raid
Dad Photographer
Spending $125 on the Komura 105/3.5 isn't overpaying. Here's why:
I needed a lightweight "telephoto" lens for traveling, so I picked up both the Canon 100/3.5 and the Komura 105/3.5 and compared them against a postwar Elmar 90/4. I'd figure I'd compare the lenses and keep my favorite.
I was surprised by the performance quality of the Komura. I find the performance to be almost indistinguishable from the Canon 100/3.5.
All three lenses gave very similar results at mid aperature (f/8) at infiniti. At a closer distance (about 20 feet) the Elmar noticeably underperformed (seemed to suffer from flare).
At wider apertures, the Komura may suffer from some dropoff in sharpness at the corners wide open, but I'd have to do more tests to know whether this was just depth of field issue.
The Elmar (200 g) and the Canon (182 g) are roughly the same size and weight. The Komura is noticeably larger (about 30%) but it isn't much heavier. I don't have a scale but I'd guess about 260 g, whereas the earlier Serenar 100/4 is 460g.
A postwar Elmar seems to go for about $90 and Canon 100/3.5 is about $170. Since the Komura is opitcally extremely close to the Canon and only larger, I think the price should be close to that of the Canon.
A do plan on adding a full review with photos to my new blog.
Hi Chris,
Thanks for the useful information. I would add to what you said that the Komura is very well built. I am interested in seeing more of your findings.