[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Rollei] Mutar 0.7x

In a message dated 5/12/2003 4:44:24 PM Eastern Standard Time, nickbroberts  writes:

> Does anyone have an opinion about the 0.7x Mutar on
> either the f3.5 Planar or Xenotar? To me the greatest
> limitation of the Rollei TLRs is the fact that a
> standard lens isn't wide enough for much of my
> photography, and as I can't afford a Wide, my
> requirement is currently covered off ffairly
> adequately but with excessive bulk my either my Mamiya
> M645 or Pentacon 6. But I got to thinking that it
> might be much easier and more pleasant to just carry a
> Mutar - anbody used one? Happily? As a Zeiss
> accessory, how well does it work with the Xenotar? (I
> hesitate to ask if there's any difference between 5
> and 6 element lenses.....)
> It could be just the thing.
> Nick
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
> http://search.yahoo.com 

All I can tell you is that I have both and use them on the 2.8 planar.  I can't speak to the matter of the 3.5.

However, I can say that the Mutars don't disappoint me, although when I use the .7 I'm pretty careful to keep the camera vertical. I suppose I'd do this with any wide angle lens, prime OR supplemental.

The times I've used them I don't detect ANY of the vignetting or other "problems" I've heard reported.. In fact, from a quality point of view, I can't tell a mutar shot from one made without them. They really seem to me to be rather astonishing optics.

G. King