Home
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 08, 2019 9:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Minolfan wrote:
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?


Yes, this puzzles me too and only makes matters confusing over time.
I am not a moderator, but it would be excellent if we stayed on topic for each thread.
Tom


PostPosted: Sat Oct 05, 2019 10:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Something wrong here. Look at the test results and sample photos for the Re Auto Topcors:
https://www.dyxum.com/dforum/re-auto-topcor-lenses_topic108389.html
I would not consider this a shabby lens. As a matter of fact the US Navy chose the Re Super Topcon camera and the Re Auto lenses for its fleet over all the competition in the 70's.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 06, 2019 6:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Navy chose Topcon in the 1960s. I am sure in the 1960s the lenses and camera was far ahead of its time. Even then who knows if they chose Topcon only on optical performance or other factors like ease of service or something else.

The Topcor was tested against the Jupiter 37A which is the same optical formula as the Carl Zeiss 135 mm f/3.5 Sonnar which is one of the the best 135mm ever made. My Jupiter is the MC version which is multi-coated.

That test that you showed me was conducted on film. My test was conducted on a Fuji X-T1 APS-C Mirrorless camera. 80 lines/mm is a great result, but it's not something that can't be matched or beaten.

If you test results of your own, then please post them.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 06, 2019 6:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

john flinn wrote:
Something wrong here. Look at the test results and sample photos for the Re Auto Topcors:
https://www.dyxum.com/dforum/re-auto-topcor-lenses_topic108389.html
I would not consider this a shabby lens. As a matter of fact the US Navy chose the Re Super Topcon camera and the Re Auto lenses for its fleet over all the competition in the 70's.

Nothing wrong here Wink

I have tested and compared the Topcor RE 3.5/135mm as well (results published in this thread as well), and there's no doubt that the original Bertele Sonnar 4/13.5 cm (my copy is a wartime Sonnar, around 1941) is much better then the Topcor RE 3.5/135mm.


cbass wrote:
The Navy chose Topcon in the 1960s. I am sure in the 1960s the lenses and camera was far ahead of its time.
...
That test that you showed me was conducted on film.
...

If you test results of your own, then please post them.


Absolutely right. You can take also the Hexanon 2.8/35mm and the Topcor RE 2.8/35mm: According to the vintage tests you linked they are top class items. This probably was true at the moment of testing. If you compare these two lenses to a Minolta MD-III 2.8/35mm from 1981, they are simply bad lenses (unless you specifically look for that vintage look of 1960s lenses, of course).

Stephan


PostPosted: Mon Oct 07, 2019 12:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

stevemark wrote:

Absolutely right. You can take also the Hexanon 2.8/35mm and the Topcor RE 2.8/35mm: According to the vintage tests you linked they are top class items. This probably was true at the moment of testing. If you compare these two lenses to a Minolta MD-III 2.8/35mm from 1981, they are simply bad lenses (unless you specifically look for that vintage look of 1960s lenses, of course).

Stephan


Is there any difference optically between the MD II 2.8/35 and the MD III 2.8/35?
I know we are off topic, but I am interested in your reply.
Thank you
Tom


PostPosted: Mon Oct 07, 2019 3:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oldhand wrote:
stevemark wrote:

Absolutely right. You can take also the Hexanon 2.8/35mm and the Topcor RE 2.8/35mm: According to the vintage tests you linked they are top class items. This probably was true at the moment of testing. If you compare these two lenses to a Minolta MD-III 2.8/35mm from 1981, they are simply bad lenses (unless you specifically look for that vintage look of 1960s lenses, of course).

Stephan


Is there any difference optically between the MD II 2.8/35 and the MD III 2.8/35?
I know we are off topic, but I am interested in your reply.
Thank you
Tom


For my eyes, only better coating in the MD III.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 07, 2019 7:06 am    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


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.

I'm not surprised they look similar, both are Sonnar designs.
Jupiter

Topcor

CZJ


PostPosted: Tue Oct 08, 2019 9:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oldhand wrote:
stevemark wrote:

Absolutely right. You can take also the Hexanon 2.8/35mm and the Topcor RE 2.8/35mm: According to the vintage tests you linked they are top class items. This probably was true at the moment of testing. If you compare these two lenses to a Minolta MD-III 2.8/35mm from 1981, they are simply bad lenses (unless you specifically look for that vintage look of 1960s lenses, of course).

Stephan


Is there any difference optically between the MD II 2.8/35 and the MD III 2.8/35?
I know we are off topic, but I am interested in your reply.
Thank you
Tom


As far as i know: No differences regarding the optical construction of the MC-X 2.8/35mm [5/5] , MD-I, MD-II, and MD-III lenses. Be aware that there is also the older seven lens MC-X 2.8/35mm! On 24MP FF, the performance of all the Minolta [5/5] 2.8/35mm lenses certainly looks identical. The older [7/6] construction, however, is a weaker performer!

There might be, however, subtle changes (eg replacing a glass with a slightly different glass, and as a result slightly different lens curvatures). Such changes are well documented for Nikkor glass, and i know they happened also at the transition from Minolta AF to Sony AL lenses in 2005 (i have seen the Sony technical documentations with my own eyes, but was not allowed to copy them, of course). Examples are the Minolta AF (Sony AL) 2.8/20mm, the 1.4/35mm G and the 1.4/50mm.

Stephan


PostPosted: Tue Oct 08, 2019 11:52 am    Post subject: Re: 135mm: Topcor RE Auto vs Jupiter 37A Reply with quote

Lightshow wrote:
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


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.

I'm not surprised they look similar, both are Sonnar designs.
Jupiter

Topcor

CZJ



I have a list of about 30 lenses with that lens diagram. Mainly 135mm 3.5 lenses. I rather call that group Enhanced Ultrastigmat as it come close to the Ultrastigmat optical scheme but the two lenses in the center cemented. Whether they all show that scheme in the images made and other construction aspects do not interfere I do not know but I doubt that. It has been a very common design for 135mm lenses not faster than 3.5. Older/slower/cheaper there are a lot that have the pure Ultrastigmat scheme.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 08, 2019 12:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

stevemark wrote:
Oldhand wrote:
stevemark wrote:

Absolutely right. You can take also the Hexanon 2.8/35mm and the Topcor RE 2.8/35mm: According to the vintage tests you linked they are top class items. This probably was true at the moment of testing. If you compare these two lenses to a Minolta MD-III 2.8/35mm from 1981, they are simply bad lenses (unless you specifically look for that vintage look of 1960s lenses, of course).

Stephan


Is there any difference optically between the MD II 2.8/35 and the MD III 2.8/35?
I know we are off topic, but I am interested in your reply.
Thank you
Tom


As far as i know: No differences regarding the optical construction of the MC-X 2.8/35mm [5/5] , MD-I, MD-II, and MD-III lenses. Be aware that there is also the older seven lens MC-X 2.8/35mm! On 24MP FF, the performance of all the Minolta [5/5] 2.8/35mm lenses certainly looks identical. The older [7/6] construction, however, is a weaker performer!

There might be, however, subtle changes (eg replacing a glass with a slightly different glass, and as a result slightly different lens curvatures). Such changes are well documented for Nikkor glass, and i know they happened also at the transition from Minolta AF to Sony AL lenses in 2005 (i have seen the Sony technical documentations with my own eyes, but was not allowed to copy them, of course). Examples are the Minolta AF (Sony AL) 2.8/20mm, the 1.4/35mm G and the 1.4/50mm.

Stephan


Thank you Stephan.
Much appreciated
Tom


PostPosted: Tue Oct 08, 2019 4:09 pm    Post subject: Re: 135mm: Topcor RE Auto vs Jupiter 37A Reply with quote

Ernst Dinkla wrote:
Lightshow wrote:
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


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.

I'm not surprised they look similar, both are Sonnar designs.
Jupiter

Topcor

CZJ



I have a list of about 30 lenses with that lens diagram. Mainly 135mm 3.5 lenses. I rather call that group Enhanced Ultrastigmat as it come close to the Ultrastigmat optical scheme but the two lenses in the center cemented. Whether they all show that scheme in the images made and other construction aspects do not interfere I do not know but I doubt that. It has been a very common design for 135mm lenses not faster than 3.5. Older/slower/cheaper there are a lot that have the pure Ultrastigmat scheme.

Yeah, post WWII, Zeiss designs ended up everywhere.

Ultrastigmat seems closer to Ernostar than the Sonnar, though they are all somewhat related being based on designs that came before.
I believe the Ultrastigmat is the design that Ernostar is based off of and these Sonnar's are in turn based off the Ernostar, all of which are based off the Triplet. https://www.oldlens.com/lens%20kyoushitsu2-17%20hyou.html

Ultrastigmat



http://forum.mflenses.com/list-of-lens-diagrams-triplets-planars-and-hybrid-lenses-t22934.html#199489
And a few posts down.
no-X wrote:
Basic Ernostar is described as a lens consisting of two positive elements (meniscus), one negative element and one positive element at the end of optical block.

Despite many lenses are marketed as Sonnars, they are based on Ernostar designs and even the patent descriptions call them Ernostars.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 08, 2019 5:56 pm    Post subject: Re: 135mm: Topcor RE Auto vs Jupiter 37A Reply with quote

Lightshow wrote:

...

...
Despite many lenses are marketed as Sonnars, they are based on Ernostar designs and even the patent descriptions call them Ernostars.


When sound film started to replace the silent film (early 1920s), the bright and noisy arc lamps could not be used any more. Faster lenses were needed. To increase the speed of triplet anastigmats, the front lens was split in two lenses with less curvature (=> reduced spherical aberrations): The Gundlach Ultrastigmat (by Charles Minor) was born. Later this type was called "Ernostar". Bertele, at that time about 23 years old, in 1923 did create an improved version of the Ultrastigmat, which was mounted on the Ermanox camera. Later, Bertele discovered that introducing a low dispersive glass between the second (positive) and the third (negative) lens of the Ernostar would a) reduce chromatic aberrations and b) reduce the number of air/glass surfaces by two. This invention lead to the well known Sonnars.

Back in 2010 I have written a series of articles on the early Zeiss lenses for the Sony Fotospiegel. They also include a short history of early lenses in general:
Tessar: http://artaphot.ch/images/Technik/Zeiss/Tessar/FS141_History_ZeissTessar_150dpi.pdf
Sonnar: http://artaphot.ch/images/Technik/Zeiss/Sonnar/FS142_History_ZeissSonnar_150dpi.pdf
Planar / Biotar: http://artaphot.ch/images/Technik/Zeiss/Planar-Biotar/FS143_History_ZeissPlanarBiotar_150dpi.pdf
Biogon: http://artaphot.ch/images/Technik/Zeiss/Biogon/FS144_History_ZeissBiogon_150dpi.pdf

Stephan