R Serial Soligor lenses

[casualcollector]

I've picked these up out of curiosity. They are early automatic diaphragm Soligor from about 1966-67. Obviously very different from the typical Tokina made Soligors. The 135/2.8 is uncoupled Nikon F mount. The 200/4 is M-42. The 300/5.5 has a "pronghorn" Nikon F mount.

The maker I am not certain of. The lenses have similarities to pre-set Kawanons.

The 200 came with a brochure dated 12/66 that illustrates two of these in the Soligor automatic lens lineup that includes 28, 35, 135/3.5, 135/2.8 200, 250, and 300mm lenses. Image quality in the brochure isn't great but the 35, and 135s illustrated look like Tokinas. The 250 is very Tamron looking. The 28 appears to be the lens I attributed to Kino some time ago in another post. I'll scan the brochure and find a place to host it.






I imagine they are few and far between. I'll be looking for more in different focal lengths.

[truls]

The Soligors looks very solid constructed, almost like Takumar lenses. Did Soligor make them or did they order lenses, rebranded? I dont know much about Soligor, other that they had many fine lenses.

[lloydy]

They are rebranded lenses, some good, some bad, some just plain ugly! some are even very good. Which is why some of us spend so much time trying to identify the maker. I've got a lot of Soligors, I need to get them out and help identify these.

[casualcollector]

These are quite unique, in my opinion. The Soligors I was most familiar with in my formative years were from Tokina.

These are older and very different. The are impressive looking and I liken them to Canon FL series lenses of the 1964 - 1970 period. They are glossy black and the aperture rings are at the front, except for this 300...

I am not certain of the manufacturer but following the knowledge of the guys at the MFLenses forum, these very much resemble preset lenses made by Kawakami.

The 200mm came with a brochure that I'll find a way to post for the forum. An interesting slice of history!

[lloydy]

Copied from a discussion on MF Lenses ages ago, there is a more up to date list, but I'll have to go and look for it.

Rio Rioc's list
17xxxxxx --- Soligor WA 28/2.8 -- N/pre-AI, Tokina
28xxxxx ---- Soligor C/D 135/2.8 -- N/AI, Komine
38xxxxxxxx - Soligor C/D DualFocal 85+135/4.5 -- MD, Sun?
38xxxxxxxx - Soligor C/D Zoom Macro 28-80/3.5-4.5 -- N/AI, Sun?
A1x... and A4x... -- Yashica C/Y 50's -- Komura? (my Yashinon M42 50's are numeric)
C2xxxxx --- Super-Lentar 25/3.5 -- M42,
C3xxxxx --- Focal 200/3.5 -- M42,
C6xxxxx --- Chinon 45/2.8 -- PK-M,
H2xxxxx --- Super-Lentar 21/3.8 -- M42, Tokina
H6xxxxx --- Hanimex 135/2.8 -- M42, Komine? (my other Hani's are numeric)
K8xxxxxxx - Focal 135/2.8 -- KAR,
L6xxxxx --- Toyo 5-Star 28/2.8 -- PK-M,

Pancolart
I'd say M code lenses are made by Miranda within 1963 to 1976 as described here: camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Miranda \
"It is said that the Miranda company set up its own lens factory in 1963 (earlier lenses were supplied by various manufacturers, except for the first Supreme). The company returned to the Japanese market in autumn 1964,[13] but the US importer Allied Impex gradually took control, and fully owned the company by the late 1960s.

The Sensorex model was released in 1967, with TTL exposure metering. It is said that a new factory was opened outside Tokyo in 1970 or perhaps 1971. In 1971, the company introduced the Sensorex EE with shutter-priority automatic exposure and a new set of viewfinders. Upgraded as the EE-2 in 1976, it would be the last Miranda with interchangeable viewfinder.

In 1972, the company released its only non-SLR camera, the Sensoret compact rangefinder. In 1975, it made an attempt at a compact SLR with fixed prism and electronically controlled shutter, called the Miranda dx-3. Neither of these met with great success, and the Miranda company went bankrupt on December 10, 1976 and stopped camera production the same month." \par
\par
Serials starting with "M" and branded Soligor (followed by 6 digits) one could assume first two digits were years of production. This could also be valid for some "H" prefix like this (Tokina, Sun, Hanimex, Lentar) 2.8/135mm:

[truls]

May 24, 2013 5:31:02 GMT -5 lloydy said:

They are rebranded lenses, some good, some bad, some just plain ugly! some are even very good. Which is why some of us spend so much time trying to identify the maker. I've got a lot of Soligors, I need to get them out and help identify these.

It seems like a hopeless job... Lenses can, if I understand correct, be different from the same lens from the same lens producer. I.E. the same Takumar can have different sharpness aso.

[Stephen]

Lenses are always a it of a lottery, by the 1950's most basic lens types were known and any makers should have been able to deliver a decent sharp lens of high contrast. after all, Most Victorian lenses in decent order are dead sharp!

The quality varies due to the lack of checking in manufacture, cheaper makers did not check collimation,(alignment), carefully, or at all on standard type lenses.

The better makers used various types of glass, different indexes, or refraction, again a cheaper maker would not, adjusting design to compensate, or leaving minor problems like fringing visible.

Only one thing reflects the quality, and that was the original price, Leica and Zeiss spent time and trouble setting the elements, and using more expensive glass. The surface finish was not much better than cheaper makes, but was carefully checked. The mounts in the barrels were on precision brass rings, chemically blacked, not on mazak cast rings or aluminium that was anodised, or plastic rings.

The Average Japanese maker was good at grinding the glass, and following the glass elements formula shapes, they did cut corners with the supports and the general flimsiness of the body, little brass, mainly aluminium. The lightness of the body could make them prone to expansion and contraction with heat, loosening the grip on the glass, and loosing collimation.

They used industry standard glues for assembling the elements etc., and this was the same with major makers. The coatings were the same as well, so the missing factor was care in assembly and testing.

All of this applies to non zoom lenses, as time progressed the makers in the far east got better, and the Zoom was the most popular new design, again the better makes were costly, the poorer designs were awful at first! Again price was the governing factor as always.

Some Japanese makes are more consistent, like Tamron and Sigma, where most production is in house and for themselves. The less consistent brands were just that, only brands, made by anybody to contract, and badged for sale. In this class, the best are the ones that went to bigger customers, who tightly controlled the contracts.

Vivitar were a typical US company, they made nothing, only marketed other makers, but had high standards, at least in the 1970's/80's. The also financed designs, like the Series One lenses, which were better, but at a higher price level.

With camera makers they usually made their own lenses, except Miranda, and as the reputation depended on the Optics, they made a much better effort at consistency. The Takumar Pentax lenses were very good, there was no reason to be any thing else. They are not Nikon, or Leica standard, but are better made than any independent supplier. They pioneered multi-coating, and the use of filled plastics in construction.

So in the end, bar oddities, the original price is the only way to assess the quality. If your lucky, a cheaper lens can out perform an expensive one, but it is un-predictable.

Stephen.

[Dan Vincent]

I only have one Soligar lens, a 600mm mirror lens with Minolta mount. I want to get an adapter to try it with my Nikon D-90 DSLR.

EDIT: Whoops, it's not a Soligar, it's a Sigma...sorry.

[daveh]

Rightly or wrongly, I've kept clear from Soligor lenses for almost forty years. My brother brought me a 35mm/2.8 (in Topcon fitting) back from Charleston, SC. It was barely a year old when one of the screws holding the base-plate fell out. The other three came loose too. One is now missing and the others will not retain "tightness" in spite of trying various solutions. I bought a secondhand Topcon RE lens soon after: a far superior being. The Soligor has been sitting in a box ever since.




The hole at the top of photo 2 is where the missing screw (bolt) should be.

[SidW]

Jun 7, 2014 10:13:06 GMT -5 daveh said:

Rightly or wrongly, I've kept clear from Soligor lenses for almost forty years...

Dave, I've had the same feeling. They were always a very cheap option. A son once wanted us to get a wide angle lens for him in London. Considering the budget he gave us, it had to be that very lens you had.

[Deleted]

They have focusing rings like the Takumars from that era.