Re: converter for M?

[Colin <colinmi@fast.net>]

Stephen wrote:
> 
> Marc James Small wrote:
> >
> > At 03:42 AM 4/26/97 -0700, Stephen Gandy, Optical Wizard, wrote:
> >
> 
> "Optical Wizard?"   Well gee Marc, coming from someone who thinks
> Russian LTM lenses are great, that is a real complement.
> 
> > >>Dicey Optically?  only if you put them on a Russian lens.
> > >
> > >Try a late Summicron.  Some nice advances have been made in the last
> > >fifty years.
> >
> > I didn't own a single Russki lens when I tested the Komura.  Tried it on
> > Summitar and collapsible Summicron.  For once, I agree with Pop:  "muddy
> > images distinguished only by vague blotches of color", or words to that
> > effect.
> 
> So Marc, you proved it was not a good choice to use on a Summitar and
> the original 50 Summicron, but that was all you proved.    A modern
> optic would have been a better test. Any teleconverter is only as good
> as the lens you test it on.  Even then, the results of a teleconverter
> will vary from with different lens designs (depending upon how well each
> optical formula works TOGETHER).
> 
> Which issue is the POP test in?
> 
> > I encourage all on the list to try the Komura 2x tele-converter:  these are
> > still available new, I believe, from Cambridge, that paragon of lens
> > salesmanship.  Just make sure you have a MBG -- you'll be desperate to send
> > it back!
> >
> > Steve, do YOU own one of these Komura gems?
> >
> 
> A friend loaned me one.  I used it on a late 50 Summicron and the black
> Canadian 90 Summicron(not the compact 90/2).  Not as sharp as the prime
> lens of course, but still good two stops down.   When I find a nice used
> one at a good price, I will buy it.   I don't like to buy new and take
> the instant 30-50% depreciation hit.
> 
> So who else out there has shot with the Komura converter?
> 
> Stephen Gandy

Gentlemen,

Isn't it reasonable to assume there may be some variation in samples of
the Komura?


Colin