Chinon Auto 1.4/55 on NEX-3

Attila · Expire: 2025-11-18

shoot to infinity wide open is simple silly, I can't bring similar samples easily like drive reverse on motorway ? may close to that, none of the lenses designed for that. They made for proper usage.

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

The closest to wide open at infinity I have done with success was some shots on FP4 with my Contax Sonnar 1.5/50 inside my local church, those came out very nice, but the maximum distance was probably about 70 metres and it was of course, subdued light rather than direct sun and with BW film, CA is hardly an issue.

fermy · Joined: 17 Feb 2012 Posts: 1974

Pancolart · Expire: 2013-11-18

Fine shots Fermy.

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

Those are nice shots but we've gone way too far off-topic now, sorry. I use a tripod 75% of the time, I find it much more to my liking. Attila is right, shooting wide open at infinity is stupid, an ultrawide lens at night is such a different set of circumstances however, that it doesn't fit at all into the discussion at hand, I'm afraid.

Because the previous test shots were so flawed, I decided to make some of my own. They are overexposed because it's a bright sunny day and the maximum shutter speed of my NEX-3 is 1/4000, so right off the bat, you see how silly wide open shooting is when there is ample light.

Miranda 1.4/50:

Konica 1.4/50

Chinon 1.4/55

Personally, I think this lens comparing is a waste of time, only by using a lens properly for proper photography can you really learn about how a lens performs. Clearly, the Chinon is the weakest of the three, the way the left hand side is so bad makes me wonder if there is a slightly misaligned element.

fermy · Joined: 17 Feb 2012 Posts: 1974

Well, such trivialities as staying on topic never going to stop me from posting some pics Laughing

That being said, 20mm on m4/3 is not an ultrawide, it's a normal lens for that system. Sadly, our favorite nifty fifties do have a weakness for wide open architecture shots and I don't think it's completely silly to want to take such shots. I've posted mine to show when and why you would want them. I take shots of this type quite often, just not with MF 50mms.

Coming back to the topic, I think your Chinon is faulty, Ian, that's all there is to it. What Pancolart posted shows that there is very little difference between a good copy of this lens and top brand name lenses such as Konica and Canon FD.

I think we've all experienced that a lens that looks pristine can be an ugly dog. I do agree with you that the chance of that happening with a third party lens is higher than with a top brand such as Canon or Konica. After all those lenses were designed to provide a cheaper alternative to the same Canons and Konicas, so the corners had to be cut somewhere. On the other hand, premium third party lenses such as Vivitar S1 (while S1 was still meaningful), their macros, Soligor C/D line, etc, weren't exactly cheap and do give brand names a run for the money or even surpass them in some cases.

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

Oh don't worry, it is trivial and I wasn't having a go, i was just saying, I know bugger all about the Pany 20 or M4/3 so I can't get into such a discussion in any meaningful way. I liked the pics so it's all cool here. Smile

I fully agree with you about the Chinon, it's a pristine doggie, not my first and won't be my last.

I agree about the better third party stuff, the Kiron 2/28 and 2/35 would be exemplars, and the Tamron 2.5/90 and the Tokina and Kiron macros, in zooms, the Tokina AT-X 28-135 is perhaps the sharpest zoom I have ever tried and the AT-X 4/80-200 is one of the better ones too.

I do think that there's an important distinction between the third party stuff that was intended to compete with the big boys and the lower level third party stuff that is by and large, substandard for use today, not all of it is substandard, by a lot of it is, after all, it was intended for use by casual shooters in an age when 6x4 machine prints were the norm.

I think that it's a good idea to avoid the lower level third party stuff by and large, because often, with a little patience, you can find lenses that are known good ones like Minolta MD, Canon FD etc can be just as cheap. Of course, for the DSLR users, it can be more difficult, but still, there are plenty of good but cheap lenses around, I keep being tempted to try some Zuikos because they are definitely underpriced right now for their quality and so common.

Pancolart · Expire: 2013-11-18

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

No, it's not been hit or damaged, it will have been assembled incorrectly before it left the factory, it doesn't have a mark on it.

Please Jure, don't keep telling me what to do, maybe you think you're being helpful, but no, you're not, in fact, you've been a really big pain in the bum and no help in the slightest, quite the opposite. I knew what was going on with this lens, others agreed with me and showed samples from their copies that illustrated the difference between a good copy and a bad one. Without your interference, this thread was over after a couple of pages and a nice consensus opinion had been reached - the Chinon 1.4/55 is a decent lens but the copy I have is not representative because it has issues. That was my original viewpoint and it hasn't changed, so all the arguing was totally unnecessary and just wasted my time and caused me a headache.

It was obvious early on that the lens had a misaligned element, I said it several times. One of the copies of the Canon FD 1.4/50 I had suffered from the same issue. The curvature of field resulting in a smeary looking image on one side of the frame that you get when an element is misaligned was apparent to me from the first time I used the lens.

I shouldn't have had to take the pains I did to prove I was right about the lens being a bad copy, in all, it's been a very annoying experience and made me wonder why I bother sharing my results because I knew what was going on with this lens after the first time I used it, and all the subsequent shooting with it served no purpose other than to defend my original finding from people who became too emotionally involved in the status of a lens that isn't their property and shouldn't really be any of their business.

Honestly, I might not post any more lens test results in future, I don't need the hassle.

Attila · Expire: 2025-11-18

Jure I had in my hands a nice look Carl Zeiss 28mm f2.0 'Hollywood Distagon' sent by a member to me , due was sharp only at center!
Edges were visible unsharp, my experienced repair man dissassemble it and check each elements , all was properly placed and result was still crap ! So even from best factory (to me best) can go out defected item or one element was replaced from an another lens with same diameter ?