Home
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Pentax PK bayonet 1.4/50mm alternatives: CHINON COSINA RICOH
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue Jul 09, 2013 10:12 am    Post subject: Pentax PK bayonet 1.4/50mm alternatives: CHINON COSINA RICOH Reply with quote

Overview of alternatives to Pentax made lenses. Updated rework of this topic: http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic.php?t=43590
Please add links to your own reviews or tests. Missing is Rikenon P version i don't have.

There are three families based on manufacturer:

COSINA:
Typical rebranded representative: PORST COLOR REFLEX, Vivitar VMC
- convex rear element
- 8 aperture blades turned upward
- mount has 4 screws
- focusing grease tends to get dry (late COSINA lenses problem)
- Φ49

CHINON:
Typical re-branded representative: REVUENON, AGFA COLOR
- rear element 100% flat
- 6 aperture blades turned downward or 8 (Revuenon variant)
- mount has 5 screws
- winning CHINON smooth focusing
- similar serial numbering (AGFA missing C letter, see photo)
- Revuenon look seems to be Leica Summilux-R I inspired http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/index.php/50mm_f/1.4_Summilux-R_I
- Φ49

RICOH Rikenon (XR):
Typical re-branded representative: Sears MC
- convex rear element
- 8 blades turned downward
- largest rear element diameter
- Ricoh PK teflon smearing blades problem
- mount has 4 screws
- Φ52

Group photo:


COSINA:




CHINON:






RICOH Rikenon XR:





PostPosted: Tue Jul 09, 2013 10:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Okay, so there's three lenses represented here. How do they compare as photographic tools? Are they very similar or are there noticeable differences in their rendering and capabilities? If they all perform very similarly, that kind of means there's no point in worrying about the maker, right? If there are meaningful differences between the three, it would be nice to hear about them.


PostPosted: Tue Jul 09, 2013 10:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Okay, so there's three lenses represented here. How do they compare as photographic tools? Are they very similar or are there noticeable differences in their rendering and capabilities? If they all perform very similarly, that kind of means there's no point in worrying about the maker, right? If there are meaningful differences between the three, it would be nice to hear about them.


Ian, again, please please do not troll my posts.


PostPosted: Tue Jul 09, 2013 10:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Caoting seems slightly different


PostPosted: Tue Jul 09, 2013 11:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pancolart wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Okay, so there's three lenses represented here. How do they compare as photographic tools? Are they very similar or are there noticeable differences in their rendering and capabilities? If they all perform very similarly, that kind of means there's no point in worrying about the maker, right? If there are meaningful differences between the three, it would be nice to hear about them.


Ian, again, please please do not troll my posts.


Excuse me, but I am not trolling, I merely asked for some useful information. Are these three lenses the same in performance or not?

Why don't you want to give that information? Maybe you haven't used them?

I am genuinely interested in the relative performance, characteristics and merits.

Not even a single sample pic from any of them?


PostPosted: Tue Jul 09, 2013 1:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, i have two of these, the XR Rikenon and the Agfa Color. Didn't use them much (blame my Canon 60mm macro for that), but here's some comparison shots, at f/2.8

XR Rikenon



Agfa Color



PostPosted: Tue Jul 09, 2013 11:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cheers! Both look good to me, I think the Rikenon looks a tiny bit crisper but that looks to be higher microcontrast than resolution I think, which suggests the Rikenon has better coatings.


PostPosted: Wed Jul 10, 2013 1:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

why bother with any of these dubious quality lenses whent he smck smcm smca pentax 50mm F1.4 are outstanding
and still cheap???


PostPosted: Wed Jul 10, 2013 2:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

In England, at least, these third party lenses are cheaper and much more common. It's the XR Rikenon that interests me, as I doubt Ricoh issued lesser quality lenses than Pentax did, but I might be wrong on that and Rikenons vary in quality? Rikenons are cheaper than Pentax M and A series, and not hard to find, so I am interested to know how they compare to Pentax.

I have an older 1.4 Chinon in M42 here at the moment, need to play with it a bit more, but so far, it's not impressing me at all, which is again why I was interested in how these more modern variants perform.


PostPosted: Wed Jul 10, 2013 3:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

back in the sixties and seventies, the 50mm F1.4 lens was one of Pentax's very best lenses, designed to show off top of the line quality as the first lens on the body. I wouldn't be surprised if the rikenon lenses were lesser quality.


PostPosted: Wed Jul 10, 2013 4:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Perhaps, but there were other superb 1.4s that I doubt leave anything to be desired vs the Pentax, I have the old Miranda 1.4/50 with 8 elements and it's great, not as good as the awesome Hexanon 1.4/57, but little is imho. Not had the Pentax 1.4 to compare, would be nice to see a comparison of the Rikenon to the Pentax.


PostPosted: Wed Jul 10, 2013 5:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
In England, at least, these third party lenses are cheaper and much more common. It's the XR Rikenon that interests me, as I doubt Ricoh issued lesser quality lenses than Pentax did, but I might be wrong on that and Rikenons vary in quality? Rikenons are cheaper than Pentax M and A series, and not hard to find, so I am interested to know how they compare to Pentax.

I have an older 1.4 Chinon in M42 here at the moment, need to play with it a bit more, but so far, it's not impressing me at all, which is again why I was interested in how these more modern variants perform.



http://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/ricoh-50mm-xr-rikenon-f-1-4.html


PostPosted: Wed Jul 10, 2013 5:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hmm, that is interesting, I have been having veiling fare problems with the Chinon 1.4 I have here, I thought it was just me, but both of those users report the same thing. Sad

Although the Chinon I have here is M42, it is probably related to the PK mount ones shown here. It's labelled Auto Chinon 1.4/55 but looks like a Cosina made item as the aperture markings are identical to the supposed Cosinas shown here. Six aperture blades folded upwards.

So many variations it seems....


PostPosted: Thu Jul 11, 2013 9:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

berw wrote:
Well, i have two of these, the XR Rikenon and the Agfa Color. Didn't use them much (blame my Canon 60mm macro for that), but here's some comparison shots, at f/2.8

XR Rikenon



Agfa Color



They seem darn indistinguishable (AGFA slightly warmer). Please post more if you have, especially wide-opens.


PostPosted: Thu Jul 11, 2013 9:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Will do, when i get home from work


PostPosted: Thu Jul 11, 2013 2:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

OK, here's some older shots with the Agfa Color and the XR Rikenon. Not artistic shots, just playing with lenses.

Agfa





Rikenon





PostPosted: Thu Jul 11, 2013 7:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rich colors, fine bokeh, thanks for sharing!


PostPosted: Thu Jul 11, 2013 7:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

last sample of afga, very amazing!


PostPosted: Fri Jul 12, 2013 3:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

So how do you know who made these, is it just guesswork?

How do you explain this lens I have, labelled Chinon but with a barrel marked the same as the supposed Cosinas?






Or is it just a coincidence this lens is marked up in exactly the same way as the 'Cosina'?

Whoever made it, it's a crappy lens, worst 50-ish lens I've used apart from the dreaded Domiplan.


PostPosted: Fri Jul 12, 2013 6:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Chinon did not produce their lenses themselves, it's a rebrander. So it's not uncommon that they can be found in different designs.

I've had several 55mm Chinon versions, but never a bad one, my guess is there must be something wrong with yours.
Besides that: this thread is about the 50mm versions.

@pancolart:
Which reminds me.... i do have the Revuenon 50mm version you have in the first pics. Somehow it's just been sitting on a camera on my shelf and has never been used. It's a PK mount, i will take some shots with it soon!


PostPosted: Fri Jul 12, 2013 9:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ian your CHINON M42 is typical 1.4/55mm Tomioka, quite older then my posted COSINA PK 1.4/50mm. My guess is that at start Tomioka supplied complete 1.4/55mm lenses. Later both Cosina and CHINON produce bodies themselves, possibly with inserted Tomioka optical block. With PK 1.4/50mm COSINA presumably broke ties with Tomioka history. RED dot DOF scale markings are found on many different lenses even Fuji and Olympus.

Better question is PK CHINON 1.4/50mm since it retained Tomioka's flat rear element!
Though i had them both disassembled i sadly didn't compare at the time. That is still to be done. Maybe member Nukemall has some opinion.

TrueLoveOne wrote:
@pancolart:
Which reminds me.... i do have the Revuenon 50mm version you have in the first pics. Somehow it's just been sitting on a camera on my shelf and has never been used. It's a PK mount, i will take some shots with it soon!

Splendid. Please do.


PostPosted: Fri Jul 12, 2013 2:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for the explanation, it's clearly a very different lens to these 1.4/50 PKs, which look very nice to my eyes from the samples. I'll keep my eye out for a 1.4/50 to replace it. I need a 'normal' lens in PK for my Ricoh XR-X I've modified to use unperforated film, hence my interest in PK mount normals. It came with a Riconar 2.2/55 which is not bad.


PostPosted: Sun Jul 14, 2013 10:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Revuenon 1.4/50, never used it before, it has sticky blades, but on the NEX no problem for these quick testshots. All straight JPG from the NEX3, no PP besides resize.

The lens:


And now some very UN-scientific testshots with some crops.

DOF at f/1.4:


at f/1.4:


Crop of the f/1.4 shot:


at f/2.8:


Crop of the f/2.8 shot:


at f/4:


Crop of the f/4 shot:


Another f/4 shot:


At f/8:


And finally a crop of an f/2.8 shot i took inside:


I should clean it and use it.... it's quite okay from what i've seen so far from these few shots!


PostPosted: Sun Jul 14, 2013 12:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nice samples, I'd say it's better than okay, it's as good as many more expensive lenses imho.

With third party lenses, you really have to try the lens out before you know how it's going to perform, experience has taught me that duds are petty common.

You definitely don't have a dud. Smile


PostPosted: Wed Jul 17, 2013 7:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Nice samples, I'd say it's better than okay, it's as good as many more expensive lenses imho.

+1