[edom31]

One more from the Rikenon XR 50 1.4... this dragonfly was happy to stay quiet and pose for me.

More from the great Rikenon P 50 1.4

You have both the XR & P?

[ChristianRock]

You have both the XR & P?

I did. I recently gave my XR away to a forum user (along with 3 other lenses) who is learning to work on lenses. He was able to clean it up and fix the aperture that was stuck wide open, I hope he makes good use of it.

The XR has better bokeh (from f2 and smaller, f1.4 was wild and focuses closer than most 50mm lenses (non-macro). But the P is much sharper with better colors and micro-contrast. But I have to say the XR - at least my copy - was as sharp as any 50mm lens from f4 to smaller apertures. I quite liked it.

The Rikenon P 50mm f1.4 might be my best 50mm lens, and I own or have owned the SMC Pentax 50mm f1.7 (M,A,F), SMC-M 50mm f.1.4 (two copies), SMC-M 50mm f2 and the mighty SMC "K" 50mm f/1.2.

[edom31]

The Rikenon P 50mm f1.4 might be my best 50mm lens, and I own or have owned the SMC Pentax 50mm f1.7 (M,A,F), SMC-M 50mm f.1.4 (two copies), SMC-M 50mm f2 and the mighty SMC "K" 50mm f/1.2.

Wow, that is quite the list of better than average/great 50s there; I've never used the K 50/1.2, but knowing the K series, that must be quite the lens.

The XR has better bokeh (from f2 and smaller, f1.4 was wild and focuses closer than most 50mm lenses (non-macro). But the P is much sharper with better colors and micro-contrast. But I have to say the XR - at least my copy - was as sharp as any 50mm lens from f4 to smaller apertures. I quite liked it.

I did a Month SIC with the XR 50/1.4 - ended up really disliking it. While very capable it had a sensor reflection issue that got to me. did not happen often, but with a strong light it will appear...

[ChristianRock]

Wow, that is quite the list of better than average/great 50s there; I've never used the K 50/1.2, but knowing the K series, that must be quite the lens.

It is. The bokeh from that lens is what all other lenses want to be when they grow up. And it's sharp as tack with magnificent rendering.
Now that I took it for a spin today, I'd say it's the equal of the Rikenon P 50 1.4 - though the Rikenon has a delicate rendering that works so well on flowers, it's kind of hard to explain.

I did a Month SIC with the XR 50/1.4 - ended up really disliking it. While very capable it had a sensor reflection issue that got to me. did not happen often, but with a strong light it will appear...

Yeah I remember reading about that. I don't think mine ever did that, but it did have a glow around the in-focus area when shot wide open. I do miss it but I also do miss the Rikenon XR 50 1.7 (mine was branded Sears, but it was the Rikenon model, not the Chinon) - that is another VERY underrated lens, I liked its rendering better than the SMC-M 50 1.7, despite loving that lens as well.

[stevebrot]

I have picked up a few more Rikenons since I last posted here and figured I should share what I am doing with them.

The first is an XR Rikenon 50/1.7 that came with an XR-1 body. I am assuming it is original to the camera given that it is the heavier and less compact early version (45 cm MFD) made from 1977-1981. Other than needing a grease refresh of the focus helicoids, it looks to be pristine. Strangely, I not done much shooting with this lens other than initial evaluation to verify that that it is functional and competent.

Below is the sole image I have to share from Flickr, a product shot of my bellows lens...

Focus Ring? What Focus Ring?


Pentax K-3, XR Rikenon 50/1.7

Next is an XR Rikenon 35/2.8 that was acquired from forum member Pepperberry Farm. This is the second version sold from 1981 to 1984 (per drricoh.de, confirmed by serial number and physical comparison with known first version copies from photo magazine reviews) having aperture ring settings from f/2.8 to f/16 and 35cm MFD. While the first version is widely known to have been sourced from Pentax, this second version has an unknown pedigree. All I know for sure is that it simply rocks and that I suspect it may be better in some ways than my Pentax-FA 35/2.0.

Chiaroscurotech


Pentax K-3, XR Rikenon 35/2.8


Release of the Mini Kind


Pentax K-3, XR Rikenon 35/2.8


Lynx...Meet the Hi-Matic


Pentax K-3, XR Rikenon 35/2.8


That's a Lot of Glass


Pentax K-3, XR Rikenon 35/2.8


Godox TT350P


Pentax K-3, XR Rikenon 35/2.8


Sorry for all the gear shots, but I have not been in the field too much this year.


Steve

[ChristianRock]

I have picked up a few more Rikenons since I last posted here and figured I should share what I am doing with them.

The first is an XR Rikenon 50/1.7 that came with an XR-1 body. I am assuming it is original to the camera given that it is the heavier and less compact early version (45 cm MFD) made from 1977-1981. Other than needing a grease refresh of the focus helicoids, it looks to be pristine. Strangely, I not done much shooting with this lens other than initial evaluation to verify that that it is functional and competent.

Below is the sole image I have to share from Flickr, a product shot of my bellows lens...

Focus Ring? What Focus Ring?


Pentax K-3, XR Rikenon 50/1.7

Next is an XR Rikenon 35/2.8 that was acquired from forum member Pepperberry Farm. This is the second version sold from 1981 to 1984 (per drricoh.de, confirmed by serial number and physical comparison with known first version copies from photo magazine reviews) having aperture ring settings from f/2.8 to f/16 and 35cm MFD. While the first version is widely known to have been sourced from Pentax, this second version has an unknown pedigree. All I know for sure is that it simply rocks and that I suspect it may be better in some ways than my Pentax-FA 35/2.0.

Chiaroscurotech


Pentax K-3, XR Rikenon 35/2.8


Release of the Mini Kind


Pentax K-3, XR Rikenon 35/2.8


Lynx...Meet the Hi-Matic


Pentax K-3, XR Rikenon 35/2.8


That's a Lot of Glass


Pentax K-3, XR Rikenon 35/2.8


Godox TT350P


Pentax K-3, XR Rikenon 35/2.8


Sorry for all the gear shots, but I have not been in the field too much this year.


Steve

Love the product shots.

If you get the chance, I'd love to see some pictures of that Rikenon 35 2.8, including some coating reflections - if you can, of course.

[edom31]

Next is an XR Rikenon 35/2.8 that was acquired from forum member Pepperberry Farm. This is the second version sold from 1981 to 1984 (per drricoh.de, confirmed by serial number and physical comparison with known first version copies from photo magazine reviews) having aperture ring settings from f/2.8 to f/16 and 35cm MFD. While the first version is widely known to have been sourced from Pentax, this second version has an unknown pedigree. All I know for sure is that it simply rocks and that I suspect it may be better in some ways than my Pentax-FA 35/2.0.

Hey - I also have this lens. This is perhaps my favorite 35mm lens I own; rough battle with the super tak 35/3.5... Dave (@Pepperberry_Farm) acquired his copy after I acquired mine. We had this discussion before...

What you have is the 1st version. This is the unicorn version (F16 and 35cm MFD).


The 2nd version is allegedly the same as the M35/2.8 - this one goes to f22...

Early version w f16 as min aperture, 6 blades and MFD of 35cm. Late version = just like the M 35/2.8 - f22 as minimum aperture, 5 blades, 30cm MFD.

See here for reference (also @ChristianRock - take a look at this old posting - it has the blades and coatings):

Google translate does a decent job at traducing the page (judging from the English result)

RICOH (???)?XR RIKENON 35mm / f2.8??????PK???

This is my lens (jpgs straight from camera no retouch at all):

6 Blades (and some coatings):


Coatings:


Aperture and minimum focal distance:

The quoted webpage (once translated to English) mentions Tomioka Optical as the source of the 1st version... It seems that whenever someone has a nice lens and does not know the source, Tomioka is mentioned LOL.

PS - while I've posted it before, this is one of my favorite shots with my XR 35/2.8...

---

Last edited by edom31; 10-28-2021 at 07:17 AM.

[stevebrot]

What you have is the 1st version. This is the unicorn version (F16 and 35cm MFD).

The 2nd version is allegedly the same as the M35/2.8 - this one goes to f22...

Early version w f16 as min aperture, 6 blades and MFD of 35cm. Late version = just like the M 35/2.8 - f22 as minimum aperture, 5 blades, 30cm MFD.

My conclusion is based on published reviews of the XR-2 camera and selection of lenses lent to photo magazines. The XR-1 and XR-2 were both released in fall of 1977 along with the original XR Rikenon lenses. The XR-2 with XR Rikenon 50/1.7 was tested by Modern Photography March of 1978 along with the following XR Rikenon primes: 28/2.8, 35/2.8, 135/2.8, and 200/4.0. Scans of the review were posted to the MFLenses site a few years back and happily provide detailed documentation of the tested lenses as well as the reviewers conclusions on tear-down regarding origins (Pentax!). Here is a link...

No fooling: Modern Photography March 1978 Equipment Reviews

Based on serial numbers and description, I concluded that at least my copy of the "unicorn" XR Rikenon 35/2.8 represents a later version than what was tested spring of 1978 by Modern Photography and fall of 1979 by Popular Photography. (Mine is serial number 215850.) The lens test portion of the review from Popular Photography is posted at the link below...

XR Rikenon 50mm 35mm 200mm lens test 1979 (XR-2 camera review HERE)

Both dovetail with the table at DrRicoh...

The Unofficial Guide to Ricoh SLR Cameras and Rikenon Lenses

FWIW...While DrRicoh is sometimes incomplete, I have found the site to be accurate. Is there a third-gen XR Rikenon 35/2.8 with f/22 minimum aperture? Who knows?

I looked high and low for low serial number "unicorns" and high serial number f/22 variants, but with zero luck on either count.


Steve

[stevebrot]

Love the product shots.

If you get the chance, I'd love to see some pictures of that Rikenon 35 2.8, including some coating reflections - if you can, of course.

Will do.


Steve

[ChristianRock]

@edom31 @stevebrot

The lens shown in the japanese article has a very Tokina-like look to it, from the barrel construction to the fonts that were used, and the coatings reflection as well. I have been unable to find a Tokina 35 2.8 that looks like it but the front element and the beauty ring remind me of the RMC Tokinas 24 2.8 and 28 2.8. The RMC Tokina 35 2.8 had a much more exposed front element. So I can't tell for sure but if I had to bet, I would bet it's a Tokina.

The older M42 Rikenon 35 2.8 lenses, with the larger front element, are also sometimes described as being Tomioka, but they are also suspiciously like the Tokina M42 35 2.8 lenses... including the size of the front element, the blue color of the coatings and the angle of the beauty ring.

The Rikenon 24mm f/2.8 has been described online as having been made by Tokina as well.

Tokina has made some pretty great lenses. After trying 5 different 24mm f/2.8 lenses, I stayed with a Tokina - it was the sharpest of them all, at all distances. If only this thing had SMC coatings... its loss of contrast in harsh light is its Achilles heel.

[Jonathan Mac]

Next is an XR Rikenon 35/2.8 that was acquired from forum member Pepperberry Farm. This is the second version sold from 1981 to 1984 (per drricoh.de, confirmed by serial number and physical comparison with known first version copies from photo magazine reviews) having aperture ring settings from f/2.8 to f/16 and 35cm MFD. While the first version is widely known to have been sourced from Pentax, this second version has an unknown pedigree. All I know for sure is that it simply rocks and that I suspect it may be better in some ways than my Pentax-FA 35/2.0.
Steve

Hey - I also have this lens. This is perhaps my favourite 35mm lens I own; rough battle with the super tak 35/3.5... Dave (@Pepperberry_Farm) acquired his copy after I acquired mine. We had this discussion before...

What you have is the 1st version. This is the unicorn version (F16 and 35cm MFD).

The 2nd version is allegedly the same as the M35/2.8 - this one goes to f22...

Early version w f16 as min aperture, 6 blades and MFD of 35cm. Late version = just like the M 35/2.8 - f22 as minimum aperture, 5 blades, 30cm MFD.

See here for reference (also @ChristianRock - take a look at this old posting - it has the blades and coatings):

The quoted webpage (once translated to English) mentions Tomioka Optical as the source of the 1st version... It seems that whenever someone has a nice lens and does not know the source, Tomioka is mentioned LOL.

PS - while I've posted it before, this is one of my favourite shots with my XR 35/2.8...

Funny that this should pop up now as I've just this morning ordered a copy of this lens, though it'll take a few days to arrive. It goes to f/16 but I can't see from the seller's photos what the minimum focus distance is or how many aperture blades it has and from my bit of research this morning I concluded it was the first version (non-Pentax). The serial number is, I think, 207603.

I looked on Flickr and saw Pepperberry Farm's shots but didn't pay much attention as he has the later version so it's a different lens. Other shots on Flickr don't specify the version but there are some nice results there though I don't know which version they come from, so not a great indicator. For €46 it wasn't too expensive and I imagine I'll be able to sell it on at cost if I don't like it. I have a thing for 35mm lenses as they make nice normals on APS-C digital cameras but I have accumulated quite a few and several are faster than f/2.8 and really good performers.

The DrRicoh site shows the f/16 version as being the later one so now I'm a bit confused. I have an M 35/2.8 to compare it to but it's at my in-laws place so I won't be able to put them side by side for a few weeks, but I think most M lenses go to f/22 rather than f/16.

[edom31]

I looked on Flickr

Here's my XR 35/2.8 collection

Rikenon XR 35mm 2.8 (1st Version) | Flickr

Again, mine goes to f16, 35cm MFD, and has 6 blades.

I have the M 35/2.8 and can confirm it has 5 blades and f22 - it is also in our forum's reviews page...

The DrRicoh site shows the f/16 version as being the later one so now I'm a bit confused. I have an M 35/2.8 to compare it to but it's at my in-laws place so I won't be able to put them side by side for a few weeks, but I think most M lenses go to f/22 rather than f/16.

Can someone provide the link for this website? I could not find it.

[ChristianRock]

Can someone provide the link for this website? I could not find it.

It was in SteveBrot's post:

The Unofficial Guide to Ricoh SLR Cameras and Rikenon Lenses

[edom31]

It was in SteveBrot's post:The Unofficial Guide to Ricoh SLR Cameras and Rikenon Lenses

Thanks!

OK it does not open at work. Will try it at home later.

[ChristianRock]

Thanks!

OK it does not open at work. Will try it at home later.

It's a german site, maybe your work blocks international sites? My work only blocks russian sites, for some reason...