I found this a bit confusing. I well remember Spiratone and bought a
fair number of things from them in the late 60's and early 70's. I also
remember the Russian MTO and also the stories that the Spiratone 500
mirror lens was, in fact, an MTO lens.
What confuses me is your comment about adjusting the mirror to move the
back focus out to make it suitable for an SLR. The implication is that
the MTO is a spotting scope rather than a camera lens. Maybe you're
right but I remember the MTO and Spiratone 500's as T-mount lenses and
thus designed for SLR use from the get-go.
OK, all you oldies out there (most of you except Ali), which of us is
correct?
Chuck Norcutt
Jeff Keller wrote:
> My interest got drawn into searching for info on the MTO catadioptirc
> lenses. I came a cross a statement that the Spiratone mirror lenses were
> actually MTO lenses. I can't find the original link but I found another that
> suggests there could be a connection. Fred Spira, the founder of Spiratone,
> apparently imported MTO lenses.
>
> http://www.beststuff.com/forum/read.php?21,31290,31310#msg-31310
>
> Has anyone had any experience with the 500/5.6 Rubinar or MTO lens?
>
> Apparently the quality varied dramatically but the good ones seem to have
> been good.
> Also it appears that the early MTO lenses had a shallow flange-back
> distance. The infinity focus could be readjusted to make them work with
> SLRs. If that is nothing more than moving the primary mirror closer to the
> secondary mirror, it would seem that the secondary mirror wouldn't be large
> enough to reflect all of the light back towards the camera. Has anyone seen
> any detailed info?
>
> Thanks,
> -jeff
>
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|