Mark Cassino wrote: I could swear I read somewhere that the Rikenon 50mm f2.0 was the sharpest lens ever made for 35mm slrs - but for the life of me I have not been able to locate where I read that.
Mark, First of all, how did you expose the statue shot at http://pug.komkon.org/01mar/rospug.html? Now, on the Rikenon lenses. There is no contradiction in your description of the Rikenon 50/1.4's edge sharpness. It's quite possible for a lens to have "bite" (contrast) without having ultrahigh resolution (detail). I often touch up my digital scans by sharpening, but all it does is to enhance the edge sharpness, and hence perceived contrast. A Google search for "Rikenon 50" turned up these superlatives about the Rikenon 50/1.4, 50/2, and 50/2.8. I think I'll hold on to the XR Rikenon 50/2 that just arrived with my XR-P: On the XR Rikenon 50/1.4: From http://www.photographyreview.com/35mm+Primes/Contax+Planar+T*+50mm+f1.4/PRD_83431_3111crx.aspx Reviewed by: Ken, Expert, from Hong Kong; Photography Experience: 11-20 years, People Summary: Test report of all manual focus 50/1.4 from a UK photographic magazine which published 10 years ago has revealed that this carl zeiss 50/1.4 is NOT the best. It is placed on the second. The real winner is the new Rikenon Program 50/1.4 by RICOH. Surprise? If you can find a Rikenon P 50/1.4 and take photo at aperture from f1.4 to f4, you will see how superb the Rikenon can perform at such wide aperture. Please don't mix up with Ricoh 55/1.2, as 55/1.2 is rubbish. Strengths: Second best manual focus 50/1.4 On the Rikenon 50/2, in a Leica 50 review at http://www.photographyreview.com/PRD_83459_3111crx.aspx Reviewed by: Louis Lam, Intermediate, from HONG KONG, GUANG DONG CHINA Photography Experience: 11-20 years, Landscapes Summary: With such a high price tag ( as expected in Leica's products ), one can almost buy TWO 50mm/1.2 lens for the SLR. However, the image quality is unique among other manufracturers' offers with the very very exception of the RICOH Rikenon 50/2 P lens. Strengths: Best lens that I have ever owned for 50mm range. Weaknesses: Too much over priced for such a focal length and such aperture. Similar Products Used: Nikkor 50/1.4 AIS, MC Rokkor 50/1.4 PG, Prakticar PB 50/1.4, Rikenon 50/2 P, Seagull 50/1.8, Nikkor 50/1.8 AIS, Zeiss 50 Weaknesses: Slightly weak at f/1.4 and f/2 while Ricoh Rikenon have done a much better job in this aspect. Similar Products Used: Ricoh Rikenon P 50/1.4 Minolta MD 50/1.4 Prakticar Zeiss Jena 50/1.4 Canon FD 50/1.4 Minolta AF 50/1.4 On the Rikenon 50/2.8 (a macro?): Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/12/02 by Robert Appleby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: "...a test which clearly shows another product superior to the Leica equivalent. His detailed review of the the Ricoh 50/2.8 certainly point to that lens's superiority to the Elmar: "Its optimum performance at f/2,8 is simply better than the Elmar-M 2.8/50 and even at its worst setting would kill the older version of the Elmar." Having shared this, I must now confess that I've just reviewed a 1991 Amateur Photographer comparision of 50s from all the camera makers and a few third-parties. The Rikenon 1.7 and 2.0 were included, and the only brand to fare worse at f/2.8 on a low-contrast target was Seagull. Performance of both lenses with high-contrast targets was respectable. I also have the magazine's 1984 review of the XR-P and XR Rikenon 50/1.7. There, it rated the lens Very Good across the board--in overall performance, corner definition, edge definition, image contrast, and optical balance. Best centrol, edge, and overall definition were found at f/5.6. Now if only Rikenon lenses included click-stops at half-apertures. Paul Franklin Stregevsky - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
