New Member Registered: December, 2016 Location: North Germany Posts: 1 | Review Date: December 8, 2016 | Recommended | Price: $5.00
| Rating: 9 |
Pros: | sharp wide open, well and compact built, | Cons: | wrong focusing turn | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 9
Bokeh: 9
Handling: 8
Value: 8
Camera Used: K-5
| | My lens is labeled as Revuenon, but it is the same lens.
It was a spontaneous buy on a flea market (5 Euro). I definitive will keep this lens! It is tack sharp and I like to take full manual photographs. You have to be careful while focusing because wide open the DOF measures only roundabout 5 Millimeters. The only negative aspect is the wrong focusing turn compared to original Pentax lenses. | |
Site Supporter Registered: May, 2015 Location: Hampshire Posts: 892 | Review Date: May 21, 2015 | Recommended | Price: None indicated
| Rating: 9 |
Pros: | Cheap to buy | Cons: | Have to use the green button and in my case had to scrape the anodise of the mount to get it to stop down. | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 7
Handling: 7
Value: 10
Camera Used: Pentax K-5
| | I have both the 3.3 and 3.5 versions of the Chinon 200mm multicoated lens. Both bought as part of a lot of camera gear, one of which was not described in detail. The 3.5 version was in a lot described solely as "old camera and bits with dirty case". I bought this as it looked like there was a Pentax M42 to K adapter. It wasn't! No luck getting one of those cheap but I have tried it on my K100d Super and it works
I'm not able to compare this to a "good" IQ lens as I have none in my gear. I can compare it to a Photax-Paragon 200mm F.5 (M42 mount) that I bought to try out the M42 adapter and I can say the Chinon seems to have a better IQ and is easier to handle being not quite as long. The focussing ring probably takes up over 300 degrees and makes manual focus a little easier than the 3.5 and the P-P, being so fine probably means catch in focus will be more accurate but I am yet to try it.
The IQ seems to match the 3.5 except wide open. It is the same length but seems a little slimmer than the 3.5. Minimum focussing distance is probably the same (maybe inches in it) and the 3.5 has a shorter "throw" focus.
I've included a crop of a photo taken at just over the minimum focussing distance and a couple of it side by side with the 3.5.
One thing I should mention is that on my copy the mating part of the lens to the camera mount was black anodised which threw me for a while as the lens wouldn't stop down... till I read that the mount has to be bare metal in one area for the camera to be able communicate with the lens. I was thinking that I'd bought a lemon until I did a little scraping. I have ringed the area.
The 3.3 has no lens hood like my 3.5, the hood on my 3.5 is loose and only protrudes about an inch out from the lens so it may not do much on an APSC camera but it's better than nothing.
Using it with a (cheap? Vivitar) 1.5x teleconverter seems to provide good pictures which surprised me as the only previous teleconverter (a 2x, make I forget) I have used really degraded the IQ on my old Fujica screw thread camera. | |