Rolleiflex Mutars 0.7x and 1.5x

[edodo]

I thought I might share my findings about the Rolleiflex Mutars with y'all.

I just have acquired them and will sure use it and share my photos but for now here is my initial findings. They are always sharp. You get varying degree of contrast however. for the 2.8F, it goes from glamour rolleisoft veil feminin portrait style to perfect modern sharp. It's less glowy on the 3.5F.

2.8F and 1.5x
no barrel distorsion noticed
f2.8 : slight vignetting wide open (no black corners like I thought it would be). Sharp but very low contrast and glowy, a bit like using a rolleisoft.
f4 :slight vignetting, bit more contrast but still a glow
f5.6 : very slight vignetting sharp good contrast
f8 : perfect
f11 : perfect

For 3.5F and 1.5x
no barrel distorsion noticed
f3.5 : slight vignetting low contrast but not as glowy as with the 2.8F
f5.6 : very slight vignetting very good contrast
f8 : perfect
f11 : perfect

For 2.8F and 0.7x
some barrel distorsion, especially for near focus under 2 meter straight lines near the edges.
f2.8 : vignetting, sharp, low contrast and glow
f4 : better, but still glow low contrast
f5.6 : very good
f8 and above perfect.

The 0.7x on 3.5F
very slight barrel distorsion, noticeably better than with the 2.8F IMHO, but still noticeable for near focus under 2m straights lines near the edges.
f3.5 : very slight vignetting, little glowy low contrast, but still sharp.
f5.6 : very good
f8 and above perfect

I find that there is some barrel distorsion for the 0.7x on the 2.8F where it is noticeable when you have straight lines parallel to the edges.
I found that on my 3.5F there is less distorsion to the point that it is not noticeable for general subjects but it is still there when straight lines are near the edges at near focus.

Also as a general matter, and it surely is because the 2.8 is faster, but there is more glow and less contrast on the 2.8F wide open compared to the 3.5F wide open, it is 3.5 vs. 2.8 after all!

The field of view of the Mutar 0.7 on the 2.8F 80mm vs the 3.5F 75mm is there but really not that remarkable. in theory this is 56mm vs 52.5mm, or in 135 terms 25,5mm vs 23.8mm, not that huge of a difference but still.

1.5x
I am happy about the performance of the 1.5x on the 2.8F. The minimum focus is perfect for portraiture head and shoulder. The minium focus distance is 1.8m (double of 0.9m). But the naked lens with rolleinar is more practical if you want to focus closer at the expense of some distorsion which can be or not desired.

0.7x
I have found so far that the 0.7x is pretty resistant to flare without hood, which I don't have. I tried the 67mm vented hood on ebay and no luck it strongly vignettes and not by little!

Still a lot to shoot but here are my initial findings.

 

[x-ray]

Thanks for posting! Looking forward to seeing some images.

 

[edodo]

They both take regular 67mm filters. Both weighs 763 grs or 1.68 lbs


1.5x weights 328 grs

0.7x weighs 435 grs

 

[EdSawyer]

Nice. thanks for the info. I got a 0.7x recently and have been shooting it on my 3.5F. Will compare soon with a Rolleiflex Wide 55/4 ,and will post impressions.

I built a custom hood for the 0.7x since mine came with a 1.5hood (and I didn't want to cut it down to make a .7x hood out of it). I started with the Rollei SL66 hood for the 50mm distagon, and cemented a 67-72mm step-up ring into the end of it. It *should* work well on the Mutar 0.7x, since the angle of view should be about the same, and the format it's designed for. Will post pics of it sometime soon. I don't think it will vignette, and if it does it's easy to cut it down (made of plastic for the hood part).

-Ed

 

[edodo]

Thanks for the tips, I will try to find one of those hood and do the same. Easy to check for the black corner with a ground glass on the film rails! But really I think it's pretty flare resistant, for example, the naked lens 75mm or 80mm is horribly flary without the bay hood, and all the flare is suppressed with the wide Mutar on. That is checking with a ground glass only. Minor flare could be present but I have yet to find out.

I had a Rolleiflex Wide 55mm 10 years ago, I do hope the Mutar is close in performance, but seeing prices they are now I will accomodate using the Mutar ^^,

I do think it's equivalent, even a little wider with the 3.5F 75mm lens, and from my findings the small if any distorsion is not an issue most of the time, and can be post treated.

I will keep my eye on a Wide for sure though if cheap enough. But it's more like praying for a miracle hehe!

Please post your DIY hood here, it would be helpful. Thanks in advance.

The problem I can foresee is that the fact that you can use 67mm on it, you would have to screw the hood on the filter making alignment impossible when changing filters! Maybe a circular hood is the solution... But they are blocking the viewfinder!

As you may have noticed, when using the original hoods, it is impossible to mount a filter anyway!