windows bifocally see the image and the user manually turns the lens until a tiny mirror triangulates/aligns the images in the the windows onto a small RF patch. When the images selected in the RF patch are aligned as one, the lens is in focus.

2-In the Gs, the camera uses two windows bifocally see the image, shoots out a beam, triangulates the distance, automatically turns the lens until the images in the the windows are triangulated/aligned as seen in a small patch. The user must select the focus point in the small patch (as in a manual rangefinder) and this is the mistake people make: if they use a G as a P&S and not use the focus patch (as in a manual RF) they will mis-focus. If they use the patch to select the point of focus (again, as in a manual RF), that is what will get focused, barring the usual AF issues such as flat walls (which won't manually focus either): you just then pick a clear focus target and hold the focus (like in a manual RF!). As with an AF SLR, you must carefully select to point of focus...or are you also saying an AF SLR is not a real SLR but a only fancy P&S?

One is automatically done, the other is manually done.

AFs can miss the focus or have issues, true...but as we get older and as bright as the FV can be, we may not clearly see the RF patch and on those very fast lenses Leica fans love, will not have a perfectly focused shot. Also, Leica recommends the RF in their cameras be CLA'd every 3-5 years as the RF system can get out of alignment, especially if knocked around.

One you must trust the AF system, the other you must trust your eyes/RF system.

I contend the G IS a rangefinder...just not a manual rangefinder.

May 27, 2009

Darius,

An R3A? Well, at least you finally settled on a Leica in your recent posts. No need to slam the Gs the way you did in your "Final verdict" as they work very well for many... and some even prefer the G over the Leica Ms!

Christopher K,

Can't agree with your statement that the "parallax compensation on the Gs leaves you to guess a bit". The G's viewfinder not only zooms in and out to adjust for focusing, it also adjusts for parallax. The M's adjustment is an estimation of parallax and I found it less accurate and usefull that the G.

May 27, 2009

Dariuus,

On another post you ruled in favor of Leica M and had some pretty negative things to say about the Contax G...what happened to the proud owner? To add to this would be on to add to what you already know:

1-The Zeiss lenses are the equal to Leitz. Some say less so, others more so. MTF tests put them heads and shoulders above Nikon and Canon over all.

2-The Gs are very different cameras than the M, so comparing them is an apples to oranges deal: some like oranges more than apples, some hate oranges and will only eat apples. Take your pick but both are made to the highest standards.

Some, like you, tried the G and went to the M. Others, like myself, had both but now prefer the G over the M. My reasons work for me and I can't say they work for everyone, just as an M user has his reasons why he prefers the M. But to say the M sucks period or the G sucks period is blind loyalty at best and arrogant stupidity at worse: I leave that to the Nikon-Canon followers. Leicaphiles are a cult beyond reason; I was a member once (still use a CL/CLE) but discovered that one size truly does not fit all. Enjoy your Leicas

May 26, 2009

Dave Redmann,

Not sure what your issue is, but I didn't negate the fact Sony and Zeiss have a contract, all I said that Zeiss can make AF lenses and that Sony now can offer a quality, less expensive line of DSLR lenses under the Sony brand for those who want to save over the cost of a Zeiss lens. That Hassleblad and Rollei no longer use Zeiss for their MF gear and that Contax is out of business indicates a need for Zeiss, a lens and not a camera maker these last 20 years, to establish themselves for other camera companies as a provider of premium lenses. I think Sony is wise to have 2 different lens offerings to stay competative with Nikon and Canon. As good as a Sony (nee Minolta) lens can be, the Zeiss offering is a key weapon as many still see their optics as as good if not better than anything Canon and Nikon offers, lens for lens.

May 26, 2009

Wow! I still have my XD-11. What a camera! still works after all these years! I have a Maxxum 9000 outift, but when I am in a mood to use a great, solid SLR from the past, I love my XD-11. I had recently read something on the Nikon FE; the writer saying it was so much better made thay any other camera from that time, which included the XD-11. Well, I think the XD-11 was a pro level camera every bit as good as the FE, which costs more new. One of my favorite photojournalists of the 80's was Harry Benson, who published some great photo books...you may remember a great photo of Ronald and Nancy Reagan kissing. That and many other memorable shots were his. He ONLY used XD-11s in the 80's and often praised the quality of Minolta. He dragged his XD's all around the world taking some great photos. It is true the XD-11 was designed with Leica and was the basis for many Leica R cameras, which says a lot about the quality if Leica would share the platform, so I cannot agree with the writer of the Nikon FE article who elevates his FE above all others...but to each his own. I will agree that after 20 years you might have some issues with the electronics and I have heard of issues with the winding gears, but mine still works well.

Andy, I have used the SRT-101 and that was a great camera of the 60's. Of all the metal, manual-focus Minolta SLRs, I do agree the XD-11 was the best.

May 22, 2009

Late for the party again......

I once had an M6 and a bunch of lenses, along with a CL and a CLE. Got a G1+G2 and at first had some AF issues, but they became very good quick-shoot cameras once I adjusted to the AF as used in the Gs. Hit a hard time when I lost my job, so I sold the M6 (I had issues with it and was not a Leica nut about it) along with the G1+G2 set. Kept the CL and CLE with the little lenses. I eventually got the G1+G2 kit again as I like the AF I that am comfortable with on my AF SLRs. While once in a while, a shot is mis-focused, as I get older and eyes weary, the tiny RF patch in a manual RF will cause the same % of mis-focused shots, so if it is going to happen, let it be with a solid, easy to use camera with those superb Zeiss lenses!

May 22, 2009

Hi

I still use a CL and a CLE and LOVE the Elmar 90/4: small, sharp and well made. If you need a bit more speed, the older 90/2.8 Elmar is great and the same size as the 90/4, but about $200-300 more. Can't find any or not any at a reasonable price? People LOVE the C-V 90/3.5 APO -Lanthar: perhaps not as well made as the Elmars, but the newest optics, multi-coated and very affordable. The most expensive is the fast 90/2: Too big for a CL/CLE but just fine on an M6. In my opinion not any sharper or better than the 2.8 or the f4.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by ray_nieves2