Rikenon 55mm 1:1.8 Initial Shots

I tried to search this lens on this forum and could not find anything about this cheap lens. It is odd!

I bought a Ricoh TLS-401:



This Ricoh SLR is very interesting, because it has two viewfinders:. One of these VF is a traditional SLR one, while the other is a TLR (Twin-Lens Reflex) one on the top of the prism as shown below:



The Rikenon 55mm 1:1.8 is the lens on this TLS-401. Initially, I did not have any intention to play with this lens because 50mm or 55mm 1:1.8 lenses usually are not very interesting and are above average. This is a M42 lens as shown below.





This is a A and M type lens as indicated by the M and A switch:



There is an aperture control pin:



I am interested in how good this 55/1.8 is. The following shows some initial shot at f/1.8. All images were very slightly post-processed, basically exposure corrections.









Other images were shot with my Nikon Z6. So, for consistency, I will reshoot more images with my Sony A7II and will be posted here.

CK

Great pics, great cam and great lens.

I also own the Dual Viewfinder Ricoh TLS 401 and two Auto-Rikenon lenses.

The 55mm f/1.4, which realy is a M42-gem and the 28mm f/2.8, heirlooms from my father.

If i'll find some time, too busy with my new Z-lenses and some testing with my old Mamiya 645 Sekor lenses, i'll shoot some pics in the near future to add something visual, some shots made with Auto-Rikenon lenses, to this thread.

I absolutely love my Auto-Rikenons and the 55mm f/1.4 would be one of the last ones, if not the last one, i would sell, if i had to.

It's more than just the optical performance, which still is stunning and highly

competitive, even in the year 2021

It's the whole package, the haptics, the satisfying feeling of old fashioned, smooth, manual focusing with the perfect amount of mechanical resistance.

The great Bokeh, the whole rendering and also some of it's imperfections, compared to modern lenses, like the Nikkor Z 50mm f/1.8 S.

The build quality nearly made for eternity, if you treat it with respect.

The old fashioned craftmanship with focus on durability, longetivy, which is lost in most modern products, made to throw them away after years and in my special case the emotional attachment, to the photography of my father, to the memorys of my childhood.

Not my footage, but realy nice video, to see the Auto-Rikenon 55mm f/1.4 shining.

Nebido said:

I also own the Dual Viewfinder Ricoh TLS 401 and two Auto-Rikenon lenses.

Click to expand...

This was an odd SLR as it could be the only SLR that has both the SLR and TLR viewfinders.

Nebido said:

The 55mm f/1.4, which realy is a M42-gem and the 28mm f/2.8, heirlooms from my father.

Click to expand...

I have this lens, too. But, I am not a 50-ish lens person. Even though I have this lens, perhaps with a SLR body, I did not use this lens much,

Nebido said:

If i'll find some time, too busy with my new Z-lenses and some testing with my old Mamiya 645 Sekor lenses, i'll shoot some pics in the near future to add something visual, some shots made with Auto-Rikenon lenses, to this thread.

Click to expand...

I used the 55/1.8 on my Z6 and Z7 in recent days. To ensure consistency, I have to reshoot with my A7II.
CK

Here are some more images with minimal post-processing, usually color and exposure corrections.

First, the following shows you 0.5m and 1m short distance results:


1m @ f/1.8


1m @ f/4


1m @ f/8


0.5m @ f/1.8


0.5m @ f/4


0.5m @ f/8

From these images, one can easily see that some barrel distortion and image quality along the edges being not so great. In general, image quality at the center and about 50% of the image frame can be said rather good.

The following has some random shots using f/1.8. Images were post-processed to correct color balance and exposure. Images were shot with either f/1.8 or f/4.







Bokeh-wise, this 50/1.8 is not great and the cat-eye effect is very clear. Moreover, each out-of-focus disc has its border stronger than its nearly transparent center, which means bokeh cannot be good. As a result, bokeh can be rather busy.









CK

I think your lens was made by Tomioka, the company that made the Yashica and later the Contax Zeiss lenses (sold by Yashica) . It could be still operating now as an OEM. .

https://global.kyocera.com/prdct/optec/history.html

BTW, that top VF does not turn the camera into a TLR (twin lens reflex) it remains an SLR with a sort of waist level finder .

The only other 35mm SLRs with the built in dual finders, that I can think of , are the Rolleiflex SL2000 and 3003





The digital SLR Sony R1 had something like that but the top screen is an LCD.

FrancoD said:

I think your lens was made by Tomioka, the company that made the Yashica and later the Contax Zeiss lenses (sold by Yashica) . It could be still operating now as an OEM. .

https://global.kyocera.com/prdct/optec/history.html

Click to expand...

Thanks. I know this long time ago because I have many Yashica lenses made by Tomioka.

FrancoD said:

BTW, that top VF does not turn the camera into a TLR (twin lens reflex) it remains an SLR with a sort of waist level finder .

Click to expand...

I worded this carefully. It is a TLR type VF. Technically it is a TLR simulator because the TLR type VF took the image from the SLR prism. I wrote a post here long time ago. What I said was " while the other is a TLR (Twin-Lens Reflex) one". I did not say it turns the SLR into a TLR.

FrancoD said:

The only other 35mm SLRs with the built in dual finders, that I can think of , are the Rolleiflex SL2000 and 3003

Click to expand...

I have had this Rollei for decades. But, this design is not a typical 135 SLR design. Instead, it is a reduced size medium format camera just like a Hasselblad with an eye level VF. These two Roles are not very reliable and got discontinued quickly. Moreover, its use is a bit odd, not as comfortable as holding a Hassy at waste level nor convenient as using a SLR at eye level.

FrancoD said:

The digital SLR Sony R1 had something like that but the top screen is an LCD.

Click to expand...

I have had a R1 even since it was released. Whether it is a SLR is debatable because the optical path is a folded one via prisms. If you flip the LCD up you may consider it a SLR type eye level VF. Therefore, bring this R1 up does not appear to fit the discussion here. Moreover, most DC and MILC systems can have their LCD flipped horizontally, and we do not consider these cameras as TLR type.

CK