XR Rikenon 1:2 50mm - a sharp lens?

There was a Ricoh f2 50mm lens from long ago which seems to have a reputation for great sharpness, and I'm just wondering whether it's the one I've got (which came on a Ricoh KR10 I bought on eBay a year or two ago). I recently bought a Pentax K10D with the intention of taking advantage of some of my better old K mount lenses and I'm in the process of rationalisation. The Ricoh I have says 'XR Rikenon 1:2 50mm S' on the front. Is this one I should keep? There is a minor problem with it in that the depth of field scale has rubbed off but I can live with that. Optically it seems OK but I'm not expert enough to be able to know how it compares with others.

Correction to the above - it's not the depth of field scale which has been rubbed off, but the focussing distance scale, which is a little more of a problem but still not insurmountable (the only difficulty is when using the depth of field scale - there's nothing to line it up against).

I love these urban myths..... I'm sure that's the leg..endary lens these Rikoh armchair glass ball gazers have all been talking about. Legend has it that if you rub the lens so hard that the focusing distance scale disappears the "Genie of the Lens" magically improves it's resolution and contrast beyond even the wildest dreams of the best of lens designers. Ha! Ha!

Truth is that all these lenses give very similar performances. The Ricoh f/2 is very close to the Pentax f/1.4 and also to the 18-55mm kit lens especially on distant subjects, hard to see any difference, outside of a laboratory (or magicians den :lol. The best way of improving lens performance is focus correctly and eliminate camera shake.

shim

Well yes, this is true, of course, but I think it's taken as a given - otherwise what's the purpose of any comparative reviews of equipment?

You say "I'm sure that's the legendary lens these Rikoh armchair glass ball gazers have all been talking about" - but I can't seem to find anything much specific. In this review - http://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/showproduct.php?product=504&cat=88 - the guy says "The XR Rikenon has somewhat of a cult status in some circles where it has the reputation for incredible sharpness." Once again, I can't find anything substantive. Does this MTF graph tell you much (I really don't know how to read these things)?

http://www.pbase.com/steephill/image/38667508

I've had a fair few Pentax fit 50mm's pass through my hands (anyone who watches my eBay auctions will recognise the understatement there!) including Ricohs, Chinons and Pentaxes as well as numerous M42 mount lenses.

For what it's worth the ones I've chosen to keep (because they're my absolute favourites) are the Pentax M50/1.7 (which I prefer to the various 1.4's and the 2's) and the Zeiss Pancolar 50/1.8 (M42 mount).

The Ricohs are good, but have never struck me as being outstanding optically compared to the others. I usually get less money when I sell them though so from a price/performance point of view I suppose they could be worth keeping an eye out for.

I actually have a Pentax M 50mm f1.7 as well as the Ricoh I mentioned, along with a 'RIKENON 1:2 50mm' (from the lens front). I have a Pentax P30N, a Ricoh XR-X and a Ricoh KR10 Super, and my intention is to sell two of them and keep just one film SLR, but I've not decided which yet. What I want to end up with is a small set of kit which has the lowest resale value without losing out in performance terms - I don't imagine there'll be a good market for old film camera stuff for much longer.

Sorry I can't help re MTF graphs, purely technical results, higher is better, but I can't understand why the curves go up and down like they do.

You would really be better off with an A series lens so that you can control the aperture from the camera f/1.4 or f/1.7 the latter being a lot cheaper (£50).

shim

I don't rate Ricoh lenses particularly highly, probably on a par with Fujinon or Mamiya 35mm format lenses, satisfactory but not exceptional.

I think there'll be a market for old lenses for a long time to come, but I do agree that bodies are a different matter entirely.

As for choosing which lens to keep, simply go out with each one for a day (with your K10D) and see which one's results you prefer. Lab charts can be useful in context but they don't tell the whole story - all these lenses will be more than sharp enough for any purpose, but each will have a different "signature" look and that's a personal taste thing.

My two personal 50's are both excellent performers but they render pictures differently. The M50 has a classic "Pentax" look (which I like) and is bitingly sharp by about f/2.4, the Pancolar has a very Zeiss-like way of rendering things (which I also like) but takes until about f/4 to get really sharp. I find the Pentax better indoors where it has a wider useable aperture and a nice soft bokeh; for landscapes and distant objects I find the Zeiss able to resolve more detail than the Pentax (not by much but it's there) and the closer minimum focus distance means it can double up as a semi-macro lens in a pinch.

It'll cost you nothing to try and then you'll know which one(s) to keep.

I came across these test results which look interesting. I'm not sure I fully understand them, but they suggest to me that the Rikenon f2 50mm is at least competitive with the Pentax-M f2 50mm.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1322/1319755906_4a7c3b351b_o.jpg

Regards
Andrew

They are the PBase tests that J2R linked to above. The Ricoh lenses are as sharp as the Pentax lenses as is the 18-55mm kit lens. I've got Ricoh 50mm f/1.4, f/1.7, f/2.0 the big problem with them is something happens to the coatings and you get a purple cast. It's supposed to be curable by leaving the lens in the California sun for 3 months to let the UV rays do their stuff. My f/2 seems OK colourwise, but I prefer the Pentax A 50mm f/1.7, although I'm awaiting delivery of a mint A 35-70mm f/4 zoom from ebay. I've already got one, and it's a beautiful lens to focus and zoom, but I think the cemented elements are coming apart. Only costs about £35 for a mint one.


shim