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

Best 50mm in real life: Topcor, Yashinon, Xenon, Planar
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri Oct 11, 2019 3:44 pm    Post subject: Best 50mm in real life: Topcor, Yashinon, Xenon, Planar Reply with quote

I wished to revisit and softly confront the rendering of some best normal lenses I have in real life shooting. So I did not take systematically the same object with them all, but rather searched for someway similar shots in my files already made with different lenses. Please look at this "test" in a different way than at usual lens comparison, as it is composed of shots taken of different textures, light and distances. The idea behind is to propose some "spots" for perception that may put forward micro-contrast or glow in one case, global sharpness and colours in the another... All that has more of subjective than formal value. But this is finally what makes the impression coming from particular shots.

The lenses are:
Schneider-Kreuznach Xenon 1.9/50 on Exakta mount (many-bladed diaphragm)
Rollei Planar 1.8/50 (the older Carl Zeiss version, without HFT marking)
Auto Yashinon-DX 1.7/50 (silver nose)
Re.Topcor GN 1.8/50


Here are groups of people in a rather dim street light, I am mostly interested in the clarity of face rendering.

#1 Schneider Xenon 1.9/50


#2 Rollei Planar 1.8/50


#3 Re.Topcor GN 1.8/50



Here are fine structures, like bike wheels, and the background OOF completing them.

#4 Schneider Xenon 1.9/50


#5 Re.Topcor GN 1.8/50


#6 Yashinon-DX 1.7/50



Here is I am interested in how artificial light (neon, halogen) is rendered, with sharper shapes or with more haloing.

#7 Yashinon-DX 1.7/50


#8 Schneider Xenon 1.9/50


#9 Rollei Planar 1.8/50



And finally architectural structures taken at mid-large distances.

#10 Re.Topcor GN 1.8/50


#11 Schneider Xenon 1.9/50


#12 Yashinon-DX 1.7/50


#13 Rollei Planar 1.8/50


While Topcor and Planar seem to have best micro-contrast thus rendering faces and generally fine details with highest resolution, Yashinon and Xenon do not fall long apart from them, adding more character with colours and OOF rendering.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 11, 2019 4:47 pm    Post subject: Re: Best 50mm in real life: Topcor, Yashinon, Xenon, Planar Reply with quote

Nice comparison. My copy of Xenon 50mm/1.9 displays very cool and gloomy color, a little in contrast to German lenses.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A good list of contenders. I agree the Planar and Topcor photos looks the best here.

I've been looking for a Xenon but ended up with a Heligon 50mm 1.9 instead. I've seen incredible photos with both of these at portrait distance.


Speaking of 6 element lenses. After trying many different lenses for me it seems there are more 6/4 designs among the most interesting ones, instead of 6/5.
Sharpness is about equal, but the biggest difference is bokeh and micro contrast. 6/4 design lenses have a tendency to have more "busy" bokeh, or so called character. Unless focused very close untill a certain point where they become super smooth instead (Meyer Optik Görlitz Oreston 50mm 1.Cool. In return they have a way of isolating a close subject in a special micro contrasty way. (Pancolar 50mm 1.8 serial number 85xx and below). This is just a random thought.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think this series of photographs simply proves one thing ... you don't need the latest wizz-bang autofocus auto-aperture image-stabilised glass to produce stunning images!

Once again, the eye behind the viewfinder is as important as the lens in front of the camera Wink


PostPosted: Fri Oct 11, 2019 11:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kypfer wrote:
I think this series of photographs simply proves one thing ... you don't need the latest wizz-bang autofocus auto-aperture image-stabilised glass to produce stunning images!

Once again, the eye behind the viewfinder is as important as the lens in front of the camera Wink

Perhaps that explains the absence of any AF lensesin my collection and my most modern lens is my Voigtlander 15.
I prefer the Topcor and Schneider-Kreuznach. Interesting pics too.


Last edited by Lightshow on Sat Oct 12, 2019 12:04 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Fri Oct 11, 2019 11:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I like the planar.

I prefer the MC lenses rendering in most situations.

The Topcor is nice too but the high lights......


PostPosted: Sat Oct 12, 2019 8:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Planar for me, non technical term but it seems to more “punch”.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 12, 2019 10:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you, fellows, for you kind words and valuable thoughts. It is sometimes difficult to distinguish important details in a flow of shots, so your input is really stimulating.

Blotafton, you have an interesting observation as for 6/4 design vs. 6/5. I think there is a flagrant exception from your scheme which is Hexanon 1.7/50. It is 6/5 and still having a very smooth bokeh. I feel a bit guilty not to include it in the "best" list (at least my preferred). But I did not wish to overcharge the list of examples and event deleted some already loaded shots.

There is another great lens that enters in the same class of contenders and which has optical design evolving in time from 6/4 to 6/5, without a considerable change of image character. It's Pancolar. I find it especially well balanced in both sharpness and OOF, giving this particular "airy" punch in some cases similar to Sonnars. It concerns even more the older non-MC versions.

I add here four shots following the same typology, just to add this lens to the counterpoint.

#1 Group of people in a dim light


#2 Bikes


#3 Artificial lighting


#4 Architecture at mid-far range


PostPosted: Sat Oct 12, 2019 6:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Like 1 Like 1


PostPosted: Sat Oct 12, 2019 8:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Like 1 Like 1 Like 1 to the Pancolar indeed, although I also like the Planar and the Xenon.

But again, as has been said above, it is what happens behind the camera, not in front of it (the glass on it I mean)... Wink


PostPosted: Sun Oct 13, 2019 12:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you for sharing your long-time learning experiences assembled into a comprehensive set of real-world techniques to use for comparing lens performance (and making photographs in general!). Quite a lot about photography can be learned by anyone who makes such comparison testing! Beyond test charts; beyond portrait and landscape examples; these comparisons show how to work the light with the lens.

Like 1 Like 1 Thank you!


PostPosted: Mon Oct 14, 2019 10:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear fellows, I thank you really much for your evaluation and remarks. You raise my spirits! This is not just for any nice feedback. I follow for years your work of high precision and of wonderful quality, so your appreciation is especially precious.

As for photographer's eye, I globally agree with you when it comes to geometry of a shot. Meanwhile I think that it would be really difficult for example to get the same clear rendition in a dim light with a triplet. I don't only mean the higher speed of double Gauss lenses and thus an easier hand held shooting. Triplets also give a typically less clear, a bit messy transition from in-focus to OOF areas, so that shapes are not as well distinguished as compared to double Gauss. I may be wrong speaking about triplets in general, that is just my uncomplete experience of evening street shots.