Chinon Auto 1.4/55 on NEX-3

[iangreenhalgh1]

They say all 50mm lenses are good. I've found one that isn't.

Not sure who made this lens, it says Chinon on it but the barrel is the same as lenses supposedly identified as Cosina.




Regardless of who made it, wide open, it's awful, low contrast, prone to veiling flare, riddled with some of the worst CA I've seen, really soft, just bloody awful. It's very, very hard to focus due to the softness and poor contrast, I've never seen another 50ish lens that came anywhere this level of crappiness, it even feels cheaply made.

These are all wide open, I'm almost embarrassed to post them, these are the best (or rather, least awful) shots I've been able to make, each one is followed by a 100% crop:

#1

#2

#3

#4

#5

#6

#7

#8

#9

#10

#11

#12

#13

#14

[iangreenhalgh1]

I tried it at f4 too, and it's still mediocre, this is probably the softest 50mm lens I've seen, if it can't render sharp images at f4, then it really is garbage.


#1

#2

#3

#4

#5

#6

#7

#8

#9

#10

#11

#12

[iangreenhalgh1]

Very disappointing so far, only thing left was to try it at f8:




Still not very sharp, a good double gauss 50-ish lens is much sharper than this.

All-in-all, this is a very poor lens, looks cheap, feels cheap, shoots even cheaper. Makes zero sense to buy this lens when there are countless 1.7 and 1.8 lenses that are a lot better than this Chinon.

[Excalibur]

Must be damaged as how can Chinon sell a lens like that as it can't be complicated to design a common 50mm lens.

[anktonio]

Clearly something is going on that lens. I do not think Chinon is guilty, maybe age, a mismatch... but you have at your fingertips a great consolation: An excellent Carignan, young and fresh, a wonderful Spanish wine. Authentic bottled sun.

Congratulations, you really knows.
P. D. Try with moderation one Montilla-Moriles (fino or oloroso) when you can

[Oldhand]

[iangreenhalgh1]

Thanks for the perspective on the wine, my mum won it in a raffle the other day, actually.

I'm not that surprised that this lens is crap, I've had other lenses from this same series, such as the 2.8/28and 3.5/200, and they are crap too.

Now you see why I keep telling people to avoid third party cheapie stuff as far as possible, it's likely you will wade through a sea of rubbish before you find something passable.

I've examined this lens closely, glass is perfectly clean, can't see any sign of the lens ever being opened and messed with, so I am positive it's not faulty.

[Oldhand]

[Excalibur]

[iangreenhalgh1]

Could be a lemon. Actually, I had a Yashica DSB 2/55, my copy was so bad it must have been faulty, I think it was probably improperly assembled, with at least one improperly seated element as one side of the frame was mush and it never got sharp at any aperture. It wasn't in great shape, so I put it down to that, kinda put me off trying another DSB series lens though.

[Xpres]

I have one just like that, although mine says Tomioka on the front as well as auto chinon.
I'll see if I can dig it out and check if it's a lemon too.

[miran]

I have a 55/1.7 that looks almost exactly the same (from memory) except that it's a 1.7 instead of 1.4. It's probably the worst 50 I have but it's at least better than this.

[kopi234]

This lens seems to have a quality control problem, normally double-gauss design has better resolution when stopped down.

[iangreenhalgh1]

[iangreenhalgh1]

[Aanything]

You are lucky with helios 44's and unlucky with these
My experience is totally different: I have never had problems with japanese lenses, many are just not really good on their own, but none of my vivitars, soligors, tokinas revuenons or makinons ever showed such bad qc issues, while I had some problems with later soviet and east german ones, a couple of bad helioses, some pentacon 29's etc.
Probably there are too many variables involved (storing, care, homemade repair attempts etc.) to just state "cheap russians good, cheap japanese bad" or viceversa.

[peterqd]

I have an Optomax 2.8/35 in PK mount which is similar to your Chinon, same markings but a slightly different pattern on the
focus grip. Filter ring is 55mm. I was under the impression it was made by Tomioka too, and it's just as awful as yours!

I agree buying cheap no-name lenses is only worthwhile if you don't mind soft and glowing images.

[iangreenhalgh1]

[iangreenhalgh1]

Here's the notorious 2.8/35 Optomax, it has exactly the same barrel style as the 1.4/55 and is also seen as a Chinon. The barrel style is shared by Cosinas of the same age, the twin chrome bands are a common feature on Chinon branded M42 lenses and you can find the lenses of this twin chrome band series in so many brands, Unitor and Super Carenar are another two I remember having. They are one of the most common lens series to see for sale in the UK so I reckon they were the cheapest on the market and pumped out by shops like Dixons in considerable numbers.



The build quality of these twin chrome band lenses is possibly the worst I have encountered, even in very good condition, they feel very 'loose'.

Here's the 2.8/135, I have had this one 2 or 3 times, it's not a total stinker, but at the bottom of the list of 135s I've owned in quality. Not to be confused with the similar looking Samyang 2.8/135 which is a good lens,the Samyang says made in Korea, this one says made in Japan.



Here's the 3.5/200, a very common lens in the UK, it's a rotter, incredible amounts of purple fringing and very soft, had 2 or 3 of them, have one now labelled Super Carenar.



The worst of the lot is the 5/300, I had one, worst lens I ever tried, had more CA than any lens I've ever seen, contrast is terrible, colours very muted and muddy, just unusably awful, I used it as a doorstop for a few months because it's very heavy.

[Lloydy]

[iangreenhalgh1]

Yes, I agree, same lens, only the brand name on it differs, it's a real stinker.

My mum had a couple of catalogues, I suspect you're right about that.

I expect this lens was the most widely sold and cheapest 35mm lens around, the number of them left on the secondhand market certainly suggests that.

Given that this lens is clearly from the Tomioka/Chinon/Cosina group it kind of shoots a massive whole in the theory that Tomioka lenses are somehow a cut above the usual mediocre stuff.

[Xpres]

I found it....! And took it wth me today to shoot a couple of frames if I had the chance - which I did, but really only a couple.
This is the lens



The results aren't so bad. It does glow wide open, but sharpens up nicely at f4. I used it on a sigma digital APS-c. I think I'll try it on the 5D too.

Images to follow...

[dimitrygo]

1. This 55/1.4 Chinon was never attributed to Cosina. Instead it was always thought as Tomioka made lens. It could be there was some cooperation between Tomioka and Cosina in making those 1.4 and 1.2 lenses but I think it is not enough to call them group.

2. That Travenar is Sun made lens. Some people on this forum have it's Soligor incarnation and reported it as good lens. Any way it has absolutely no relation to Tomioka or Cosina. Identifying the lens maker by a grip style could be very misleading.

[iangreenhalgh1]

[iangreenhalgh1]