Tomioka, Zeiss, Mamiya and 55/1.4 design.

no-X

Well...

story #1: There is a lot of japanese 55/1.4 M42 lenses. All of them have similar look, similar construction and the same performance. Maybe Tomioka was the first company, which used this optical design - anyway, the lenses weren't manufactured only by Tomioka, but by other companies (e.g. Cosina) and many of them were manufactured for "3rd party" brands (Porst, Revue, Vivitar etc.).

story #2: Zeiss: Johannes Berger invented 55/1.4 Planar lens in 1957. According to some sources (mostly http://www.taunusreiter.de/) this design wasn't used for Zeiss lenses, because Erhard Glatzel invented 50/1.4 Planar lens, which was better. Berger's Planar was licenced to other manufacturers.

story #3: Before Zeiss started to cooperate with Pentax, there was some cooperation with Tomioka. E.g. Tomioka 55/1.2 is said to be based on this cooperation.

Here are some facts:

fact #1: Tomioka's 55/1.4 lens is 7/5 (or 1-2 | 2-1-1)

fact #2: Mamiya 55/1.4 lens, which is sometimes referred as licenced Bergers Planar, is 7/5 (or 1-2 | 2-1-1)

fact #3: Bergers Planar 55/1.4 is 7/5 (or 1-2 | 2-1-1)

fact #4: all Tomioka lenses, which Tomika desgined for Yashica at that time, has no cemented doublet in the front group. 50/2, 50/1.7, 50/1.4 and 55/1.2 - all of them have 3 lenses in 3 groups (typical Ultron scheme). Only the 55/1.4 lens, has 3 lenses i 2 groups (one cemented doublet). => all Tomioka (Yashica) standard lenses are based on Ultron scheme, but Tomioka 55/1.4 isn't

fact #5: Tomioka designs were used in lenses manufactured for Yashica. E.g. the Tomoka's 55/1.2 lens is also known as Yashinon 55/1.2. This lens was also known as Cosinon 55/1.2, Chinon 55/1.2 etc. The 55/1.4 design was also used for Cosionons, Chinons, Revuenons etc., but never as Yashinon. Why?

...let the conspiracy theory begin Very Happy

[wild speculation]
Isn't it possible, that Zeiss gave Berger's planar design (or its early version) to Tomioka in exchange for other technology/resources? I'm not sure, why was Zeiss interested in cooperation with Tomioka, but they certainly had something, what Zeiss wanted (speculation: Zeiss could use Tomioka's computing resources at that time). Anyway, the lens scheme is different to all other M42 Tomioka/Yashica standard primes; this could explain the difference.

Yashica never offered this 55/1.4 lens. Yahinon 50/1.4 isn't better than the 55/1.4 (at least according to my opinion), so I see no reason why would Tomioka develop it for Yashica, if they could use the 55/1.4. That could indicate, that Tomioka couldn't use it. Maybe there was a contract between Zeiss and Tomioka, that Tomioka can use the design only as independent company.

Later the design get to Cosina, which manufactured this lens for many various brands (Cosina also manufactured Porst 55/1.2 K-mount lens, which is also based on 55/1.2 Tomioka design).

I have no explanation, how could Mamiya get the 55/1.4 design (maybe they licenced it directly from Zeiss, maybe from Tomioka, maybe their lens was made by Cosina, too).
[/wild speculation]

Please notice, that these three lenses shares quite similar indicia; two of them were marked "Tomioka Yashinon" (not any other M42 Yashinon had "Tomioka" in its name):

55/1.2
- designed during cooperation with Zeiss
- Yashica used it, but lens was called "Tomioka-Yashinon"
- lens was sold to differend brands, too
- lens design got to Cosina later (Porst K 55/1.2)
60/2.8 Macro
- one of two lenses, which was called "Tomioka-Yashinon"
- sold only under Tomioka-Yashinon brand
- lens scheme is typical 5-element Planar (very typical for Zeiss products at that time, I don't know about any Japanese lens, which used it at that time)
55/1.4
- design differs to all other Tomioka 50mm products
- never sold under Yashica brand
- lens design got to Cosina later

I think these three lenses were developed together with Zeiss, but there was probably some kind of contract which stated, that these lenses can be sold only under Tomioka brand.

That would explain, why all other Yashinon lenses states only "Yashinon", while 55/1.2 and 60/2.8 states "Tomioka-Yashinon". Yashica probably didn't want standard 55/1.4 lens with "Tomioka" label, so 50/1.4 Yashinon was developed to avoid it. But all 55/1.4 Chinons and Revuenons, which were made at that time, states "Tomioka-Chinon", "Tomioka-Revuenon" etc.

Orio · Expire: 2012-12-04

It wouldn't surprise me if Zeiss licensed some of their lenses to other brands. They often did (with Rollei, with Pentax, even with Leica, and now they're doing it with Sony).

luisalegria · Expire: 2018-01-18

Some comments -

I have seen the 2.8/60 Macro as a Mamiya, with no Tomioka label, and I believe also a Miranda.

The 1.4/55 was also sold in large numbers by Ricoh - made by Cosina ?

The 1.4/55 Ricoh is apparently identical in every dimension to the 1.4/55 Mamiya, etc. The elements seem to be interchangable. Its not just a similar formula.

The 1.8/55 lenses supplied by Yashica, Mamiya, Ricoh, and probably others also seem identical, Bill (casualcollector) did a side-by-side comparison here some time ago.

http://forum.mflenses.com/m-42-normals-different-but-the-same-t10400,highlight,tomioka.html

ramiller500 · Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 2:13 pm Post subject:

Zeiss did use their 55mm/1.4 Planar design for the Contarex SLR.

See http://www.imx.nl/photo/zeiss/zeiss/page67.html

Also http://www.pacificrimcamera.com/pp/zeiss/contarex/normals.htm

http://www.photomoritz.com/contarex/crex_lenses.html

It would be very helpful if Japanese sources could confirm or at least address the theory of this article. This and previous speculative articles related to Tomioka's non-Yashica lenses are only guesses.

I've wondered if the very sharp 50mm/2.0 Mamiya Sekor lens design was that of the Zeiss Planar 50mm/2.0 lens for the Contarex. This description is in my last link above:

"Planar 50mm f2.0

Introduced in 1958 together with - and as THE standard lens for the Contarex Bullseye. 6 lenses in 4 groups, closes down to f22, nearest focus of 30cm and B56 filter bayonet as well as an 49mm thread. Produced in chrome and later, with the introduction of the Contarex Professional in black (as all lenses previously manufactured in chrome only) with chrome focus ring. In 1965 a second version the Blitz-Planar has been added. The most common lens for Contarex, approx. 38000 pcs. have been manufactured. "

ramiller500 · Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 3:07 pm Post subject:

This Mamiya Sekor 60mm/2.8 macro lens is thought to be the same design as the Tomioka, and was possibly made by Tomioka:

http://freenet-homepage.de/stauber/mamiya-nc/m42_mamiya_60_2.8.htm

estudleon · Joined: 15 May 2008 Posts: 3754 Location: Argentina

PBFACTS · Joined: 24 Dec 2008 Posts: 565

lwsy711 · Joined: 21 Oct 2009 Posts: 230 Location: VA, US

Bought a cosinon-s mc 55/1.2 recently, does anyone know if the optics design is same as tomioka or as porst 55/1.2? I heard the design of porst 55/1.2 is different from tomioka on optics.

This lens has pk mount, f1.2-f16 and 8 aperture blades. Only can find something related to this lens in Japanese and Korean, seems like it was sold mainly in asia, is that true?

no-X · Posted: Thu Nov 26, 2009 10:09 pm Post subject:

I have both Tomioka Yashinon and Porst MC 55/1.2 K. Size and location of inner reflections (flash-light test) is the same, number of the reflections is the same. Performance and bokeh are exactly the same - the only difference is contrast and color cast (different coating).

Different optical formula is the later 55/1.2 K Revuenon.

I have no idea, if your Cosinon shares the same optical scheme of the old Tomioka, or the new Revuenon.

hinnerker · Expire: 2015-08-09

I do have two Porst 1.2/55mm, one with a leading zero... the left one with a lot higher serial 59xxxx

A member of a german forum do own a Tominon/Tomioka labeled lens, which is the same. The mechanical difference you can find in the direction, the aperture blades closes...

The porst closes counterclockwise, and the Tominon clockwise.. thats all.
Maybe i can find the image of the Tominon in my album in the next days.

For me, the lenses seemed to be identical.. in terms of glasses and formula.

Cheers
Henry

hinnerker · Expire: 2015-08-09

And here a pic of a so called "Revuenon Tomioka".. but i think, thats a fake..

I did see pictures of the Yashinon Tomioka, where the blade closing direction is the same as the porst and not as the Revuenon..

Mysterious..

Cheers
Henry

lwsy711 · Joined: 21 Oct 2009 Posts: 230 Location: VA, US

Jiri and Henry,
Thanks for the information, here is the lens I got. To me, the structure is more like Porst and seems like cosina did product some 55/1.2 lenses under the name "cosinon". Googled this question and seems like there is only one guy in pentaxforums asked this question and did not get very clear answer. But do say some people in Japan, China and Korea selling this lens......
Anyway the performance is more important, will test it as soon as I got my camera back Smile

Sorry for off the topic and please continue,
Wei

Pancolart · Expire: 2013-11-18

I know it might be a long shot but...

Do Mamiya M42 1.4/55mm and Voigtl�nder Nokton 58mm f/1.4 have anything in common except appearance? They really look so similar.

ChrisLilley · Joined: 01 Jan 2008 Posts: 1767 Location: Nice, France

Pancolart · Expire: 2013-11-18

Thank's Chris, now i have to find Mamiya formula too.

no-X · Posted: Sun Nov 29, 2009 10:27 pm Post subject:

Here:

http://www.taunusreiter.de/Cameras/RolleiflexSL35E.html

Nokton is Ultron (front group is not cemented), while Mamyia 55/1.4, Tomioka 55/1.4, Berger's Planar 55/1.4 and even CZJ Pancolar 55/1.4 are 7/5 Planars (1-2|2-1-1) - just like Biotar with one more element added in the rear group.

Pancolart · Expire: 2013-11-18

Thank's No-X. What about production? Nokton doesn't look so much as Mamiya SX model but like this Auto: http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4377028

no-X · Posted: Mon Nov 30, 2009 9:15 am Post subject:

Maybe they were manufactured by the same factory... just a guess.

Pancolart · Expire: 2013-11-18

Splendid, so for now you at least allow the possibility. I thought my assumption will be dismissed easily.

estudleon · Joined: 15 May 2008 Posts: 3754 Location: Argentina

LucisPictor · Expire: 2013-12-03

Very interesting discussion. Smile

Pancolart · Expire: 2013-11-18

Do you know which design 1.4/50(55)mm lets you come closer to the object? It could be a nice way to differentiate producers too.

patrickh · Expire: 2011-11-18

The amount of information available on this forum is staggering

patrickh

dimitrygo · Joined: 01 Apr 2009 Posts: 561

dimitrygo · Joined: 01 Apr 2009 Posts: 561