Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

135mm: Topcor RE Auto vs Jupiter 37A
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri Aug 02, 2019 4:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Holy Hexanon.

I understand what you mean by average about the Topcor but it held up pretty well against the Jupiter which is my top 135mm. But there are better 135 mm that can be had or faster ones the topcor 135mm are also pretty cheap so I think worth the effort to acquire for the price they xommand.

Do you have anymore of those test numbers? I am curious how the Hexanon's 135's perform. Either the 2.5, 3.2 or 3.5


PostPosted: Fri Aug 02, 2019 6:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Ernst Dinkla wrote:

Only one Topcor here, the RE 58mm 1.8 with the wrong serial number Smile, so I can not comment on the RE Topcor 35mm 2.8 but recalled that the person that tested it in the 1960's was quite impressed;

Thanks for sharing theses vintage test results! That's exactly what i said before - during their time these lenses (Hexanon 2.8/35mm, Topcor RE 2.8/35mm) were very good. But then time passed, and Minolta and Nikon did re-calculate their 2.8/35mm lenses ... others were following with strikingly similar constructions (Canon nFD, Mamiya CS/E, Yashica ML, even Konica ...), and all these 2.8/35mm lenses were much better than the 1960s versions.

Ernst Dinkla wrote:

Though I think my Mamiya Sekor CS 35mm 2.8 will beat it.

I think so too, even though I've never seen or tested one Wink

Stephan


PostPosted: Fri Aug 02, 2019 7:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
We shall see. I have a topcor 35mm f/2.8 on the way. I have a friend with a Minolta MD 35mm f/2.8
I can compare them, but I don't think anything will dethrone my Mitakon 35mm f/0.95


PostPosted: Fri Aug 02, 2019 8:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
...

Last edited by Blazer0ne on Thu Aug 08, 2019 1:40 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Fri Aug 02, 2019 11:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
cbass wrote:
We shall see. I have a topcor 35mm f/2.8 on the way. I have a friend with a Minolta MD 35mm f/2.8
I can compare them, but I don't think anything will dethrone my Mitakon 35mm f/0.95


The results on APS-C may differ from the results on FF - all old 2.8/35mm lenses (from the 1960s) i know have a strong tendency to very soft corners on full frame. APS-C sensors will be less affected, thus you may see less difference between a Topcor and a MD 2.8/35 than I do on FF!

Stephan


PostPosted: Sat Aug 03, 2019 3:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I got the 35 2.8 and 58 1.8 today. I only manged to put the 35 2.8 on and snap a few pictures, but holy sh*t. This is not the 135mm Topcor. I will do another thread on the 35, however, I think the mighty Mitakon may finally be dethroned. It's a f/0.95 lens so a lens for a different purpose, but the Mitakon stopped down is the sharpest lens I have. It brings both modern Fuji 35s to their knees and they are no slouches. At f/8 the focus peaking on the Fuji went insane. It looked like dust particles were peaking. I think this lens is easily out resolving my sensor. I think this modern digital camera is holding this lens from the 1960s back.


PostPosted: Sat Aug 03, 2019 4:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I understand it's APSC and 16MP at this so not really going to stress the lens. If we are going to be really honest than all these tests are fun, but should be taken lightly. You have sample variation in the lenses. Most of these lenses are very old. You don't know if they have been taken apart to be cleaned or coatings degraded over time. Or dropped or whatever other things may have happened to them over the decades to effect image quality. The coatings on the lenses have changed over the years and in some cases even the optical formulas. Sometimes a few times. Then most of these are mounted on cheap Chinese made adapters usually bought at the lowest price. There could be light leaks. Even the black paint that is used on these adapters has some reflection. There are articles about "tuning" these adapters to improve their performance. Then they are being manually focused and in some instances hand held on various cameras using various sensors.


PostPosted: Sat Aug 03, 2019 4:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
...

Last edited by Blazer0ne on Thu Aug 08, 2019 1:39 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sat Aug 03, 2019 5:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Blazer0ne wrote:

Lately I've been grabbing either a Rokkor-HH for 35s, but I will tell you now that more often than not it has been a Minolta MD 35-70 3.5 Macro Zoom with a Fotasy MD-Nex Focus adapter.

It's seem to be a really great zoom, but the distortion at 35mm is bad.
https://lensqaworks.com/2018/08/13/review-minolta-md-zoom-35-70mm-13-5-macro/

It's pretty damn big, and it is of the worst "moustache" kind.


PostPosted: Sat Aug 03, 2019 3:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:


Ernst Dinkla wrote:

Though I think my Mamiya Sekor CS 35mm 2.8 will beat it.

I think so too, even though I've never seen or tested one Wink

Stephan


To give you at least some idea of it, I added a pano of a for you familiar scene here:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62951992


PostPosted: Sat Aug 03, 2019 5:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
...

Last edited by Blazer0ne on Thu Aug 08, 2019 1:39 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sat Aug 03, 2019 7:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
A copy of Hexanon 2.8/35 I have slightly outperforms a copy of Re.Topcor 2.8/35 at mid and far range. Here you may find more details.

On the opposite, my copy of Re.Topcor GN 1.8/50, even if not in the best physical condition, is sharp and contrasty as hell. From that I learnt something: exceptional lenses may "make" the whole mark with cult following, while other lenses of the same line might not always hit the same score.

As for the original shots, I like more your Topcor flower which divides better bright spots and shadows, even if it pulls more details from shadows. So, the whole image looks in a way more brilliant.

Ernst Dinkla wrote:


Only one Topcor here, the RE 58mm 1.8 with the wrong serial number Smile, so I can not comment on the RE Topcor 35mm 2.8 but recalled that the person that tested it in the 1960's was quite impressed;






PostPosted: Sat Aug 03, 2019 7:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
aidaho wrote:
...
It's seem to be a really great zoom, but the distortion at 35mm is bad.
https://lensqaworks.com/2018/08/13/review-minolta-md-zoom-35-70mm-13-5-macro/

It's pretty damn big, and it is of the worst "moustache" kind.


The linked test image show close range distortion. Near infinity and at f=35mm, there's considerably less distortion (around 3%). Around f=50mm, distortion is virtually gone, and at f=70mm we have around 1%. These values are taken from the original Minolta project.

Stephan


PostPosted: Sat Aug 03, 2019 7:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Ernst Dinkla wrote:


To give you at least some idea of it, I added a pano of a for you familiar scene here:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62951992


Oh! Thank you Wink. Have you been there recently?

Stephan


PostPosted: Sat Aug 03, 2019 8:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
58 f/1.8 also looks like it's going to be a winner. Mine is not even the last changed optical formula, but somewhere in the middle. Both of these lenses perform like modern lenses, which is really impressive. Both are sharp and usable wide open. Focusing on them is perfect. I have many old lenses and the focus ring on these is at the top. The focus just snaps in place. They have half stops which is very nice.I shoot both into the sun and no contrast loss not even wide wide. Then I point right at the sun and only small spec of flare. These are single coated and made in the 1960s? No way. They perform like modern glass.

I also like the rendering.



PostPosted: Sat Aug 03, 2019 9:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
Ernst Dinkla wrote:


To give you at least some idea of it, I added a pano of a for you familiar scene here:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62951992


Oh! Thank you Wink. Have you been there recently?

Stephan


The 17th of July. A two shot pano, stitched in ACR, the DNG further developed with Capture One default mode. No CA reduction either. DPreview allows uploading of reasonably sized JPEGs and the 100% loupe shows more detail. There is more in the RAW though.


PostPosted: Mon Aug 05, 2019 12:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
cbass wrote:
58 f/1.8 also looks like it's going to be a winner. Mine is not even the last changed optical formula, but somewhere in the middle. Both of these lenses perform like modern lenses, which is really impressive. Both are sharp and usable wide open.

On APS-C, even the Topcor RE 2.8/35mm is quite OK. Remember that on APS-C it only the central part of the image circle is used (about 45° instead of 63° on full frame cameras). Keeping the central 45° (at f2.8, which is a rather modest speed for 45° image circle) with a high definition was possible, even in the 1960s. Most vintage lenses from that time perform similarly on APS-C sensors.

However, using theses lenses on FF is a different story. Here's an image taken with the earlier, common version of the Hexanon AR 2.8/35mm, taken at f2.8 and resized to 1.5 MP (!). The Topcor behaves similarly, as do the early Minolta 2.8/35mm lenses (AR, MC-I, MC-II and some MC-X).


Images taken with later 2.8/35mm lenses, developed usually around 1975, result in a much less coma and much better resolution. Here as an example the same location taken at f2.8 with the Minolta MD-III 2.8/35mm. Lenses such as the Nikkor AiS 2.8/35mm, the second (compact) version of the Hexanon AR 2.8/35mm, the Canon nFD 2.8/35mm and the Yashica ML 2.8/35mm have a comparable performance:



Here are some 100% crops from the FF corners (24MP):



And finally some 100% crops from mid-file FF (slightly outside the APS-C corners):


[quote="cbass"]
... They perform like modern glass ...[/url]

The Minolta MD-III 2.8/35mm certainly does. I have compared the MD-III 2.8/35mm with the (rather expensive) Sony Zeiss 2.8/35mm, using a 44 MP full frame camera:
http://www.artaphot.ch/minolta-sr/objektiv-vergleiche/434-sony-a7rii-and-summilux-1-4-35mm-asph-sony-zeiss-fe-2-8-35mm-and-minolta-md-2-8-35mm

Stephan


PostPosted: Mon Aug 05, 2019 2:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
...

Last edited by Blazer0ne on Thu Aug 08, 2019 1:39 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Mon Aug 05, 2019 3:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The Minolta MD 2.8/35mm has the typical layout of the rear group which was pioneered by Nikon in their original 2.8/24mm lens. This arrangement of the rear group - a negative bi-concave lens followed by two positive, concave-convex lenses, the latter typically made of high refractive / low dispersive glass - allowed for proper compensation of coma and other aberrations.

The Topcor is a typical example of the earlier retrofocus wideangles, based on Triplet / Tessar / Ernostar constructions with a large negative lens in front. These constructions always were prone to excessive coma aberrations.

Stephan


PostPosted: Mon Aug 05, 2019 6:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Blazer0ne wrote:
They even look different on the inside. How about that. Wink

#1 Minolta MD iii 35mm 2.8
https://lensqaworks.com/2018/01/18/minolta-md-35mm-2-8/




#2 RE Auto Topcor 35mm 2.8
http://www.topgabacho.jp/Topconclub/lenscut.htm



Similar change in optical design going from TL/DTL/SX to CS/E in thé Mamiya Sekor 35mm 2.8 lenses.


PostPosted: Wed Aug 07, 2019 7:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
So even on APS-C you can see corner softness on the Topcor's. That resolves stopped down, but the corners fall behind modern lens performance. I almost have my 35mm comparision ready for another thread. I think these Topcor's are going to be my art lenses as they have nice rendering and are pleasant to use. However, as landscape lenses they fall short.


PostPosted: Wed Aug 07, 2019 8:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
...

Last edited by Blazer0ne on Thu Aug 08, 2019 1:38 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Thu Aug 08, 2019 12:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
What do these smeared dots mean?


PostPosted: Thu Aug 08, 2019 1:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
...

Last edited by Blazer0ne on Thu Aug 08, 2019 1:38 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Thu Aug 08, 2019 7:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
How is it possible that in an item about 135mm lenses comes a lot about 35mm lenses?
How ever to search the info after some time?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3