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: Mon Jul 15, 2013 9:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
On a mirrorless camera like a NEX, there is really bugger all advantage to a 1.4 over a 1.7 or 1.8.

Way I see it, only two reasons why people want 1.4s for mirrorless:

1. Ego, as Peter mused

2. Obsession with tiny dof and 'bokeh'


PostPosted: Mon Jul 15, 2013 9:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
On a mirrorless camera like a NEX, there is really bugger all advantage to a 1.4 over a 1.7 or 1.8.

Way I see it, only two reasons why people want 1.4s for mirrorless:

1. Ego, as Peter mused

2. Obsession with tiny dof and 'bokeh'


...unless a F1.4 lens is a better quality product Question

Canon's most famous as well as the most popular standard lens were the New FD 50mm f1.2L and also the New FD 50mm f/1.4 lens. Both lenses have excellent reputations for high performances and stable image reproduction capabilities. The 50mm f/1.4 lens was used for optical measurements at various public institutions and is also the standard which determines color balance for the rest of the nearly 60 lenses in the FD series. Perhaps instead of "standard", a more accurate name would be "reference" lens.
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/canon/fdresources/fdlenses/50mm.htm#f1.4


PostPosted: Mon Jul 15, 2013 9:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
There may be some examples where the 1.4 is the better lens, but I think in most cases, they aren't. Certainly, the Konica Hexanon 1.4/50 isn't a better lens than the 1.7/50, quite the opposite in fact. The Miranda 1.4/50 isn't better than the 1.9/50, but I haven't used that many other 1.4s to compare.

I can't say much about the FD 1.4/50 because the two I've had were both dogs, one I think had a displaced element because it had strong field curvature resulting in only a small circle in the centre being sharp. The other had a little fungus at the edges of the front and was just soft and glowy, was never sure how much of a roll the fungus played in that.


PostPosted: Mon Jul 15, 2013 10:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
There may be some examples where the 1.4 is the better lens, but I think in most cases, they aren't. Certainly, the Konica Hexanon 1.4/50 isn't a better lens than the 1.7/50, quite the opposite in fact. The Miranda 1.4/50 isn't better than the 1.9/50, but I haven't used that many other 1.4s to compare.

I can't say much about the FD 1.4/50 because the two I've had were both dogs, one I think had a displaced element because it had strong field curvature resulting in only a small circle in the centre being sharp. The other had a little fungus at the edges of the front and was just soft and glowy, was never sure how much of a roll the fungus played in that.



H'mm maybe a digital camera sorts out the men from the boys, while a film camera smooths thing over as you don't like the Canon 50mm f1.8 either Wink


PostPosted: Mon Jul 15, 2013 10:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
It's not that I thought the FD 1.8/50 was crap, I just thought it wasn't very sharp until f4 and was only performed really well at f5.6 and f8, which placed it outside the top 25 50-ish lenses I've tried. Might be my bad luck again and I had a lemon. My EF 1.8/50 was the same thought, soft until f4.


PostPosted: Mon Jul 15, 2013 11:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Back to the chinon for a moment... I used the Tomioka version yesterday for some portraits and found it to be as good as anything I have and great wide open (I like wide open). So thank you Ian for this post which made me dig out a lens that was otherwise 'on the shelf'. It's too easy to settle on a few favourites and forget about what the others can do, so definately worth showing the good and the bad.


PostPosted: Mon Jul 15, 2013 12:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Cool, glad you 'rediscovered' it. I just found a mint 1957 Jupiter-8 in the drawer that I forgot I had, which pleased me greatly. Smile


PostPosted: Tue Jul 16, 2013 10:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Look what I've just got!



It's just about mint condition, and...it's got a half exposed film in it. Stand by for some Chinon awesomeness. Laughing


PostPosted: Tue Jul 16, 2013 10:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I'll bet you a pint of the finest real ale that the lens will be no better than mediocre. lol

I'd be happy to be wrong on that score of course.

Camera will be nice though, Chinon made good cameras.


PostPosted: Sun Jul 21, 2013 10:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Chinon was distributors brand at list before year 1975. Under its name it offered fine and quality lenses like Tomioka, Cima Kogaku Cimko, Tamron, Tokina and more.

It is plain bad to exaggerate and oversimplify. Especially if theory is based on a single lemon lens.


PostPosted: Tue Jul 23, 2013 8:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I do confirm what Jure say and I also delete your comment Ian it wasn't polite, please avoid in future to left similar.

Chinon did offer numerous lenses from different vendors, most of them good enough, certainly some weaker exists, but may just copy issue.


PostPosted: Thu Jul 25, 2013 4:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
There may be some examples where the 1.4 is the better lens, but I think in most cases, they aren't. Certainly, the Konica Hexanon 1.4/50 isn't a better lens than the 1.7/50, quite the opposite in fact.


Well, that's your opinion. IMO Hexanon 1.4/50 is a better lens than 1.7/50, even though 1.7/50 is marginally sharper, 1.4 has better colors and overall more refined rendering.

In my experience 50mm 1.4 lenses are generally better than 1.7 /1.8 ones coming from the same stable. For me this also holds for Canon FD and Minolta MD, FD 50 1.4 is probably my favorite 50.

I am somewhat surprised by this whole debate. For portraiture I do use fast lenses wide open without hesitation. They are sharp enough for that and indoors the light is almost always lacking. Don't you guys shoot indoors? I would rather shoot @ ISO 2000 than @ 3200, no matter if I am using NEX or m4/3.


PostPosted: Thu Jul 25, 2013 5:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yeah, just my opinion, there's too many factors at play to be able to make firm statements. Maybe if I played with your FD 1.4 and 1.8 for a week or two an likewise you played with my Konica 1.4 and 1.7, we could come to more of a consensus.

I can honestly say, 95% of the wide open shots I've seen I thought were poor. I do remember that exceptional one of a baby you took, and that just proved that there's a time and a place for wideopen and certain subjects that work, but in general, I just don't like wide open shooting at all, portraits would be about the only worthwhile application for me and even then, only certain portraits. I like a shallow depth of field fairly often, but that doesn't mean wide open, I find f4 to work very well as long as the subject to background distance is sufficient to throw the background out of focus.

Again, just my opinions, nothing worth getting worked up over, surely half the point of forum is to present our opinions, then discuss and hopefully come to a consensus o at least an understanding.

Honestly, the ruckus over a simple lens test really dismays me, I would say what I really think, but I'm being polite. We all know that it's a fact that there are duff copies of lenses that were duff when they left the factory and it definitely looks like this Chinon 1.4/55 I had was one of those duffers, I just seem unlucky that way, the duffers seem to find their way to me with alarming regularity. Of course, I'm always open to the idea that there could have been user error, but I'm confident that in this instance, my testing was thorough enough and more than extensive enough to make sure it wasn't the monkey behind the camera that was to blame.


PostPosted: Thu Jul 25, 2013 6:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
fermy wrote:


I am somewhat surprised by this whole debate. For portraiture I do use fast lenses wide open without hesitation. They are sharp enough for that and indoors the light is almost always lacking. Don't you guys shoot indoors? I would rather shoot @ ISO 2000 than @ 3200, no matter if I am using NEX or m4/3.


Surely your complaint is only temporary as in a few years time they will be developing cameras that you don't have to use the lens wide open in poor light as the sensor would be very good at 3200 ISO plus. Let's face it if you had a camera that could produce very good shots at 12,800 ISO, then the reason for using a lens wide open would be less.
It might even improve sales if a camera maker could produce high ISO versions, more than concentrating on more MPs


PostPosted: Thu Jul 25, 2013 8:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
On a mirrorless camera like a NEX, there is really bugger all advantage to a 1.4 over a 1.7 or 1.8.

Way I see it, only two reasons why people want 1.4s for mirrorless:

1. Ego, as Peter mused

2. Obsession with tiny dof and 'bokeh'

I'm quite agree with our two reasons, but I also agree with a third reason, which someone has suggested: Canon FD 50/1.4.

Sorry for your shock with this lens. You did not use a normal copy, you probably used a glass ass in appalling conditions... lol ! I advise you to get a good copy, yet they are not expensive, but this may change when the first FF mirrorless future. Canon FD 50/1.4 is an exceptional lens at any level. Sharpness, color, contrast, flare resistance incredible. I'm still impressed with my first experience with it. She is not a perfect lens, that does not exist, but it can kill any other, including Zeiss and Leica.

This lens may be the final reason... but, if I think correctly, I could do the same with a Yashinon vulgar Smile[/b]



Happy shots!


PostPosted: Thu Jul 25, 2013 9:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Well I'd compare a Canon FD 50mm f1.4 (and I suppose other VG lenses as well) to music in that after listening to cheap Japanese music centres, and then you listen to an expensive hi-fi set.....it sounds so bland.
Well my first impression, on film, with the f1.4, was "what's all the fuss about? Have I got a lemon?"...well the fact was, it was faithfully transmitting what it saw unlike some lenses that "cheat" to produce high contrast, which makes the shot look sharper and affects the colours. Anyway I've fully tested mine out and it is a sharp lens and not much in it compared to a Hexanon 50mm f1.4 or 50mm f1.7.


PostPosted: Thu Jul 25, 2013 11:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Excalibur wrote:


Surely your complaint is only temporary as in a few years time they will be developing cameras that you don't have to use the lens wide open in poor light as the sensor would be very good at 3200 ISO plus. Let's face it if you had a camera that could produce very good shots at 12,800 ISO, then the reason for using a lens wide open would be less.
It might even improve sales if a camera maker could produce high ISO versions, more than concentrating on more MPs


Well yes and no. I remember taking my FD 1.2 to a couple of wine tasting events and even wide open @ 1/50 ISO 3200 shots were poor due to underexposure and degrading noise. It's not for nothing that Kubrik wanted that f0.7 lens for Barry Lyndon. Candle light photography is fun and the sensors still need to improve dramatically to make it possible @ f2 without serious IQ penalty.


PostPosted: Thu Jul 25, 2013 1:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lenses: CANON S.S.C. 1.4/50mm & KONICA AR 1.4/57mm & CHINON 1.4/55mm
- fixed conditions, wide open on NEX-C3
- multiple shots made, best selected, i couldn't decide on Konica thus two of them
- 100% crop

Lenses:


CANON:


KONICA:



CHINON:


CANON is slightly sharper then both. It has a bit deeper DOF due to 50mm though.


PostPosted: Thu Jul 25, 2013 2:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I'm sorry, but what are those shots attempting to show? I'm afraid I see nothing in focus and how did you get that terrible glow and colour fringing?

Not a meaningful comparison to my eyes I'm afraid, perhaps you could try taking some 'normal' shots?

In fact, I'm intrigued by how you got those photos to look like that, I've never seen anything like it before.

Last edited by iangreenhalgh1 on Thu Jul 25, 2013 2:36 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Thu Jul 25, 2013 2:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Obvious miss focus, it's make CA with any lens, yee unusable, better to remove it and re-shoot it well.


PostPosted: Thu Jul 25, 2013 3:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
This is 100% crop wide-open. Harsh, worst conditions near infinity. Tough for portrait lens but possible to compare.


PostPosted: Thu Jul 25, 2013 3:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I'm afraid the only conclusion I can draw is that it's not a good idea to shoot a fast lens wide open in such conditions. I've owned my Hexanon 1.4/50 for 3 years and used it a lot, and I never knew it was capable of producing such a level of CA and glow.


PostPosted: Thu Jul 25, 2013 3:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
It would be hard to punish the lenses any more than those shots! But I think it does show a remarkable similarity between the lenses. Interesting...


PostPosted: Thu Jul 25, 2013 4:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Similar double gauss designs I suppose.


PostPosted: Thu Jul 25, 2013 4:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lloydy wrote:
It would be hard to punish the lenses any more than those shots! But I think it does show a remarkable similarity between the lenses. Interesting...


...and would add:- does anyone own a perfect lens for comparison Wink
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 4 of 5