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

90mm RF lens comparison (Leitz/Topcon/Voigtlander)
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue Nov 27, 2018 6:27 pm    Post subject: 90mm RF lens comparison (Leitz/Topcon/Voigtlander) Reply with quote
Inspired by the recent discussion about old RF Topcors I wanted to compare my 90mm RF lenses on my Sony A7 R II.

The candidates from left to right: Topcon, Leitz and Voigtlaender:



As usual pictures only converted and downsized for presentation. No further manipulations; i.e. 100% same conditions for all lenses.
Focus set manually on the flower in the middle of the frame. Tripod and indirect flash used. All pictures clickable for better quality viewing.

All lenses used wide open, i.e. F3.5 and F2.8.

1. Tokyo Kogaku Topcor 1:3.5 f=9cm (LTM/M39):



2. Voigtlaender Apo-Lanthar 90mm F3.5 MC (LTM/M39):



3. Leitz Wetzlar Elmarit 1:2.8 / 90 (Leica-M):



Verdict:

The old Topcor was a real surprise as it delivered even more contrast than the Voigtlaender lens hence it appears to be slightly sharper. Unfortunately no F3.5 possible on the Leitz lens and at F4 it's more than clear the winner.
At least in this test scenery I would say that the oldest Topcor beats the newest Voigtländer. Finally the Leitz wins as it's at F2.8 slightly better than the Voigtländer at F3.5 and as good as the Topcor at F3.5.
Finally they all perform excellently and the differences are very minor and more a matter of taste.


PostPosted: Tue Nov 27, 2018 9:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
My impression is that there are few, if any, bad 90mm RF-lenses.

Surprising that the old Topcor holds its own so well between the better-known German brands.


PostPosted: Tue Nov 27, 2018 10:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Sjak wrote:
My impression is that there are few, if any, bad 90mm RF-lenses.

Surprising that the old Topcor holds its own so well between the better-known German brands.


Indeed. Particularly the non-existent color fringing in the out of focus area is remarkable.


PostPosted: Tue Nov 27, 2018 11:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Like 1 Like 1 Like 1


PostPosted: Wed Nov 28, 2018 2:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nicely done! Agreed, excellence is the mark of each of those lenses. Best jt


PostPosted: Wed Nov 28, 2018 4:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Impressive! How about the corner performance when focused at the centre, at a medium distance around 5m? This is the sort of FL I like on the street/in the city.


PostPosted: Wed Nov 28, 2018 6:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thank you, gentlemen.

Teemō wrote:
How about the corner performance when focused at the centre, at a medium distance around 5m? This is the sort of FL I like on the street/in the city.


I never realized any corner issues or field curvature with my 90mm RF lenses.
When ultimate corner to corner sharpness and/or more DOF is required (typically for landscapes) I wouldn't use any lens fully open, but at least stopped down to F5.6 or even more (if light conditions allows it).


PostPosted: Thu Nov 29, 2018 7:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nice respectable showing for the Topcor which is possibly the oldest of the bunch. Tokyo Kogaku made LTM lenses from 1945-1961 according to Topcon story, sadly there is little info on the RF gear, 6 pages. The Simlar 9cm predated this lens, I believe the optics are the same.
http://manuellfokus.no/tokyo-kogaku-topcor-9cm-f3-5/

Interestingly, Marco says he never seen a 13.5cm https://www.wesellyourcollection.com/topcon/product/12-topcor-135-cm-135-screw-mount-lens-sn-55380-with-external-viewfinder-in-original-case-minty-state/
I never seen one other than this link http://www.topgabacho.jp/Topconclub/lens6.htm wish it was mine.

I wonder how the Canon S 100/3.5 would compare in this test.


PostPosted: Thu Nov 29, 2018 8:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
tb_a wrote:
Thank you, gentlemen.

Teemō wrote:
How about the corner performance when focused at the centre, at a medium distance around 5m? This is the sort of FL I like on the street/in the city.


I never realized any corner issues or field curvature with my 90mm RF lenses.
When ultimate corner to corner sharpness and/or more DOF is required (typically for landscapes) I wouldn't use any lens fully open, but at least stopped down to F5.6 or even more (if light conditions allows it).


I am now left wondering if the Voigtlander has any real advantage being the most modern lens in screw mount. It doesn't exactly meet the APO claim either. In some tests, the SLR-mount version performed better but everyone seems sure that they contain exactly the same optics.


PostPosted: Thu Nov 29, 2018 8:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lightshow wrote:
Nice respectable showing for the Topcor which is possibly the oldest of the bunch. Tokyo Kogaku made LTM lenses from 1945-1961 according to Topcon story, sadly there is little info on the RF gear, 6 pages. The Simlar 9cm predated this lens, I believe the optics are the same.

I wonder how the Canon S 100/3.5 would compare in this test.


The Topcor is from the late 1950's, the Leitz was made 1972 and the Voigtländer (Cosina) was available as from 2001. Unfortunately I didn't find any more detailed information about the Topcor. Most probably it's a 4/3 construction like the old Leitz Elmar 90/4; the Leitz is a 5/3 and the Voigtlaender a 6/5 construction.

Sorry, but I don't have anything from Canon.

My only RF lens around this focal length is a 105mm one: http://forum.mflenses.com/soligor-telephoto-105mm-f4-m39-ltm-t72862.html


PostPosted: Thu Nov 29, 2018 9:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Teemō wrote:
I am now left wondering if the Voigtlander has any real advantage being the most modern lens in screw mount. It doesn't exactly meet the APO claim either. In some tests, the SLR-mount version performed better but everyone seems sure that they contain exactly the same optics.


Well, you should never forget that these Voigtlaender RF lenses have all been designed for the usage on the Bessa R film RF cameras and not for digital use. Therefore there are some limitations on certain digital cameras, not only with wide angles. Particularly in "pixel peeping mode" that may be visible. That may also be the cause of such review variations. As a matter of fact RF lenses perform best when used on digital on the Ricoh GXR-M (APS-C) and Leica (FF).
Even within the Sony A7 series they perform quite differently. My A7R II (and the III with the same sensor) is most probably still the best option outside the Leica world for FF usage. Even lenses like the Leitz Summicron 50/2 in LTM perform slightly better on my Ricoh, not only in the corners. Don't ask me why. Possibly the different used adapters may have some influence as well.

However, IMHO the 75mm/F2.5 Voigtländer in LTM is the better lens: http://forum.mflenses.com/voigtlander-color-heliar-75mm-f2-5-m39-ltm-t72616.html


PostPosted: Thu Nov 29, 2018 9:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
tb_a wrote:
Lightshow wrote:
Nice respectable showing for the Topcor which is possibly the oldest of the bunch. Tokyo Kogaku made LTM lenses from 1945-1961 according to Topcon story, sadly there is little info on the RF gear, 6 pages. The Simlar 9cm predated this lens, I believe the optics are the same.

I wonder how the Canon S 100/3.5 would compare in this test.


The Topcor is from the late 1950's, the Leitz was made 1972 and the Voigtländer (Cosina) was available as from 2001. Unfortunately I didn't find any more detailed information about the Topcor. Most probably it's a 4/3 construction

It's a triplet according to http://www.topgabacho.jp/Topconclub/lenscut.htm

Quote:
like the old Leitz Elmar 90/4; the Leitz is a 5/3 and the Voigtlaender a 6/5 construction.

Sorry, but I don't have anything from Canon.

My only RF lens around this focal length is a 105mm one: http://forum.mflenses.com/soligor-telephoto-105mm-f4-m39-ltm-t72862.html


PostPosted: Thu Nov 29, 2018 11:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lightshow wrote:
It's a triplet ......


OK, thanks. Quite astonishing how a simple lens like this is able to perform that good.


PostPosted: Fri Nov 30, 2018 1:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
tb_a wrote:
Teemō wrote:
I am now left wondering if the Voigtlander has any real advantage being the most modern lens in screw mount. It doesn't exactly meet the APO claim either. In some tests, the SLR-mount version performed better but everyone seems sure that they contain exactly the same optics.


Well, you should never forget that these Voigtlaender RF lenses have all been designed for the usage on the Bessa R film RF cameras and not for digital use. Therefore there are some limitations on certain digital cameras, not only with wide angles. Particularly in "pixel peeping mode" that may be visible. That may also be the cause of such review variations. As a matter of fact RF lenses perform best when used on digital on the Ricoh GXR-M (APS-C) and Leica (FF).
Even within the Sony A7 series they perform quite differently. My A7R II (and the III with the same sensor) is most probably still the best option outside the Leica world for FF usage. Even lenses like the Leitz Summicron 50/2 in LTM perform slightly better on my Ricoh, not only in the corners. Don't ask me why. Possibly the different used adapters may have some influence as well.

However, IMHO the 75mm/F2.5 Voigtländer in LTM is the better lens: http://forum.mflenses.com/voigtlander-color-heliar-75mm-f2-5-m39-ltm-t72616.html


I had not realised that the digital sensor stack had a significant impact on image quality beyond wide angle lenses. Possibly the SLI and SLII (the SLR versions) have some minor design updates in coatings and curvature to work well with digital sensors hence the higher MTF, lower CA and lower vignetting of these on some digital cameras.
Both the 75 and 90 are using the same optical configuration and they seem to have mostly the same performance. At the same subject distance, the 90 actually has slightly less DoF even at F3.5.
I figure any 50mm lens can just be cropped a bit to reach 75, which makes the 90 a bit more versatile if one owns a 50mm rather than a 40mm or 35mm. The Bessa R has corner framelines (they're a bit too short) for the 90 while the 75 has long central framelines, which aren't that great for framing.
Performing about equal, I can see why most would prefer the 75. I think both have merit.


PostPosted: Fri Nov 30, 2018 2:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Teemō wrote:
tb_a wrote:
Teemō wrote:
I am now left wondering if the Voigtlander has any real advantage being the most modern lens in screw mount. It doesn't exactly meet the APO claim either. In some tests, the SLR-mount version performed better but everyone seems sure that they contain exactly the same optics.


Well, you should never forget that these Voigtlaender RF lenses have all been designed for the usage on the Bessa R film RF cameras and not for digital use. Therefore there are some limitations on certain digital cameras, not only with wide angles. Particularly in "pixel peeping mode" that may be visible. That may also be the cause of such review variations. As a matter of fact RF lenses perform best when used on digital on the Ricoh GXR-M (APS-C) and Leica (FF).
Even within the Sony A7 series they perform quite differently. My A7R II (and the III with the same sensor) is most probably still the best option outside the Leica world for FF usage. Even lenses like the Leitz Summicron 50/2 in LTM perform slightly better on my Ricoh, not only in the corners. Don't ask me why. Possibly the different used adapters may have some influence as well.

However, IMHO the 75mm/F2.5 Voigtländer in LTM is the better lens: http://forum.mflenses.com/voigtlander-color-heliar-75mm-f2-5-m39-ltm-t72616.html


I had not realised that the digital sensor stack had a significant impact on image quality beyond wide angle lenses. Possibly the SLI and SLII (the SLR versions) have some minor design updates in coatings and curvature to work well with digital sensors hence the higher MTF, lower CA and lower vignetting of these on some digital cameras.
Both the 75 and 90 are using the same optical configuration and they seem to have mostly the same performance. At the same subject distance, the 90 actually has slightly less DoF even at F3.5.
I figure any 50mm lens can just be cropped a bit to reach 75, which makes the 90 a bit more versatile if one owns a 50mm rather than a 40mm or 35mm. The Bessa R has corner framelines (they're a bit too short) for the 90 while the 75 has long central framelines, which aren't that great for framing.
Performing about equal, I can see why most would prefer the 75. I think both have merit.


I have to disagree with the word significant in "a significant impact on image quality beyond wide angle lenses".
The effect is minor IMO, there may be a handful of longer lenses that don't do well with a sensor stack, there are options to combat those issues, like a thin filter sensor mod or adding a front element to lessen field curvature.


PostPosted: Fri Nov 30, 2018 4:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lightshow wrote:
I have to disagree with the word significant in "a significant impact on image quality beyond wide angle lenses".
The effect is minor IMO, there may be a handful of longer lenses that don't do well with a sensor stack, there are options to combat those issues, like a thin filter sensor mod or adding a front element to lessen field curvature.


Agree, "significant" is a bit exaggerated hence I stated that it may be visible only in "pixel peeping mode". That means that for usual presentations (e.g. WEB or on printout) nobody would recognize any differences anyway.


PostPosted: Fri Nov 30, 2018 4:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lightshow wrote:


I have to disagree with the word significant in "a significant impact on image quality beyond wide angle lenses".
The effect is minor IMO, there may be a handful of longer lenses that don't do well with a sensor stack, there are options to combat those issues, like a thin filter sensor mod or adding a front element to lessen field curvature.


I really don't know. For sure the LTM lens has no consideration for a sensor stack. There were possibly some curvature changes made with the SLR lenses to improve their performance on DSLR's because it's unusual to me that the vignetting and lateral CA should be quite reduced, between the LTM version 90/3.5 on a 14.2MP NEX and the SL version on a 10.2MP Nikon D200.


PostPosted: Fri Nov 30, 2018 11:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
DSLR lenses are calculated with the sensor stack in mind.


PostPosted: Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
2 rare optics
https://www.ebay.com/itm/TOPCON-Topcor-9cm-3-5-90mm-f-3-5-LEICA-L-Rangefinder-Lens-EXCELLENT/173699749052
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Tokyo-Kogaku-R-Topcor-9cm-90mm-f3-5-Lens-Captain-Jack/292836907458
Shame the R is stuck, a bit expensive in that condition, but as long as nothing is broken, it should be relatively easy to fix, I've had mine apart for CLA, was quite strait forward.


PostPosted: Sun Dec 30, 2018 4:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Leica Elmarit has a 3D like quality, maybe because it is F2.8. Voightlander pic looks flat.


PostPosted: Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
They look the same, because the lighting is the same, there is no 3D pop.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 22, 2024 1:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Here is a complete review of the Voigtländer 90mm f/3.5 ltm:

https://otherphotosite.wordpress.com/2024/10/12/voigtlander-apo-lanthar-90mm-f-3-5-ltm/
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1