Auto Sears 1 Review: 1.4 f = 55mm

Many thanks to Vitali S. for provided by lens Auto Sears 1: 1.4 f = 55mm.

Auto Sears 1 Review: 1.4 f = 55mm

Auto Sears 1 Review: 1.4 f = 55mm

This will be a very short overview of the lens, as Auto Sears 1: 1.4 f = 55mm is almost completely similar Auto mamiya / sekor 1: 1,4 f = 55mm. Lenses differ only in the frame of the case and the color of the indicators.

Lens enlightenment

Enlightenment of the front lens of the lens

Such a lens can also be found under the names: Rikenon, Cosina, Porst Color Reflex and not only.

Enlightenment of the rear lens

Enlightenment of the rear lens

Auto Sears 1: 1.4 f = 55mm is a good Japanese fifty, the extra 5mm focal length makes it only more attractive for interesting artistic purposes.

Side view

Side view

Sample Photos

Everything is filmed on Nikon D700 with adapter M42-nikon.

On-camera JPEG L (compression 'optimal quality'). Image enhancement features such as vignetting control, ADL, long exposure noise reduction, high ISO noise reduction were turned off. Everything was shot in NL Picture Control (Neutral Mode): contrast correction - 0, brightness - 0, saturation - 0, hue - 0, sharpness - automatic 'A'. Used white balance: 'Auto' and 'Shadow'. Photos were reduced to 2048px by 1363px (approximately 3MP) using FastStone Photo Resizer 3.0, data from EXIF module JPEG files. When reducing the size of photographs, use a quality equal to 85% of the original, the Lanczos3 compression method.

How to use with modern cameras?

Lenses with mounting thread M42 (M42 X 1 / 45.5), such as the lens from this review, are very easy to use on almost any modern digital camera (both SLR and mirrorless), for this it is enough to choose the right adapter (adapter). You do not need to carry out any additional steps to modify the lens.

The cheapest adapters can be found There are adapters (adapters) with a chip that provide more convenience during shooting, usually chips are used to confirm focus and / or metering exposure, and form the correct EXIF. The chip does not affect the image quality in any way.

For some SLR cameras (for example, Nikon F) it is necessary to use adapters with a corrective lens, which allows correct focusing at all focusing distances. For any mirrorless camera, such a lens is not needed, and the adapter is a simple decorated hollow metal tube with an appropriate mount.

For SLR cameras

  1. Canon: For cameras Canon EOS with bayonet mount EF / EF-S need an M42-Canon EOS adapter, such an adapter with a chip can be found herewithout chip here.
  2. NIKON: For cameras Nikon DX / FXas well as for cameras Fujifilm и Kodak with a Nikon F mount, you need an M42-Nikon F adapter, you can buy such an adapter without a lens and a chip here, with a lens without a chip herewith chip without lens here, with lens and chip here. Why a lens? Why chip?
  3. PENTAX: For cameras Pentax with mount K you need an adapter M42-Pentax K, you can buy such an adapter here.
  4. SONY/MINOLTA: For cameras with a Sony / Minolta A mount, you need the M42-Sony A adapter, you can find such an adapter without a chip at this linkwith a chip at this link.
  5. OLYMPUS / PANASONIC / LEICA: For cameras with a 4/3 bayonet mount (not to be confused with Micro 4/3!) You need an M42-4 / 3 adapter, you can buy such an adapter here.

For mirrorless cameras

  1. SONY: For cameras with an 'E' series mount SonyNEX и Sony Alpha you need an adapter M42-Sony E (aka M42-Sony Nex), you can find it at this link. An autofocus adapter is also available for these cameras. Techart PRO Leica M - Sony E Autofocus Adapterwhich can be found at this link.
  2. OLYMPUS / PANASONIC / KODAK /  XIAOMI: For cameras with a Micro 4/3 bayonet mount (Micro 4: 3), you need the M42-Micro 4/3 adapter, you can find it at this link.
  3. CANON M: For cameras with a bayonet mount Canon EF-M need adapter M42-Canon M, it can be found at this link.
  4. CANON R and RF-S: For cameras with a bayonet mount Canon r need adapter M42-Canon R, it can be found at this link.
  5. Nikon 1: For cameras Nikon 1 Series need adapter M42-Nikon 1, you can find it at this link.
  6. Nikon Z: For series cameras Nikon Z need adapter M42-Nikon Z, it can be found at this link.
  7. FUJIFILM X: For cameras with mount X need an M42-Fuji X adapter, you can find it at this link.
  8. FUJIFILM GFX: For medium format cameras G-mount need M42-Fuji GFX adapter, you can find it at this link.
  9. SAMSUNG: For cameras with NX mount need adapter M42-Samsung NX, you can find it at this link. For the camera Nx mini adapters do not exist yet.
  10. PENTAX: For cameras with Q mount need an adapter M42-Pentax Q, you can find it at this link.
  11. SIGMA / PANASONIC / LEICA: For cameras with L mount, you need the M42-Leica L adapter, you can find it at this link.
  12. LEICA: For cameras with a Leica M mount need adapter M42-L / M, you can find it at this link.

If you have any questions on compatibility and adapters - ask in the comments (comments do not require any registration at all).

View Auto Sears 1: 1.4 f = 55mm

View Auto Sears 1: 1.4 f = 55mm

Comments on this post do not require registration. Anyone can leave a comment. Lenses and promotions on them look at

Conclusions and other useful information can be found in the review Auto mamiya / sekor 1: 1,4 f = 55mm.

Material prepared Arkady Shapoval. Training/Consultations | Youtube | Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | Telegram.

Add a comment:



Comments: 41, on the topic: Auto Sears 1 review: 1.4 f = 55mm

  • Novel

    This is already good and you can work with it. As a result, I can evaluate not only what I get at the output, but also what I get with minimal correction: - stupidly screwed up the brightness - corrected the contrast and color "as expected".
    From the first photo I won’t get the second one at all, or will get it after much effort.

    Thank you for listening.

    • anonym

      the first photo is a little far-fetched - the camera settings do not stupidly turn up the brightness as you did in the editor - it really hurts the eyes)) the color of the peaches really came close to natural, even a little brighter than it should, but the blue on the leaves along the edge of the frame the camera would definitely not gave. so to say that the first photo is the effect that the camera will give incorrectly, if only because you do not have the given camera, lens and peaches in order to assert that this is the effect that would have happened if Arkady had shot with rich post-processing. In the same way, now I can take this photo, bring it to a very high-quality state (I really can - I have a very experienced designer with good taste at the next table;)) and argue that the camera would give just such a color rendering ... Actually, that's why I suggested voting with real examples in the post below.

      • Novel

        > camera settings do not dull brightness

        Saturation. And more saturated colors are visually perceived as brighter - this is how our vision works. And it is the saturation that the camera raises, I lifted it up in the editor, along the way turned on auto contrast and auto-WB.

        The subject of the dispute is not entirely clear to me. In the event that we are reviewing the camera, we can play around with its settings and show how the CAMERA behaves on the same lens. If we consider the LENS, then I am interested in precisely its behavior on the standard camera settings. What do you personally want from the resource? I expect from the author of the blog "honest" pictures - low-contrast, unsharp, with all the aberrations and color distortions. I look at the proposed photos, try what exactly I can get at the output thanks to the processing and make a decision whether to buy this lens or not. If the task is “to look at cool pictures from the morning”, then we speak different languages ​​and it makes no sense for me to convince someone otherwise.

        • anonym

          You contradict yourself - how do you know what are the standard settings on a particular camera? On different cameras, “standard” settings will give very, very different images. And it’s foolish to argue with this, which is why everyone sets up his camera himself, because the “standard” settings strongly depend on the type of matrix, firmware and, ultimately, the personal taste of programmers and marketers who prepared the firmware for a particular model. Therefore, for any reason you ask for an honest picture, it still won't work - if Arkady even uploads photos from 350D and Nikon D700 of the same object, taken on standard camera settings, then the saturation will most likely differ very much. Therefore, it makes sense for you to adjust the lens at the “standard” settings for testing only if you shoot with exactly the same camera as that of Arkady, preferably with the same firmware version. In all other cases, your claims are really unfounded. Although, given that you have been repeatedly pointed out the difference in the standard camera settings, I think you will bypass what has been written and will pick on some other words.
          And regarding “non-contrast, unsharp, with all the aberrations and distortions of color rendering”, Radozhiva repeatedly pointed out that his goal is not laboratory testing of the lens, but the provision of information about what this or that photographic equipment is really capable of, and this implies exactly how high-quality and not “low-contrast, unsharp, with all the aberrations and distortions of color rendition” pictures can be given by a lens / camera.
          If you expect something from the author of the blog, in addition to what he does on a voluntary basis in his own free time, you should at least become a regular, solid sponsor in order to dictate to him what and how to do, how and how not to.

          • Novel

            God, you are sickeningly boring. All I ask is not to raise the saturation of colors artificially in photographs, because on the example of the penultimate review it is quite obvious to a person with normal color perception - the picture becomes frankly poisonous and interferes with the assessment of the properties of the lens.

          • anonym

            And all that I and many others ask is to leave everything as it is and not listen to you with your refined color perception. And forgive me if this bothers you - others have done an excellent job of evaluating the properties of the lens with the settings used until now, so maybe the problem is with you? It's debatable about being boring - you were the first to whine that something didn't suit you and that with the existing approach you are not able to evaluate the lens.

    • anonym

      links do not work

      • Roman

        Comrades, you are arguing) This suggests that it would not be a bad idea to shoot Arkady and lay out the development parameters in a well-known program, for example, lightrum. And this is really not entirely fair - we are looking at what the author is able to squeeze out and not the lens. And if the Author has a hand where it is not the fact that the rest is so.

  • Edgar

    He himself has a rikenon 55mm f1.4. From my experience. sharpness after f2.8 appears, and compared to the canon fd 50mm f1.4 sc, this lens specifically introduces a yellowish color. But, loses to him in aperture (I prepare the case in "T-stops") canon fd f1.4 darker than rikenon. An ambiguous feeling, on the one hand rikenon is lighter and has an additional 5mm focal length, but on the other hand the color rendition is not entirely true ...

  • anonym

    Arkady, I see you still decided to try to do as Roman asked ... the drawing of the lens is excellent, but with settings of 0 the pictures are very boring and this (IMHO) negates all the advantages of the lens ...

    • Jury

      Anonymous, you are suggesting that Arkady now return the saturation to +2 so that you don't get bored? Don't you think that this topic is already enough to develop? If you don't like it, handle it as you need it.

      • anonym

        Yes, this is exactly what I propose - to return life to photographs, and if you do not like it - screw the brightness and contrast on your monitor.

        Arkady, can really, in order to end this topic once and for all - organize a poll / vote with examples of photos (some flowers, greenery, nature) with your usual style and with settings of 0, and at the same time a survey on who and what exactly is looking for in reviews , because for me in the review, the color is more likely to “please the eye” and it was more pleasant to watch the photos, and I read the reviews in order to see the lens drawing, evaluate the grip, plasticity, bokeh, sharpness, etc., but do it on gray photos not so nice, but downloading all the photos and editing them in the editor to evaluate the qualities described above is not entirely interesting. I think it will immediately become clear which photos are preferred by the majority of blog readers? Because it's not entirely fair to target a couple of critics just because they scream louder.

        In addition, until now, everyone was satisfied with your reviews, even sellers at auctions often give links to your articles in order to evaluate a particular lens, and this is also a kind of indicator - no seller will give a link to a review with bad uninteresting photos, because that no one would buy his goods then. It is because of your style that the blog is read, cited, revised and so popular. And critics are an indicator of fame, there are always dissatisfied, you just need to control their population)) And this is exactly what all kinds of voting allow.

  • = MK =

    New font (first photo caption)? Chim not forward vlashtovuv?

    • Arkady Shapoval

      'Do you want checkers or go?'

  • Boris Badenov

    The photos are boring, but they accurately convey what this not at all outstanding lens is capable of (I had it in various versions). Whoever needs it - let him handle it for himself and prove that he is not a hamster.

    • anonym

      Doesn’t it seem crazy to you to download photos from the site in order to process and prove something to someone?

      • Boris Badenov

        Not to someone, but to himself. You are a hamster.

        • anonym

          And you, struggling, apparently, are about 16 years old, if you still have a desire to prove something to someone and the confidence that everyone around you is also striving to prove something ... As for the insults, everything is clear here - they begin when the arguments end.

        • Arkady Shapoval

          Due to the offensive attitude towards commentators, the email Boris Badenov is blocked on Radozhiva. The reason is described here.

  • Boris Badenov

    The next step in the lens testing process. Now, in addition to the fact that the photos are placed unprocessed, nadot, Arkady, take pictures with the following parameters:


    1. Set the maximum relative aperture.
    2. Take a picture at a minimum focusing distance.
    3. Take a picture at infinity.
    4. Cover the aperture by 1 stop and repeat steps 2-3 until the aperture is 8 for standard fix and telephoto or 11-16 for wide


    Follow the same steps as for the fix, at the minimum focal length, at the maximum focal length, and also at those focal lengths that are marked on the zoom ring, or at those focal lengths where the maximum relative aperture increases.

    Lenses with aperture 1.4 should still be tested at night on this hole to look at the bokeh and on whom.

    • Arkady Shapoval

      I remind you that Radozhiva is my photoblog, not a brick-wall testing studio.

    • establishment

      Oh how, already taught how to do it. And they’ll learn something, bought a hosting and a domain name and make a blog as you see fit. If the user reaches out, then everything is done correctly and interestingly and written.
      IMHO The fact that the camera settings are indicated is good, but for me photos with optimally set settings, and not with zero settings, were more interesting. I want to see what you can expect from the lens in the end.

  • Boris Badenov

    By the way, Arkasha, your material about bokeh ( stupidly took over the site ( There are no links to you, but your photos are stolen.

    What are you going to do?

    • Igor

      Don’t you think, Boriska, that you are too familiar? Reading is unpleasant.

    • Arkady Shapoval

      Almost all the materials on the site were copied in one way or another, even with reputable online publishers and online stores. I just want good materials to reach people who need them.


        Popularity comes when you are quoted!

        I would like to see you have an updated subjective rating of lenses, without points and other tinsel. Simply - First place: lens “….” and so on. And then the number of lenses tested is already very serious, but there are no ratings for little-known ones. There is no point in testing by the method, since almost all glasses are “creative”, except perhaps to assemble a test still life and shoot it with an open aperture ...

        PS. I am amazed at your tremendous performance! I wish you creative success!

  • Nicholas

    I rarely write. An amateur photographer with 40 years of experience (there was a break of 5 years of switching to digital), I support blocking (Boris Badenov). From your site I get valuable information that is most appreciated in the modern world. If Boris Badenov has a blog, I would be happy I respect him and will not criticize him. He does not know that "Critics of the monuments are not erected."

  • Andrei

    And where are peaches growing in Kiev?

    • Arkady Shapoval

      And this is not in Kiev :)

    • Lynx

      I suspect that it’s not even peaches. )))


    I would like to make a few notes about the concept of "color":
    1. Color perception is a very subjective thing. Plus to this - a sense of taste and creativity. You will not find a single point of view.
    2. Trying to see and correct the color on a monitor with a TN matrix is ​​useless. This requires a monitor with an IPS matrix. It is also desirable to calibrate it.
    3. It is almost impossible to get the same color on the monitor and on paper. Even photo labs with “calibrated” equipment are in flight.
    4. Almost always, photos from the camera look a little boring. To get an interesting photo, you need to display the file in a RAW converter, and often also photoshop it later. And in no case do not use the on-camera JPG. Better are the standard and minimum settings when developing in a decent RAW converter.
    5. If you do dry testing of chambers / glasses, you need to develop a certain method and strictly follow it. And if you determine the artistry and interest of the resulting picture, you can also correct it a little (the main thing is to know when to stop!), As well as point out the obvious advantages and disadvantages of the technique.
    6. Nikon cameras are said to have the wrong skin tone. Apparently, this statement arose when developing files from Nikon cameras in Lightroom. I was shocked when I got gray-green faces! What is the reason - then I did not understand, and now there is no desire. I chose Capture One - it appears well and is very flexible. The interface is not particularly user-friendly though. And skin tone can be obtained for every taste - both natural and warm, dense ...

    • Lynx

      the main problem of "kaptur", for a mass user - is not officially Russified, which, to be honest, is somewhat strange. ((

      • Novel

        Oh, this is such bad manners. As well as Russian Photoshop. It uses no more than a couple of dozen terms that can be memorized and used later in any image processing program. All reputable books, courses and video tutorials use English titles. And using the Russian-language versions of the programs, you automatically limit yourself to the Russian-speaking community. It is necessary to strive for the best, and not be limited to the usual: “everyone is satisfied”.

        • Lynx

          To me it’s absolutely on the drum whether anyone considers this a bad man or not.
          It is so convenient for me, and I prefer to work with what is convenient for me, regardless of “in a decent Internet army it is now customary to fap on“ this ”, but“ this ”is considered unworthy”.

          • Novel

            So, as most of them say to me here: “Who cares what is convenient for you personally”.

    • Novel

      "1. Color perception is subjective ”
      Everything is subjective by definition, but we will not go into the jungle of philosophy. If you and I do not suffer from color vision disorders, then we agree that green is not good for faces. I like cold shades, you like warm ones - that's if we are creative. And if we correct a reportage photo, then we understand that the sky can be green, the grass can be red, the wooden table is brown, and the faces are yellow-red. And the work of the color corrector convinces us that it is possible to: a) work strictly “according to numbers”, b) work until the “correct” colors are obtained, regardless of our preferences.

      “2. TN matrices and monitor calibration ”
      You can work with any monitor and it is desirable to calibrate any. The IPS-matrix has a larger color gamut, but for most applications, including creative ones, this is not critical. After all, we are all limited to custom monitors and paper that has even less color gamut. And with all this, see item 1 - green faces are bad, tomatoes are red, the sky is blue.

      “3. Color on the monitor and paper "
      This is a paper and printer problem.

      "4. Boring photo from the camera ”
      There is nothing to add. But it is undistorted by extraneous gross interference, and therefore easier to correct. I can produce tone compression or increase contrast without losing detail. If the camera has worked, this is more difficult to do.

      "five. Testing methodology "
      I am for. Why this whole conversation has begun. Arkady tests mainly old glasses, which are clearly inferior in their characteristics to modern ones. But with proper processing, you can turn all their disadvantages into advantages, and emphasize all their advantages.

      If the fact that the photos do not carry an artistic burden is constantly emphasized, why correct them? If artistic value is supposed, then processing can (and should) be better.

      “6. Wrong skin tone "
      This, excuse me, how? Shoot with the target, set the white balance on it and your faces instead of leaving in blue and green will leave (as expected) in yellow purple. I didn’t notice that Nikon cameras lied all at once, now all cameras give decent and quite predictable results.

  • Dmitriy

    In a dispute, the truth is born!) Now, if you pour 2-3 files of a file on some rapidshara. Everyone will open in their editor and see what can be done. But I vote for the fact that the posted photos on the site are beautiful - beginners also read it.

  • establishment

    I like beautiful photos more.
    If you want serious testing, then you need to lay out the ditches, and photograph not the flowers, but special test tables. In short, go to the dry numbers. Perhaps this will also be of interest to someone. But I do not visit this site for the sake of dry numbers, I like to see pictures of the lens, and then see what you can get using it. And to do this quickly without shaking or processing anything.
    Here is my personal opinion.

  • Alexander

    I fully support users who, so that Arkady does not change his way of providing material, and who needs dry numbers, Google to help you, there are a bunch of tests on targets, worlds, etc., etc., and as Arkady correctly put it (and in no way the case is not Arkash, he is not our brother or matchmaker, but a respected person) this is his photo blog! and it is up to him to decide in what form to provide information in it! Thank you for attention

  • Alexander

    Maybe someone already said, but this lens, judging by the color of the front lens, has thorium glasses. This means that it emits a background radiation, alpha / beta decay does not allow them to have a large radius, but passes through the carcass, I advise owners to measure the background. The yellowness on the lens just indicates that thorium reacted with enlightenment, and therefore I will give the yellowness, if it interferes, then there are instructions on YouTube how to remove yellowness using bright LEDs on the example of Takumar 55 1,4

  • Alexey

    Only in this review the bokeh of this glass is “porous”, in the rest of the pictures from the net it is more nervous and a little twisted .... ?? I climbed especially because looking for something picturesque, and Porst was (and he's good) .. I'm confused .. :(

Add a comment

Copyright © Blog author - Photographer in Kiev Arkady Shapoval. 2009-2022

English-version of this article

Version en español de este artículo