I seem to remember there being two versions of this. One was rolled up in a paper tube and the second came as a folder with loose A4 sheets.

The second version had to be brought out because a lot of lenses were off the chart on the first version.

It is a resolution test chart and is the one that AP have always used. I think they have a PDF (scaled down version) for download on their site.

I've only ever used it once on digital it seemed to work OK, but the lpmm test is meant to be carried out on slow film.

See what I mean about a purple cast Andrew on the second shot the posts and the road are purple

I've just compared my three Ricoh's against the Pentax A 50mm f/1.7 at f/5.6 only, because of the time taken. I used 100ISO and one flashgun on a tripod at 45deg to a £10 held onto a box with blu-tak. The camera was on a tripod 1.25m target to sensor plane.

The camera (K20D)was fired by a wireless remote (RF-602) and another RF-602 fired the flashgun.

Each shot repeated at least twice with AF and MF (not usually any focus problems at f/5.6)saved only as full size Jpeg.

The camera histogram looked right in all cases. The three Ricoh lenses are slightly light and the Pentax lens slightly dark. Some PP work would be needed on the Ricoh shots, but I haven't done any.

None of the Ricoh lenses are P type.

There's very little difference between them. I had to enlarge the viewer to 200%. The Pentax probably just pips it and the f/2 Ricoh is just the looser.

Edit: If you look at the green on yellow lines under £10 the f/1.4 looks the worse not the f/2

I wish I'd used my Eye-Fi card to get the exposures better.

So these Ricohs are quite good. No advantage over the Pentax though and may need some PP to get the best out of them.

They have two big disadvantages 1): No half-stops 2): Not 'A' lenses.

This is a screen grab at 200%

Ricoh 1.4 ---- Pentax A 1.7
Ricoh 1.7 ---- Ricoh 2.0

It's possible that some versions of the lens were better than others. There's also a rumor that Pentax made some of the early Ricoh f/1.7's. They certainly wouldn't have made the P version with the dreaded pin

I'm surprised that your Mk II lens isn't as good as the primes you list. Possibly your Kit Lens isn't as good as other examples, such as the one on this page. The 50mm Pentax-A f/1.4 is probably in the top 2 or 3 50mm's made by Pentax.

I think it was Park Cameras who had the II in stock with a photo and it did show II just like the Pentax one. It was quite expensive and it didn't look like Park were supplying the Mk II with the body at the time, they seemed to be supplying the Mk I.

In AP's "Great Lens Supplement " of 1996 they tested a Ricoh 50mm f/1.7 'P' and it was very poor scoring 20/30 for Optical Quality. Only managed 110 lpmm at f/8.

The lens right next to it on the page was the Pentax 80-200 f/2.8 which scored 28/30 and reached 130 lpmm at f/5.6..... Tough Contest.... NOT!

I've got the Ricoh f/1.4, f/1.7 and f/2.0 I've never really used them because I've never photographed anything where I want to add a lot of PURPLE in camera I did try leaving the f/1.4 in the sun earlier this year to kill of the yellow but it's still as bad.

I'll have to test these shortly, they might be better than I think, although looking through these AP books I don't think Ricoh ever made a good lens. They made zooms that only manage 95 lpmm when other makes were going up to 120-130 lpmm.

I'm sure Andrew has a good copy of an earlier lens, but lets not start rumours that Ricoh made good lenses, they didn't (they were all subcontracted anyway).

Fairly rare, but Samsung did release a Mk II

There used to be an article on the net about 10 years ago about how the Z-1 didn't meter correctly with older lenses. I can't seem to find it now. I did try a Vivitar 28-105mm at the time and the metering wasn't right. I think the article referred to genuine Pentax M lenses.

I've never seen a rose with so many petals..... and none eaten by creepy crawlies...... beautiful

What you've said there is correct John and unfortunately this thread has drifted well away from my compliment on an excellent sharp photo of a Vivitar lens done by a very good photographer who knew his equipment well and what he was doing with it. He should make a video of his technique and stick it on youtube

A good photographer knows that if he's copying a flat chart he needs to use the sharpest aperture of his lens approx. f/8-f/11

If he was photographing a 3D object say a lens or camera body and he wanted as much of it sharp as possible he would realize that compromises have to be made and he would know how far he can push his equipment. He will know that as he stops down certain aberrations get worse whilst other things such as DOF get better and peripheral aberration is reduced.

This is three shots I've just done in the kitchen using flash combined.

No PP whatsoever grab using print screen from the viewer.
100% Crops. Distance 1.4M Lens at 55mm, ISO = 100

Pentax 55-300mm at f/11 - f/16 - f/22 (left to right)




If I wanted as much sharp as possible I wouldn't hesitate to use the last shot at f/22 (i.e. shot on right).

The shot at the lenses optimum sharpness f/11 would be classed as unacceptable.

The shot in the middle at f/16 is usable and was actually the correct exposure for the flashgun.

The f/22 shot is actually a bit underexposed due to the flashgun being underpower by 1 stop.