[m42man]

Pentax K fit 50mm's Photo Gallery by Steve Flynn at pbase.com

You'll notice both the Rikenon f2 and Cosinon f2 seem to outperform the M f1.7.

I have all 3 lenses - the Pentax from new, 3 versions of Rik, and 2 copies of the Cosinon.

The (plain) Rik and XR-Rik are the sharpest. The rest, i.e. Rik-P, Pentax and Cosinon (I've only tested one so far) are similar. (Though the Cosinon peaks at about f8, as opposed to f4/f5.6 for the others).

Both Cosinons suffer from a squeaky/sticky/stiff focus ring, so their (inferior) lubricants have dried out somewhat.

[mickey]

Just adding that the K series 50mm f1.4 is a superb lens...if you want manual focus, that is.

[stevebrot]

You'll notice both the Rikenon f2 and Cosinon f2 seem to outperform the M f1.7.

I have all 3 lenses - the Pentax from new, 3 versions of Rik, and 2 copies of the Cosinon.

The (plain) Rik and XR-Rik are the sharpest. The rest, i.e. Rik-P, Pentax and Cosinon (I've only tested one so far) are similar. (Though the Cosinon peaks at about f8, as opposed to f4/f5.6 for the others)...

I have two XR-Rikenon 50/2 and the Pentax-M 50/1.7 and concur that the Rikenons are somewhat sharper. Unfortunately, the Riks suffer from what I call "nervous" bokeh. As a result, my nod goes to the Pentax-M 50/1.7 for overall excellence in performance and build.


Steve

[John Poirier]

I have two XR-Rikenon 50/2 and the Pentax-M 50/1.7 and concur that the Rikenons are somewhat sharper. Unfortunately, the Riks suffer from what I call "nervous" bokeh. As a result, my nod goes to the Pentax-M 50/1.7 for overall excellence in performance and build.


Steve

I bought the XR Rikenon 50/2 new in about 1979/80. It was quite a good lens. I think the buzz about its quality began with a review of the XR1-s camera in which the lens was compared favourably with the Leica 50/2 of the time. Used it quite extensively for about a year and found it very sharp. Then I bought an MX with an M 50/1.4 after which use of the Rikenon dropped to almost nil because the Pentax had superior flare control and colour rendtion. The Rikenon took a dive onto a concrete floor a few years ago, so I can't do a followup test. The Pentax is still going strong.

John

[stevebrot]

I have two XR-Rikenon 50/2 and the Pentax-M 50/1.7 and concur that the Rikenons are somewhat sharper. Unfortunately, the Riks suffer from what I call "nervous" bokeh. As a result, my nod goes to the Pentax-M 50/1.7 for overall excellence in performance and build.


Steve

Here are the XR-Rikenon photos that I have posted on Flickr:

Flickr: Search fotostevia's photostream

Also, my first impressions review:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/51999-new-arri...ond-three.html

Steve

[John Poirier]

You'll notice both the Rikenon f2 and Cosinon f2 seem to outperform the M f1.7.

I have all 3 lenses - the Pentax from new, 3 versions of Rik, and 2 copies of the Cosinon.

The (plain) Rik and XR-Rik are the sharpest. The rest, i.e. Rik-P, Pentax and Cosinon (I've only tested one so far) are similar. (Though the Cosinon peaks at about f8, as opposed to f4/f5.6 for the others).

Both Cosinons suffer from a squeaky/sticky/stiff focus ring, so their (inferior) lubricants have dried out somewhat.

This shot was made in 1980 with an XR Rikenon 50/2. Film was HP5 pushed to 1600:

[viggen]

Good evening,

I am currently looking for a 50mm lens too. First, to try the focal, secondly to complement my FA*24...

I am considering the different Pentaxes (mainly the A versions of the 1.4 and 1.7; or the F/FA version if the price is right -it's not there yet, but you never know...).

However, I "fell" on a Porst Color Reflex 55 1.2...
The price is a bit expensive for me, so I would like to know :
- What is it worth wide open?
- How much do you think it's worth?

The wide aperture makes it quite appealing. However, I found some samples where the lens produces "soft focus", with blurry images wide open; and that's not what I want.


I am also considering the conversion from Contax to Pentax of a Planar 50 1.7.
Is the premium over a Pentax A worth it? The Planar 1.4 is a bit too much for me at the moment...


Thanks for your input !

[Pentaxor]

Good evening,

I am currently looking for a 50mm lens too. First, to try the focal, secondly to complement my FA*24...

I am considering the different Pentaxes (mainly the A versions of the 1.4 and 1.7; or the F/FA version if the price is right -it's not there yet, but you never know...).

However, I "fell" on a Porst Color Reflex 55 1.2...
The price is a bit expensive for me, so I would like to know :
- What is it worth wide open?
- How much do you think it's worth?

The wide aperture makes it quite appealing. However, I found some samples where the lens produces "soft focus", with blurry images wide open; and that's not what I want.


I am also considering the conversion from Contax to Pentax of a Planar 50 1.7.
Is the premium over a Pentax A worth it? The Planar 1.4 is a bit too much for me at the moment...


Thanks for your input !

for me, it should be around $200-$300. as far as what is it worth wide open, please refer to this thread >>> https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/74819-post-you...31-2-only.html

take note, the other 55/1.2 such as Cosina, Tomioka could be the same lens as the Porst. the softness can be attributed to the thin DOF rendering, not because the lens is really soft, but the sharp focus area at f1.2 is very thin especially at 55mm, although having said that, the 50/1.2 Pentax are sharper. nailing perfect focus at f1.2 would require a lot of hardwork and certain shot angles and distance inorder for the focus to appear even sharp all over. stopping down to f1.4 up to f2 would make it easier to nail focus all over if that was your objective.

f1.2 usage would be for extreme lowlight, artistic rendering, and general photography use as you can use it at smaller apertures which look great as well.

[georgweb]

... I found some samples where the lens produces "soft focus", with blurry images wide open; and that's not what I want.

I have had a nice sample of the Porst imo but this lens will definitely give you soft and milky images wide open (mid to inf. distances).
This is a 6-lens design which is unheard of in an f/1.2 standard lens. Nice lens anyway.

I am also considering the conversion from Contax to Pentax of a Planar 50 1.7.
Is the premium over a Pentax A worth it? The Planar 1.4 is a bit too much for me at the moment...

I'd say yes, cause you can use the lensmount for the 1.7 and maybe get a nice 1.4 later and use the same mount for it.
If it is really wide open clarity (sharpness, contrast, colors) in a lens you are looking for, the Contax Zeiss stuff is for you.
In Asahi/Pentax land I would try any 55/1.8. The 1.7 and 1.4 designs are not so crisp wide open (mid to inf. distances, excl. DA55).
If you're a tinkerer, here's a zero budget solution for your Contax on PK.

.... Cosina, Tomioka could be the same lens as the Porst.

I'd say no. Qualification of the no is here:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/374079-post20.html
Porst 55mm F1.2 Color Reflex MC Auto Lens Reviews - Pentax Third-Party Lens Review Database
Revuenon 55mm F1.2 MC Lens Reviews - Pentax Third-Party Lens Review Database

Cheers, Georg

[viggen]

I would like to thank the both of you for your replies !

for me, it should be around $200-$300.

Okay, so the price seems to be right. Doesn't make my choice any easier, but well...

take note, the other 55/1.2 such as Cosina, Tomioka could be the same lens as the Porst. the softness can be attributed to the thin DOF rendering, not because the lens is really soft, but the sharp focus area at f1.2 is very thin especially at 55mm, although having said that, the 50/1.2 Pentax are sharper. nailing perfect focus at f1.2 would require a lot of hardwork and certain shot angles and distance inorder for the focus to appear even sharp all over. stopping down to f1.4 up to f2 would make it easier to nail focus all over if that was your objective.

f1.2 usage would be for extreme lowlight, artistic rendering, and general photography use as you can use it at smaller apertures which look great as well.

The f1.2 gallery is full of great shots, and that made me lean towards the Porst...
The speed in itself makes it a great companion for the FA*.
However, I think the Porst is more inclined to give such soft focused image than the others (see the link for the lens in the database : the picture with the "kissers" is what I'm talking about).

I have had a nice sample of the Porst imo but this lens will definitely give you soft and milky images wide open (mid to inf. distances).
This is a 6-lens design which is unheard of in an f/1.2 standard lens. Nice lens anyway.

So, if I understand correctly, when this lens is not used at portraiture distance, it will most likely produce milky images?

I'd say yes, cause you can use the lensmount for the 1.7 and maybe get a nice 1.4 later and use the same mount for it.
If it is really wide open clarity (sharpness, contrast, colors) in a lens you are looking for, the Contax Zeiss stuff is for you.
In Asahi/Pentax land I would try any 55/1.8. The 1.7 and 1.4 designs are not so crisp wide open (mid to inf. distances, excl. DA55).

You might have nailed it...
Thing is, I would like to use the lens in low light, so the faster the better. However, I wish for a reasonable amount of sharpness and contrast. Maybe I should go for the Contax Zeiss...
However, the price, with the modified mount, is about the same (within a reasonable percentage) of what the porst would cost.
However, I didn't even think about changing lens while keeping the mount : it makes the upgrade a bit less painful! Thank you very much !
How much is the difference between f2 and f1.7? Half a stop? A third?

If you're a tinkerer, here's a zero budget solution for your Contax on PK.

Cheers, Georg

Thanks! The problem is I don't have the tools necessary (no drill). So only "soft" stuff for me


The zeiss 1.7 might be the most sensible choice... And I can't exactly go wrong with it, right?

[Pentaxor]

The zeiss 1.7 might be the most sensible choice... And I can't exactly go wrong with it, right?

I see. well if you need a sharp and fast 50mm lens for lowlight use, maybe you want to consider the Pentax 55/1.8. it won't cost you an arm and would probably range from $50-$80. I would say this lens is sharp from wide open even at midrange distance.

[ducdao]

However, I "fell" on a Porst Color Reflex 55 1.2...
The price is a bit expensive for me, so I would like to know :
- What is it worth wide open?
- How much do you think it's worth?

I bought mine for $225 a month ago on eBay. It was an excellent copy.

[RioRico]

I see. well if you need a sharp and fast 50mm lens for lowlight use, maybe you want to consider the Pentax 55/1.8. it won't cost you an arm and would probably range from $50-$80.

I've seen SuperTak 55/1.8's go for under US$25 lately, and the 55/2 (same optics, just one less stop on the aperture ring) go (or not go) for around US$10. On the bay. This week. Yes, these still are dirt cheap. So are Chinon 55/1.7's under various badges.

[Pentaxor]

I've seen SuperTak 55/1.8's go for under US$25 lately, and the 55/2 (same optics, just one less stop on the aperture ring) go (or not go) for around US$10. On the bay. This week. Yes, these still are dirt cheap. So are Chinon 55/1.7's under various badges.

Yes, the Taks are the cheaper alternative. thank goodness that people are not yet that insane to sell them as much as the K-mount Pentax are. I mean, the K-mount version are cheap, but it would be ridiculous if they sell the M42's as much are the K-mounts are.

[John Poirier]

I see. well if you need a sharp and fast 50mm lens for lowlight use, maybe you want to consider the Pentax 55/1.8. it won't cost you an arm and would probably range from $50-$80. I would say this lens is sharp from wide open even at midrange distance.

Whoa! Let's not get too sensible! You're dangerously close to being subversive.

Well, maybe I'll be a bit subversive too.

Why is no one talking about flare in all these declarations about "performance"? Could it be that Porst, Cosina, Tomioka and Revuenon do not have Super Multicoating?

I know it's fun to talk about esoterica such as third-party 1.2 lenses. For the most part it makes for fairly interesting and entertaining reading. However, I fear that some newbies and the credulous are being badly misled by assertions that Nirvana can only be achieved via these and other rare and ridiculously expensive oddities.

While I'm at it, I have to say that this business about a 1.2 maximum aperture being terribly important for serious low light work is just plain silly.

I'm speaking as a long-time professional with a great deal of experience in low- light photography. In the real world I never needed a 1.2, not even when shooting a thousand feet down in a gold mine with a miner's helmet lamp for illumination.

So let's try to keep things somewhat real in general.

I strongly encourage those who want to try older lenses to buy a basic SMC 50 or 55 and see for yourselves how good they are. As Pentax users you have access to some very fine, affordable vintage lenses made by Pentax. Go for it!

John