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

The story of MITAKE
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue Feb 18, 2014 12:17 pm    Post subject: The story of MITAKE Reply with quote

I was inspired by this post from cooltouch http://forum.mflenses.com/the-most-beautiful-135mm-lens-t18177,start,165.html
trying to complete "virtual" lens line of Mitake. Furthermore, i saw Kevin's 2/28mm for the first time (photos bellow).

Possible re-brand names: PORST, Eyemik, Formula 5, Spiratone, Weltblick...
I know, many samples from my post "Tomioka myth (not)busted" Sad. Sorry for non referenced photos. If you know the source please add.

2.5/24mm
2/28mm
1.8/35mm
2.8/100mm (dubious DOF scale not rounded)
1.8/135mm


aoleg wrote:
Absolutely. As I said, mine handles flare pretty well.



TrueLoveOne wrote:
A picture of the lens, with MD-NEX adapter.

NEX-3 with Mitake 2.5/24 by TrueLoveOne, on Flickr


http://www.ebay.com/itm/Mitake-28mm-f2-Minolta-SR-mount-221338-/370921253762




ovim wrote:
wb35b by ovim, on Flickr

Front element with a couple of dust specks

wb1 by ovim, on Flickr


wb35a by ovim, on Flickr









http://www.camerahotel.nl/100mm/28-Eyemik-mc-in-M42-mount




JWH wrote:




Is Mitake the producer of many times searched for 2.8(3.5)/28&35mm lenses (and where to draw the line with COSINA):
carloM42 wrote:





Another question: was there a M42 50mm lens by Mitake Smile ??


PostPosted: Tue Feb 18, 2014 1:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The 2.8/135mm from Mitake.
Click here to see on Ebay

This Formula 5 2.8/28mm may be also made by Mitake. We need to confirm it by finding a copy maked Mitake on the lens or the box.
Click here to see on Ebay


PostPosted: Tue Feb 18, 2014 3:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mitakon and Eyemik lenses are common in the UK, particularly the 2.8/28. 2.8/135, 200 and 5.5/300mm Mitakon primes also exist, and there are a few zooms such as a 4.5/80-200, 3.5-4.5/28-80, 5.6/85-300 and the truly abysmal 3.8-5.5/28-200.

They are bottom of the barrel quality, not worth bothering with. I've had the 2.8/28 more than once, it's a poor lens, cheap and nasty, has a noticeably curved field so that only the centre is anywhere near sharp, even stopped down to f5.6. I had the 5.5/300 too, a piece of crap, soft, low contrast and severe CA.







PostPosted: Tue Feb 18, 2014 4:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

has anyone ever heard of Mitake f2.8/20mm? Once I saw one offered, seems to be a rather unknown lens


PostPosted: Tue Feb 18, 2014 4:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mitake Optical Co. never marketed the lens above in Mitakon brand. The Mitakon brand are now own by a Chinese optical company who makes the Lens Turbo.

kuuan wrote:
has anyone ever heard of Mitake f2.8/20mm? Once I saw one offered, seems to be a rather unknown lens

You can find it in a leaflet of Mitakon.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/miguelno/3870174909/


PostPosted: Tue Feb 18, 2014 4:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You've already found my pic of the 2.5/24 lens i see Wink. I still have that one. I did a set of shots with it a while ago. For those interested and who want to see if it is any good, it is here: http://forum.mflenses.com/formula-5-by-mitake-24mm-f-2-5-md-mount-t56304,highlight,%2Bmitake.html
That Porst 3.5/35 looks a lot like these 2, although these are f/2.8, one Revue and one Pentor, i've seen them branded as Kenlock too:


Rebranded lenses 2 by TrueLoveOne, on Flickr


PostPosted: Tue Feb 18, 2014 5:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've got 135/1.8 Eyemik that looks exactly like JWH mentioned version above. Unfortunately I only have a poor photo of that lens:


Photo linked to my test of the lens.


PostPosted: Fri Feb 21, 2014 12:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I agree with Ian, at least for the Eyemik 28/2.8. On an APS-C camera it's ok, but nothing more than that and on full frame (where it was on my OM-1) I can't recall it being all that good. Nothing outstanding, at any rate; but I knew when I bought it that it wouldn't be top quality. That was 30 years ago, when proper prices were still being charged for lenses of that type and not the recent bargain-basement-bin pricing you can pick them up for, so as a result I had to buy what I could afford at the time. As a barbeque /drunken party lens it was fine, but you wouldn't want to do anything pictorial with it.


PostPosted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 10:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here is another rebrand of what seems to be genuine budget Mitake line:

spiralcity wrote:
Does anyone have any info on the Uni marked lenses?
I just won this lens on ebay. I never used one so I wanted to give it a go... A bit compulsive I think. Confused Shocked

I'm a sucker when it comes to buying glass, I'll try anything once ! Very Happy





PostPosted: Thu Feb 27, 2014 12:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pancolart wrote:
Here is another rebrand of what seems to be genuine budget Mitake line:

spiralcity wrote:
Does anyone have any info on the Uni marked lenses?
I just won this lens on ebay. I never used one so I wanted to give it a go... A bit compulsive I think. Confused Shocked

I'm a sucker when it comes to buying glass, I'll try anything once ! Very Happy

...


I had this lens labled as Revuenon Special 35/2.8.
It is awfull at almost (?) any aperture, never get really sharp, or at least at the most used f-stops (untill f11).
However it worked quite well as a close lens with extension tubes...


PostPosted: Thu Feb 27, 2014 2:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Great work , thank you to sharing it! I have Formula something, 135mm and real garbage , worst 135mm prime what I did ever try. I never touch usually these lenses if you have any good experience about them don't hesitate to share and bad one too Smile both helpful.


PostPosted: Thu Feb 27, 2014 2:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Attila wrote:
Great work , thank you to sharing it! I have Formula something, 135mm and real garbage , worst 135mm prime what I did ever try. I never touch usually these lenses if you have any good experience about them don't hesitate to share and bad one too Smile both helpful.


Back in the 1970's I bought a Formula (5?) something 28mm lens and had the same experience. It was simply terrible.
Fortunately the camera store allowed me to exchange it for a Tamron (+$ of course)
OH


PostPosted: Wed Jan 21, 2015 9:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is rare. Eyemik 2/28mm M42



Seller says made by Kiron. Many time i asked myself why Kiron (Vivitar) 2.5/28mm is so much different then other KIRON made lenses.
Perhaps it is made by Mitake? KIRON could be the one pushing Mitake brand into Vivitar thus code 22? And the listing: Click here to see on Ebay.de

I intend to resurrect the topic. This lens line is really genuine and easily distinguishable whether produced by Mitake, Kiron or even Tomioka.


PostPosted: Wed Jan 21, 2015 9:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is cool: Mitake made Formula 5 branded 1.8/35mm Click here to see on Ebay.de



PostPosted: Wed Jan 21, 2015 9:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

SPIRATONE Plura-Coat by Mitake, notice interesting NIKON mount: Click here to see on Ebay.de





PostPosted: Wed Jan 21, 2015 10:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Found another 2/28mm again serial 22 (i begin to think Mitake was kind of predecessor to KIRON)
This is GoKevins's FORMULA 5 by MITAKE: Click here to see on Ebay.de




PostPosted: Wed Jan 21, 2015 10:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Transferring from other topic. Beautiful Photax-Paragon 2.8/100mm:
EdH wrote:
Has anyone heard of it or have any idea who made it?

PB215163 by Ed Herridge, on Flickr

PB215165 by Ed Herridge, on Flickr


PostPosted: Wed Jan 21, 2015 11:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Paragon and Super Paragon were the lenses sold by the Photax / Interfit group of stores. Most of the Paragon's that I've seen have been Cimko - with the unequal diamond focusing mark.
I think Photax sourced decent lenses for re-branding rather than buying the cheapest available whatever the quality. I have a 135 / 2.8 that is excellent, and a 28 / 2.8 that was equally good but I swopped it for something else.


PostPosted: Fri Jan 23, 2015 7:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Indeed only few Photax / Super Paragon lenses can be contributed to Mitake.

Here nice photos of both 35mm and 135mm Mitake sold as Kamero:


Link: http://foto.ua/forum/threads/60403-Kamero-Auto-135mm-1-2-8-Kamero-Auto-35mm-1-2-8-M42


PostPosted: Sat Jan 21, 2017 7:20 am    Post subject: Weltblick f/1,8 35mm Reply with quote

Reviving this old very interesting thread
Just bought for quite cheap an M42 Weltblick 1:1,8 35mm, with 58mm filter thread and A/M switch.
It makes a nice couple with the Porst 1,8/135mm in PK mount i already have.
I confirm i have seen it marked as Weltblick, Porst, Formula 5, Kenlock, Eyemik, Spiratone Pluracoat.
I doubt it was ever sold as Mitakon.

I have mixed feelings about Mitake-made lenses.
The more recent ones, made in China, have no appeal.
The older ones, made in Japan, were a mixed bag, as far as i understand (i judging from the pictures i found on the Web).
Some were prime price bottom quality optics, others were better.
IMHO, the faster ones are the most desirable.
The large aperture and the right amount of aberrations can give the kind of rendition that sets them apart from modern time kit zooms... and without spending a fortune Smile



cheers

Paolo


PostPosted: Sat Jan 21, 2017 7:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I tried a Formula 5 - 28mm f2.8 back in the 1970's and it was rubbish.
It sold cheaper than the Tamron adaptall 28mm f2.8 and so I thought - why not?
Well, sadly it was so bad that I returned it and swapped for the Tamron.
The retailer was understanding on the matter and still had a sale I suppose.
This left a bad taste for the Formula 5 brand from that point, and I never considered another.
T


PostPosted: Sat Jan 21, 2017 4:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

UNI AUTOMATIC, now there is a creative relabel.

I have a 2.8/35 branded as SUPER carenar, having this distinctive broad-barrel look. Very heavy.
It fell down and took some damage but had not been very impressive anyway. As in, hard to get a really crisp shot with 1:1 pixel peeping.

Can we perhaps agree that whoever made that bottle sold it to everyone?


PostPosted: Sat Jan 21, 2017 9:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://forum.mflenses.com/spiratone-12-5-f24mm-and-12-8-f24mm-t32788.html

visualopsins wrote:
Spiratone Plura-Coat by Mitake 1:2.5 f=24mm, M42 (fixed), A-M Switch, 0.3m CFD:










PostPosted: Wed Mar 21, 2018 11:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Eyemik MC 200mm f3.5 Non-Macro

I wanted a 200mm lens to possibly use as a tube lens for macro focus stacking. For that purpose, I needs not to be of the highest quality. However, it would be good if it also functioned well as a prime lens. Having taken some shots of brick walls, which showed good performance, I decided that these Pussy Willow catkins might be more pleasing and more testing.

Not being a close-focusing lens, these were at, or close to, its closest focus. I have cropped the images by about 50-75% and given them normal processing. I tried the lens on my A7R, which shows its worst shutter bounce effects with lenses of around 200mm. All were at f8 in sunlight, hand-held.

The first was at high ISO, 1/4000 sec, the second and third at low ISO, 1/320 and 1/800.

In the images, the best parts are the ones to look at, as the branches were not all parallel to the focal plane.











PostPosted: Wed Mar 21, 2018 11:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Today I took some more pictures, again mostly at about the closest focus distance and at f5.6. I have used normal processing.

I took these after reading some very poor reports here on Eyemik and other lenses, all apparently made by Mitake.

I post the full frame and then, when I think it will show the detail better, a crop, two stages for the pheasant. The last one is just cropped slightly for composition.

I used the A7R body.

I conclude that, although not my best lens, it gives a decent performance.