[alamo5000]

Below are links to three pictures that I took yesterday with an old manual lens that I have had for several years. I put up the links instead of the photos because this way you can pixel peep if you want. I have always been really curious about that lens and just how it stacks up in real world performance.

Of course I am not really technically inclined enough to be able to tell pros and cons and good or bad from technical perspective.

In case you are wondering the lens is a P series Rikenon 50mm f1.4 lens.

All of the shots below were shot in completely uncontrolled environments in natural light with total strangers and they were all shot wide open at f1.4. I am curious to hear what other people's opinions are of this lens' performance.

---

IMGP1308-3 | alamo5000 | Flickr

---

IMGP1305 | alamo5000 | Flickr

---

IMGP1317-2 | alamo5000 | Flickr

---

Last edited by alamo5000; 10-15-2017 at 08:49 PM.

[ChristianRock]

I believe you mean Rikenon? Rokinon is an entirely different brand.

[alamo5000]

I believe you mean Rikenon? Rokinon is an entirely different brand.

Yes. You are right. I will fix the post.

[ChristianRock]

As for the lens itself, now that I'm on my computer I can see the pictures and of course they are wonderful for a f/1.4 aperture. But I am not surprised - I have that same Rikenon lens and it is my favorite 50mm lens (I use it on APS-C though). Stop it down to f/4 to f/11 and it's sharper than any other 50 I have had - and I have had the Rikenon XR 50 1.4 (older version - not nearly as good), Pentax-M 50 f4 Macro, Pentax-M 50 f1.7, Pentax-M 50 f1.4, Pentax-M 50 f2, Pentax-A 50 1.7, Pentax-F 50 1.7 (all Pentax 50s are great but the Rikenon is a tad better I feel), Auto Sears 50 f1.7 and Auto-Sears 50 f2 (this one might be as sharp stopped down, and of course it's also made by Ricoh like the Rikenons - but at f2 the P f/1.4 wins so I think t's still the better lens)

From what I've seen, the Pentax DA*55 f/1.4 and the Sigma Art 50mm f/1.4 might be the only ones that beat that Rikenon, and of course I can't afford either of them, so I'm happy with the Rikenon P

[alamo5000]

Feel free to comment on the lens, the pictures, the bokeh, the lighting, the whatever... I didn't share these in the other picture sharing forums mainly because I am using them to get feedback on the lens itself. I however do welcome any and all comments on the photos.

[alamo5000]

As for the lens itself, now that I'm on my computer I can see the pictures and of course they are wonderful for a f/1.4 aperture. But I am not surprised - I have that same Rikenon lens and it is my favorite 50mm lens (I use it on APS-C though). Stop it down to f/4 to f/11 and it's sharper than any other 50 I have had - and I have had the Rikenon XR 50 1.4 (older version - not nearly as good), Pentax-M 50 f4 Macro, Pentax-M 50 f1.7, Pentax-M 50 f1.4, Pentax-M 50 f2, Pentax-A 50 1.7, Pentax-F 50 1.7 (all Pentax 50s are great but the Rikenon is a tad better I feel), Auto Sears 50 f1.7 and Auto-Sears 50 f2 (this one might be as sharp stopped down, and of course it's also made by Ricoh like the Rikenons - but at f2 the P f/1.4 wins so I think t's still the better lens)

From what I've seen, the Pentax DA*55 f/1.4 and the Sigma Art 50mm f/1.4 might be the only ones that beat that Rikenon, and of course I can't afford either of them, so I'm happy with the Rikenon P

That lens is currently my only manual lens. It was also the very first manual lens I have ever owned. I bought it in 2012 when I bought my very first ever in my life camera was also purchased. That lens has been sitting around a lot and I tried it on a crop sensor a number of times, but I have been itching to see what it could do on a full frame sensor.

At present I might be inclined to expand my horizons more into more manual glass. So far with that lens and my on and again off again relationship with it, I have to say I am pretty pleased with it. And yes, stopped down that thing is pretty sharp.

[SpecialK]

It looks very good for wide open.

[alamo5000]

It looks very good for wide open.

You qualified your statement LOL! "For wide open"...

I want to take this thing apart... what's the good and bad...I have three examples there, so how should I (going forward) critique this or any other lens?

Something made you qualify the statement SO with that in mind start naming some bad stuff or weaknesses as you see it?

[Sandy Hancock]

The first image image is focussed on the beard rather than the eyes, but that's no hanging offence.
The lens is nice and sharp wide open and the out of focus areas are pleasing. I would say it's a keeper without a doubt.

[MrB1]

The positioning of the camera relative to the person is relevant here, and also it might have been better to be a bit closer to the main subject because, despite the short depth of field, there are bright distractions behind them and there is also the half-man in the second. Using a narrower aperture could have enabled better focus, while still retaining blur in the background; and the focusing is critical here. For example, the character of the two men* is also shaped by their facial hair so, as well as the eyes being in focus, for me it is important that all the facial hair is sharp.

Philip

* i.e. the central subject in the first two images

[SpecialK]

You qualified your statement LOL! "For wide open"...

I want to take this thing apart... what's the good and bad...I have three examples there, so how should I (going forward) critique this or any other lens?

Something made you qualify the statement SO with that in mind start naming some bad stuff or weaknesses as you see it?

It looks pretty sharp but I have perhaps seen sharper. That is a major criterion for lens quality.

[timw4mail]

It looks pretty sharp but I have perhaps seen sharper. That is a major criterion for lens quality.

Major measurable criterion. Sharpness is overrated.

[SpecialK]

Major measurable criterion. Sharpness is overrated.

It depends who you ask. Most member's comments seem to favor it. HC-B is dead.

[ChristianRock]

It looks pretty sharp but I have perhaps seen sharper. That is a major criterion for lens quality.

Let's not forget that this lens sells for 60-70 dollars in the used market usually... sure the Sigma 50 1.4 Art is sharper at f/1.4, but at $950 it costs 15x more.

I have this Rikenon P and the Pentax-M 50 1.4 and there's no comparison in sharpness, the Rikenon P wins hands down, though the Pentax lens renders very nicely in its own way and is also a delight to shoot with, with perhaps a bit better bokeh.

[CreationBear]

uncontrolled environments in natural light with total strangers

Put me down in the "it's a keeper" category--I liked especially the colors and bokeh of the middle shot...you'll have to scare up some Zeiss owners, but in my admittedly limited experience the rendering seems close. As for Pentax options, the K-series 55/1.8 has to be the all-time "bang-for-the-buck" champion, with a unique look all its own.