The "Universal 28mm" Lens

[casualcollector]

#1


#2


I recently picked up this Argus-Cintar 28 from an ebay auction with these two Argus STL 1000 bodies. The Miida lens is a purchase from some years ago. Back in the early 1970s, this 28 was sold with many labels. Hanimex was most familiar to me, followed by Tamron "F System". Elicar, Miida, Chinon, are just a few of the others. The origin of this lens was a subject of much discussion on this forum some years ago. Myself and others attributed it to Tomioka as it shared the leather grain focus grip with lenses labeled Chinon-Tomioka. Time passed and that seemed increasingly unlikely, mostly due to the "Nikon/Pentax focus direction. I tend to rule out Chinon as the manufacturer as they made lens barrels but not lenses, though there's room for argument there. The consensus seems to have settled on Sun as physical attributes most closely resemble Soligors with the Sun serial number prefix.

This Argus makes things interesting. Look closely at the Argus and Miida side by each. Styling is identical but for different rubber focus grips. Both take 62mm filters. Aperture rings share the same orientation but look at the distance engravings. These lenses focus opposite each other!

What do you think?

[D1N0]

Sun. The left to right ascending aperture is typical for (not unique to) Sun and the Plastic A/M switch shape is a dead give away. Also diamond on a stick focussing mark.

[D1N0]

There is even an Universar Universal 28/2.8

[casualcollector]

A quick survey of ebay listings show the M42 Argus-Cintar in two variants, early and Multi Coated. Curiously, the F-stop scale is opposite on the pre MC versions I saw listed.

[stevemark]

I have several "Elicar" labelled lenses that seem to be from the same manufacturer (identical engravings including the funny point above the f2.8 position, two silver rings around the focusing grip [or an entirely silver barrel], same aperture ring, M/A switch ... you name it:

Elicar Automatic 1:2.8 f=35mm
Elicar Automatic 1:2.8 f=135mm

An Elicar Automatic 1:2.8 f=100mm looks very similar, too.

S

[casualcollector]

[stevemark]

[Alun Thomas]

On most of the non-Soligor examples, I am fairly sure the first two digits of the serial number are the year of manufacture. If true, that lens was made for at least 8 years, as I have two with a '70' serial. In my experience,the lens is quite competent for a third party effort in that period, which may have a bearing on how long it stayed on the market, and the vast amount of different badges it appeared under, as well as the vast number of slightly different stylings you can find for it.

[casualcollector]

I have a Silver 135 but I believe it differs from your Elicar. I'll have to dig it out. I also have a Soligor 28 that is not a Tokina but differs from these "Sun" lenses by having a 58mm filter rather than 62.

Alun, I think you are correct regarding the serials being the year of manufacture.

[Lloydy]

Prinzflex Auto Reflex 200 / 3.5. It looked nice, it was in mint condition. It was one of the worst lens' I've ever had. I gave it away, I wouldn't sell it.


I've had a few lenses with the silver bands around the rubber grip, and I don't think any have been much good, barely making it to average.

[D1N0]

Can't be worse than this Makina Prinzflex 200/3.3
Prinzflex Auto MC 1:3.3 200mm by The lens profile, on Flickr

This one also made by sun is pretty decent though (Chinon 200/3.5)
Auto-Chinon 200mm F/1:3.5 by The lens profile, on Flickr

[Lloydy]

Prinzflex was one of the line of lenses that was sold by the Dixons elecrtrical chain stores back in the 70's - and they sold some junk. Mostly rebranded Zenit and Practika, and lenses from whoever was the cheapest! The Zenits would often not come with a Helios.

They did sell Chinon camera's and lenses as their 'premium range' but that doesn't make them any better as a photographic dealer. The majority of stuff they sold was crap. And a lot of the cheap lenses they sold had the distinctive silver bands around the grips, and they often sold the same lenses with different 'brand' names, you could visit different stores and find the same lens with a different brand, or completely different lenses of the same focal length and aperture sold as the same brand. It was a lottery. The only thing you could guarantee was that the lens would be the cheapest junk they could find.

I've mentioned Chinon, and the did make many lenses with the double silver bands, as did Takumar. Here's my Chinons - the first one is the 55 / 1.7 and is a very good lens. The second is a 28 / 2.8 and very average, I've got better. But the 55 / 1.7 is vastly different to these other cheap lenses that were probably made in a shed in a back street of Tokyo. The 28 / 2.8 ? It might be from the shed.

[stevemark]

[Alun Thomas]

[Pancolart]

My battered Berolina. True Sonnar, superb image quality.

[Lloydy]

That Berolina has to be the same manufacturer as the Prinzflex 200.

I tried to like it, I had it for years and would often try it, maybe in the hope it matured with age like a fine wine. But it didn't, and I don't think the lens was decentered or damaged. in any way - it was soft and had no contrast or colour to it.
I had it attributed to SUN, but that was quite possibly wrong.

[casualcollector]

[Pancolart]