View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
alex ph
Joined: 16 Mar 2013 Posts: 1571
|
Posted: Wed Nov 20, 2019 10:52 pm Post subject: Re GN Topcor 1.8/50 vs Re.Auto-Topcor 1.8/58 |
|
|
alex ph wrote:
A while ago I was asking how Re GN Topcor 1.8/50 is compared with the most cherished and desired Re.Auto-Topcor 1.8/58. At that moment I did not find any clear statement or side-by-side comparison. I now have an opportunity to compare the GN with a 58mm which is a version with serial 116029.., and the FL written as 5.8cm.
I attest quite a slight difference which considers mostly bokeh. The GN has also a thinner DOF which is visible in the front OOF. But that might be my copy which seems to be dis- and reassembled in a slightly wrong way.
Meanwhile sharpness, colours and flare resistance are the same. What is surprising, I don't really see any difference in focal length between the 50mm and the 58mm lens. All shots are taken from the same position.
The camera is Nex-5N. Moderate contrast adjustment is applied.
#1 Re.Topcor 1.8/58, w/o
#2 Topcor.Re GN 1.8/50, w/o
#3 Re.Topcor 1.8/58, f2.8
#4 Topcor.Re GN 1.8/50, f2.8
#5 Re.Topcor 1.8/58, f2.8
#6 Topcor.Re GN 1.8/50, f2.8
#7 Re.Topcor 1.8/58, f2.8
#8 Topcor.Re GN 1.8/50
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
kiddo
Joined: 29 Jun 2018 Posts: 1121
|
Posted: Thu Nov 21, 2019 12:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
kiddo wrote:
Is it possible that we have a planar vs sonnar version? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
alex ph
Joined: 16 Mar 2013 Posts: 1571
|
Posted: Thu Nov 21, 2019 12:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
alex ph wrote:
It's hardly possible, kiddo, both for the almost identical image character and for the acknowledgment of Re.Auto-Topcors as a double Gauss lens, for example here. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
tb_a
Joined: 26 Jan 2010 Posts: 3678 Location: Austria
Expire: 2019-08-28
|
Posted: Thu Nov 21, 2019 1:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
tb_a wrote:
kiddo wrote: |
Is it possible that we have a planar vs sonnar version? |
The earlier 58 mm version is a Planar with a splitted rear doublet like the CZJ Pancolar (6/5) and the later 50 mm GN lens is an original Ultron design like the Zenitar or Minolta 50/1.7 (6/5). _________________ Thomas Bernardy
Manual focus lenses mainly from Minolta, Pentax, Voigtlaender, Leitz, Topcon and from Russia (too many to be listed here). |
|
Back to top |
|
|
alex ph
Joined: 16 Mar 2013 Posts: 1571
|
Posted: Thu Nov 21, 2019 1:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
alex ph wrote:
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Lightshow
Joined: 04 Nov 2011 Posts: 3669 Location: Calgary
|
Posted: Thu Nov 21, 2019 2:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
Lightshow wrote:
kiddo wrote: |
Is it possible that we have a planar vs sonnar version? |
Auto-Topcor 58/1.8
Topcor F 58/1.8
Topcor RE 58/1.8 There are a few versions below is 62xxxxx series, 99xxxxx separates the 2nd and 3rd elements, 129B has new optics again 1161xxxx Not sure what the changes are. I'll try and update the drawings if I can find the proper ones.
Topcor RE GN 50/1.8
from http://www.topgabacho.jp/Topconclub/lenscut.htm
The different versions of the 58/1.8
Code 28B R Auto-Topcor "preset semi-auto" serial 28xxxx (Auto needs to be armed)
Code 63B R Auto-Topcor "preset Autokinon" serial 63xxxx
Code 62B F Auto-Topcor serial 62xxxx (1960)
Code 62B based on the F Auto-Topcor from: 620001 to 625115 (1963)
Code 99B new optics,2nd and 3rd elements were separated. from 99xxxxx to 9901920 (1964)
Code 116B new mechanicals, from 1160001 to 11608302 (1965)
Code 129B (black or chrome) optics changed again From: 1161xxxx to 11670435 last known (1966) I have the chrome version, awesome lens.
Code 129BD (Navy) from: 1165xxxx to 11650401 last known (1967)
Code 129BG AUTO-TOPCOR (black) from: 1168xxxx to 11685922 last known (1971) . _________________ A Manual Focus Junky...
One photographers junk lens is an artists favorite tool.
My lens list
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lightshow-photography/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
cbass
Joined: 27 Jul 2019 Posts: 441
|
Posted: Thu Nov 21, 2019 3:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
cbass wrote:
Thank you for the comparison. Am I seeing correctly that the 58 mm looks to be wider than the 50mm? Was it just your positioning? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Ernst Dinkla
Joined: 30 Nov 2016 Posts: 378
|
Posted: Thu Nov 21, 2019 7:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ernst Dinkla wrote:
cbass wrote: |
Thank you for the comparison. Am I seeing correctly that the 58 mm looks to be wider than the 50mm? Was it just your positioning? |
If that is the case and the DOF of the 50mm to be mentioned as shorter then one wonders whether something went wrong in the test. _________________ Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots |
|
Back to top |
|
|
kiddo
Joined: 29 Jun 2018 Posts: 1121
|
Posted: Thu Nov 21, 2019 9:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
kiddo wrote:
The GN looks softer at 2.8 that 1.8....thats weird |
|
Back to top |
|
|
alex ph
Joined: 16 Mar 2013 Posts: 1571
|
Posted: Thu Nov 21, 2019 9:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
alex ph wrote:
My position was the same. And that's what I note as a surprise thing: I cannot see any difference in focal length. But I wouldn't say the 58 being wider. That might be an illusion coming from the mixed character of the objects in-frame. I'll make later a "brick wall" comparison, to be sure.
The GN that is sharper at f1.8 than at f2.8, I wouldn't say neither. If you look at the leaf in the center of #2 and #4, in #4 its edges and small details are better visible. But the 50mm front OOF blur is stronger than the 58mm has, and it is also a strange thing. Once again, might be my copy that has some signs of reassembly. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
cbass
Joined: 27 Jul 2019 Posts: 441
|
Posted: Thu Nov 21, 2019 4:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
cbass wrote:
The GN appears to have softer corners, but better bokeh. I think my preference is the 58 f/1.8 from the pictures you posted. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
y
Joined: 11 Aug 2013 Posts: 304 Location: EU
|
Posted: Thu Nov 21, 2019 9:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
y wrote:
Judging from shots #6 + #8 and the fact they were not taken using a FF camera it seems the GN's optics is indeed heavily misaligned. Poor lens |
|
Back to top |
|
|
alex ph
Joined: 16 Mar 2013 Posts: 1571
|
Posted: Fri Nov 22, 2019 12:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
alex ph wrote:
I was also surprised by this front OOF rendering by the GN on Sony Nex. But those shots were taken with a FF Sony, some of them w/o at low light, and I cannot observe such an effect. I am puzzled indeed. I will make another test with both A7 and Nex, of a plane object, to see the difference. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
kiddo
Joined: 29 Jun 2018 Posts: 1121
|
Posted: Sat Nov 23, 2019 10:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
kiddo wrote:
I think that we need some more info, generally, the RE 58mm were better spoken of lenses, that's why I didn't bother for the GN, even if can be easier and cheaper to find your samples of GN ,are nice on the oof area, I do prefer it better for portraits, just like I prefer the 1.4 vs 1.8 58mmRE. The same I prefer 1.4 vs 1.7 plannar C/Y. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
alex ph
Joined: 16 Mar 2013 Posts: 1571
|
Posted: Sat Nov 23, 2019 4:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
alex ph wrote:
Fellows, here is an update about both lenses. I did not have time to find a brick wall, so here is an indoor uniform sequence taken on a tripod fixed at the same position. The shots are taken with Sony A7.
This more consistent test shows a real difference in focal distance. The rendering in-focus seems to be really the same, while bokeh differs slightly, as you already noted in the discussion.
The front OOF does not seem that different, as in the forest shots, the GN does not have a considerably thinner DOF. This becomes clear when you compare she shots looking in the lower right corner. To make it better visible, the last two shots are taken after I shifted the tripod, sot that the folder in focus finds itself in the upper right corner.
#1 Toprcor Re 1.8/58 at f1.8
#2 Topcor Re GN 1.8/50 at f1.8
#3 Toprcor Re 1.8/58 at f4
#4 Topcor Re GN 1.8/50 at f4
#5 Toprcor Re 1.8/58 at f1.8, a 100% unprocessed crop of the upper right corner
#6 Topcor Re GN 1.8/50 at f1.8, a 100% unprocessed crop of the upper right corner
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
kiddo
Joined: 29 Jun 2018 Posts: 1121
|
Posted: Sat Nov 23, 2019 4:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
kiddo wrote:
Thanks, as expected, the GN is wider (as it should be) and the 58mm oof areas is thinner also (again as it should be) , in the forest pics, the things looked quite different, I thought that you might have mixed the pics between 58 and 50mm . [/i] |
|
Back to top |
|
|
alex ph
Joined: 16 Mar 2013 Posts: 1571
|
Posted: Sat Nov 23, 2019 5:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
alex ph wrote:
That must be an effect of the enchanted forest! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
John Shriver
Joined: 24 Dec 2009 Posts: 192
|
Posted: Mon Dec 09, 2019 2:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
John Shriver wrote:
It would be interesting to compare curvature of field. The classic RE. Auto-Topcors do have curvature of field, it's what they let "slip" to make the other aspects of the lens good.
I've never tried my RE GN Topcor 50/1.8, but did like the results with the RE GN Topcor 50/1.4. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
alex ph
Joined: 16 Mar 2013 Posts: 1571
|
Posted: Fri Dec 20, 2019 9:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
alex ph wrote:
That's an interesting question, John. I'll make some more test shots in mid-January.
Sorry for the delay with my reply and for the announced waiting. I am having a bit messy period. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|