12$ CHINON 135mm f/2.8 M42, WOW ! :-)

[InTheSky]

I just received a lens I have got on Ebay two weeks ago. For 12 $ US + 8 $ of shipping, this lens arrived at home in like new condition (I almost think the lens has never been used).

The result on the A900 so far are really really good, even at full open F/2.8.

I have bought this lens for a friend starting photography with very low budget. She is using a Canon Rebel 300D (First model) i have got on Ebay for 200 $ + kit lens 18-55mm at 25 $. She got a 50mm F/1.8 for 100 $ and now i have found the 135mm. Canon confirm focus adapter cost 30$ US, but will be useful for other M42 lens.

More I'm founding those old lens on Ebay and more I'm surprised how they are good on the A900. Thinking that budget wise i should sell my Beautiful Minolta Gear and try to do only photo with very low budget lenses .

I know nothing about Chinon, is this company was good in the past ? The full lens description is : AUTO CHINON (in orange) 1:2.8 f=135mm 558120 CHINON IND., INC JAPAN .

Regards,

Frank

[David Kilpatrick]

Chinon was and probably is co-owned by various investors including Kodak Ltd and the Dixons group from the UK. They have always been a good second-tier manufacturer and were the first to introduce a form of shutter priority automation in a Pentax thread DSLR - it worked by measuring the amount the lens stopped down as the aperture was pushed it before the mirror lifted, using a very fast response Silicon Blue diode metering cell.

Their lenses were probably made by many different companies but generally looked similar to Cosina at the time.

David

[Dusty]

Their lenses were probably made by many different companies but generally looked similar to Cosina at the time.

David

Are there any lists out there as to who produced/still produces which private brands? I'd like to know who made a few of my old MD lenses that I bought. I have J.C, Penney's, Focal (K-Mart), and Albinar that I can think of that served me well in the past.

Dusty

[David Kilpatrick]

Keppler had that list in his head. Albinar lenses were just a name and certainly the J C Penney, Focal etc would have been rebranded. Allied Impex, the makers or commissioners of Soligor lenses, were responsible for many of the minor relabels. At one time it was easy to identify families of lenses - Sigma, Sun, Solaris and a couple of other names used the YS mount which a kind of auto T-mount. Soligor used the T-4 mount, Tamron the Adaptall. Komura invented their own and stand out, like Tamron, as an unique design house rather than a me-too factory.

Before Tokina was taken over by Hoya, Tokina made lenses using Hoya glass which were marketed as Hoya. Now there is no Hoya brand, only Tokina. Kenko is part of that stable.

I have been to almost every photokina since 1972 (I missed one, can't remember which) and I saw the launches and releases, the similarities, the rebranded versions arrive like Photax Paragon, Dixons Miranda (after the Miranda-Soligor brand of Allied Impex ceased to make original cameras), then later on as Jessop Centon, Porst lenses in W Germany, Prakticar lenses in E Germany, even in some cases ending up with Russian names in Russia. That's why it is no a good idea to buy anything calling itself a CZ Jena 'Zeiss' zoom - they were not, they were just rebranded generic low cost Japanese lenses! The Russians did end up making some zooms of their own, but the same thing is more often true, what looks like a Russian glass zoom from 20 years ago is a rebrand.

It's a bit like train-spotting and I have never really been interested in the full data on what was what!

David

[InTheSky]

This means that even with a name, you should always try the lens ... even with those old lenses. It looks like that there was many more lens builder ... or lens holder in the past than today.

I'm looking to buy a old 135mm F/1.8 to try it. It is looks like that the 82mm filter model is on many brand name ... but is anybody know if the quality is equal ... or if there is a better name to trust for this lens ? (or i should buy more than one really tried it ).

You are looking bible of information on lens history, probably you already tried it ... or know things that I will never be able to find on the net ... (Internet Forum are almost only 10 years old ... )

Regards,

Frank

[UrsaMajor]

This means that even with a name, you should always try the lens ... even with those old lenses. It looks like that there was many more lens builder ... or lens holder in the past than today.

It is my understanding that although Vivitar lenses were made by several companies (and sometimes several companies made the "same" model of Vivitar lens), it is possible to identify which company made a specific Vivitar lens by looking at the first two digits of the lens serial number. I remember only one of the codes - primarily because the company had a very good reputation - a Vivitar lens with a serial number that starts with 22 was made by the company that marketed their own lenses under the Kiron label.

With best wishes,
- Tom -

[rogprov]

This means that even with a name, you should always try the lens ... even with those old lenses. It looks like that there was many more lens builder ... or lens holder in the past than today.

It is my understanding that although Vivitar lenses were made by several companies (and sometimes several companies made the "same" model of Vivitar lens), it is possible to identify which company made a specific Vivitar lens by looking at the first two digits of the lens serial number. I remember only one of the codes - primarily because the company had a very good reputation - a Vivitar lens with a serial number that starts with 22 was made by the company that marketed their own lenses under the Kiron label.

With best wishes,
- Tom -

Here's a list of Vivitar codes ...

http://www.cameraquest.com/VivLensManuf.htm

[David Kilpatrick]

The Kiron range was made by Kino Optical, who were also responsible for several premium lines - Vivitar Series One (the original, not the later corrupted use of the brand) being the best known.

For a 135mm f/1.8, the original Soligor (1973) is not a bad buy. However, a much better design - probably made by Kino and showing all the signs of coming from them, including the unique black gloss lacquered alloy finish - is the Soligor CD 135mm f/2 which I think will date from 1976. The Soligor CD lens series included a 35mm f/2 as well, all the lenses were very fast and top grade optically.

Vivitar lenses from Kino which remain worth getting include the original Series One range (70-210, 90-180, 24-48, 90 macro, 600mm Solid Catadioptric etc) and the 28mm f/1.9.

Two absolutely stunning lenses I tested around the same time were the Komuranon 24mm f/2.5 and 105mm f/2.5 with interchangeable mounts, but I have never seen either for sale used.

David

[Greg Beetham]

David, what of my Minolta MD 135 f2 that I bought many years ago and hardly used, it was a heavy lump and despite the picture quality from f4 through f11, being vg too excellent, once I got my Minolta MD 70-210 f4 I could'nt quite justify packing it always, is/was it a Minolta design? or was it some other make/brand that Minolta adopted, I've often wondered, can you remember anything about that one?
Greg

[David Kilpatrick]

The Minolta MD was a Minolta design - as far as I know, the first MD fit lenses bought in externally were much later, after the AF system arrived. The MD 28-70mm f3.5-4.5 kit lens was bought in, I've been told by 'authority' from both Sigma and Cosina but it clearly was not both! This lens slightly embarrassed Minolta because when tested, it proved better than their own zooms and got about the highest resolution marks for any kit lens they had ever made.

If you want a truly outstanding fast long lens, the Minolta MC Rokkor (or even the earlier Auto Rokkor) 100mm f/2 from the 1960s stands out. I owned two of these, once in MC form, then later when I used the MD coupled system I bought one and converted it to MD meter coupling (a simple matter of adding a lug to the aperture ring).

David

[InTheSky]

If you want a truly outstanding fast long lens, the Minolta MC Rokkor (or even the earlier Auto Rokkor) 100mm f/2 from the 1960s stands out. I owned two of these, once in MC form, then later when I used the MD coupled system I bought one and converted it to MD meter coupling (a simple matter of adding a lug to the aperture ring).

David

Is this lens is the same as the AF 100mm F/2.0 ? i was thinking that the old design under MD was the 100 F/2.5 (that i have tried two year ago).

Canon has a 100 F/2.0 too, and i don't know why Minolta or Sony do not bring back this lens.

I have found my self now in a kind of problem due to the 100mm 2.0 I owning ... because this lens is so small , fit inexpensive 55mm filter and it is almost perfect at F/2.0 The 85mm F/1.4 is less in my bag for shooting because of it's size only.

Is it possible that they are not yet selling this lens to make better place for the 85mm F/1.4 ? On the 85mm range Canon has 1.2 or 1.8.

The other question i have about Minolta lens ... why this 100mm F/2.0 has never been names as a G lens ? what is the rule to be a G lens or not ? On other brand it looks like to have a bigger difference between G and standard lenses than in Minolta. In fact ... Have you ever had the chance to ask this question to Minolta eng ?

Regards,

Frank

[David Kilpatrick]

If you want a truly outstanding fast long lens, the Minolta MC Rokkor (or even the earlier Auto Rokkor) 100mm f/2 from the 1960s stands out. I owned two of these, once in MC form, then later when I used the MD coupled system I bought one and converted it to MD meter coupling (a simple matter of adding a lug to the aperture ring).

David

Is this lens is the same as the AF 100mm F/2.0 ? i was thinking that the old design under MD was the 100 F/2.5 (that i have tried two year ago).

Canon has a 100 F/2.0 too, and i don't know why Minolta or Sony do not bring back this lens.

I have found my self now in a kind of problem due to the 100mm 2.0 I owning ... because this lens is so small , fit inexpensive 55mm filter and it is almost perfect at F/2.0 The 85mm F/1.4 is less in my bag for shooting because of it's size only.

Is it possible that they are not yet selling this lens to make better place for the 85mm F/1.4 ? On the 85mm range Canon has 1.2 or 1.8.

The other question i have about Minolta lens ... why this 100mm F/2.0 has never been names as a G lens ? what is the rule to be a G lens or not ? On other brand it looks like to have a bigger difference between G and standard lenses than in Minolta. In fact ... Have you ever had the chance to ask this question to Minolta eng ?

Regards,

Frank

The 100mm f/2 was discontinued almost 20 years before the AF 100mm f/2 appeared. It is no relation. The 100mm f/2 was not a G but nor was the first 35mm f/1.4, or the 28mm f/2, or the 35mm f/2, or the original 85mm f/1.4 - the G lenses came later, and fast lenses were only upgraded to G status selectively and after many had been discontinued. No doubt others would have made it to G status, with redesigned mounts and a gold stripe, but these early AF lenses are not any lower in quality just because the G brand had not been invented!

David

[01af]

Is [the Rokkor 100 mm F/2] the same as the AF 100 mm F/2? I was thinking that the old design under MD was the 100 mm F/2.5 ...

Umm ... you kiddies have strange ideas what the word 'old' is supposed to mean ...

The Tele Rokkor-PF 100 mm 1:2 is much older than the MD Tele Rokkor 100 mm 1:2.5. It's a design from the early or mid-'60s and a very close relative to the six-element MC Tele Rokkor-PF 135 mm 1:2.8. It has been discontinued around 1970, together with its sibling, the tiny MC Tele Rokkor-QE 100 mm 1:3.5 (not to be confused with the bulky MC Macro Rokkor-QE 100 mm 1:3.5). The pair of MC 100/2 and MC 100/3.5 then was replaced by the six-element MC Tele Rokkor-PF 100 mm 1:2.5, and that one, in turn, was replaced by the five-element MC Tele Rokkor 100 mm 1:2.5, and that one, eventually, was replaced by the five-element MD Tele Rokkor 100 mm 1:2.5.

Both the Auto Tele Rokkor-PF 100 mm 1:2 and the MC Tele Rokkor-PF 100 mm 1:2 are rare and sought-after in the used market. They are six elements in five groups, and they focus the traditional way, i. e. purely by extension. The AF 100 mm 1:2 is a design from the mid-'80s with seven elements in six groups. It employs a kind of floating focusing---it basically focuses by extension but the rear element is fixed. At medium and long focusing distances, it is sharper than the AF Macro 100 mm 1:2.8! It was discontinued in the late '80s or early '90s, due to low sales numbers I guess. So it's fairly rare in today's used market, just like the Tele Rokkor-PF 100 mm 1:2.

-- Olaf

[InTheSky]

Many thanks Olaf for this amount of information. All of you should tried to write a History book of all those lenses

History is there to help to remember. I'm an engineer and i can say that to many engineer forget to pay attention to history, this limit to make the same mistake again. And probably this is the same in Optic design, I'm sure there is some kind of very good design in the past that have been forget ...

Sometime is so simple to get inspiration of old thing very properly build and and make some very little changes with the advance technology of today.

Regards,

Frnak

[UrsaMajor]

The Kiron range was made by Kino Optical, who were also responsible for several premium lines - Vivitar Series One (the original, not the later corrupted use of the brand) being the best known.
. . .
Vivitar lenses from Kino which remain worth getting include the original Series One range (70-210, 90-180, 24-48, 90 macro, 600mm Solid Catadioptric etc) and the 28mm f/1.9.

It has been at least 20 years since I came across the information but - if my memory is correct - I read once that the Vivitar 600mm Solid Catadioptric was made by Perkin Elmer. They have done many limited-production high-end lenses for military and scientific uses, but this was supposedly the first in what was intended to be an expansion into mass-market commercial lenses - an expansion that never took place.

With best wishes,
- Tom -