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

f/1.4 lenses: Yashinon, Sears, Auto Revuenon, and Pentax
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu Mar 06, 2014 1:55 pm    Post subject: f/1.4 lenses: Yashinon, Sears, Auto Revuenon, and Pentax Reply with quote
I read some posts recently about Auto Sears 55/1.4, Auto Revuenon 50/1.4, and Auto Yashinon-DS 50/1.4. I already had SMC Pentax-M 50/1.4 so I want to collect and compare the others. Costed me $230 to get all these three and I think they're very worthy.

I just received three of them at once, and the Pentax is not here so I will compare later.

Regarding the size, Auto Sears > Auto Yashinon-DS > Auto Revuenon. There are about 2mm differences in diameter as I estimated. Only Auto Revuenon has PK mount, others have M42 mount. I took me a while to fix the problem with the pin on the rear part of Auto Yashinon, it won't be pressed, so the lens is in A mode and the aperture is always opened. I had to use glue to fix the pin to the pressed state, it seems fine now. As I know, this Auto Sears may be Tomioka made but I don't know about the others.

The outlooks, photos taken by Chinon 50/1.9 on my 450D





I think it would be fun if I just show the photos taken by these lenses, in the same conditions, then people can guess Cool
One of these lens took more lights and it looks like f/1.2 to me. I provided the 100% crop also, but I don't see much difference in IQ. These photos were taken by Canon 450D, at 1/125 sec, ISO 100, wide open, low light condition. The focus of the first photo is a bit closer then the other two, it's so difficult to shoot at a correct focus point with all of these lenses Confused



I will make other tests later.

So which one is which Very Happy ?

Last edited by Langstrum on Thu Mar 06, 2014 2:03 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Thu Mar 06, 2014 2:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
1.7, 1.8, 1.9 lenses are usually better than their 1.4 counterparts so I don't see much point in collecting 1.4 lenses, they are more expensive, larger, heavier and in most cases, inferior.

If focus s correct, only the first of the three has any sharpness, and that isn't very sharp, the other two are poor, sorry to say.


PostPosted: Thu Mar 06, 2014 2:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
1.7, 1.8, 1.9 lenses are usually better than their 1.4 counterparts so I don't see much point in collecting 1.4 lenses, they are more expensive, larger, heavier and in most cases, inferior.

If focus s correct, only the first of the three has any sharpness, and that isn't very sharp, the other two are poor, sorry to say.


I actually read many discussion about that and I agree with you for the most part. I did a comparison in the past among the three SMC Pentax 1.7 1.4 1.2 and 1.7 is as good as 1.2 in term of sharpness. But it's not all about the sharpness, shallower DOF is good to create artistic effect and one more stop is an advantage in low light conditions. I'm doing other test but I'm pretty sure at f/1.7 and about f/2 they're all sharp, as good as their counterparts do.

I tried to find cheap ones, so actually they're not much more expensive than a 1.7 lens.


PostPosted: Thu Mar 06, 2014 2:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
For me it seems like that none of the Photos is focused correctly.


PostPosted: Thu Mar 06, 2014 2:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Base on the focus on the book, it may be correct. I'll try again, this object is also not good to test the sharpness.
I'm sorry, they should be much better Crying or Very sad


PostPosted: Thu Mar 06, 2014 6:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
From those 3 1.4s my guess is that 55 1.4 is the sharpest. But keep in mind that those lenses are not made for that close distance and if you test them at portrait distance the result may be different.


PostPosted: Thu Mar 06, 2014 8:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I guess those pictures are made at f 1.4 . It just shows how it is difficult to focus at this aperture.
Forums are full with unsharp pictures. This is due to this nowadays obsession for bokeh and for fast lenses. You loose the 3D qualities of lenses.
Test you lenses at 5.6 from a distance or at f2.8 for portrait. This tells you more about them.


PostPosted: Thu Mar 06, 2014 9:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The extremely shallow DOF at f1.4 makes focusing a tricky affair with these lenses wide open.
I have found that by using live view it is so much easier. I engage live view and crank up the magnification moving the focus square around to where I want the point of focus.
I am pretty sure that the 450D has live view - give it a go, it may help you too.
OH


PostPosted: Thu Mar 06, 2014 10:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The 450d has live view but it's useless for focusing - no magnify.


PostPosted: Thu Mar 06, 2014 10:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
1.7, 1.8, 1.9 lenses are usually better than their 1.4 counterparts.


But not with Canon, Olympus, Nikon and Pentax. Yashinons are indeed average, I've had two and neither impressed me. I've also seen people complain about Tomioka, although I've got last week and it does not look bad.


PostPosted: Fri Mar 07, 2014 3:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
The 450d has live view but it's useless for focusing - no magnify.


I hate to contradict you my friend, but I just checked my 450D in live view. If you press the button on the top right of the back of the camera, one press does a 5x view, another press gives a 10x, another press takes it back to 1x.


PostPosted: Fri Mar 07, 2014 3:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
If you keep the Yashinon DS, plan on never using it with any full frame Canon body you may acquire. It, and the F 1.7 variants from that era (1965-early 1970"s) smack the mirror on FF canon bodies. The 1.4 Yashica ML lens however, is perfectly usable on them (and I would suspect a better lens to boot)


PostPosted: Fri Mar 07, 2014 3:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I would agree pick an easier subject to focus on if you are using it at 1.4.I personally applaud you for wanting to post up a "test" image for these lenses, just take your time.

I have the Auto Rikenon 1.4/55 which I believe is the same as the sears you have, but with a silver ring around the mount that the rounded M-A switch sits on.


PostPosted: Fri Mar 07, 2014 4:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
simbon4o wrote:
From those 3 1.4s my guess is that 55 1.4 is the sharpest. But keep in mind that those lenses are not made for that close distance and if you test them at portrait distance the result may be different.

Your guess seems to be corrected, Sears is slightly better in term of sharpness. Since I just tested these lenses within my limited room, I chose close distance. Today I will go out to shoot, I hope to see something better.

Quote:
I guess those pictures are made at f 1.4 . It just shows how it is difficult to focus at this aperture.
Forums are full with unsharp pictures. This is due to this nowadays obsession for bokeh and for fast lenses. You loose the 3D qualities of lenses.
Test you lenses at 5.6 from a distance or at f2.8 for portrait. This tells you more about them.

Yes, they were made at f/1.4. Vintage lenses normally are not sharp at wide open, so I want to see whether these lenses have the same problem. So far I have only the Carl Zeiss Tessar 50/2.8, Vega 11U, and Auto Sears 135/2.8 are sharp wide open. Thank you for your suggestion, I'm going to test again in this way.

Quote:
The extremely shallow DOF at f1.4 makes focusing a tricky affair with these lenses wide open.
I have found that by using live view it is so much easier. I engage live view and crank up the magnification moving the focus square around to where I want the point of focus.
I am pretty sure that the 450D has live view - give it a go, it may help you too.

Yes, indeed. I actually used the live view to focus, or I would come up with too much difference among these photos. However, it's better to have a tripod to have a very accurate focus, since I focused on the eye, pressed the button, and then it's shifted to the nose Sad. Focusing for portrait about at least 1m away is easier, I should do that.

Quote:
The 450d has live view but it's useless for focusing - no magnify.

Quote:
I hate to contradict you my friend, but I just checked my 450D in live view. If you press the button on the top right of the back of the camera, one press does a 5x view, another press gives a 10x, another press takes it back to 1x.

anscochrome is right, 450D has the magnification in live view, and I did used the 10x magnification to focus. One thing about this tool I don't really like is it's easily to lose the overall composition when I tried to focus correctly while my hand is quite shaking. In my Powershot SX1 IS, the magnification is in the center of the live view screen, only a small rectangular area in the center, so I can control both the focus and composition, but the negative thing is I can't check the off-center focus.

Quote:
If you keep the Yashinon DS, plan on never using it with any full frame Canon body you may acquire. It, and the F 1.7 variants from that era (1965-early 1970"s) smack the mirror on FF canon bodies. The 1.4 Yashica ML lens however, is perfectly usable on them (and I would suspect a better lens to boot)

Thank you for your warning, I also read it before. I think the problem is because of the pin on the rear part of the lens. Normally it protrudes over the adapter and may touch anything behind, that's why it smacks the mirror. But I glued the pin in order to switch it to the full manual mode, so it's just 3mm longer than the end of the M42 screw mount and in the adapter, it even doesn't reach to the electrical contact of the AF confirm chip, so there is no way it can touch anything else. I'll buy 6D and will confirm it later Very Happy.
I actually planned to search for Yashica ML since I was impressed with the reviews, but this lens is much more expensive than the Auto Yashinon DX Crying or Very sad

Quote:
I would agree pick an easier subject to focus on if you are using it at 1.4.I personally applaud you for wanting to post up a "test" image for these lenses, just take your time.

I have the Auto Rikenon 1.4/55 which I believe is the same as the sears you have, but with a silver ring around the mount that the rounded M-A switch sits on.

One reason I collected lenses because of what I read from other people who tested and reviewed them, so I want to do the same, but it takes time to make a good technique for judging them. I also found that your lens and Auto Sears are very similar and they're made by Tomioka. Among these 1.4 lens, I really like the Auto Revuenon and I found a version with Tomioka written on the name plate, so maybe my lens has the same origin.


PostPosted: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Gardener wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
1.7, 1.8, 1.9 lenses are usually better than their 1.4 counterparts.


But not with Canon, Olympus, Nikon and Pentax. Yashinons are indeed average, I've had two and neither impressed me. I've also seen people complain about Tomioka, although I've got last week and it does not look bad.


the 55 f1.8-2 Takumar is a really very good lens. I wonder if it is inferior to the 1.4. My SMC 55/2 which is in better condition than my STs is really sharp and gives very good subjective results.
Actually I have never seen a comparaison between the SMCs 1.4 and 1.8 or M 1.4 and 1.7 . It would be intersting.


PostPosted: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
memetph wrote:
Gardener wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
1.7, 1.8, 1.9 lenses are usually better than their 1.4 counterparts.


But not with Canon, Olympus, Nikon and Pentax. Yashinons are indeed average, I've had two and neither impressed me. I've also seen people complain about Tomioka, although I've got last week and it does not look bad.


the 55 f1.8-2 Takumar is a really very good lens. I wonder if it is inferior to the 1.4. My SMC 55/2 which is in better condition than my STs is really sharp and gives very good subjective results.
Actually I have never seen a comparaison between the SMCs 1.4 and 1.8 or M 1.4 and 1.7 . It would be intersting.

I don't have Takumar, but here I have a test that I did last month with my SMC Pentax-M 50 1.7 1.4 1.2, compared with the Canon EF 50/1.8
First test is wide open, 1/160s, ISO200, closest focus. I didn't change anything.



Second one is at f/2.8 (the last one should be Canon, I mistyped it)




Overall, 1.7 wins, and second place is 1.2. I was quite frustrated with the nifty fifty but since f/2.8 is not that bad and it's AF, so it's still usable. 1.2 always show the best in the light absorbing capability, and the contrast is good.

That's why I agreed with iangreenhalgh1, at least it's true to SMC Pen series.


PostPosted: Fri Mar 07, 2014 6:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I am pretty sure that you missed the focus with the 1.4 pentax. It is not that soft, halo and fringe yes but detail must be there. Smile


PostPosted: Fri Mar 07, 2014 9:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
simbon4o wrote:
I am pretty sure that you missed the focus with the 1.4 pentax. It is not that soft, halo and fringe yes but detail must be there. Smile

I had the same thought, but somehow that occurred with other shots too. At f/2.8 you can see that 1.4 lens is also quite worse than 1.7 and 1.2. I hope that it's just my technical problem. I will definitely try again to make sure that's correct.

So today I repeated the test with these 1.4 lens, and I added Pentax-M 50/1.4. From f/2.8, I also compared them with Carl Zeiss Tessar 50/2.8. This time I chose a subject with clearer details and shot about 1m away. First comparison was at f/1.4, then 2.8, and finally f/4. The orders are the same. It's easy to see that Auto Revuenon and Pentax-M took more light than the others and the contrast of CZ is the worst. In term of sharpness, Pentax, Yashinon, Sears are better at wide open, and down to f/4 Revuenon and Yashinon are the best, others are quite similar.

f/1.4




f/2.8




f/4




I didn't have any chance to shoot portrait, so I used the Revuenon lens on the way back home to shoot outdoor. I personally like this lens among these f/1.4. Here are several shoots I made at f/1.4. A little boost in sharpness and brightness were used to enhance the photos.







PostPosted: Fri Mar 07, 2014 9:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
As 'mo' wrote, your Sears looks just like my Auto Rikenon 1.4/55 and it's the sharpest lens I have. Even wide-open it's sharper than Pentax-M 50/1.7, Super Takumar 50/2, Auto Revuenon 50/1.7, Porst 55/1.7 and both my copies of Helios 44. For portraits in good light, when I don't need thin DOF I use f/2.8 and it's razor sharp from this aperture. The sweet spot of this lens is f/5.6 and it's razor sharp throughout APS-C. However as I said, the lens is pretty sharp from f/1.4, so for close ups and portraits with thin DOF, when sharp corners aren't important, it handles great.
Here are some photos taken with that lens: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mateuszmolik/sets/72157634284613385/

I cannot agree with 'memetph' about testing the f/1.4 lenses at f/5.6, well you buy f/1.4 lens not for showing of with big front lens, but to use it wide open, so testing them wide open is just obvious first thing to do. Of course checking how the lens handle 2.8 or 5.6 is also important, but for me it's territory where almost all ~50mm lenses work great, so even if the lens is good at 2.8 or 5.6 but crappy at 1.4 it's still a crappy/expensive lens, because you can shoot at 5.6 with almost every 50ish lens with great results.

Mateusz

Anyway, I don't envy you time, when you'll have to choose which one of these fine lenses to leave and which to sell Very Happy. It's always the hardest part for me.


PostPosted: Fri Mar 07, 2014 11:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
PhantomLord wrote:
As 'mo' wrote, your Sears looks just like my Auto Rikenon 1.4/55 ..........


Yep, my Rikenon 1.4/55 as well, it's a great lens, i love it a lot!!


PostPosted: Fri Mar 07, 2014 11:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
You have some great lenses so when you have finished testing just enjoy them.

Mateusz,you have some great images on your flickr.


PostPosted: Fri Mar 07, 2014 11:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
mo wrote:
I have the Auto Rikenon 1.4/55 which I believe is the same as the sears you have, but with a silver ring around the mount that the rounded M-A switch sits on.


If I remember correctly your version of Rikenon has a rim around the rear element so most chances it is a bit different from this Sears.


PostPosted: Fri Mar 07, 2014 11:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
The only difference is the silver ring, is that what you mean by the rim? Do the other Auto Rikenons 1.4/55 mentioned have this ring? It just might be a cosmetic difference.


PostPosted: Fri Mar 07, 2014 12:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
mo wrote:
The only difference is the silver ring, is that what you mean by the rim? Do the other Auto Rikenons 1.4/55 mentioned have this ring? It just might be a cosmetic difference.

Here is your lens' rear element from your post http://forum.mflenses.com/my-little-identification-discovery-tomioka-myth-busted-t55122,start,75.html#1287331


And here is a rear element of the most common Rikenon/Sears lens


You see, your lens has a rim around the rear element and also a shape of A/M switches is different. So we are talking about 2 different versions. They could be identical optically but we cannot be absolutely sure.


PostPosted: Fri Mar 07, 2014 12:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
I cannot agree with 'memetph' about testing the f/1.4 lenses at f/5.6, well you buy f/1.4 lens not for showing of with big front lens, but to use it wide open, so testing them wide open is just obvious first thing to do. Of course checking how the lens handle 2.8 or 5.6 is also important, but for me it's territory where almost all ~50mm lenses work great, so even if the lens is good at 2.8 or 5.6 but crappy at 1.4 it's still a crappy/expensive lens, because you can shoot at 5.6 with almost every 50ish lens with great results.

Mateusz

Anyway, I don't envy you time, when you'll have to choose which one of these fine lenses to leave and which to sell Very Happy. It's always the hardest part for me.

I totally agree with you. At f/5.6 they're almost the same, so there is no sense in having f/1.4 lens.
Actually I don't plan to sell any of my lenses, except for buying a better version. To me, their value is much higher than their price. I love this optic system and I want to collect the good ones in my collection. That's something to do for my whole life and I can be proud of. Recently I had to sell the Cyclop to buy Helios 40, even though Cyclop is not as good as Helios 40, when it left me, I started to miss it. I never get bored with them.
But it's attempting to sell my Sears to get the Rikenon LOL. Your gallery is very lovely. Now I understand your praise for this lens.

mo wrote:
The only difference is the silver ring, is that what you mean by the rim? Do the other Auto Rikenons 1.4/55 mentioned have this ring? It just might be a cosmetic difference.


I also found that there are two versions of Rikenon, one looks exactly like my Sears and one has a silver ring. It may be just for decoration? I thought that it's because of different mount, but actually they're all M42.


Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2