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

Chinon Auto 1.4/55 on NEX-3
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri Jul 12, 2013 11:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
At a very uncertifiable guess I think, the Super Travenar seems to have a very close affinity with -
Elicar, Porst, Coligon, Flexar, Pallas, Berroflex, Hanimar, Miilda, Bushnell, Infotar, Derek Gardner, J.C. Penney and Universar.

I'm only going by pictures and comparing the style and shape of the lens, the large filter ring - 62mm - and the style of engravings and other markings. The Pallas I have held side by side and it is 100% the same lens.
Most of the other names the Travenar appeared under are either chain store or 'no name' lenses from minor re-branders, compared to Vivitar and Soligor.
Someone was banging them out as fast and cheaply as they possibly could and every photography shop and mail order catalogue were selling them.


PostPosted: Sat Jul 13, 2013 12:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
.. removed due Google found it to harmfull Sad


PostPosted: Sat Jul 13, 2013 12:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lloydy wrote:
At a very uncertifiable guess I think, the Super Travenar seems to have a very close affinity with -
Elicar, Porst, Coligon, Flexar, Pallas, Berroflex, Hanimar, Miilda, Bushnell, Infotar, Derek Gardner, J.C. Penney and Universar.

I'm only going by pictures and comparing the style and shape of the lens, the large filter ring - 62mm - and the style of engravings and other markings. The Pallas I have held side by side and it is 100% the same lens.
Most of the other names the Travenar appeared under are either chain store or 'no name' lenses from minor re-branders, compared to Vivitar and Soligor.
Someone was banging them out as fast and cheaply as they possibly could and every photography shop and mail order catalogue were selling them.


Didn't see your post before I made mine.

Yes, I fully agree with you, this lens is pretty much ubiquitous


PostPosted: Sat Jul 13, 2013 7:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yeah, that's the one. Laughing

But I have to say that of the Chinon's I've got - the 300 / 5.6, the 50 / 2 and the 28 / 2.8 - the 300 is a very good lens and the 50 is excellent.
The 28 ? I keep trying it, but it never delivers anything special. It's not bad, but it's not really good either.


PostPosted: Sat Jul 13, 2013 8:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
dimitrygo wrote:
1. This 55/1.4 Chinon was never attributed to Cosina. Instead it was always thought as Tomioka made lens. It could be there was some cooperation between Tomioka and Cosina in making those 1.4 and 1.2 lenses but I think it is not enough to call them group.

2. That Travenar is Sun made lens. Some people on this forum have it's Soligor incarnation and reported it as good lens. Any way it has absolutely no relation to Tomioka or Cosina. Identifying the lens maker by a grip style could be very misleading.


So, why are there 1.4/55s marked both Tomioka and Chinon that are clearly the same lens? Cosina's original business was making barrel parts, only later did they have a lens making plant. That suggests that even after they had the ability to make lenses,barrel parts remained a core part of their business. I expect this is why there are lots of lenses that look similar.

Evidence it's made by Sun? I've never seen it with Soligor branding, I think you're confusing it with another lens, unless you can show us an example with Sun branding?

Sorry, no way can anyone think it's a good lens, it's an absolute stinker, build quality is rotten, even if one was not bad when it left the factory, it's very unlikely after 30-40 years it will still be any good, just light use is enough for them to suffer from mechanical issues, they can start to fall apart, it's real junk.

No-one is identifying it by it's grip style at all, there is a consistent barrel style between the different lenses, the build quality is the same low quality across them all, quite clearly they are from the same source. All the lenses I showed were in the Optomax branding and all from the same series, if they are all made by the same factory then there must have been more than one maker producing absolutely identical lenses.

Maybe you aren't familiar with this series of ultra low end lenses, they are very common here in the UK and come in many brandings, if you'd owned them like I have, you'd know how much commonality they have, clearly they all came from the same place. The fact they can all be found with the Chinon branding probably says something about their origins.

I'd need to see some evidence to the contrary before I'm prepared to accept that it is possible to make meaningful statements about who made them, so I'll continue to refer to them as the Tomioka/Chinon/Cosina group, or maybe as the 'Nagano group'.

I'm not particularly interested in sorting out who made what to be honest, because these lenses are the very lowest quality and to be avoided. It's more important to know they are crap than to know which factory or factories they came out of.


My guess is that Chinon never made lenses, only barrels and parts. May be they made parts for different lens makers and got the lenses in exchange. But this is only guess of course. There are also Sun made lenses badged as Chinon so the cooperation if it really had place was not limited to Tomioka and Cosina.

Regarding this Travenar - here in this thread http://forum.mflenses.com/soligor-12-8-f28mm-21and-versions-t30866,highlight,%2Bsoligor.html it is the rightmost lens on the first 2 pictures. Search for word dfujevec on this page and you will find more modern looking lens similar to several posted above. The A/M switch on those lenses is very distinctive and only later Korean made lenses have the same switch. We already discussed this several times on this forum.

Low quality is not a distinctive indication of some particular maker and the Optomax lenses are not investigated so thoroughly as Vivitar and Soligor so please don't make so broad assumptions that can only add to the confusion.


PostPosted: Sat Jul 13, 2013 9:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
OK, here's one of the shots... camera jpg as it came from the lightroom import.

At f1.4



At f4 ... what's with the headless boatman?



Sorry about the white balance, I really only had a second to grab these....

And crops

F1.4




f4





To me, this doesn't seem like the same lens... the is some bad fringing at the edge, but this may be more to do with the sensor than the lens. It will be better on the 5D and film.

I have another shot to post in a while...


PostPosted: Sat Jul 13, 2013 9:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Next one...

A ditch with a can at f1.4 followed by crops at f1.4 and f4







PostPosted: Sat Jul 13, 2013 9:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
And one more...

f1.4



crop at f1.4



crop at f4





So, very unscentific and I got the exposure wrong, but I think this is a reasonable lens. It has a pleasant glow wide open, retaing resolution, so OK from my perspective. I suspect that the suggestion that one manufacture made all the mechanical parts for different lens makers isn't far from the truth.

I will give it a go on the 5D2 later today for some portraits.


PostPosted: Sat Jul 13, 2013 12:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hmm, does look different to mine.

I've always suspected Chinon didn't make their own lenses because there are all kinds of lenses with the Chinon branding, so it looked like they were just a rebrander.

It all makes my head hurt really, so i don't put much mental energy into trying to decipher the origins, I prefer to just shoot em. Smile


PostPosted: Sat Jul 13, 2013 3:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
edited

Last edited by bernhardas on Mon Apr 18, 2016 8:03 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sat Jul 13, 2013 3:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
bernhardas wrote:
I have a 55 1.4 that looks identical from the outside in the Revue Brand variety. It was in fact my first lens ever in 1979.
I used it heavily for about three years until I switched to Canon FD.

Just took a couple of quick shots at 5.6 today on the Nikon D800 (glassless Adapter) .

One shot and a 100% crop (no PS) attached.
I have sharper lenses but I find it reasonable.

The third one is with post processing from a couple of weeks ago





PostPosted: Sat Jul 13, 2013 3:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Cheers Bernhard, yours looks a good deal crisper in rendition than mine.

So, I probably have a lemon.

Just my luck, I seem to attract them. Rolling Eyes


PostPosted: Sat Jul 13, 2013 3:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
H'mm if I see this Chinon at a boot sale going for more than £3...I'll give it a miss as there is no consistent results with this lens. All puzzling as I thought one of a maker's or company's flagship lens was a 50\55mm F1.4......it was for Canon for a while.


PostPosted: Sat Jul 13, 2013 4:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
1.4/50s are often less good than their 1.7 or 1.8 brethren. As much as I love the Hexanon 1.4/50, the 1.7/50 is a better lens.

Perhaps the one exception to the rule of thumb is the Sonnar 1.5/50 which is even better than the Sonnar 2/50.

One thing to remember with 1.4/50s is they were never designed to be shot wide open, they are optimised for f5.6 or f8, like all other lenses. The reason for the 1.4 is to enable focusing in low light where you'd struggle to see the microprism with a slower lens.

There are exceptions to this of course, and some fast lenses are optimised for wide open, but they are not many of them and they are exotic and expensive.


PostPosted: Sat Jul 13, 2013 4:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
1.4/50s are often less good than their 1.7 or 1.8 brethren. As much as I love the Hexanon 1.4/50, the 1.7/50 is a better lens.

Perhaps the one exception to the rule of thumb is the Sonnar 1.5/50 which is even better than the Sonnar 2/50.

One thing to remember with 1.4/50s is they were never designed to be shot wide open, they are optimised for f5.6 or f8, like all other lenses. The reason for the 1.4 is to enable focusing in low light where you'd struggle to see the microprism with a slower lens.

There are exceptions to this of course, and some fast lenses are optimised for wide open, but they are not many of them and they are exotic and expensive.


Well yes but if you are going to make a lens about 1/2 stop faster you might as well at the same time use better glass and redesign it, better quality control....then call it your flagship with a price to match.

Last edited by Excalibur on Sat Jul 13, 2013 4:32 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sat Jul 13, 2013 4:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The level of misinformation and slander gathered in this post left me speechless.


PostPosted: Sat Jul 13, 2013 5:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Pancolart wrote:
The level of misinformation and slander gathered in this post left me speechless.


Excuse me, but why don't you actually say what you mean instead of just trying to stir trouble?

Let's not lose sight of what's important here - how the lens performs. I established that, so no misinformation there.

A couple of other people shared some samples from theirs.

So all in all, quite useful thread I think.

What are you complaining about? A lack of BS abut who made it? As I stated before, who made what is not really important, what is important is how the lens performs.


PostPosted: Sat Jul 13, 2013 5:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I don't beleive i'm able to make a lens shine....

So i probably have a good copy.... at least it looks good enough to me....

http://forum.mflenses.com/auto-chinon-1-4-55-tomioka-t57620.html

You can see the lens itself page 2-3 Here



I guess most companies have had dogs in their linups, and/or windows of poor quality control.
I also think that there is alot of people fooling around opening up old lenses, that don't know what they're doing.

Guess that i, for one, didn't have a clue of what was going on when i opened up my first lenses....

Don't worry.... i'm good now !


PostPosted: Sat Jul 13, 2013 8:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I agree with Ian on the point of using F 1.4 lenses wide open-most of them from the film era are not that great to poor wide open. I have tried quite a few, and as of now I use a 50mm F 1.4 Yashica ML, or if I want autofocus, a 50mm F 1.4 Canon EF. Both are as good (or as bad) as anything else I have shot wide open. I have only used them wide open when the light was abysmally low.

It will be interesting to see if the upcoming 55mm F 1.4 Zeiss will FINALLY lead to a breakthrough in wide open performance that is visible, or whether it will be the greatest 55mm F 2.8 ever made:)


PostPosted: Sun Jul 14, 2013 1:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
My only issue with this post is we are jumping from the 1.4/55 to talking about the 1.4/50 lenses .What concerns me can the 50/1.4 and 55/1.4 lenses be compared and talked about as the same lens?


PostPosted: Sun Jul 14, 2013 6:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
mo wrote:
My only issue with this post is we are jumping from the 1.4/55 to talking about the 1.4/50 lenses .What concerns me can the 50/1.4 and 55/1.4 lenses be compared and talked about as the same lens?


Well if the 55mm f1.4 is a completely different designed lens to a 50mm f1.4 lens, then you have a point. Question Whose knows without more investigation a 55mm lens could be a true 53.5mm and a 50mm be a true 51.5 and the gap is more narrow.


PostPosted: Sun Jul 14, 2013 6:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I think I have the Revue variety as well same as bernhardas. The physical appearance of the lens look very similar to your Chinon just labelling difference mine is Auto Revuenon instead. One of my first m42 lenses with quite some dusts laying deep inside my dry cabinet. Needed quite some effort to take it out. Here's some non scientific "tests" that I did quickly in my extremely small cave. Can't fit a tripod so have to shoot handheld. Lighting is an issue in an indoor room with no flash and so on but just to give a rough reference. I try my best to keep my focus on the "F2.8" of the box.

I have also included a Porst 55/1.4 for comparison. The lens has little fungus. Don't think they are the same design but both are 55mm 1.4 M42 mount and are German distributor companies, lenses made in Japan. Let me know if the order of the photos need better arrangements for view or if more tests are needed Smile.

Porst 55/1.4 @ 1.4


Porst 55/1.4 @ 4.0


Revuenon 55/1.4 @ 1.4


Revuenon 55/1.4 @ 4.0


100% crop Porst 55/1.4 @ 1.4


100% crop Porst 55/1.4 @ 4.0


100% crop Revuenon 55/1.4 @ 1.4


100% crop Revuenon 55/1.4 @ 4.0


PostPosted: Sun Jul 14, 2013 8:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Excalibur wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
1.4/50s are often less good than their 1.7 or 1.8 brethren. As much as I love the Hexanon 1.4/50, the 1.7/50 is a better lens.

Perhaps the one exception to the rule of thumb is the Sonnar 1.5/50 which is even better than the Sonnar 2/50.

One thing to remember with 1.4/50s is they were never designed to be shot wide open, they are optimised for f5.6 or f8, like all other lenses. The reason for the 1.4 is to enable focusing in low light where you'd struggle to see the microprism with a slower lens.

There are exceptions to this of course, and some fast lenses are optimised for wide open, but they are not many of them and they are exotic and expensive.


Well yes but if you are going to make a lens about 1/2 stop faster you might as well at the same time use better glass and redesign it, better quality control....then call it your flagship with a price to match.

Don't forget we are talking about the kit lenses sold with most cameras. No manufacturer is going to offer a kit lens which
falls into Ian's description of "exotic and expensive".

When I was taught photography at school I was advised to use any lens at its mid-aperture setting, unless the light level
and film speed forces a wider or smaller aperture, or unless I particularly want a narrow depth of field, being aware this
invites fuzzy corners and glowing. We certainly didn't have exotic and expensive lenses at school! Smile


PostPosted: Sun Jul 14, 2013 8:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Mir wrote:
I don't beleive i'm able to make a lens shine....

So i probably have a good copy.... at least it looks good enough to me....

http://forum.mflenses.com/auto-chinon-1-4-55-tomioka-t57620.html

You can see the lens itself page 2-3 Here



I guess most companies have had dogs in their linups, and/or windows of poor quality control.
I also think that there is alot of people fooling around opening up old lenses, that don't know what they're doing.

Guess that i, for one, didn't have a clue of what was going on when i opened up my first lenses....

Don't worry.... i'm good now !



Exactly the same lens as mine and similar serial number... mine starts 304... It was interesting to see you describe the focus as smooth but noisy as that's my experience too. You certainly put it to good use use though!
Perhaps Chinon did use different sources for their glass, we'll never know for sure, but what is certain is that time, usage, and a history of owners has a greater effect on a lens's performance than anything else. So, Ian, sadly I think you've added to your collection of lemons. Smile I bet we all have a well stocked fruit basket! I know I do...


PostPosted: Sun Jul 14, 2013 8:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yeah, when I studied photography at university we had Spotmatics with 1.8/55 Taks, if we'd shot em wide open, we'd have failed the course, we too were taught that f8 was where the best performance was usually found. Of course, we were taught about control of dof and selective focus, but they taught us to use f4 or maybe f2.8 for that, never were we taught to shoot wide open. They were trying to teach us to play to the strengths of the equipment rather than it's weaknesses.

The exotic and expensive lenses I referred to would be things like the ultra fast Canons and some Leicas, there the lens designers did optimise them for full aperture shooting, they were specialist lenses with niche applications. 1.4/50-ish lenses are just faster versions of the standard lens that enable better focussing on SLRs in lower light conditions.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 2 of 5