Komura Telemore? Anyone have an opinion on this?

Rich thanks for providing that link. Your review is the first I've seen that says the Komura is decent, I've always heard that the FSU TK-2D is better but then we are talking internet chat... I picked up a Komura 2x + finder very cheap a couple of years ago, then found a Komura 200mm through Rob Spoon (laptoprob here) recently - thanks for the tip Rob!! So I think maybe I should just ship the whole rig off to DAG for a tune up/adjust. Then I'll have a 400mm on my MP! :eek:
 
It seems very fussy about lenses. I works OK with my Voigtlander 90mm - but with the only other lens of mine that it fits, a Voigtlander 75mm I'm borrowing, the results are nasty, with loads of veiling flare.

Note that I didn't actually call the Komura "decent" - what I said was "surprisingly sharp ... I don’t think the converter is as bad as people have made out"! <grin>

I think one of the reasons for its poor rep may be its build quality (or lack of!) - it truly is sloppily constructed, as I mention in my review.
 
Last edited:
Mine, bought new, was absolute rubbish. Poor results, appalling finder, poorly defined frames and hazy. Build quality terrible. Komura lenses were so good, I can only surmise that they contracted out the manufacture of this thing.
I sent mine to Christies along with my Leica collection, and was astonished at the sum it achieved (I don't remember the amount, other than it was double what I paid for it new!! )
Its oval leather case was quite nice:rolleyes:
 
http://www.mediafire.com/file/4knfgemmwj1/L1001481.JPG

A shot taken through my window with the Komura teleconverter and a CV 90 lens on my Leica M8 using a tripod - JPG straight out of the camera, with quality reduced slightly to make the file size manageable. The focus is on the Ford Mondeo number plate (you now know what British number plates are like!). f/8 @ 1/4 s.

Not the greatest quality, but passable if you really need a telephoto lens in an emergency. Note the low contrast. The foreground hedge is blurred as its moving in the breeze.

I got it really cheap - no way would I pay what I see them going for on eBay!
 
The Telemore 95 teleconverters were seven element, as I recall, and could be quite good. The standard Telemore teleconverters were either 4 or 6 elements and tended towards the average, which is to say 'bad' in that most cheap teleconverters suck bilge water.

The easy way to tell which you have is if it says "Telemore 95" on it. If it doesn't, it isn't.
 
Mine was the 95, Bill, perhaps I just expected too much. I still have a Komura for my Pentax K, (MX) and it is fine. Perhaps I just got a dud?
 
John Robertson said:
Mine was the 95, Bill, perhaps I just expected too much. I still have a Komura for my Pentax K, (MX) and it is fine. Perhaps I just got a dud?
Click to expand...

Certainly possible, or it could be the camera/converter combination. I've got an old manual-focus Sigma APO 70-210 lens in PK/A mount which works a treat on a film SLR, but it has some sort of haze on it (in the viewfinder and in the photos) on my *ist DS, but now that I have a K200D, I've tried it again and the haze is gone, it's back to being lovely. Why? I have no idea, perhaps something to do with the anti-reflective coating on the back element. Just a guess.
 
Thanks everyone. More opinions are welcome. The converter in question is a 95. If it ends up being inexpensive enough, I might take a chance on it. If so, I will certainly post samples of pix with it (giving everyone an opportunity to laugh and say "I told you so?";)). And, I certainly won't blame any of you if I make a dumb choice (but, in that case, I might list it for sale on the board...:eek:).
 
I've toyed with the idea again and again. But I always come back to using small 135mm lenses that you can buy cheaply in highest quality. Longer than this, I'm uncomfortable with an RF. If I need 200mm, I crop a little.

Komura built a great 135/2.8, Ernostar based, coupled LTM lens, BTW :) Should be available for US 100-200.

Cheers,

Roland.
 
John Robertson said:
Mine, bought new, was absolute rubbish. Poor results, appalling finder, poorly defined frames and hazy. Build quality terrible. Komura lenses were so good, I can only surmise that they contracted out the manufacture of this thing.
I sent mine to Christies along with my Leica collection, and was astonished at the sum it achieved (I don't remember the amount, other than it was double what I paid for it new!! )
Its oval leather case was quite nice:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Ditto my experience with it. The finder is terrible to use, and the results not very good. I sold it for far more than I paid for it which was a good thing, but I was going through a phase where liked my photo's sharp, and the Telemore just didn't get close.Steve
 
postscript: I didn't buy it. The price was too high for what it is. thanks for all the insights. I can get a 90 or 135 for what this thing sold for and have cheap fun with one of them. maybe next time. I never used my 90 tele-elmarit that much before I sold it anyway, so the money is better saved toward another toy for now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom