Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

This lens is made for Tomioka?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sun Jul 12, 2015 11:32 pm    Post subject: This lens is made for Tomioka? Reply with quote
Chinon Multicoated 135 f2.8

Is tomioka made?


PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2015 12:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
looks same as my auto revuenon.
my researches ended by this being made by cosina. I may be wrong, of course.


PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2015 12:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
hasan wrote:
looks same as my auto revuenon.
my researches ended by this being made by cosina. I may be wrong, of course.

Revuenon, it is not made by Tomioka ??
Embarassed


PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2015 7:52 am    Post subject: Re: This lens is made for Tomioka? Reply with quote
francotirador wrote:
Chinon Multicoated 135 f2.8

Is tomioka made?

It's more likely to be a Cimko, in my opinion (check the elongated diamond focus index mark):

http://forum.mflenses.com/super-paragon-cimko-135mm-f2-8-t42752.html

...and you can see another on eBay as item number 121248256040 (not ours).


PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2015 8:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Cimko, the unequal diamond is found on most of their lenses. If that's the 135 2.8, it's a very good lens. I have one branded as Super Paragon.


PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2015 10:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I agree, Cimko.

I don't understand why people make such a fuss about Tomioka, they were just another lens factory that produced lenses for many clients.

The whole fuss about Tomioka seems to be due to them having been contracted to make some of the Contax T* lenses in the late 70s.

Just because they made high end lenses for a client doesn't say much about the quality of their other production; Tomioka made plenty of not so great lenses for other clients.

Cosina today make quality lenses for clients like Zeiss and Leica, but in the 70s and 80s they made a lot of not very good lenses. Cosina lenses of the early 80s range between poor and very poor in my experience.


PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2015 10:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
francotirador wrote:
hasan wrote:
looks same as my auto revuenon.
my researches ended by this being made by cosina. I may be wrong, of course.

Revuenon, it is not made by Tomioka ??
Embarassed

Holà!
Revue (and Revuenon for lenses) is just a brand name. It belonged to a German mail order house called Quelle, which sold the products of many makers under the Revue brand name. The Soviet Zenit-E, lots of Prakticas, scores of heavy mechanical Chinon SLRs, just to name a few SLRs, were sold in Germany under the Revue name in the 1970s and 80s. Some of the standard lenses on the Chinon cameras (excellent, practically indestructible bodies, BTW) were no doubt Tomioka-made, but that was only a small percentage of lenses sold under the Revue name. Some of them also had the name Tomioka engraved next to Revuenon on the front ring.
The prime difficulty with Tomioka lenses is that this company made SOME lenses for many other producers (Yashica, Ricoh, Chinon) and for the most part, they were not identified as such. So telling which lens is Tomioka made and which is not is quite a challenge more often than not. My guess is most lenses cherished by their owners as supposedly Tomioka made, are probably not Tomioka made. If you have a M42 50-57mm /1.4-1.7 standard lens with the Revue name on it, I think the overwhelming probability is that Cosina made it.
I am not an expert on Tomioka lenses, but that's the picture that emerges from years of following discussions on the subject.
Search the archives here for Chinon 55/1.7 and you will find more information about the Tomioka connection.

(Pssst, don't shoot) Smile

Salud!


PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2015 10:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:

I don't understand why people make such a fuss about Tomioka, they were just another lens factory that produced lenses for many clients.

The whole fuss about Tomioka seems to be due to them having been contracted to make some of the Contax T* lenses in the late 70s.

Just because they made high end lenses for a client doesn't say much about the quality of their other production; Tomioka made plenty of not so great lenses for other clients.

Cosina today make quality lenses for clients like Zeiss and Leica, but in the 70s and 80s they made a lot of not very good lenses. Cosina lenses of the early 80s range between poor and very poor in my experience.


I don't understand either. Interestingly in this respect we seem to share a similar opinion. Wink

However, there is a quite interesting story about the "Tomioka myth" issue on http://www.kameradoktor.de/tomioka1,255mm/. Though it's in German only.

In essence it started because some tricky guys tried to sell their cheap old Tomioka glasses for extremely high prices via *bay. It interestingly worked out rather well when those fellows just sold and bought those lenses among themselves for prices up to 700 Euro. So after a short while other people asked themselves why those lenses are so highly regarded, heavily sought after and awful expensive.
So simply by applying this trick the "Tomioka myth" was born and obviously is still in existence up to now. Finally they made good money on that. Wink

However, I didn't try any of those lenses myself but considered Tomioka like the other low budget lens producers from Japan rather below standard at these times.

Interestingly after Kyocera bought Tomioka for the production of their lenses for their Yashica and Contax series of cameras, Tomioka turned to a well respected lens producer. That was a comparable development like Cosina, when they started with their Voigtlaender line several years later.

However, at least from my point of view neither Tomioka nor Cosina produced high standard lenses in the old times, but rather budget lines for lens distributers or camera makers. Though, this doesn't mean that there are no good ones available.

Just my 2 cents.


PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2015 10:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I fully agree with everything my Polish and Austrian compatriots just said.

There, in two posts you have everything you need to know about the Tomioka myth imho.

Might be a good idea to make this thread a sticky?

I would add one point - Tomioka, Cosina and Chinon were all based in the same prefecture, their factories close together and there was a lot of interaction between them.

Therefore, it is very likely that you could have a lens where one company made the glass, another made the barrel and a third assembled and collimated it.

As a result, I think with many lenses, we can say that they are from the Tomioka/Cosina/Chinon group.

It's quite common for such relationships to exist. The car industry is replete with examples. BMW for instance, has a model that is designed in Bavaria, built in Austria by a separate company and uses parts sourced from a number of suppliers such as Bosch and Hella.


PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2015 2:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Very interesting story, but it turns out that I do have a Tomioka 2.8 / 100 and is excellent. Really makes a difference with her glasses and asked why I want to see if I can put together a set Tomioka keep the same characteristics.
Best Regards.


PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2015 2:54 pm    Post subject: Re: This lens is made for Tomioka? Reply with quote
heritagecameras wrote:
francotirador wrote:
Chinon Multicoated 135 f2.8

Is tomioka made?

It's more likely to be a Cimko, in my opinion (check the elongated diamond focus index mark):

http://forum.mflenses.com/super-paragon-cimko-135mm-f2-8-t42752.html

...and you can see another on eBay as item number 121248256040 (not ours).


Yes, I agree. It's the same lens. I did not know the lens Cimko.


PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2015 3:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Tomioka 100/2.8 3200 asas f 2.8 handend.
http://forum.mflenses.com/chinon-tomioka-100mm-f2-8-t71816.html


PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2015 3:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
francotirador wrote:
Tomioka 100/2.8 3200 asas f 2.8 handend.
http://forum.mflenses.com/chinon-tomioka-100mm-f2-8-t71816.html

Very nice photos. The people look like they are having a good time.
BTW, nothing I wrote above about Tomioka lenses should be taken as a comment on their quality. To the best of my knowledge, the Revuenon Tomioka 55/1.4 in my possession is the only Tomioka-made lens I have ever held in my hands, so I have no basis to pronounce myself on the subject of the quality of Tomioka lenses. Mine is a very good lens, though nothing spectacular. I was only answering your question about whether Revuenon lenses were made by Tomioka.


PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2015 5:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
francotirador wrote:
Very interesting story, but it turns out that I do have a Tomioka 2.8 / 100 and is excellent. Really makes a difference with her glasses and asked why I want to see if I can put together a set Tomioka keep the same characteristics.
Best Regards.


I certainly believe you. My statement was not supposed to make those lenses bad but to question their prices nowadays.
As I clearly stated: There may be some good ones around, though I personally never tested those lenses. I am rather specialized on the brands mentioned in my signature and do not collect certain brands at all. I am not a fan of certain lenses for their "artistic" features as well. But that is clearly only a matter of taste. No need to argue about taste anyway.


PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2015 6:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
francotirador wrote:
Very interesting story, but it turns out that I do have a Tomioka 2.8 / 100 and is excellent. Really makes a difference with her glasses and asked why I want to see if I can put together a set Tomioka keep the same characteristics.
Best Regards.


It is true that the Tomioka cult status may be a little overblown, but I only have to use my superb Tomioka glass to remind myself of it's sublime excellence. Collectors of glass other than Tomioka tend to either dismiss Tomioka outright or they say, "I've owned a couple of those and they were awful." I never trust that last statement because a sampling of two lenses from one manufacturer just isn't enough to totally condemn them. Conspiracy theories about groups of sellers diabolically exaggerating brand reputations and inflating prices are laughable!

Go ahead and increase your Tomioka collection and find out for yourself. I think it is a very worthy pursuit. Your Tomioka 2.8 / 100 is an amazing lens as you already know.


PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2015 7:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have yet to see any proof of 'sublime excellence'' from Tomioka glass. I don't see how it differs from the products of any of the other 20 or 30 Japanese independent factories that used to exist. One aspect we know for sure that isn't better than the others is in QC, hence all the less than stellar copies. I personally had a Tomioka made 1.4/55 that was a real dog.

Also, as said earlier, probably only a small proportion of the lenses that people claim to be 'Tomioka' actually have anything to do with that company.

Another thing, aren't the Yashica lenses made by Tomioka? The Yashica DSB series are very ordinary. The ML series are good but definitely no better than the products of the other major makers.


PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2015 8:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Jeff Zen wrote:
Conspiracy theories about groups of sellers diabolically exaggerating brand reputations and inflating prices are laughable!


Well, I neither invented a theory nor do I find it laughable. For me it rather makes sense as the outcome of those activities clearly showed how easy you can manipulate pricing and that it has nothing to do with quality as such. Furthermore the hint that a lens was most probably produced by Tomioka is nowadays purely used to justify high pricing on *bay. That's more than obvious. There are more "Tomioka" lenses offered these days than Tomioka have ever produced. That is more laughable.

In fact we are talking here about an obviously very nice and usable lens which was produced by Cimko and branded as Chinon and which is also available with "Revuenon" branding, maybe with other branding too. So what?

However, at the end of the day you are free to pay whatever you like for whatever you are considering to be worth the money you are spending.

But to believe that a lens just because it was produced by Tomioka is far better than any comparable lens of that period is simply nonsense. Tomioka like most of the other "3rd party" lens producers have produced some better and some not so good lenses. There is no magic whatsoever on Tomioka glass. 20 years ago nobody on earth cared about Tomioka glass. I am in photography for more than 40 years and I've never heard anything about Tomioka until this "myth" was intentionally born.


PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2015 9:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:

Another thing, aren't the Yashica lenses made by Tomioka? The Yashica DSB series are very ordinary. The ML series are good but definitely no better than the products of the other major makers.


Out of my 10 lenses in 35mm focus length the Tomioka produced Yashica lens is by far the worst.
You can easily check that on my published test report here:
http://forum.mflenses.com/test-of-different-35mm-lenses-on-aps-c-sensor-t71258,highlight,%2B35mm+%2Btest.html

Last edited by tb_a on Mon Jul 13, 2015 9:53 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2015 9:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
I have yet to see any proof of 'sublime excellence'' from Tomioka glass. I don't see how it differs from the products of any of the other 20 or 30 Japanese independent factories that used to exist. One aspect we know for sure that isn't better than the others is in QC, hence all the less than stellar copies. I personally had a Tomioka made 1.4/55 that was a real dog.


Is it all possible that what you look for in a lens, and what I look for in a lens, in terms of what we consider excellence, might be different?To me optics are so varied in their characteristics that it can make blanket judgements entirely subjective. I think francotirador should be encouraged in his interest in Tomioka so he might report back on his findings. Giving him negative information about the brand he is interested in collecting is ok. The exchange of different view points is ultimately healthy, but I find being shot down in my interests by people here I respect to be a bit mean spirited. Imagine being told the brand you collect is considered the "worst" by someone. Crying or Very sad


PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2015 9:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
My only intention is to see if there are lenses that possess the same characteristics. It is almost a utopia but I really like the character of this glass. I really find it interesting the history of Tomioka, or Cimko that integer me thanks to all. I am not, collector, but I love investigate the glasses and find a hidden gem. I do not intend to argue and me is very valuable the opinion of all.
Thank you very much.

Best regards-

Sergio.


PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2015 9:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I don't wish to denigrate or disrespect anyone I just think that it is a good thing to point out the facts behind the legends and myths.

Tomioka have been making lenses for a very ling time, since before ww2. The fuss about them only began fairly recently and would seem to be due to the simple fact that Zeiss contracted with them to produce some of the Contax lenses.

Do we have any evidence to support the Tomioka myth? Did they make their glass or did they just buy it in from a big foundry such as Hoya? Did they have their own unique lens designs or did they produce the same generic designs as the many other makers?

Myth has to remain myth in the absence of supporting fact and I mean no disrespect in saying that.


PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2015 10:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have a Bower auto tele 135 that is very similar to the one in the first post. Optically it's only good for glowy artistic photos.


PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2015 10:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
It would be interesting to see if any Tomioka lenses actually have a reputation for being dogs? I've only ever read gushing praise for Tomioka, which seems to come from people selling the lens. Even Zeiss must have made a bad lens, it's inconceivable that Tomioka got it perfect every time?


PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2015 10:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
That's a good point Dave. One factor that makes it harder to make any meaningful assessment is the vast number of lenses that sellers claim are Tomioka but probably aren't.


PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2015 10:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
That's a good point Dave. One factor that makes it harder to make any meaningful assessment is the vast number of lenses that sellers claim are Tomioka but probably aren't.


Some sellers often "rebranded" almost all chinon lenses to sell like a tomioka made ones.

And what?

They are not Zeiss, nor Leitz or Leica, Nikon, Canon, Minolta, etc.

Perhaps Komine made better lenses or at least similar quality ones as Tomioka.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2