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

How many versions of Fujinon 50mm 1.4 are there?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed Apr 24, 2013 8:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
aoleg wrote:
Bille wrote:

Source is here:
http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20124/big_517_Bimg381_1.jpg

That's some interesting reading! Do you have the rest of the test report? Information about Rikenon XR range is extremely scarce; this is pretty much the first "official" review I ever seen.


http://forum.mflenses.com/no-fooling-modern-photography-march-1978-equipment-reviews-t48501.html


PostPosted: Wed Apr 24, 2013 8:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Arkku wrote:
with higher-end line-up.


Please define "higher-end". I am not much interested in M42 but from the Fuji brochures that I know of all the "higher-end" lenses between M42 and X are similar. Except for the 50/1.2 and 28/1.9 which were not available before. These two alone are a great kit on the NEX.


PostPosted: Wed Apr 24, 2013 9:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Bille wrote:
Arkku wrote:
with higher-end line-up.


Please define "higher-end". I am not much interested in M42 but from the Fuji brochures that I know of all the "higher-end" lenses between M42 and X are similar. Except for the 50/1.2 and 28/1.9 which were not available before. These two alone are a great kit on the NEX.


Yes, most lenses are available in both mounts with similar or same specs, but what I meant was that the M42 version build quality is far superior in almost all lenses—even the best X-mount lens (50/1.2) feels very plasticy in comparison. Also the best of the Fuji normal lenses, the 50mm f/1.4, is for some reason not available in X-mount, instead you need to choose between the decidedly inferior f/1.6 or the softer f/1.2… (I think the f/1.2 is a great lens in its own right, but like most f/1.2 lenses it is not as general purpose as f/1.4's, but more of an effect lens.)

And if they dropped thorium among other cost-cutting, such as introducing all that plastic, I wonder if they really managed to replace the special glass with as high quality replacements… Admittedly bit of a two-edged sword, thorium, have to UV-treat it to get rid of yellowing, but usually it was not used just for fun.


That's not to say I think the X-Fujinon lenses themselves are bad, far from it, but I just find it sad how everything turned to plastic for pretty much every manufacturer at that time. Did I mention I don't like plastic? =)

(Also my “portable telescope”, the 600mm EBC Fujinon, is not available in X-mount, AFAIK… By the way, it's also radioactive.)

Last edited by Arkku on Wed Apr 24, 2013 1:23 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Wed Apr 24, 2013 11:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
aoleg wrote:
Fujinonuser wrote:

I have compared an EBC Fujinon 1.6 / 50mm lens to a Rikenon 1.7 / 50mm lens that externally looks quite similar and was allegedly built by Cosina.

A bit off-topic, but I have several versions of Rikenon 50/1.7 lenses (one is M42; XR and P in Pentax K mount) and two Cosinas (M42 and P/K mount versions). They have almost nothing in common. Maybe some particular version of Rikenon 50/1.7 was built by Cosina, but I don't have any hard proof. On the other hand, some Rikenon XR series lenses were built by Sigma, some others were SMC Pentax-M lenses (!), and Rikenon-P 105/2.8 was rebadged Kiron, so everything is possible.


Those are interesting observations that I cannot disprove, because I've had too few XR Rikenons to tell. My information is that all Rikenon lenses with KR bayonet were "built" by Cosina, perhaps only the 50mm standard lenses. The M42 Rikenon lenses originated from Tomioka designs, most likely manufactured by Tomioka/Mamiya and later Cosinon.

Quote:
From what I know a lot of the XR Rikenons are based on Pentax. »The bayonet mount system isnt the only similarity the XR Rikenon lenses have to Pentax. From our test samples, we surmised that optically these are indeed our old friends, the Pentax lenses. But all, except the 200mm, are the older, pre-compact versions. The 200/4 is identical to the 200/4 Pentax-M. While there are no ultra-wideangle or super-telephoto lenses listed in the Rikenon line, the system is complete enough for most amateurs.«


This doesn't disprove the possibility that XR Rikenons are based on non-compact Pentax lenses and were in fact manufactured by Cosinon. Glass and coating of Rikenon lenses look unlike SMC Pentax glasses and coatings IMHO.

On the other hand, the topic of Japanese lens manufacture in its heydays would need a separate thread as we cannot project Euro-American standards of competition and marketing on Japanese practice..


PostPosted: Wed Apr 24, 2013 12:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Arkku wrote:
Yes, most lenses are available in both mounts with similar or same specs, but what I meant was that the M42 version build quality is far superior in almost all lenses [...] And if they dropped thorium among other cost-cutting, such as introducing all that plastic, I wonder if they really managed to replace the special glass with as high quality replacements… Admittedly bit of a two-edged sword, thorium, have to UV-treat it to get rid of yellowing, but usually it was not used just for fun.


I don't think that thorium glass will produce better IQ within photographic limits. I also doubt that the 3.5 / 19mm Fujinon uses radioactive glass. What is your source for this information? By the way, the 19mm Fujinon seems to look quite similar externally to the Yashinon DX 3.3 / 20mm, but such similarities may result from the use of similar lens barrels. The 19mm Fujinon doesn't look yellowish to me as do some SMC Pentax lenses with lanthan glasses.

The 100mm Fujinon lens definitely uses radioactive glass as it tends to yellowing. On the other hand, the 1.8 / 55mm Fujinons don't, and those are very sharp lenses, some of my best lenses.

Another lens design that was apparently changed between the M42 and X Fujinons is the 3.5 / 28mm lens. I once tried an X 28mm Fujinon with film and it showed unsurpassed color rendition even on film, but the margins were badly out of focus, similar to the 24mm X Fujinon tested by German photo journalists. Perhaps I had a bad copy? I'd always prefer the M42 28mm Fujinon lens, although there are production tolerances. The 19mm Fujinon appears to me at least one class better, clearly noticeable to the unaided eye. It is quite easy to let rays pass through a hole, but it makes all the difference to spread the spectrum of colors so that the sharpest points will meet in one single plane only.

A lightweight plastics camera and lenses are nice when you are into travelling around a lot, if you've ever had to carry a Chinon Memotron tank with you. But after almost half a century, the Chinon Memotron is still functioning like on its first day -- even without batteries!


PostPosted: Wed Apr 24, 2013 1:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Fujinonuser wrote:

I don't think that thorium glass will produce better IQ within photographic limits. I also doubt that the 3.5 / 19mm Fujinon uses radioactive glass. What is your source for this information?


I measured my own M42 19mm f/3.5 EBC Fujinon with a geiger counter and it's definitely radioactive (the radioactive element is quite small in physical size, though, so not as high readings as from larger lenses). Other radioactive lenses I've measured in the M42 Fujinon line include the 35mm f/1.9, early non-EBC 50mm f/1.4, early EBC 50mm f/1.4 (the smaller, rarer version of EBC), 100mm f/2.8, 400mm f/4.5 and 600mm f/5.6.

As for producing better IQ, well, it's more expensive to put the thorium glass in so I doubt the companies did it just for fun, and in the 70's radioactivity certainly wasn't a positive thing for marketing purposes anymore… Nowadays they use different kinds of low dispersion elements, but most of today's high end lenses have them, so presumably there is some benefit.


Fujinonuser wrote:
By the way, the 19mm Fujinon seems to look quite similar externally to the Yashinon DX 3.3 / 20mm, but such similarities may result from the use of similar lens barrels. The 19mm Fujinon doesn't look yellowish to me as do some SMC Pentax lenses with lanthan glasses.


I haven't seen the Yashinon lens, but I don't find it very surprising that two Japanese lenses of roughly the same specs from roughly the same era have similarities.

As for the yellowing, the smaller size of the radioactive element in the 19mm Fujinon means the absolute amount of radioactivity is lower, and also the element itself is harder to see, so it's probably not very prone to yellowing. Also, since the yellowing is cured by exposure to light, a lens that has been used outdoors on sunny days may have lost its yellowing in use. For instance my 55mm f/1.8 S-M-C Takumar (with thorium, not lanthanum, glass) was not at all yellowed when I got it, whereas the basically identical 55mm f/2 Super Takumar looked like it had a built-in yellow filter.



Fujinonuser wrote:
The 100mm Fujinon lens definitely uses radioactive glass as it tends to yellowing. On the other hand, the 1.8 / 55mm Fujinons don't, and those are very sharp lenses, some of my best lenses.


Yes, I have three of the four known versions of the 55mm f/1.8 Fujinon and none are radioactive. Meanwhile the 50mm f/1.4 has both EBC and non-EBC versions in both radioactive and non-radioactive versions…


Fujinonuser wrote:

Another lens design that was apparently changed between the M42 and X Fujinons is the 3.5 / 28mm lens. I once tried an X 28mm Fujinon with film and it showed unsurpassed color rendition even on film, but the margins were badly out of focus, similar to the 24mm X Fujinon tested by German photo journalists. Perhaps I had a bad copy?


I haven't tried the X-Fujinon version of either lens, but the 28mm f/3.5 is one of the earliest lenses in the M42 Fujinon series (already exists in pre-EBC version with metal focusing grip) so it seems quite possible that they'd have “upgraded” the design somewhere along the line. The 24mm on the other hand is one of the last M42 Fujinons, and already exhibits some of the X-Fujinon plastic parts even in M42 version, so it could be a cheaper/worse lens to begin with.


PostPosted: Wed Apr 24, 2013 2:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Arkku wrote:

As for producing better IQ, well, it's more expensive to put the thorium glass in


Are you sure? I always considered Thorium to be the budget way to improve refraction (=less aberrations) instead of using higher grade optical glass or aspherics.


PostPosted: Thu Apr 25, 2013 8:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Fujinonuser wrote:
Those are interesting observations that I cannot disprove, because I've had too few XR Rikenons to tell. My information is that all Rikenon lenses with KR bayonet were "built" by Cosina, perhaps only the 50mm standard lenses. The M42 Rikenon lenses originated from Tomioka designs, most likely manufactured by Tomioka/Mamiya and later Cosinon.

What are your sources? This is the first time I hear about Rikenon's collaboration with Cosina in lens department. Yes, I know well that many of Ricoh cameras with P/K bayonet were Cosina-built, but in this case it is fairly easy to trace each Ricoh camera back to the corresponding Cosina body. With lenses, this is not the case. Sigma, Pentax and Kiron lenses - yes, they were available in Ricoh's lineup, rebadged.

Fujinonuser wrote:

This doesn't disprove the possibility that XR Rikenons are based on non-compact Pentax lenses and were in fact manufactured by Cosinon. Glass and coating of Rikenon lenses look unlike SMC Pentax glasses and coatings IMHO.

I have SMC Pentax-M 200/4 and Rikenon XR 200/4. Their optics look identical down to the color (and reflectivity) of the coatings. Three parts have are different between them: the shape of the ring beneath the focusing barrel (in Pentax version it has a cut-out), the rubber grip, and the front ring. I find it much more likely that Ricoh would simply rebadge Pentax lenses (as was the case with Sigma and Kiron) and not source manufacturing of identical models to a yet another company.

Also, I am pretty sure the 28/2.8, 35/2.8, 50/1.4 (both P and XR versions) and the 135/2.8 are unique to the Ricoh range (design and optics); I haven't seen any lenses having enough similarities to say they are relatives. Whoever manufactured those lenses, I don't know: could be Ricoh themselves, Cosina, Tokina or someone else.


PostPosted: Thu Apr 25, 2013 11:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
@aoleg
Quote:
What are your sources?
Unfortunately, my information about the Ricoh / Cosina affiliation for PK Rikenons is undocumented. Re-badged or outsourced, the Rikenon line of lenses seems to be an assembly of well-tried lens designs. Your experience will most likely be much more accurate than my general and superficial observations.

@Bille
Quote:
I always considered Thorium to be the budget way to improve refraction (=less aberrations) instead of using higher grade optical glass or aspherics.

The older Thorium 1.4 / 50mm Fujinon is shorter than the later 1.4 Fujinons. On the other hand, Arkku is right in observing that the SMC 2 / 55mm Takumar badly tends to yellowing, whereas the 1.8 / 55mm Takumar doesn't. Thus budget reasons seem to prevail in using radioactive glass.


PostPosted: Fri Apr 26, 2013 3:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Fujinonuser wrote:

The older Thorium 1.4 / 50mm Fujinon is shorter than the later 1.4 Fujinons. On the other hand, Arkku is right in observing that the SMC 2 / 55mm Takumar badly tends to yellowing, whereas the 1.8 / 55mm Takumar doesn't. Thus budget reasons seem to prevail in using radioactive glass.


No, I am not saying that the 55mm f/2 Takumar is any more prone to yellowing than the 55mm f/1.8… Both are equally radioactive (again, I have measured them with a geiger counter; this is not speculation or hearsay), and also the general opinion seems to be that they are the exact same lens other than for a permanent aperture limiter installed in the 55mm f/2.

My point was that not all individual copies of radioactive lenses are yellow, so yellowing is not a good indicator of radioactivity. The example here being that I have two copies of essentially the same lens with the same amount of measured radioactivity but one happened to be yellow and the other not.


Bille wrote:
Are you sure? I always considered Thorium to be the budget way to improve refraction (=less aberrations) instead of using higher grade optical glass or aspherics.


Well, my point was that using thorium glass is more expensive than using “regular” optical glass, not that it is the most expensive type of special low dispersion glass.

It may well be that using other types of extra low dispersion glass is even more expensive still—here I must confess I have no information either way, nor do I know what options were viable at the time these lenses were made. If you know more on this subject, I would definitely be interested…


Also, I have no knowledge of Fuji in particular substituting other types of extra low dispersion glass into the lenses that were made in non-radioactive versions. In case of the 50mm f/1.4 Fujinons the whole lens was clearly redesigned (the older versions are much shorter) so at least they did not just swap the radioactive element for an equivalent non-radioacive one… Unfortunately I don't know of any easy way to detect other types of special elements than radioactive (by measuring) or some types of aspherics (from traces in bokeh), and Fuji doesn't seem to have advertised special elements in their brochures or optical diagrams.

But based on other cost-cutting moves done in the X-Fujinon line-up I would not be surprised if they had gone for regular optical glass rather than replaced the radioactive elements with something else. But it could well be that a sufficiently well-performing “something else” became cheaper in the 80's they used that, or perhaps they managed to use computers to re-design the optical formulas to not require special elements.


PostPosted: Fri Aug 14, 2015 11:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have the opportunity to purchase M42 EBC Fujinon 50 / 1.4 - my question is how is compared to the M42 SMC Takumar 50 / 1.4 - WIDE OPEN ? Is this model is the original design of Fujifilm or rebranded tomioka / Cosina?

What are the pros cons compared to SMC Takumar M42 50/1.4 (wide open especially)

?



PostPosted: Fri Aug 14, 2015 8:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
^ An interesting question, don't have an answer. But I wasn't under the impression that Fujinons were ever made by Tomioka or Cosina. Would like to have a definitive answer to this, since I'm not familiar with Fuji Film Co. history. Began acquiring old, non-EBC, and EBC 50s, and they've all been excellent.


PostPosted: Sat Aug 15, 2015 10:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
WNG555 wrote:
^ An interesting question, don't have an answer. But I wasn't under the impression that Fujinons were ever made by Tomioka or Cosina. Would like to have a definitive answer to this, since I'm not familiar with Fuji Film Co. history. Began acquiring old, non-EBC, and EBC 50s, and they've all been excellent.


Not that I am aware of as well. Fujinons have always been made by Fujifilm themselves as from the 1940's, except some very cheap ones like e.g. the Fujica AX lenses from Nittoh Kogaku (Kominar) in 28 and 135mm. They always had their own lens manufacturing plant and still have one.


PostPosted: Sun Aug 16, 2015 8:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
siudym wrote:
What are the pros cons compared to SMC Takumar M42 50/1.4 (wide open especially)?

Well, I like my Fujinon better than the SMC Takumar for its smoother rendering wide open (just my subjective opinion). One other thing, the Takumar will hit the mirror of 5DmkII when focused close to infinity; the Fujinon doesn't.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2