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
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu Aug 01, 2019 5:33 am    Post subject: 135mm: Topcor RE Auto vs Jupiter 37A Reply with quote

I decided to do a test of these two lenses.

The Jupiter long ago won against several lenses as my best 135mm

Lens #1: Topcor Re. Auto Topcor 135mm f/3.5
Lens #2: Jupiter 37A MC (Rarer Mulit-Coated version) 135mm f/3.5

SOOC Jpegs from a FujiFilm X-T1
On tripod with 2 second delay. ISO 200. Auto shutter speed.
Both lenses at f/5.6

Topcor:


Jupiter:


Winner:
To my eyes neither lens. They look identical. The minor differences when you pixel peep are so close that I would attribute it minor manual focusing differences than the lenses.

The Jupiter has a closer minimum focus distance of 1.2m vs 1.5m for the Topcor. The topcor has a sliding build in lens hood while the Jupiter does not.

I did the same test against Mr. Clucks. My black and white plastic rooster at f/3.5, f/4, and f/5.6. I won't bore you with the pictures unless you really want to see them. However, sharpness there was also equal to my eyes at all apertures. Both lenses showed color fringing. Bokeh balls were better on the Jupiter. It has a 12 bladed aperture and is perfectly round. The topcon is has 6 blades.

I even threw in my modern Fuji 55-200mm zoom into the mix at 135mm. The max aperture is f/4.4 wide open. The Fuji zoom had no color fringing but may be corrected in camera. Sharpness seemed similar.


PostPosted: Thu Aug 01, 2019 9:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Longer lenses require open space to unveil character.
Try to do a comparison in the park, with a backlit background.

Whatever differences there are, they'll show more prominently.


PostPosted: Thu Aug 01, 2019 10:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Topcor is slightly more contrasty and has no/less vignette, and that is about it from what I can see. What's most notable to me is how similar the two photographs are.


Subjectively I prefer the Jupiter shot. It seems to have more depth to it, likely due to the slight vignette, which the Topcor does not exhibit.


PostPosted: Thu Aug 01, 2019 12:37 pm    Post subject: Re: 135mm: Topcor RE Auto vs Jupiter 37A Reply with quote

cbass wrote:
I decided to do a test of these two lenses.

The Jupiter long ago won against several lenses as my best 135mm

Lens #1: Topcor Re. Auto Topcor 135mm f/3.5
Lens #2: Jupiter 37A MC (Rarer Mulit-Coated version) 135mm f/3.5

SOOC Jpegs from a FujiFilm X-T1
On tripod with 2 second delay. ISO 200. Auto shutter speed.
Both lenses at f/5.6



Winner:
To my eyes neither lens. They look identical. ...
I even threw in my modern Fuji 55-200mm zoom into the mix at 135mm. ... Sharpness seemed similar.



You have tested in conditions nearly optimal for the corresponding lenses:

1) APS-C crop
2) monochromatic (red) flowers: a) no chromatic aberrations will be seen, and b) red pixel count is less than 1/4 (!) of the entire x-trans sensor, thus resulting in much lower than nominal resolution (about 4 MP instead of the nominal 16 MP)
3) f5.6-f8 is about the optimal aperture (for APS-C image circle!) using the Zeiss Sonnar 4/135mm (RF Contax); your Jupiter should be similar

Under these conditions is obvious that you see no difference between the lenses.
Use a 24 MP Full Frame camera, shoot landscapes, and throw in some fine not colored (=white/grey/black) structures, take f4, look at the corners. You will see huge differences:
(below are 100% crops from the extreme corners of the 24 MP FF Sony A7II images)


First a wartime Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar 135mm 1:4 (which should be comparable with your Jupiter). It is wartime, which means the barrel is made from different metals to lower standards, and it is uncoated. Otherwise it looks quite clean (no fungus, no obvious fogging, but a few small bubbles in the glass). Corner resolution on 24MP FF is excellent, even wide open as shown here. There are slight lateral CAs, and the contrast is a bit low, resulting in dull colors. Very respectable performance for a lens calculated around 1930 and manufactured in wartime Germany.


The Topcor RE 3.5/135mm, calculated around 1960, and in excellent exterior condition. Single coated, no fungus and no fogging as well.
Its detail resolution in the corners is nowhere near the Zeiss Sonnar, CAs are stronger. Both the contrast and the colors are visibly better (not shown here, but clearly visible in the central part of the image where resolution is as good as with the CJZ Sonnar).


Finally the Sony / Minolta 2.8/70-200mm APO G @ 135mm f4: perfect correction, no CAs at all, and resolution limited by "smearing" from the hot moving air (sorry for my clumsy description; i don't know the proper English terms for it). No camera software correction, since the 70-200G was adapted to the A7II through a purely mechanical adapter without any electrical contacts.

I hope these 100% crops from the 24 MP Sony A7II are helping to straighten out the facts. I am fully aware that we were (apart from the Topcor) not testing the same lenses, but I'm quite sure you would see similar differences when properly testing your lens set.

Stephan


PostPosted: Thu Aug 01, 2019 3:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

...

Last edited by Blazer0ne on Tue Feb 22, 2022 6:25 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Thu Aug 01, 2019 5:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Having the Topcor RE lens myself I can definitely confirm what Stephan stated. At least compared to my Jupiter-11 (I don't have the 37A) which performs identical to my CZJ Sonnar 135/4 it's only mediocre, particularly in terms of contrast and CA's, even on APS-C.


PostPosted: Thu Aug 01, 2019 5:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Addiction issues. I see beautiful old glass for low money and I buy it. I found this one in pretty much mint condition and low priced and had to try a topcor. It has perfect glass. My Jupiter isn't in such great shape and has some markings on the glass. I chose f/5.6 because according to old test charts that is where it should be reaching its peak in the center at 80 lines.

I can't keep all this glass so I do tests to keep the best and sell the rest.

I don't have a 24MP camera so I will not be able to test that. I only have my 16mp APS-C Fuji X-T1 and it's gong to be that way for awhile.

I did less controlled shots against my modern Fuji zoom and the zoom seems to beat it pretty easily if you pixel peep. However, I had a lot of coffee that day and I was shaking like a dog sh*ing peach seeds and the Topcor is a light lens and the Fuji has OIS so I will have to do a controlled test.

Here they are at f/4 against the chromatic inducing chicken (it's a rooster but calling it a chicken just works better here).

Topcor:



Jupiter:




The big difference here is that little blue light. On the Jupiter with its 12 blades it's perfectly round, but the topcor does very well here nonetheless. Jupiter shows color fringing issues which is surprising as its pretty aberration free but the chicken can turn champs into chumps. Not shown is that the color fringing cleans up a lot better and quicker stopping down with the Jupiter.

As for the 135 RE Auto-Topcor not being the best. According to the old test charts posted it's no slouch. it does better by f/5.6 than the 25mm, 200mm, 300mm and matches the 100mm. The only lens that beats it is the 35mm.


PostPosted: Thu Aug 01, 2019 6:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Blazer0ne wrote:
Stevemark on the rebuttal. Can we assume you compared all 4 corners of the Topcor for good centering?





Here are the four corners from my pristine-looking Topcor RE 3.5/135mm. While at first glance they look different, the difference can be attributed to astigmatism (differing resolution for tangential and sagittal structures). You can see in all four corners that lines pointing to the image center are quite sharp ("good sagittal correction"). On the other hand, the tangential lines (90° to the sagittal lines) are pretty lousy.
In addition to the astigmatism there's probably also some decentering, but that could be verified only by using test charts.



Blazer0ne wrote:
The Topcor results are quite an outlier from the rest of the RE lineup.

I would not say so. Apart from the 25mm and the 85mm, i have most of the RE Auto Topcor lineup (4/20mm, 2.8/28mm, 2.8/35mm, 1.4/58mm, 1.8/58mm, 3.5/58mm Macro, 2.8/100mm, 3.5/135mm, 5.6/200mm, 4.7/87-205mm) - and the later RE GN Topcor 1.8/55mm as well as the RE Topcor 1.7/50mm, but i'm only referring to the RE Auto Topcors here !

Many of these lenses were very good lenses when they were released. Others, such as the 3.5/135mm as well as the 2.8/28, the 2,8/35mm and the 1.4/58mm where rather mediocre even at their time. Compared with vintage lenses from the early 1980's, these latter four lenses are far from "outstanding". Even the 2.8/100mm, considered an excellent lens in the 1960s, is clearly (and i mean clearly) outperformed e. g. by a Minolta MD-III 2.5/100mm.

This doesn't mean at all that these lenses are useless. They have a distinct "1960s" look, and especially for b/w images i would highly recommend them - if you are into that 1960s vintage look! They are small, focusing is really smooth, and the aperture ring is quite OK (worse than the Minolta MC/MD, better than the Konica AR aperture rings). Quite often, though, the rubber focusing grip has loosened or - sometimes - is entirely lost.


Blazer0ne wrote:
Maybe that's why this lens can be had for $50.

I don't think so. The 1.8/58mm - which is excellent - is as cheap, and the 2.8/28mm, which is nothing special at all, can be relatively expensive. The 135mm is cheap because it is quite common, that's all.


Blazer0ne wrote:

Either way, there are some awesome Topcors out there. Enjoy!

The last computation of the 1.8/58mm is one of the sharpest vintage normal lenses i know; the 2.8/100mm has sonnar-like dreamy quality at f2.8, but gets very sharp at f8; the 3.5/58mm Macro has very little CAs and is razor sharp at f8-f11, and both the 4/20mm and the 5.6/200mm are well corrected, albeit quite slow.

Stephan


PostPosted: Thu Aug 01, 2019 6:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I would be interested in what you have found comparing lenses in the 100mm range, but that would probably hijack this thread.
Slight Hijack: You have the Minolta 100 and Topcor 100, but have you also compared against Nikkor 105 2.5 or Nikon E series 100 2.8?

I just bought a 58 1.8 but it is not the last version. I think it's the first optical recalculation. We'll see how it does. Most 50's perform very well.


PostPosted: Thu Aug 01, 2019 7:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

...

Last edited by Blazer0ne on Thu Aug 08, 2019 1:41 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Thu Aug 01, 2019 7:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cbass wrote:
Addiction issues. I see beautiful old glass for low money and I buy it.

Well known to me Wink


cbass wrote:

I had a lot of coffee that day and I was shaking like a dog sh*ing peach seeds and the Topcor is a light lens and the Fuji has OIS so I will have to do a controlled test.

Testing lenses without tripod can be tricky ... and should be avoided, especially when using tele lenses in (relatively) low light.


cbass wrote:

Here they are at f/4 against the chromatic inducing chicken (it's a rooster but calling it a chicken just works better here).

Are these 100% crops? If so: from the center, from the corner ...?
Or is it the entire image, reduced to 684x1024 px (which would mean about 0.7 MP ...)?

cbass wrote:
Jupiter shows color fringing issues which is surprising as its pretty aberration free ...

Your observation is absolutely correct. This behaviour is typical for classical Sonnar lenses: Haruo Sato, one of the outstanding lens designers at nikon (he calculated the excellent AF Nikkor 2.8/14-24mm) says about the 4/135mm Nikon-Sonnar:
"Although the lens exhibits excellent spherical aberration correction, the difficulty inherent in controlling the variations in spherical aberration corresponding to different colors shows itself in the lens' tendency to over-correct spherical aberration at short wavelengths (from blue to bluish purple). This is due to the simplicity of the lens's structure. The degree to which the lens can control this type of aberration is dependent on the designer."

cbass wrote:
As for the 135 RE Auto-Topcor not being the best. According to the old test charts posted it's no slouch. it does better by f/5.6 than the 25mm, 200mm, 300mm and matches the 100mm. The only lens that beats it is the 35mm.

I have seen and read such tests as well. To me, they are fun to read, but they seem to be pretty ... outdated. Quite often i see test results from respected sources (Popular Photography, Modern Photography) indicating that there is not that much difference between "Lens A" and "Lens B" while i know from my own tests that there is a quite a difference ...

Stephan


PostPosted: Thu Aug 01, 2019 8:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cbass wrote:
I would be interested in what you have found comparing lenses in the 100mm range, but that would probably hijack this thread.
Slight Hijack: You have the Minolta 100 and Topcor 100, but have you also compared against Nikkor 105 2.5 or Nikon E series 100 2.8?

I have quite a few vintage 100mm / 105mm lenses, and i can re-test some of them during the weekend. I would suggest the following:

EDIT: PLEASE BE AWARE THAT THIS IS A LIST IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER; IT DOESN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT QUALITY!

* Canon nFD 2.8/100mm
* Konica Hexanon 2.8/100mm
* Minolta MC-I 2/100mm
* Minolta MC-X 2.5/100mm (6 lens computation)
* Minolta MD-III 2.5/100mm (5 lens computation)
* Minolta AF 2/100mm
* Nikkor 2.5/105mm (old Sonnar-like version)
* Nikkor AiS 1.8/105mm
* Topcor RE 2.8/100mm

And we might also throw in two fast zooms:
* Nikkor AF 2.8/80-200mm
* Sony/Minolta AF 2.8/70-200mm APO G

I'll do that in a separate thread, of course.


cbass wrote:
Most 50's perform very well.

Around f5.6 - f8: Yes, absolutely.
Wide open, either at f1.4 or at f1.7 ... f2, there are quite some differences. Well known and respected lenses such as the Takumar 1.4/50mm do not at all perform as one might assume from most internet sources. Others, such as the Fujinon 1.8/55mm, are remarkable.

Blazer0ne wrote:
Even though I had digital and film based gear from long before, Minolta is worth noting.

The very first set of lenses that got me started on adapting mf to mirrorless was a donated set of Rokkors with camera and bag. I was actually blown away by the results, and the current market price performance was outstanding.

The same applies for the first series of Minolta AF lenses. They often are even better than the corresponding MC/MD lenses. Take the "beercan" 4.5-5.6/75-300mm, for example: at f=300mm as sharp as the Nikkor AiS 4.5/300mm ED-IF, and not more CAs (which indicates the use of AD glass in the Minolta)!

Blazer0ne wrote:
Minolta lenses are excellent and have great performance and a unique look and tone, saturation, contrast, everything.

Sadly most CaNikon fanboys start to understand this only now ...

Blazer0ne wrote:

Later on, I still went out and bought Topcor lenses, because the images had a look that I envisioned for portrait work; veiling flare and lower contrast in backlighting. It wasn't tests or math or charts that led me, but something about the aesthetic just made me gravitate towards the lineup.

That's what i tried to express in my last posting as well, written before i was able to read your posting. This "vintage 1960 look" however is more related to the early 1960 timeframe than to a certain manufacturer. Take a Topcon RE 2.8/35mm, a Minolta MC-I 2.8/35mm, a Konica AR 2.8/35 ... they all have the same look ("veiling flare" or "the Glow"). Probably the early Nikkor 2.8/35 is the same, certainly the CZJ 2.8/35mm Flektogon has flare ...


Last edited by stevemark on Thu Aug 01, 2019 10:53 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Thu Aug 01, 2019 8:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think it may be time to pick up a Leica Elmar 135mm F/4. I have wondered about that lens for some time now.

I recently acquired a Minolta 58 Rokkor PF 1.4. I had mixed feelings about this lens at first, but it has really grown on me. It does its best work in low light and B&W. I like the rendering.

These comparisons are fun, but the true test is to spend some time with the lens and just shoot actual pictures and see how they render in different conditions.

These are downscaled pictures from flickr. Here are the links to the full resolution pictures:

https://flic.kr/p/2gMrV4h
https://flic.kr/p/2gMsDqH
https://flic.kr/p/2gMNpNT
https://flic.kr/p/2gMNHE4

I was curious about the 100's. I currently have a Nikon E 100 2.8 that is very nice primarely because it is a pancake lens. With the adapter it's the size of my Fuji 18-55 Zoom. Very sharp. Nice bokeh. Cheap. Small. Cheap. Optically great means it ends up in my bag a lot. But I always wonder about the others. That addiction thing again.


PostPosted: Thu Aug 01, 2019 9:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cbass wrote:
I think it may be time to pick up a Leica Elmar 135mm F/4. I have wondered about that lens for some time now.


That's a very good idea. That's still my very best 135mm lens, even on my A7R II. I would never give it away. You may find a very nice copy for something like EUR 200.- with a little bit of luck.


PostPosted: Thu Aug 01, 2019 9:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

stevemark wrote:

I have quite a few vintage 100mm / 105mm lenses, and i can re-test some of them during the weekend. I would suggest the following:

* Canon nFD 2.8/100mm

Considering how much you value sharpness, I'm surprised this is your first choice.
I've had two copies (obtained the second one since I couldn't believe in Canon losing sharpness battles), and every other 100mm I've tried on A7R was sharper.
That would be Kaleinar-5N, Minolta MD-III, and Zuiko (pre-MC).
The last one comes with a caveat of weak extreme corners, but murders FDn in center sharpness all the same.

Stopped down Canon is very sharp across the the frame, but wide open it's not a top performer.


PostPosted: Thu Aug 01, 2019 9:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That Leica has tempted me for awhile because it's in my price range. However, from pictures it looks like a big lens so would have to be optically excellent for me to use it. Also from the 1960s.

Anybody have one of those and a Topcor or CZJ Sonnar or Jupiter and want to do a test? Very Happy Or have one and live in the Phoenix metro area?


PostPosted: Thu Aug 01, 2019 10:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

aidaho wrote:
stevemark wrote:

I have quite a few vintage 100mm / 105mm lenses, and i can re-test some of them during the weekend. I would suggest the following:

* Canon nFD 2.8/100mm

Considering how much you value sharpness, I'm surprised this is your first choice.
I've had two copies (obtained the second one since I couldn't believe in Canon losing sharpness battles), and every other 100mm I've tried on A7R was sharper.
That would be Kaleinar-5N, Minolta MD-III, and Zuiko (pre-MC).
The last one comes with a caveat of weak extreme corners, but murders FDn in center sharpness all the same.

Stopped down Canon is very sharp across the the frame, but wide open it's not a top performer.


Obviously there's a big misunderstanding. As I have written, i suggested to re-test some lenses, listed in alphabetical order.
The list is not meant to say anything about quality!

Stephan

PS If you want me to name my personal favourite from the list above - it's the Minolta AF 2/100mm ... But let's wait and see the results, including both resolution @ infinity and bokeh @ 1m ans 1.5 m.


PostPosted: Thu Aug 01, 2019 10:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cbass wrote:
That Leica has tempted me for awhile because it's in my price range. However, from pictures it looks like a big lens so would have to be optically excellent for me to use it. Also from the 1960s.

Anybody have one of those and a Topcor or CZJ Sonnar or Jupiter and want to do a test? Very Happy Or have one and live in the Phoenix metro area?


Topcor and CZJ 3.5/135mm Sonnar are clearly inferior to the Elmar 4/135mm. In fact there's not much difference between Elmar 4/135mm and the Leica M 4/135mm APO, at least on 24MP FF.

Stephan


PostPosted: Thu Aug 01, 2019 11:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If it is superior or inferior can only be determined by controlled testing. The Jupiter though has a 12 blade aperture advantage with as perfect bokeh as you can get and a shorter minimum focus distance of 1.2m. I think the Sonnar does even better at 1m.

I was hoping these Topcors would be more affordable Zeiss and Leica alternatives. We will see when the 35 and 58 arrive and after I get some real world pictures with the 135.


PostPosted: Fri Aug 02, 2019 4:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

cbass, I've got all of these lenses and some other 135mm ones from Minolta, Pentax, Nikon and Rollei/Voigtlaender (Zeiss Tele Tessar) as well and I have done all these comparison tests already.
As Stephan already stated, the Leitz Elmar 135/4 beats them all, particularly on my high resolution Sony A7R II 42MP camera. I haven't seen any better lens in this focal length up to now, only faster ones.
However, I don't want to do all these cumbersome tests again as the matter is clear already, at least for me. Wink
Thanks for understanding.


PostPosted: Fri Aug 02, 2019 5:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Topcor Sonnar 135 has weaker corners and a bit more CA compared to CZJ/Jupiter 37 Sonnars.

Given you can get a many-bladed Jupiter for like 40 Euro, it's an easy choice.


PostPosted: Fri Aug 02, 2019 6:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

That's good enough for me. Do you have the Elmar or the Tele-Elmar?


PostPosted: Fri Aug 02, 2019 7:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

cbass wrote:
That's good enough for me. Do you have the Elmar or the Tele-Elmar?


This one in M39/LTM: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/index.php/Elmar_1:4_/_135mm


PostPosted: Fri Aug 02, 2019 12:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cbass wrote:
If it is superior or inferior can only be determined by controlled testing. The Jupiter though has a 12 blade aperture advantage with as perfect bokeh as you can get and a shorter minimum focus distance of 1.2m. I think the Sonnar does even better at 1m.

I was hoping these Topcors would be more affordable Zeiss and Leica alternatives. We will see when the 35 and 58 arrive and after I get some real world pictures with the 135.


It is very important that any lens you choose is right for your kind of photography. If you intend to use the 135mm for portraits, corner performance at infinity simply doesn't matter. For portraits, I would even choose a lens with a rather low contrast, but others would not agree... Apart from the optical performance of a lens it's handling that matters: Smooth focusing, weight, focusing grip, aperture ring ... and a lot more.

However, from my experience with nearly 700 lenses, i would rate the Topcor RE 3.5/135mm as average at best.

Stephan


PostPosted: Fri Aug 02, 2019 2:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

stevemark wrote:



Many of these lenses were very good lenses when they were released. Others, such as the 3.5/135mm as well as the 2.8/28, the 2,8/35mm and the 1.4/58mm where rather mediocre even at their time. Compared with vintage lenses from the early 1980's, these latter four lenses are far from "outstanding". Even the 2.8/100mm, considered an excellent lens in the 1960s, is clearly (and i mean clearly) outperformed e. g. by a Minolta MD-III 2.5/100mm.


Stephan


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;





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