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

Group Test : 50~55mm f/1.7~1.8mm
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2018 9:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
[quote="itsfozzy"]
sergun wrote:
I dug on ebey, I looked for Rikenon 55 1.7 but I did not find any and even there is no description. Discovered that Rikenon 50mm F2.0 has several markings. Usual, the letter L and the letter P. Who knows what's the difference ?

I think the "L" the lightweight version (not that any of them are heavy), and I'm guessing the "P" stands for the extra metering pin that later Ricoh lenses had that can cause havoc with Pentax K mount cameras.


I have the non-L version and its looks the same as the L one! and its not even look looke like the m42 auto version. so what could the L means beside weight?



PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2018 10:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have the XR Rikenon L 50 2 and the XR Rikenon 50 2. The Rikenon XR has better build quality than the L versions. Metal vs plastic. Also it focusses much smoother and is slightly less soft at f2. Also all of the markings of the L version have worn off.

This is a corner shot from F2 to F16 of the xr version without L:


PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2018 10:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
D1N0 wrote:
I have the XR Rikenon L 50 2 and the XR Rikenon 50 2. The Rikenon XR has better build quality than the L versions. Metal vs plastic. Also it focusses much smoother and is slightly less soft at f2. Also all of the markings of the L version have worn off.

This is a corner shot from F2 to F16 of the xr version without L:

so the the L stand for Lite or light version then. is there any difference in minimum focus distance?


PostPosted: Tue Oct 23, 2018 5:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
cooltouch wrote:
Hey Raxar,

Doing a comparison between the ubiquitous 50mm f/1.7- 1.8 lenses can be valuable, but I predict that all of them made by major manufacturers will perform excellently.

Please note: Canon has never made a 50mm f/1.7. Their lenses in this aperture range are all f/1.8.

As for lenses you have not listed I have a few suggestions:

Canon 50/1.8 SC (breechlock)
Canon 50/1.8 New FD
Minolta MC 50/1.8 or is it a 1.7?
Olympus 50/1.8
Nikon 50/1.8 AI or AIs - severall different versions exist, exclusive of the "E"
Pentax M42 Takumar 50/1.8 and 55/1.8
Pentax M 50/1.7

How about
Pentax SMC 55 1,8
Schacht S Travelon 50 1,8
Porst Color Reflex MC 50 1,7 Macro
they are all somewhat nice or special Wink


PostPosted: Tue Oct 23, 2018 10:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Raxar wrote:
D1N0 wrote:
I have the XR Rikenon L 50 2 and the XR Rikenon 50 2. The Rikenon XR has better build quality than the L versions. Metal vs plastic. Also it focusses much smoother and is slightly less soft at f2. Also all of the markings of the L version have worn off.

This is a corner shot from F2 to F16 of the xr version without L:

so the the L stand for Lite or light version then. is there any difference in minimum focus distance?


Can't really tell from my copy since the distance scale was entirely rubbed of.


Focus throw on the L is less though. about 120 degrees. On the metal xr it is about 180 degrees and cf distance is 45cm.

Looking at this image from ebay it looks like cf distance on the L is 60cm.

Definitely a budget offering, but I have heard some people praise it as a portrait lens because of it's lack of contrast wide open.

There is also a XR rikenon 50 2 S variant. I believe that is similar to the L. Same plastic build and markings also rub off easily.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 23, 2018 11:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
As far as I know the best version is the first version without letters with a minimum focusing distance of 0.45. Then they decided to reduce the cost of production and took a sample of the production of some Pentacon. (the engineer from Ricoh specially went to Germany) Received the version L , optically identical to the first version but because of the features of the helicoid mdf changed to 0.60. In 81-82 years made version S, changed the optical scheme.


PostPosted: Wed Jun 23, 2021 8:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
On Facebook, I found a person who took several pictures from different minolta 50/55.1.8/1.7. It was interesting to see the difference. I collected the pictures and took screenshots. I hope the author of the pictures will not mind.


PostPosted: Thu Jun 24, 2021 7:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
sergun wrote:
On Facebook, I found a person who took several pictures from different minolta 50/55.1.8/1.7. It was interesting to see the difference. I collected the pictures and took screenshots. I hope the author of the pictures will not mind.


mc55/1.7 is a beast! quite pleasing bokeh. md 50/2 is not bad either. i tested konica 57/1.4 and it was wonderful as well but with a little bit less contrasts compare to these.


PostPosted: Sat Jun 26, 2021 10:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I conducted my small test minolta 55/1.7/1.9/2.0. The distance is 1.2 and 2.3 meters approximately.
1.9 vs 1.7 (1.2m) Smile (I must say right away that the 1.9 version is sharper than 1.7, including at an average distance.)

2.3m


2.0 vs 1.7 (1.2m)

2.3m
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2