Exclude the Tomioka impostor:

Pancolart · Expire: 2013-11-18

I'd really like to know which of the lenses bellow isn't made by Tomioka (except the obvious Zeiss)? Selection provided by Dimitry:

https://picasaweb.google.com/dimitrygo/55mmF14LensesInAlphabeticalOrder#

woodrim · Joined: 14 Jan 2010 Posts: 4060 Location: Charleston

What do we have to go by other than telltale evidence? I have the Mamiya Sekor 55mm. Two observations I've made, although not necessarily unique to Tomoika are the way the rear element is perfectly flat and level to its casing. Maybe more telling is the finger style blades that make up the diaphragm - all pointing in a clockwise direction. Not all of the lenses on that page have this style diaphragm.

I often wondered, and I've mentioned this before, just how much of the lens was actually made by the optical manufacturer. Certainly the glass components, and one would think the internals of the lens which had to be part of the design, but did they get other parts from outside suppliers? Or is it possible that the optical glass makers just provided the glass to the name brand companies like Mamiya? What explains all the different outer designs?

casualcollector · Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2011 4:24 pm Post subject:

My guess is the camera maker dictated the cosmetics. i concur with your opinion that the optics were supplied by one or two makers and the external parts by two or more others.

The Mamiya/Ricoh/Chinon 55/1.4 all seem the same, but differ from the Yashinon 50/1.4. All four are generally attributed to Tomioka.

dimitrygo · Joined: 01 Apr 2009 Posts: 561

hasan · Joined: 12 Mar 2007 Posts: 313

some time ago, I'd decided to go with following:

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-n6imCfWoxig/TOVEzYltc6I/AAAAAAAAAf0/ZXS8SiFYwaw/s720/420444068_o.jpg
Cosina made these. A lot of the 55mm 1.4 seem to have same finish.

Chinon/Tomioka made these
https://picasaweb.google.com/dimitrygo/55mmF14LensesInAlphabeticalOrder#5540171002452040338
Here's seems the rear white ring the clue.
Same finish here:
https://picasaweb.google.com/dimitrygo/55mmF14LensesInAlphabeticalOrder#5422539772731162674
and here:
https://picasaweb.google.com/dimitrygo/55mmF14LensesInAlphabeticalOrder#5430727945501169282

Of course, this could all be wrong Laughing

Fujinonuser · Joined: 06 Jan 2011 Posts: 128 Location: Germany

First of all, lots of thanks to Dimitry for compiling this photographic collection of Tomioka-ascribed 1.4 lenses.

I do not follow Hasan's view that the silver back of the barrel is a sure indication of a Tomioka lens, as this very same lens was also sold with a black back. The similarity or difference of two lenses cannot be determined by the design of the barrel alone. A better measure is their optical performance, that is, at least the so-called pupil diameter (Pupillenmassstab) must be identical (as also the glass coating etc.).

Dimitry's distinction between Ricoh version 1 and version 2 may come closer to the truth, as version 2 seems to be a Cosinon. Cosina made the Rikenon lenses with PK bayonet after 1976. The Rikenon 1.4 / 50mm PK has received excellent test results, the MTF values being in the range of high-priced camera systems. The first version of the Rikenon 1.4 / 55mm may have been manufactured by Mamiya for Mamiya, Ricoh, and Nikon. It features a slightly curved rear glass element.

Cosina began by manufacturing lens barrels after 1963. Only in 1968 did Cosina have its own glass foundry. At that time (1968), they also began to produce camera bodies, becoming Cosina Co. Ltd. in 1973. All Cosinon lenses branded as such were manufactured no earlier than 1973.

Cosina was a late-comer to glass-melting. Mamiya made its own glass in Setagaya near Tokyo since 1947. Their lenses were distributed by Osawa as also the early Canon cameras. At one time, Mamiya made at least two lenses for a Nikon camera that was also sold as the Ricoh Singlex.

Since 1950, when Hoya resumed the production of glass for spectacles near Tokyo, the Tokyo Optical Equipment Manufacturing Co. in Tokyo produced lenses for brands like Nikon, becoming Tokina Optical Co.Ltd. in May 1971.

In 1957, Fuji built its own foundry in Odawara and Asahi obtained the Pentax brand name after having built lenses for Konishiroku and Minolta since 1933.

In 1960, Hoya begins the mass production of optical glass for camera lenses from Akishima near Tokyo (for Pentax, Tokina and others) as does Tomioka (lenses for cameras and photocopiers) in the Nishitama district near Tokyo, having been the exclusive mnufacturer for Yashinon lenses since 1953. In 1961, the Yashica Penta is the first Yashica SLR with a Tomioka lens designed for the Pentax universal screw-mount M42.

In 1966 (?), the Chinonflex is the first Chinon SLR. Chinon is reported to have made mechanical parts (mounts and barrels) for Canon, Olympus, Ricoh and Yashinon lenses after their establishment in the province of Nagano in 1948. Apparently they concentrated on designing lens barrels and camera bodies. They are said to have begun to make their own lenses (barrels?) in 1959, but those may have been film camera lenses, not necessarily SLR lenses. The Chinonflex was nick-named "Poor Man's Nikon," giving proof of the high optical and mechanical quality of the "Chinon System" that was abbreviated as "CS" on the screw-mounts of their lenses rather than "PU" for Pentax Universal. It is clear that they were in competition with Pentax. The early Chinon wide-angle lenses look similar to Tokina and Soligor lenses. But they may have been designed, produced and assembled by Tomioka, as some carry the Chinon Tomioka imprint.

In 1968, Tomioka became part of the Yashica corporation, after having been the exclusive manufacturer of Yashinon lenses since 1953.

In 1972, Yashica, Zeiss and Porsche begin their co-operation to design the Contax and Yashica line of lenses that were sold since 1974. Therefore, it is most likely that Chinon Tomioka lenses were branded as such only between 1968/1969 and 1972/1974, while all or most Chinon lenses before 1969 are Tomioka lenses without carrying that imprint.

Ricoh and Mamiya prime lenses between 1960-1968 may have been Tomioka designed and made. It seems that the Mamiya, Miranda and Ricoh 35mm systems and production facilities were swapped around at that time, while Tomioka was a well-established and consistent manufacturer of 35mm lenses competing with the big names. But we would need to know more about Japanese lens production in the 1960s. Originally, Ricoh was a research institution with governmental support, that is most likely concerned with lens design rather than glass melting. Mamiya and Tomioka made their own glass from very early on.

There is some strong evidence that manufacturers specialized in certain focal length lenses to reach economical production figures and that the lenses of one manufacturer were then re-branded and sold as "originals" for different camera systems in the heydays of amateur photography between 1966 and the 1980s, with a decline in quality after the oil crisis of 1973, when cheaper cameras and lenses were in demand.

Early Chinon lenses were made by Tomioka (and also sold as Hanimex, Sears, Revuenon, Porst etc.), while later Chinon lenses were made by Tomioka, Cosinon, Sun Optical, and Cima Kogaku. Cima had manufactured Topcor lenses since 1977 or earlier. All Yashinon lenses before 1968 and all Zeiss Contax lenses after 1974 were made by Tomioka. If you compare an early Yashinon with an early Chinon lens, it is clear that Chinon designed and manufactured their own lens barrels.

What can be learnt from this? In the end, it is the quality of the individual lens that counts. The lenses shown in Dimitry's gallery may be able to produce superb pictures and very certainly they have seen quite a lot during the past half century.

casualcollector · Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2011 11:17 am Post subject:

A very informative post. Thank you.

Bill

Pancolart · Expire: 2013-11-18

Now, this is some post (i could only wished for)! Thanks.

RioRico · Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2011 9:11 pm Post subject:

Great post!
But depressing.
In other words, Japanese lens manufacture is too complicated to sort out.
A brand name and serial number may not be enough to establish origin.
This is like bands swapping players for uncredited contributions.
When is a Chinon really a Chinon?
How can I tell, without details?
And some details are hidden.
Damn.

casualcollector · Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2011 10:07 pm Post subject:

eggboy · Posted: Fri Jul 01, 2011 1:51 pm Post subject:

Fujinonuser · Joined: 06 Jan 2011 Posts: 128 Location: Germany

The lens designs and camera brands discussed here originate in the early years of Japanese mass production of photographic articles. Production capacities were limited, but manufacturers were expected to supply a complete line of lenses with different focal lengths when they entered the market with a new camera, as is said of Fuji when they brought out the first Fujica in July 1970. The barrel of their Fujinon 1.8 / 55mm (single-coated) looks very similar to a Rikenon and may have its glasses from the same foundry, but the rear lens of the Fujinon may be wider. There was some variation in the coatings of the standard focal-length Fujinon lenses even in later years, which may be an indication of different manufacturers, although the overall lens performance is somewhat similar.
Manufacturers in the early years would share production facilities and capacities for the less exotic focal length lenses. I have seen some early Nikkor and Canon lenses that look very similar to Tokina and Soligor lenses as to their lens tubes and glass coatings.
Things changed in 1967, when quality controls were implemented and a new brand consciousness was encouraged: "Beginning in 1967, all Japanese cameras made for export were required to undergo significant intensive testing, designed to assure they would prove to be trouble-free under normal use. The government body known as the Japan Camera and Optical Instruments Inspection and Testing Institute (JCII) was responsible." (source unavailable)
Another turning point are the mid-1970s, when cheaply made lenses swamped the international markets.
When is a Chinon a Chinon? I think that all barrels of Chinon lenses were designed and made by Chinon as well as the barrels of some other maker's lenses. The early Chinon lenses were Tomioka lenses like the early and later Yashinon lenses. Early Mamiya and Ricoh lenses may come from a common pool that also fed the Nikon, Tokina, Miranda and Soligor systems or families of lenses. Operating from the Tokyo area, it may have been economical for them to obtain their optical glass from common sources. Tomioka certainly was one of them, and the glass of their lenses had some peculiar qualities as lens-lovers will be aware.
Additional information and corrections always welcome.

eggboy · Posted: Fri Jul 01, 2011 3:28 pm Post subject:

@Fujinonuser: are there any repositories of this info? A book? The German optical/photo industry seems very well documented, especially around Zeiss and Leica...I have to assume there must be some references...of course, if there are, they are most likely in Japanese...maybe you should write a book!

I will kick start this with pledging US$75 for my copy! I am serious! I will supply some pix of my two early Yashinon/Tomioka lenses, so that I can get a photo credit!

woodrim · Joined: 14 Jan 2010 Posts: 4060 Location: Charleston

This thread has become quite interesting. I am in a line of work that requires the same type of detail - and the same type of data digging and conjecture that appears here. It's amazing how just about every collector item has the same kind of complicated and detailed history.

While it seems that six different Mamiya lenses were shown, only three were labeled as versions. My Mamiya/Sekor is like the second one shown, with a slash instead of a hyphen separating the Mamiya and Sekor names. My A/M switch looks similar to the first lens, but does not project out nearly as far. I suspect that it probably lost the large plastic cover. All else appears the same as the second one displayed.

dimitrygo · Joined: 01 Apr 2009 Posts: 561

visualopsins · Expire: 2025-04-11

woodrim · Joined: 14 Jan 2010 Posts: 4060 Location: Charleston

Fujinonuser · Joined: 06 Jan 2011 Posts: 128 Location: Germany

@eggboy Thank you for this encouragement, Eugene. Basically, I did nothing else but what dimitrygo has done when he compiled his photos of the 1.4 / 55mm lenses. Information is scattered around, and without Google I'd still tap around in fog. Of course, information collected like this remains hypothetical, and it is clear that only few precise data can be had from Japanese manufacturers that have been operating in forms of co-operation that are different from Euro-American corporations.
My first lens that I bought in the fall of 1972 was a "no name" Auto Reflecta 1.7 / 50mm that only now I can identify as a Chinon Tomioka lens produced between 1966 and 1968. It was soft wide open, but had great sharpness and neutral colors around 5.6. I took some photos with it that were published in big newspapers, so it was a very useful lens, but I did not have much respect for it, because it was a no-name lens. Later, as a student, I could only afford to buy second-hand M42 Fujinon lenses. I now understand that in some respects these Fujinons have more to give than lenses from other manufacturers. Of course, if you want to use all diaphragm settings with consistent quality and need exotic focal length lenses, you have to turn to the expensive camera systems. But there is a right to live for the cheap amateur lenses, at least part of them.
There are some Japanese-language company histories on the web that you can roughly translate with Google Bablefish.
By the way, this morning at the local fleamarket I had a Topcor standard lens in my hands and its lens coatings reminded me very much of the Chinon 1.7 / 55mm lenses also sold as Revuenon, Porst etc. in the 1970s. That can be explained by the fact that Cima Kogaku manufactured lenses both for Topcon and Chinon. Although those Chinon Cima lenses have the same focal length as the Chinon Tomioka lenses, there are slight differences that can be noticed only by closest scrutiny, because different glass was used. There were Topcor lenses, by the way, that had the same drilled barrel as the early 35mm Mamiya lenses. Strange ...

woodrim · Joined: 14 Jan 2010 Posts: 4060 Location: Charleston

ooops, I forgot to take the pictures I promised. I'll put it back on my list to do.

If another brand lens, and at another focal length, has the same leatherette focusing ring as the Chinon Tomioka - also bordered by chrome and the same size - and the aperture leaves are identical too, is it safe to assume that it too is a Tomioka?

Pancolart · Expire: 2013-11-18

praktiman · Joined: 15 May 2013 Posts: 22 Location: United States

Ricoh seems to be the company which is most widely (and wildly) speculated about, for whatever reason. Some say they never made their own lenses, others that they did, and so on.

Personally, I think people are trying to ask questions that really don't have an answer. I have long suspected that, while it's entirely possible that not all these companies produced their own 55/1.4 design, it's seems probable to me that there are at least 2-3 independent designs, possibly more. Comparing construction details is far from conclusive. One can follow that trail of breadcrumbs and conclude that they indicate a common manufacturer. But they can just as easily indicate the opposite: that there were third-party manufacturers producing rings. tubes, you name it, to common specs in very large volumes, and that the different camera houses were buying those parts in, and assembling lenses of their own design, to their own specs.

Not to suggest that they all came up with a complete line of optical designs in house. I suspect fujinonuser comes closer to the truth. Probably all of these companies had a couple or so designs that were their own, possibly keeping one or two of them as "exclusive and proprietary" offerings, and sharing the rest with their peers in the marketplace.

But, who really knows. For example, one thing that has always puzzled me, and that the narrative which fujinonuser laid out for us doesn't account for, is Yashica's purchase of Zunow in ~1960. I've never been able to square this with the story that Tomioka supplied all of Yashica's optics. It's possible (even probable?) that T did all the manufacturing, but Yashica never designed any of them in-house? I simply can't believe they would acquire the equivalent of the holy grail, and only use it to benefit one slice of their company's products.

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

We've been over this subject so many times before, this dead horse has been flogged into dust by now.

The Japanese model of business and company ownership is very different to the West, relationships between companies are often very strong.

There were over 200 Japanese optical companies at one time.

Of course they shared things.

Also, most of them didn't make their own metal parts, they might have ground their own glass elements from blanks, they might have produced their own lens designs in-house, but very few of them produced the aluminium and brass parts needed.

That's why it's largely pointless to try to identify who made what based on what it looks like.

Speculating about who made what among the myriad Japanese makers is a waste of time an effort, take a brand like Optomax, very common brand on the secondhand market on the UK. I defy anyone to make sense of that brand, you can find so many different lenses with Optomax on them, occassionally they are the same as lenses that appeared in other brands and can therefore be identified, the common Tokina 4/100 preset can be found as an Optomax. That doesn't give you any insight at all into who made the other Optomax lenses though. I had an Optomax 2.8/28 that was identical to a Chinon badged lens, that gives no clues either because I've seen at least three other, totally different Optomax 2.8/28s and the only other Optomax I've seen that looked like a Chinon was a 3.5/200. Hanimex are another brand you can't make any sense of either.

It's ludicrous to suppose all those 200 optical companies were large enough to produce all the parts of a lens themselves, probably most of them didn't even have their own design departments.

It's all a big waste of time, quite frankly and it distracts from the real question - is the lens any good or not? Instead of worrying who made it where and when, take the damn thing out and shoot it, then see if the results are any good, if not, get rid of it and get something else. Don't waste your efforts on speculating about it's origins, just ask it what it can do!

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

Oldhand · Posted: Sat Jul 06, 2013 4:25 am Post subject:

mo · Expire: 2016-07-30

C'mon Ian,It's a bit of fun to speculate, to stimulate some thought over old lenses ...I don't consider that a waste of time.You yourself just added to the discussion with the way Japanese industry was different to the west.

After all isn't it what you do over a beer down at the pub when you talk about football,surely that could be considered a well worn topic,flogged to death over the years. Laughing