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: Sun Jul 14, 2013 8:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks to bruzzo and Mir for adding some samples, useful to see.

Yeah, I got a lemon, dammit, oh well, never mind. Thanks everyone for helping me work out if my lens was typical or not. I've been looking closely at it and it's in really nice condition, the glass is spotless, and I can't see any evidence of it being tampered with.

Not the first time this has happened to me, and surely won't be the last.

I could well believe there was more than one factory making 1.4/55 lenses, or rather, the optical packages for them, and a common supplier of the metal barrels was supplying them, so we have different sets of optics in very similar barrels.

I dunno, it's speculation, and I really don't think we will ever know the answer, I also think it's a waste of time trying to figure out the answer, because, as we've seen, there is a variance in the quality, either from new or due to the depredations of time, so who made it comes a long, long way behind how it performs in the here and now in the scale of importance.


PostPosted: Sun Jul 14, 2013 9:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
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.


This topic is trouble. No need for additional stirring.

Ian, with your level of experience it's not hard to know lemon. But will you make a story out of it? Why involve into continuous repetitive posts, using expression like crap or similar that to accidental reader don't necessarily lead to proper explanation: that we are talking a lemon. We don't generalize or discriminate according to lemon. I didn't like when you refer like that to Vivitar 2.3/135mm for instance. Before you start prophetizing you have to be sure to have valid data.

There are millions of wide-open shooters. They do it not because they've learned in school but out of passion. So out of respect to them perhaps you should stop telling them what to do and how it should be done. If lens is fast according to you only to see brighter in viewfinder then it really makes no sense to judge fast lenses according to wide-open results. So don't. It's that easy.

Secondly, you have obviously stated your uninterest in Japan lenses origins. Like 20 times? As a result of your uninterest you really don't take slightest effort to see obvious. So please don't flood false information if you really cannot stop joining discussions about Japan lenses origins. No one is willing to track your posts and correct them continuously.

Not to prolong endless debate i have proposition, a challenge. I am too, like you say interested primarily in lens performance. We both have Sony NEX. So why don't you pick your best F1.4 portrait lens. Made before 1975. I'll take CHINON 1.4/55mm. We can show samples directly out of Sony. Wide-open.


PostPosted: Sun Jul 14, 2013 11:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
***Not to prolong endless debate i have proposition, a challenge. I am too, like you say interested primarily in lens performance. We both have Sony NEX. So why don't you pick your best F1.4 portrait lens. Made before 1975. I'll take CHINON 1.4/55mm. We can show samples directly out of Sony. Wide-open.***

..you might like the overall results from the Rokkor PF 58mm f1.4..Oh wait it's not a 55mm lens Wink


PostPosted: Sun Jul 14, 2013 11:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Excalibur wrote:
***Not to prolong endless debate i have proposition, a challenge. I am too, like you say interested primarily in lens performance. We both have Sony NEX. So why don't you pick your best F1.4 portrait lens. Made before 1975. I'll take CHINON 1.4/55mm. We can show samples directly out of Sony. Wide-open.***

..you might like the overall results from the Rokkor PF 58mm f1.4..Oh wait it's not a 55mm lens Wink


I didn't say 55mm. Range from 45-60mm acceptable.


PostPosted: Sun Jul 14, 2013 11:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
If you guys can play nicely I would like to see the results from both of you, and 'anyone" else who would like to join in?


PostPosted: Sun Jul 14, 2013 12:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Pancolart wrote:
Excalibur wrote:
***Not to prolong endless debate i have proposition, a challenge. I am too, like you say interested primarily in lens performance. We both have Sony NEX. So why don't you pick your best F1.4 portrait lens. Made before 1975. I'll take CHINON 1.4/55mm. We can show samples directly out of Sony. Wide-open.***

..you might like the overall results from the Rokkor PF 58mm f1.4..Oh wait it's not a 55mm lens Wink


I didn't say 55mm. Range from 45-60mm acceptable.


Well I'm open minded as I don't have a Nex, but would add that your challenge would only work if you define what the lens is supposed to achieve and then with crops.....and then you have to add that some members can make nearly any lens look good (if not with crops).

Last edited by Excalibur on Sun Jul 14, 2013 12:19 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sun Jul 14, 2013 12:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Pancolart wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
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.


This topic is trouble. No need for additional stirring.

Ian, with your level of experience it's not hard to know lemon. But will you make a story out of it? Why involve into continuous repetitive posts, using expression like crap or similar that to accidental reader don't necessarily lead to proper explanation: that we are talking a lemon. We don't generalize or discriminate according to lemon. I didn't like when you refer like that to Vivitar 2.3/135mm for instance. Before you start prophetizing you have to be sure to have valid data.

There are millions of wide-open shooters. They do it not because they've learned in school but out of passion. So out of respect to them perhaps you should stop telling them what to do and how it should be done. If lens is fast according to you only to see brighter in viewfinder then it really makes no sense to judge fast lenses according to wide-open results. So don't. It's that easy.

Secondly, you have obviously stated your uninterest in Japan lenses origins. Like 20 times? As a result of your uninterest you really don't take slightest effort to see obvious. So please don't flood false information if you really cannot stop joining discussions about Japan lenses origins. No one is willing to track your posts and correct them continuously.

Not to prolong endless debate i have proposition, a challenge. I am too, like you say interested primarily in lens performance. We both have Sony NEX. So why don't you pick your best F1.4 portrait lens. Made before 1975. I'll take CHINON 1.4/55mm. We can show samples directly out of Sony. Wide-open.


OMG

What's wrong with you?

Seriously, I'm going to ignore you from now on, I ask you to do the same.

This has gotten so ridiculous, I tested a damn lens, and all I've had from you and Dimitri is scorn and derision.

I've posted series from fuor or five 1.4 lenses before, and a Canon 1.2/58, I know how to use these lenses, my samples from this Chinon 1.4/55 are correctly focussed, I shot this lens every day for a week in order to exclude the possibility of user error, it's nothing to do with my skills and abilities, it's just not a very good lens.

I have been clear, origins are not important, performance is, that is my opinion and no amount of trolling from you will change it.

Moderators, I won't speak to this person again, can you please keep an eye on things so this thread isn't further messed up with trolling and childish challenges.

Phew, sometimes just a simple lens test can cause so much bother, quite why is beyond me.


PostPosted: Sun Jul 14, 2013 12:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Excalibur wrote:
Pancolart wrote:
Excalibur wrote:
***Not to prolong endless debate i have proposition, a challenge. I am too, like you say interested primarily in lens performance. We both have Sony NEX. So why don't you pick your best F1.4 portrait lens. Made before 1975. I'll take CHINON 1.4/55mm. We can show samples directly out of Sony. Wide-open.***

..you might like the overall results from the Rokkor PF 58mm f1.4..Oh wait it's not a 55mm lens Wink


I didn't say 55mm. Range from 45-60mm acceptable.


Well I'm open minded as I don't have a Nex, but would add that your challenge would only work if you define what the lens is supposed to achieve and then with crops.....and then you have to add that some members can make nearly any lens look good (if not with crops).


There are many factors, chief among them is light, if you have good light, you can make most lenses look good if you play to their strengths. If you have poor light, as I do 99% of the time, it's a lot more difficult, poor light really sorts the men from the boys where lenses are concerned. I used mostly Meyer/Pentacon lenses for nearly a year, they served me well, but in poor light, they often struggled, then I replaced them with Konica Hexanons which were better performers all-round, but crucially for me, they performed adequately in poor light. I'm still using the Hexanons, they are among the best to come out of Japan imho. I have found lenses that are better than the Hexanons, but they are mostly outside my budget, I have gathered a small number that are better and perform well in poor light, notable examples being the Topcor 1.8/58 and Opton Biogon 2.8/35.

To make some kind of competition out of it is ridiculous, I won't be goaded into such things, photography is an artform and therefore appreciation of it is a very subjective thing. I hate shooting lens tests, it's boring and I like to get it over and done with as soon as I get hold of a lens, I only divide lenses into two categories - good enough and not good enough, what falls into which category depends on several factors, an important one being the light conditions you usually have to deal with in your location, another is your own personal taste, what looks good to one person might look crap to another. A good example of this is wide open shooting, I can safely safe 99% of the wide open pictures I've seen I thought were crap, this is my personal taste, others may have different tastes, doesn't make either of us right.


PostPosted: Sun Jul 14, 2013 12:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
**** If you have poor light, as I do 99% of the time, it's a lot more difficult,*****

well get all your shots done now, as they reckon we are going to have great weather for a month Wink I had to laugh at the boot sale today as a barometer for sale showed "stormy and rain" Rolling Eyes

Last edited by Excalibur on Sun Jul 14, 2013 2:11 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sun Jul 14, 2013 1:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Oh yes, I'm very conscious of making the most of this light, I haven't seen weather like this in 4 or 5 years!

But just my luck, I'm ill at the moment so I'm very limited as to how much I can do.

If I was feeling upto it, I'd have been out shooting all day every day while we have this weather. I'm in the middle of beautiful countryside and all of it looks glorious in this weather, photo opportunities abound, but until my health improves, it might as well be on the dark side of the moon instead of half a mile away. Sad


PostPosted: Mon Jul 15, 2013 5:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I managed a short walk with the Chinon again, light was exceptional, but the lens is a real dog. Wide open it is unusably bad, soft, glowy, riddled with CA, I found it an annoying experience to use it and all the time I kept thinking 'I wish I'd brought a good lens with me'.

Here are wide open samples, normally I wouldn't bother posting such poor quality images, but in this case, I think it's more important to share the results than worry about how good they are.


#1

100% crop:

#2

100% crop:

#3

100% crop:

#4

100% crop:

#4

100% crop:

#5

100% crop:

#6

#7


PostPosted: Mon Jul 15, 2013 5:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Same shots but at f2.8. It sharpens up and the CA is much reduced, but it's still not good:

#1

100% crop:

#2

#3

100% crop:

#4

#5

100% crop:

#6

100% crop:

#7


PostPosted: Mon Jul 15, 2013 5:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Here's a few at f4, still not good, but sharpens up from f2.8:


#1

#2

100% crop:

#3

100% crop:


PostPosted: Mon Jul 15, 2013 5:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Finally, a few at f8, this is as sharp as it's gonna get, which is pretty mediocre. It's acceptable at f8, but I'd never use it because I have so many 50mm lenses that are a LOT better.


#1

100% crop:

#2

100% crop:

#3

100% crop:

#4

100% crop:

#5

100% crop:

#6


PostPosted: Mon Jul 15, 2013 5:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I was expecting worse from f/4 and f/8.
These are good enough for family snaps at f4 and probably good enough at f8 for 10x8's.
A high performance lens it isn't.
Thanks for sharing
OH


PostPosted: Mon Jul 15, 2013 5:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Cheers OH, I cherry picked the better f4 and f8 ones, because by that point, I was losing patience.

I noticed that one big problem with this lens is very poor micro contrast. Macro contrast is not so great either. Sharpening and increasing local contrast makes a big difference to how sharp the images look, and after sharpening tey actually look not too bad, but still, this is a poor lens.

My summation:

f1.4 - terrible, totally unusable

f2.8 - very poor

f4 - poor but marginally acceptable

f8 - mediocre, needs strong sharpening

overall: a poor lens, with PP can be made acceptable, can only be shot from f4 up, wider and the images are terrible.


PostPosted: Mon Jul 15, 2013 6:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I'm surprised you persist with an obvious lemon of a lens.

As an illustrator when I grab a new pen nib, if it doesn't work I throw it out immediately. Not worth ruining hundreds of dollars worth of work trying to force a junk $1 nib to work well.


PostPosted: Mon Jul 15, 2013 6:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Ian, let me know how much you want for this lens if it is cheap enough, i would like the challenge of servicing the lens.


PostPosted: Mon Jul 15, 2013 6:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Here's some stitched and heavily sharpened images, all at f8, I did my best to try to make the lens perform well with these ones:


#1

#2

#3

#4

#5

#6


PostPosted: Mon Jul 15, 2013 6:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Mos6502 wrote:
I'm surprised you persist with an obvious lemon of a lens.

As an illustrator when I grab a new pen nib, if it doesn't work I throw it out immediately. Not worth ruining hundreds of dollars worth of work trying to force a junk $1 nib to work well.


Aah, yes, I agree with you totally, as I said earlier, normally I just test em once after getting them and if they are good enough, they go into the cupboard, if not, they are discarded asap.

I persisted a bit with this one because, and I have to be honest here, I was annoyed that it was the perception of some people that it was somehow my fault I had failed to get nice performance from it, so I figured, while the light was nice, I'd give it another swing.

Hi Eddie. Sorry, the lens doesn't actually belong to me, but I can ask the owner when he gets back from holiday if he wants to sell it. He got it delivered here so I could sign for it, as he's off galavanting somewhere abroad. He said 'check it out' so I have done, whether he thinks it's something he wants to use or not, I'll have to get back to you on.

I've got one or two lenses that need a service, I'll have a look, you can have them for postage. There's a Canon FL 2.5/35 that was a stunning lens, but needs a thorough overhaul now, I converted it to EOS and it worked great for a while, but now the focus and aperture have become troublesome and stick.


PostPosted: Mon Jul 15, 2013 7:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
H'mm..... your Chinon is a lens I wouldn't use as I wouldn't trust it for every situation to give good to very good results. I have some lenses where you have to "fight" to get the best out of them and with others it comes naturally and there is no relation to price (of course I'm ignoring the known best lenses).


PostPosted: Mon Jul 15, 2013 7:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yeah, I agree, I wouldn't use it because I have many better lenses that I can rely on to do the job.

Oh well, such is life, on to the next lens. I haven't bought any lenses other than a couple of things for my 5x7 camera in ages so I don't do much lens testing these days, I'm happy with the lenses I have and probably have something for all situations.


PostPosted: Mon Jul 15, 2013 7:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
What's the advantage of using a 50\55mm f1.4 lens over a 50\55mm f1.6 or f1.7 lens...on a Nex (or I suppose any digital camera) ? Would it be just for a bit more accurate focusing? Surely it can't be for low light as on a digital camera you just set it for 400-3200 ISO.


PostPosted: Mon Jul 15, 2013 8:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Excalibur wrote:
What's the advantage of using a 50\55mm f1.4 lens over a 50\55mm f1.6 or f1.7 lens...on a Nex (or I suppose any digital camera) ? Would it be just for a bit more accurate focusing? Surely it can't be for low light as on a digital camera you just set it for 400-3200 ISO.

It's a good question. On APS-C DSLRs the extra light in the viewfinder is hugely helpful for focussing by eye. AF chips and
the micrprisms on replacement screens work a lot better too. On mirrorless cameras, especially with auto ISO, there is no
benefit at all for me.

Perhaps I could ask "what's the advantage of a f1.4 lens on a film camera?" If it's just because of the extra usability in low
light then the number of occasions it is needed is out of proportion to the extra cost, at least for most people, and the
greater ISO range of digicams amplifies this even more. Why someone would pay 10x more for a fast lens always baffles me
- perhaps it's ego-boosting, or maybe it's because the large wide-eyed front element looks more sexy! Smile


PostPosted: Mon Jul 15, 2013 9:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
peterqd wrote:


Perhaps I could ask "what's the advantage of a f1.4 lens on a film camera?" If it's just because of the extra usability in low
light then the number of occasions it is needed is out of proportion to the extra cost, at least for most people, and the
greater ISO range of digicams amplifies this even more. Why someone would pay 10x more for a fast lens always baffles me
- perhaps it's ego-boosting, or maybe it's because the large wide-eyed front element looks more sexy! Smile


Well I used my Pentax S3 with 55mm f1.8 WO quite a few times because the idiot designers didn't think we would need a flash shoe fixed on the camera Rolling Eyes so a f1.4 would be a bit more useful in low light (well that is if they made them and you can afford them in the early 60's). Then some later camera's viewfinder weren't that bright so a F1.4 lens would help.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 3 of 5