Chinon lenses

But if we follow in his footsteps won't that turn us into what were shooting

I have Four 50mm Lenses, a Pentax M f2, a Super Takumar M42 f1.8 and an Auto Chinon M42 f1.4
The last one I shouldn't really mention.....OK go on then, a Zuiko Auto S f1.8 which for some strange reason only fits one of my camera bodies

Hey guys back off, we appreciate our privacy with the sheep here in Wales

I mean, whilst eating a roast leg of lamb with some beer and/or wine to help it down, we appreciate our privacy

After doing some research on low cost good 50mm lenses I bid for 2 of the 50mm F1.7's off ebay a few hours apart, and won both ! When they arrived one looked in excellent condition, the other had a loose aperture/DoF ring. With a little help from this Forum I soon mamaged to fix the loose ring and it actually appears to be better optically than the other lens ? Although it looks more 'battered' it is a later S/No. I'll do some test shots using both and post again at a later date.

Meanwhile I found the following via a Google search :-

"Apr 26, 2010
Auto Chinon Multi Coated PK 50mm 1.7
Auto Chinon Multi Coated PK 50mm 1.7 is one of the sharpest lens possible for DSLR cameras. its side by side with the SMC Takumar and the Zeiss lens which costs 7 times more used. i would say that this lens is the best bargain lens together with the Helios 58mm f2.0 lens. Sharp is the name. You can shoot against the sun, no problem, perfect coating. It would not develop mechanical problems like the Jenas do, perfectly build."
http://autochinonmulticoated.blogspot.co.uk/2010/04/auto-chinon-multi-coated-pk-...

The shot of the 'Penny' watch certainly looks good so I hope at least one of my 2 comes up to that ?

Incidentally, BOTH of mine have the narrow green 0 aperture indicator !
More later !

Peter

I wouldn't take to much notice of what people say on the net,
they are competent lenses but apart from the 55mm Tomioka f/1.4's
and f/1.2's they aren't as good as say the Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7's.

Just took this one with the 50mm f/1.9 on the K-5 at f/4
from jpg with a bit of sharpening, because of the reduction
to 800w had to set -10 adjustment to get the green light
properly. Also had to crop otherwise the fuschia
was too small.





-

Sorry mate. I am forced to disagree...

Optically, the Chinon 50mm F1.7 is as good as the Pentax equivalent. Take a look at my picture in the gallery of the pocket watch. Trust me mate. Not only have I been a photographer for over 30 years, but also have a deep understanding of optics in general, and I can assure you, that Pentax lens is not head and shoulders above the Chinon. I love Pentax equipment as much as the next guy, but I also know what constitutes a good piece of glass.

They never performed very well in the test reports in the film days and most Chinon users had a Pentax 50mm on their cameras. As a Pentax user since the Spotmatic days I was always on the look out for good lenses in Pentax fit. Non of the K mount camera manufacturers had anything worth using. Some independents such as Vivitar had the odd decent lens.

The difference is less these days on digital sensors even with a K-5 it's hard to separate one lens from another.

There was a very good supplement to AP one year which had lens tests for all 50mm's I can't remember if Chinon were in it, but Pentax were and they were very close to the top of the list along with the CZ (West German) 50mm Contax lenses etc. Well worth trying to find a copy.

Makes like Chinon, Tamron, Tokina, do have some lenses which have very nice bokeh as do the East Germans and Russians which is why I use them.


-

I don't know if the Chinons are optically better than the Pentax-A 50mm F 1.7, but I certainly prefer the images my Auto Chinon 50mm F1.9 produces over those produced by the Pentax. Both lenses are sharp, but there's just something special about the images from the Chinon. These lenses are an absolute bargain (I didn't buy mine from ebay, I've had it since new, it came on a Chinon film SLR). I would recommend them without hesitation, here's one taken with this lens and some extension tubes:




Regards
David

Not saying for one minute that Chinon lenses are BETTER than Pentax equivalents. All I am saying, based on 30+ years experience as a photographer, along with my knowledge of optics on a scientific level, is that they are as good. I don't care what ANY test report says; If you want my honest opinion, unless you pay a lot of money today, cameras in general and their lenses are of far LOWER overall quality than cameras were even thirty years ago. When stuff was made in Japan, even so called 'cut price' manufacturers such as Chinon turned out fine cameras and lenses. Today with most stuff being made in China or the Philippines, the over quality in terms of build is nowhere near as good. I will agree that my K7 is a fine camera; for £679 just for the damned BODY I should bloody well HOPE it is a fine camera. And as for 'taking notice of what people say on the net'.....well mate. If I can't pass judgement on equipment NOW after all the years I have spent as a photographer, using every type of camera from a 110 to a 5x4 sheet film model, then who can?

I'll have a go, and it depends on what we mean by "well made" - very often metal, heavy objects are perceived as high quality manufacture, whereas that's not necessarily true.

The current DSLRs are more precisely made and fit together better than my MX ever did, but that's probably a consequence of how metal parts are finished. There was nothing wrong with the MX by the way, which is hardly a metal camera anyway, making extensive use inside of engineering plastics.

I would also say that our current lenses are better, certainly for digital capture, than our lenses have ever been. Yes, an M lens is so smooth that it's a joy to turn the focusing ring, but that doesn't equate with better made. It's just made for manually focusing. The finish of a current Limited lens, traditionally in metal, is better.

Reviews should only be taken as a guideline, lens tests with a pinch of salt, and anything written on the internet ignored

If your happy with your lenses then use them, it doesn't matter what Joe Bloggs says or believes, it's what comes out of your camera that matters.

Some people might find these tests by PopPhoto interesting
1977 Pop Photo Normal Lens tests (32 of them) over 1200 tests were
carried out

link

The Pentax lenses tested would have been the 'K' Series.
No Chinons unfortunately, but if they are better than Pentax
they would have to be as good as the Leicas.

One notable thing I spotted was how well the edge performance is
for the Pentax K 55mm f/1.8 which means it would be very good
for copying amongst other things. The internet photographers of
twigs haven't noticed that ... so you can pick it up quite cheaply.
I've already got one so I'll have to see if it's any better than
the 'A' f/1.7 for copying slides. Chroma and astigmatism are gone
by f/5.6

-

I do agree that some of the later Taks and early K-mount Pentax lenses are superb, and I'm not one for judging by reviews, I like to see how they take images when I use them. For example, the SMC Takumar 135mm F3.5 doesn't seem to gain particularly high review scores but for me the images it produces are magic. The Pentax-M 50mm F1.4 is another good 'un, absolutely stunning rendition of colours and skin tones. By comparison the Chinon 50mm F1.9 is slightly too 'warm', but I still love it.

Regards
David

I spent some time in Mr Cads in Croydon a few weeks back, and they had a fair number of Chinons, all in reasonable looking condition. I kept asking about them but I couldn't get one positive comment out of the shop guys (all older men who've been in the business for donkeys) - they wouldn't recommend any of them.

They did offer some praise for a Tamron Adaptall 135mm f2.8, which I did buy ( and they recommended the range in general). So far I'm happy with the way the lens works, it packs a real punch for the money, but I don't have any scientific comparisons to hand.

Its hard to know if there is just a lot of snobbery out there about certain brands based on on their original marketing?

It's not really snobbery. When Chinon lenses were marketed in the UK they were an "own brand" of Dixons and sold at very low prices. Their quality is variable and although I'm sure some can be very good, as a general prospect they are low to middle grade.

I had a 135mm f/2.8 once and it was quite bluish in colour balance, large, heavy, quite stiff to focus compared to a Pentax. Optically it wasn't a patch on the Pentax lenses of the day.

Many shop chains had their own brands, often from various sources. Anyone remember Greens lenses?

I have to admit that results so far from my Chinon 50mm f/1.7's on my K-r are somewhat disappointing - the sharpness is NOT up to that illustrated by other members ? That could, of course, be solely due to the 'nut behind the lens' !

I've posted on the Gallery a shot taken this morning of a fuchsia bush. I know the morning light is a bit dull but the clarity is nowhere near that of Algi's !

One thing I have found is that focussing appears to be extremely difficult (for my old eyes!). This is partly down to the very (very) narrow DoF at f/1.7 but I found it just as bad at f/4.0 and the results were no better.

Looks to me as if I'm suffering from what John said in the post above that the quality was variable ???
Although my 2 copies both have the narrow green 0 aperture/DoF mark and would thus appear to have come from the same source as MikeyJay's copy, the performance (in MY hands) does not seem to match up ?

Peter