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

My little identification discovery: Tomioka myth busted
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2012 12:37 pm    Post subject: My little identification discovery: Tomioka myth busted Reply with quote
Please see this topic for Tomioka alternatives search: http://forum.mflenses.com/the-story-of-mitake-t64648,start,15.html

Last edited by Pancolart on Fri Jan 23, 2015 7:29 pm; edited 3 times in total


PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2012 12:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yes yes the SUPER carenar! and believe me if you take it in hand it feels even "bigger" (compared to the nice 55 mm baubles)


PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2012 12:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I suspect even the notorious M42 1.8/35mm fits!


http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic.php?t=43783


PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2012 12:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Huh, tough luck for Tomioka myth. Here COSINA 2.8/100mm:





PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2012 1:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
5/300mm:





Frequent brand names: Eyemik, Photax-Paragon, Doron-Color, Revuenon-Special, Weltblick...

Here M42 2.5/24mm:



And the craziest one of them all: 1.8/135mm PORST / Mitake from this topic: http://forum.mflenses.com/its-huge-porst-135-1-8-t24111,start,30.html



PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2012 1:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I had that 5/300, it was absolute garbage, well made, all metal but the IQ was excreable.

I had one if these too:



I forget what brand it had on it now, Prinzflex maybe. Again, it was garbage.

Honestly, I don't think it matters who made these bottom rung of the ladder lenses, they are crap. At the time they were made, people were using them to produce low quality 6x4 lab prints so their crappiness wasn't exposed like it is when you put them on a modern 12mp or higher digicam and discover a whole world of optical abberations and softness.

To be tongue-in-cheek, trying to id these old lenses is like trying to working out what dog left a particular pile of poo on the pavement. Smile


PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2012 1:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
But Ian you now compare everything to Biogon F5.6 Wink.

Frequent brand names used: Eyemik, Photax-Paragon, Doron-Color, Revuenon-Special, Weltblick, PORST-WW, Spiratone Plura-coat.


PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2012 1:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
It's still not out who really made these, the 135/2.8 seems built differently (like, it has no A/M at all.)


PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2012 1:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Both versions exists. You can see forefather here including the typical DOF scale symbol:

From this topic:
http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic.php?t=33372


PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2012 1:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Pancolart wrote:
I suspect even the notorious M42 1.8/35mm fits!


http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic.php?t=43783


Why notorious? I think I have this lens under the brand of Formula 5. Canon FD mount with older bluish coatings prone to wear. It perform pretty nicely I think, just that it is very prone to flare. Night scenes are definitely no-no....


PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2012 2:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Will anybody explain what identifies these lenses as Cosina products?


PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2012 2:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Good detective work!


PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2012 2:43 pm    Post subject: Re: My little identification discovery: Tomioka myth busted Reply with quote
Pancolart wrote:
There was a recognition question bellow: http://forum.mflenses.com/does-somebody-recognize-this-3-5-200-t55120.html
See Revuenon Special brand named for instance:



It seems this Revuenon Special has completely different mount construction.

That Eyemik 100mm F2.8 is for sure not Tomioka but how do you know it's Cosina?

I think several DOF marks presented in this thread are different, rather rounded than square, and I also think this square kind of DOF mark is also associated to Tokina.


PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2012 4:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Pancolart: Unless I missed something, you didn't say where this revelation came from and how.


PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2012 4:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
And what is so bad about COSINA?

Just because it was built by Cosina a lens is not necessarily garbage!

Yes, there might be some lenses that were built by them and which are bad.
But there is a reason why Zeiss cooperates with Cosina, isn't it?

And all my Voigtländer lenses for Leica were built by Cosina and those lenses are simply amazing!!


PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2012 5:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Pancolart wrote:
But Ian you now compare everything to Biogon F5.6 Wink.


Yes, this is true. Smile

However, there are some cheap lenses that are good and some that are good only as paperweights. I think it's important to try to highlight examples of both the good and the bad so people can avoid them. I remember that 5/300 well, really nice feeling lens, very well built, but it was so bad it was useless. Bad compared to anything else I've tried, not just the good stuff. Considering all the cheap nasty lenses i tried looking for good ones, for anything to stick in my mind as truly awful it must have been pretty bad.


PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2012 6:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Interesting..... indeed the Revuenon 135 Special looks indentical to the 200 Pentor i was asking questions about. I had the Revuenon, and it was not bad!
I do still have that Revuenon special 35mm. I still need to give it a try. It's new, forgotten old stock from a shop.

That 5/300 lens you are showing: I do have that exact one as well. But with the name "Kenlock" on it. Never gave it a try either....

I will make some time to give them all an honest try and put some pics up without any post processing. Now I want to know wether it is really garbage or not.... because the 2.8/135 was certainly not.
And if they really are Cosina, they've made some fine lenses in the past!


PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2012 6:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
woodrim wrote:
Pancolart: Unless I missed something, you didn't say where this revelation came from and how.


It's a revelation indeed Wink . Maybe like Sherlock Holmes said: "when you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
Besides i do have few Cosinon lenses of the series above.

Frankly there is contender i cannot fully dismiss: Komine. But Komine is even more mystic then Tomioka.
The idea would only seem possible in case Vivitar Komine lenses are all newer and improved.



http://www.flickr.com/photos/35322441@N00/4107174951/

A possible transitional lens from old style to Vivitar kind:
http://allphotolenses.com/lenses/item/c_985.html

Anyway if there are better ideas i'd gladly accept them. The line shares quite distinctive features that are pointing to one manufacturer.

Last edited by Pancolart on Tue Dec 04, 2012 7:01 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2012 6:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
LucisPictor wrote:
And what is so bad about COSINA?

Just because it was built by Cosina a lens is not necessarily garbage!

Yes, there might be some lenses that were built by them and which are bad.
But there is a reason why Zeiss cooperates with Cosina, isn't it?

And all my Voigtländer lenses for Leica were built by Cosina and those lenses are simply amazing!!


Cosina in the 1970s was a much different outfit than it is today. Wink But then again not everything they made back then was rubbish either. They made some pretty solid cameras for a number of brands.

Nobody has yet said how they could tell these lenses were made by Cosina, so I'm still wondering.


PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2012 7:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Pancolart wrote:
Both versions exists. You can see forefather here including the typical DOF scale symbol:

From this topic:
http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic.php?t=33372


I gave one of these, under a different name that I can't remember now, to Ian a while back. I was about to throw it away, it was dire. But I thought I'd get a second opinion. Laughing Laughing


PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2012 8:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Tokina lenses with this DOF marks:
200mm F3.5


300mm F5.5

200mm F2.8


PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2012 11:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The first lens shown - the 135 2.8 - looks very like this, so alike I think they are probably the same

But this is a Cimko

Other lenses I have with a similar distinctive aperture mark are.


Vivitar 2.8 135 Komine


Chinon Auto Reflex 2.8 28


Photax 3.5 200 maybe Tokina or Cosina ?

I know the aperture marks ar edifferent, but there is a style.


PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2012 11:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I don't think it's possible to identify a lot of these lenses by barrel styles, I think there were companies supplying barrel parts to various lens makers, hence we see lots of lenses with similarities.


PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2012 1:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
I don't think it's possible to identify a lot of these lenses by barrel styles, I think there were companies supplying barrel parts to various lens makers, hence we see lots of lenses with similarities.

Oh hell, yes. There were many parts-bins specials knocked out at that time. Some buyers insisted on choosing a particular set of body parts for some degree of house style, while others didn't really bother too much and I suspect many of the smaller photo-shops/supply houses didn't care, bottom-feeding their way along the end-of-line and bankrupt stock, etc, then doing some re-branding of their own in a garden shed Smile


PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2012 2:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Farside wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
I don't think it's possible to identify a lot of these lenses by barrel styles, I think there were companies supplying barrel parts to various lens makers, hence we see lots of lenses with similarities.

Oh hell, yes. There were many parts-bins specials knocked out at that time. Some buyers insisted on choosing a particular set of body parts for some degree of house style, while others didn't really bother too much and I suspect many of the smaller photo-shops/supply houses didn't care, bottom-feeding their way along the end-of-line and bankrupt stock, etc, then doing some re-branding of their own in a garden shed Smile


Well said Dave. Companies like Dixons sold all sorts of stuff under different brand names, and they also sold stuff with the maker's own brands, it's a very confused situation.

Also, how many lens makers were there in Japan? A LOT. We don't know what deals existed between the likes of Tokina, Sun, Kobori, Makina, Cima etc. They might have cooperated more than we realise.

Finally, even if you can identify the maker of a lens, it's pretty irrelevant anyways as you have little indication from this about the lens' quality or abilities. Tokina, for example, made both great lenses and crappy ones at the same time and in the same series. for instance, the RMC primes, the 3.5/17, 2.8/24 and 2.8/28 are all really good, but the 2.8/135 and 5.6/400 are not so good and the 3.5/200 and 4.5/300 are pretty poor.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 1 of 4