UV Topcor 100mm/F4 on APS-C

[tb_a]

This morning I took the 100mm lens to check it's usability and quality.
BTW, it was already very hot outside and the air condition was not the best for infinity testing.

The gear:



The (boring) outcome (clickable for larger view):














However, it seems that this lens is quite usable on my Ricoh GXR-M, which I took today for testing. I simply prefer it over the NEX for many reasons.
It is not really surprising after the result of the 28 and 35mm UV Topcor testing. So it fits rather in the overall impression that the UV Topcor lenses are certainly an option and around the best lenses if bought for little money. Of course, there are better lenses around but still far more expensive.

Finally two 100% crops from the above pictures for pixel peeping:




BTW, although I had the flash with me, there was no reason to use it. Distance ring was only used for the bigger rose and the grapes.
Don't ask me about aperture used. Mainly betw. 4 and 8. Should be somehow visible anyway.
As usual shot RAW and converted with exposure corrections in LR. No sharpening or other manipulation. Downsized for presentation.

Comments are welcome.

P.S.:
35mm: http://goo.gl/z1TFWJ
28mm: http://goo.gl/AJAFzl

Cheers,

[BeardsAreBest]

You have such great subject matter where you are bud and obviously some great glass at your disposal.
Some practice at focus, composition and exposure will net you the goods in your pics and help your wonderful lenses shine.
Love your work.
Love that Log shot.

[tb_a]

That's really very kind of you...

[tb_a]

Just quick and dirty two comparison shots between the F.Auto-Topcor 100/2.8 (RE Topcor) and the UV Topcor 100/4 on the GXR-M (overviews are clickable for larger views):

1st picture:

a. Overview
b. 100% center crop
c. 100% corner crop

100/2.8 at F4:





100/4 at F4:





2nd picture:

100/2.8 at 5.6:



100/4 at 5.6



Little crop of 2nd picture 100/4 at 5.6:



So finally I can say that there is not much difference.
Below F5.6 the RE lens performs slightly better and as from F5.6 there is hardly any visible difference besides that on the UV lens is still a little trace of CA's (as shown on the small crop) which will go away at F8. However, that's only visible at 100% view.
On the other hand the RE lens performs a little bit softer at the faster setting of F2.8. So the use of F2.8 should rather be avoided under normal light condition. At 2.8 there are also a small trace of CA's visible on the RE lens (at 100% view).

Bearing in mind that the F.Auto-Topcor as I have it in black is nowadays offered for several hundred Euros (there are presently 2 available roughly betw. 300 and 400 Euros in the Evilbay) and the UV-Topcor for a fraction of that price, I would rather recommend the UV over the RE version.

[jamaeolus]

Hmm better performance from the UV than I would have expected. Especially when stacked up against the RE Topcor 100 2.8, which is one of my faves. I thought though, that the UV series had the back lens in camera behind the shutter and only changed the front elements ala Pro-Tessar?

[scsambrook]

Thomas - I think I prefer the out of focus effect of the UV Topcor in the last pair . . .

Jamaeolus - Ah, no, the UV-series cameras don't have an embedded rear element.

[tb_a]