Mamiya 1,8/55 and 2/50

[papasito]

From the TL series lenses, with chrome nose, mamiya (like the other brands) made (by themselves?) three normals lenses in M42

The 1,4 (55 mm). It should be made in two optical formulas. The second since "made in japan" version.

I read in some places that the first version was made by tomioka and the second should be a copy of the german Zeiss contarexes 55/1,4 lens, yes, the same lens made time later for the rolleiflex cameras, known as rolleinar 55/1,4.

The 1,7 (55 mm)

The first version was 6/4 schame and was made in the chrome nose time (TL lenses)

The second version, 6/5 with separate 3 front elements, should be made for the all black versions (DTL and SX cameras lenses)

But I found DTL version with 6/4 schame (known for the 5 reflections front elements).

The SX 55/1,7 had an excellent fame, especially in the center of the image at F/5,6-8 (the numbers of the tests seem very difficult to beat, f.e. 96 lines/mm)

After that, the 55 mm lens was made in 6/5 schame but with 50 mm FL, no more 55 mm.

The 2/50 was made without changes from the TL to the rolleinar 2/50 mm lenses.

Anybody had experience with the both 1,8/55 and the 2/50?

Rendering differences among them?

Thanks.

Horacio.

[leonAzul]

From owning several Z-series and DTL-series bodies, I have accumulated a number of copies of the 50/2.0 lens in several mounts. They are all nearly identical, which says something for their consistency. I would describe them as excellent "kit lenses", so if you happen to acquire one, please enjoy it for what it is, but I wouldn't go out of my way to buy one.

The 50/2.0s have above average resolution well into the corners, and they render very neutrally with regard to distortion, contrast, and color. They are so neutral, I could well understand how someone might find them boring and characterless. On their native mounts, they are very forgiving and easy to focus. In short, a gateway lens.

Where they fail miserably is with chromatic aberrations and coma. Taking snapshots and simple compositions, they are aces, just as a good kit lens ought to be. Any attempt to use more extreme selective focus is immediately punished with the most nauseating red-green fringeing I have had the displeasure to see. The blur is like devil-spawn anti-bokeh. It's truly nasty, rendering solid and distinct edges where a smooth blur would be more desirable.

Among the so-called normal lenses that Mamiya produced for the 135 format, the 50/1.7 is the real sleeper, IMHO. It has all the sharpness of its brethren, and it is very well corrected for aberrations. To the best of my knowledge, however, it was only produced for the ZE mount, that is to say for the E and EF lens series, which makes it difficult, but not impossible, to adapt to contemporary cameras.

[WNG555]

I had acquired a 55mm f1.8 Auto that came off a DTL 1000.
I found it to be an excellent lens. Very nice bokeh, very good resolution. But I think the Super Takumar 55 f1.8 edges pass it.

Also have an Auto 50mm f/2, unknown vintage as I bought it alone.
It's resolution and color are also excellent, the 1.8 is a bit sharper. I don't remember being nauseated by horrible bokeh, but I haven't tried it for bokeh goaled shots.

I have sample shots from each in albums in my flickr.

[TrueLoveOne]

Mine (2.0/50) came from a DTL1000 body, didn't use it a lot yet, just played around with it one evening, wide open shot:

Mamiya bokeh! by René Maly, on Flickr

[papasito]

[WNG555]

I took a look and the 55 f1.8 came from a DTL.

Wide open at f1.8, it's very close between the S. Takumar and Mamiya Auto. But my eyes find the Pentax to produce a more pleasing and clearer center in my photos. Stopping them down and the choice is difficult, they are so similar. This is comparing them when close shooting, but I am more a landscape shooter. And this is where I prefer the Takumar. and makes it superior overall.

I didn't purposely compare the two Mamiyas against each other. Since there is a slight difference in focal length.
The f/2 is a very good lens in my opinion, but how it looks comparing centers, its f/2 performance is matched by the 55 at f/1.8, and stopping both down, they get sharper but one seems a step better.

In the end, on my APS-C, there will be a point both are indistinguishable shooting the same subject.

[Oldhand]

I don't think that there will much difference in rendering between these two lenses - opinion of course as I don't have both of them.
What I do have are Mamiya 55/1.8, 55/1.4 and Super-Takumar 55/1.8.
Since it is wet outside and I can't get to my workshop at the moment I decided to try a simple little comparison.
Here are the three lenses with the same shot.
The 1.8's are wide open and the 1.4 is set at f2

Mamiya 55/1.8



Mamiya 55/1.4 set @ f2



Super-Takumar 55/1.8



I might have not always achieved the same focus point in each image, but I think you will get the idea.
Not much difference is there.
OH

[papasito]

[papasito]

[leonAzul]

[WNG555]

Ah no big deal!

I really like the results of the 1st photo, very nice! I see what you mean regarding the hard edge-ness.
The water droplet bokeh!

[ramiller500]

leonAzul,

Did the oily film you needed to remove come from the lubricating grease in the lenses or from some other source? I've had some luck using isopropanol to remove oil from glass surfaces.

[leonAzul]