[stevebrot]

Maybe not really an "off-brand" in the sense that this lens is a re-badged Auto Rikenon 55/1.4 (xpost from K-1 thread)

"Started a bit late with my Universon 55/1.4 (Tomioka) for the Single Challenges thread (acquired last weekend at a yard sale for 3€ attached to a junk SLR) ... here, a few first efforts with the K-1 and the fly image was only at f/4 ... the first is wide open, then f/2, f/4, & f/5.6 to end up with ..."


[/COLOR][/LEFT]

Universon! That name simply shouts OFF-BRAND.

Nice work with that variant of the Tomioka 55/1.4.


Steve

[Jean Poitiers]

Universon! That name simply shouts OFF-BRAND.

Nice work with that variant of the Tomioka 55/1.4.


Steve

Merci Steve,

Here's what I got for my money, but I had to "explode" the dented filter off ... would not unscrew at all (xpost)

[disconnekt]

Yep, that's a re-branded Auto Rikenon (the Interflex TLS is a rebranded Ricoh, too).

So ironically, it's simultaneously an off-brand but made by the same company who made the camera you use to take the picture!

The camera is a rebranded Ricoh TLS, which Sears (yes, THAT Sears) happened to release their own rebranded version called Sears TLS (which I own & love).

[Jonathan Mac]

Maybe not really an "off-brand" in the sense that this lens is a re-badged Auto Rikenon 55/1.4 (xpost from K-1 thread)

"Started a bit late with my Universon 55/1.4 (Tomioka) for the Single Challenges thread (acquired last weekend at a yard sale for 3€ attached to a junk SLR) ... here, a few first efforts with the K-1 and the fly image was only at f/4 ... the first is wide open, then f/2, f/4, & f/5.6 to end up with ..."

Merci Steve,

Here's what I got for my money, but I had to "explode" the dented filter off ... would not unscrew at all (xpost)

It's funny that you posted this yesterday as when reading it I had just ten minutes earlier purchased (online, will hopefully pick it up on Wednesday) a Chinon CX II SLR with an Auto Chinon 55mm f/1.4 (M42 mount) on it. I set about looking for reviews but there seems to be a lot of confusing info out there. Lots of people seem to think that any 55mm f/1.4 lens produced by Sears, Ricoh, Chinon, Porst, Revuenon and a host of others, are all re-branded Tomiokas, but there doesn't seem to be much info to either confirm or refute these claims. That leaves me unsure about whether or not they are all the same with cosmetic differences or not, so looking for reviews is tough as I never know which ones apply to the version I bought.

The Chinon 55/1.4 with leatherette-style covering on the focus ring seems to be quite common, but mine has a metal or rubber covering on the focus ring. I think it's a newer version but again, I can't confirm this.

[stevebrot]

Lots of people seem to think that any 55mm f/1.4 lens produced by Sears, Ricoh, Chinon, Porst, Revuenon and a host of others, are all re-branded Tomiokas, but there doesn't seem to be much info to either confirm or refute these claims.

I agree that the assertion is pretty broadly made, but when you see one, those that are the same are pretty evident. The metal focus grip Auto-Rikenon 55/1.4 (kit for the Singlex TLS and TLS 401) is highly probable Tomioka. The same is true for cosmetically identical Sears, Focal, and other house brand lenses bundled with re-brands of the Singlex TLS. Tomioka-labeled Chinon are indisputable as are Tomioka-branded lenses. A strong case has been made for inclusion of the fine-ribbed metal grip Mamiya/Sekor 55/1.4 as Tomioka made despite "Sekor" being the name of Mamiya's lens factory. Who knows, maybe Sekor was making product for Tomioka.

As has been noted on this site and other places on the Web, the Tomioka mystique may be a little overblown. They were a maker of generic product that was often very good to excellent with a few offerings that were not so good. My Auto-Rikenon 55/1.4 is a decent lens, but not as good (IMHO) as my MC Rokkor PF 58/1.4. In regards to off-brand f/1.4s, my opinion is similar to that expressed on a recent video review, that being if you see an f/1.4 lens at a yard sale or thrift shop in a usable mount and cheap, it is a clear indicator to buy. OTOH, I, for one, would not pay premium money based solely on reputed Tomioka make, particularly those obviously dating to after Yashica's 1968 acquisition of Tomioka.

Note: I was shocked this evening to see an Auto Rikenon 55/1.4 offered on eBay for $114 USD with a dicey focus ring and $95 being asked for an Auto Sears 55/1.4. Worst was $225 for an MC Auto Chinon 55/1.4.


Steve

[stevebrot]

The MC Auto Chinon has always been expensive due to its rarity and the fact that very few lenses in this family are fully multicoated. Same with Chinons, Cosinons, etc. that actually say "Tomioka" on the name ring. They have been at least $200 for 3 or 4 years now.

I can personally verify that the Chinon, Cosinon, Revuenon, Porst, and Rikenon 55mm lenses all have interchangeable elements, although the coatings vary from brand to brand, and the mounts and other hardware vary substantially.

Early Mamiyas are interchangeable, but the Sekor SX (and its Sears variant) is a completely different design. The EE era Rikenons are also different.

None of the K ot other bayonet mount lenses by any of these companies is a Tomioka.

Thanks for weighing in with the internal proof of relatedness. I have often wondered why even brands with established in-house optical expertise (Cosina and Mamiya, for example) opted to use the Tomioka 55mm f/1.4 rather than develop their own. I have not done much shooting with my Rikenon*, but am thinking that since it is now my most valuable vintage lens, it may be time to take it out for a bit of fresh air.


Steve

* The low contrast wide open along with the tendency to throw reflections onto the sensor has tempered my enthusiasm for the lens.

[Jonathan Mac]

I agree that the assertion is pretty broadly made, but when you see one, those that are the same are pretty evident. The metal focus grip Auto-Rikenon 55/1.4 (kit for the Singlex TLS and TLS 401) is highly probable Tomioka. The same is true for cosmetically identical Sears, Focal, and other house brand lenses bundled with re-brands of the Singlex TLS. Tomioka-labeled Chinon are indisputable as are Tomioka-branded lenses. A strong case has been made for inclusion of the fine-ribbed metal grip Mamiya/Sekor 55/1.4 as Tomioka made despite "Sekor" being the name of Mamiya's lens factory. Who knows, maybe Sekor was making product for Tomioka.

As has been noted on this site and other places on the Web, the Tomioka mystique may be a little overblown. They were a maker of generic product that was often very good to excellent with a few offerings that were not so good. My Auto-Rikenon 55/1.4 is a decent lens, but not as good (IMHO) as my MC Rokkor PF 58/1.4. In regards to off-brand f/1.4s, my opinion is similar to that expressed on a recent video review, that being if you see an f/1.4 lens at a yard sale or thrift shop in a usable mount and cheap, it is a clear indicator to buy. OTOH, I, for one, would not pay premium money based solely on reputed Tomioka make, particularly those obviously dating to after Yashica's 1968 acquisition of Tomioka.

Note: I was shocked this evening to see an Auto Rikenon 55/1.4 offered on eBay for $114 USD with a dicey focus ring and $95 being asked for an Auto Sears 55/1.4. Worst was $225 for an MC Auto Chinon 55/1.4.

Steve

The MC Auto Chinon has always been expensive due to its rarity and the fact that very few lenses in this family are fully multicoated. Same with Chinons, Cosinons, etc. that actually say "Tomioka" on the name ring. They have been at least $200 for 3 or 4 years now.

I can personally verify that the Chinon, Cosinon, Revuenon, Porst, and Rikenon 55mm lenses all have interchangeable elements, although the coatings vary from brand to brand, and the mounts and other hardware vary substantially.

Early Mamiyas are interchangeable, but the Sekor SX (and its Sears variant) is a completely different design. The EE era Rikenons are also different.

None of the K ot other bayonet mount lenses by any of these companies is a Tomioka.

Thanks for the additional info, especially regarding the MC Auto Chinon, as that's the version I have recently bought for €35 with a Chinon CX II

At the end of the day it all comes down to image quality and other factors such as size, weight, the pleasure of use etc etc so I'll give it a whirl and if I'm not happy I'll sell it on (hopefully at a profit).

[Matthew]

At the end of the day it all comes down to image quality and other factors such as size, weight, the pleasure of use etc etc so I'll give it a whirl and if I'm not happy I'll sell it on (hopefully at a profit).

Note to self. Don't buy a lens from Jonathan Mac!

[stevebrot]

This is peculiar to the Chinon models, so it supports the theory that manufacturers were buying the elements separately and doing the coating and assembly themselves (or having yet another contractor do it for them).

I concur. My conclusion has been that photographic manufacturing in Japan during the 1960s into the 1970s was rather unconventional and that the "parts bin" for lenses and cameras was distributed among many entities such that it is difficult to trace with any certainty the heritage of some products.


Steve

[Jean Poitiers]

A few more with the Single Challenges lens ... a Universon 55/1.4 (Tomioka) on K-1 and the last one is with 10mm of tube ... (xpost from K-1 thread)

[Cabessius]

I think this lens doesn´t fit in any other club, so it should belong here.
Recently bought a pack of lenses including a Revuenon 50mm f/1.4, a Pentacon 135mm f/2.8, a set of M42 macro tubes and this lens, all for 50 euros.
This one is the one with the worst appearance in the pack, with the whole focusing ring rubber gone (all of the others are almost mint).
Anyway I quickly found this is the one I like most among all of them.
Will be posting more pics with it.

[Jonathan Mac]

One thing to watch out for in the Chinons: the cemented doublet in the front optical block more often than not will have cement separation. This is peculiar to the Chinon models, so it supports the theory that manufacturers were buying the elements separately and doing the coating and assembly themselves (or having yet another contractor do it for them).

Interestingly, it's not nearly as easy to see as separation in many other lenses, since you don't get the obvious iridescence between the two layers, but if you hold up the lens and look through it at the sky, you can typically pick up on it. In my experience it doesn't affect the imaging in any way, but it can affect collectors' value.

The Chinons also tend to be somewhat more inclined to have oil migration to the aperture blades. This is true of many of their other lenses, too, so I imagine they used a lubricant that has turned out to be more unstable over decades-long spans than have those used by some of the other manufacturers.

I went to pick up my new acquisition but after giving it a thorough look-over I asked for a refund. The lens seemed very sharp in the centre wide open (sharper than any other 50-ish lens at f/1.4 that I've ever tried) but the barrel was loose and it was quite banged up. No sign of oil on the blades or balsam separation, though it had relatively minor dust inside. The camera it was on was even worse - the back didn't close properly, the whole front part onto which the mount was screwed was loose with no obvious way to tighten it up and the leather covering was peeling badly and cracked.

It's a shame but to look on the bright side, I now know about these 55mm f/1.4s and can keep an eye out for them in the future.

I think this lens doesn´t fit in any other club, so it should belong here.
Recently bought a pack of lenses including a Revuenon 50mm f/1.4, a Pentacon 135mm f/2.8, a set of M42 macro tubes and this lens, all for 50 euros.
This one is the one with the worst appearance in the pack, with the whole focusing ring rubber gone (all of the others are almost mint).
Anyway I quickly found this is the one I like most among all of them.
Will be posting more pics with it.

I see a lot of these Fuji 55/2.2 lenses for sale with cameras. I believe they were the cheapest standard lenses on the Fujica cameras and have read that they're not great performers though that picture looks sharp and contrasty.

The Auto Revuenon 50mm f/1.4 (if that's the one you got) is a superb lens, probably the best 50mm f/1.4 I have, maybe even the best 50mm period.

[Jonathan Mac]

that's too bad. These lenses aren't particularly difficult to work on, though, so if you have similar problems with the next sample you find, drop me a line, and I can walk you through the disassembly.

In your case, given the value of the Multicoated version and rarity of one without separation, I'd myself almost be inclined to keep the lens and wait for a cheap sample with a good body but with optical issues to pop up. The entire optical block is removable in one piece, and the later samples of the much cheaper non-MC versions use the same body, so it would only be a matter of swapping out the block and trim ring to get a very nice condition MC version.

Many thanks.

I'm not sure I made the right decision on sending it back, but I've plenty of other 50mm and 55mm lenses to use.

[Jonathan Mac]

Auto Revuenon 50mm f/1.4


IMGP1239a by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr


IMGP1250a by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr


IMGP1246a by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr


IMGP1245a by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr


IMGP1253a by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr

[Jean Poitiers]

More fun with my Single Challenges lens ... Universon 55/1.4 (Tomioka) ... first image @ f/8 with 32mm of tube (for fun) ... xpost