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

UV TOPCOR 53/2 Question
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sun Jun 21, 2020 7:05 am    Post subject: UV TOPCOR 53/2 Question Reply with quote
hi guys, found this beautiful lens, but why the UV initials? is this a "UV" lens?
also have no idea what mount that is.

#1


#2


#3


PostPosted: Sun Jun 21, 2020 7:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
They only fit on certain Topcon bodies. The aperture is set on the camera body. Unfortunately it will be a pain to adapt them, at least I think so.


PostPosted: Sun Jun 21, 2020 7:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
There are adapters around for some digital cameras.
They are not cheap as they have to include a functioning aperture ring
Here is one for M43 Micro Four Third Adapter for Lumix, BPMCC, Olympus cameras
https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/UV-Topcor-Lens-onto-M43-Micro-Four-Third-Adapter-for-Lumix-BPMCC-Olympus-cams/182975095793?hash=item2a9a2a63f1:g:Pp0AAOSwYHxWLxNK&frcectupt=true


PostPosted: Sun Jun 21, 2020 7:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Oldhand wrote:
There are adapters around for some digital cameras.
They are not cheap as they have to include a functioning aperture ring
Here is one for M43 Micro Four Third Adapter for Lumix, BPMCC, Olympus cameras
https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/UV-Topcor-Lens-onto-M43-Micro-Four-Third-Adapter-for-Lumix-BPMCC-Olympus-cams/182975095793?hash=item2a9a2a63f1:g:Pp0AAOSwYHxWLxNK&frcectupt=true


cute adapter. thanks.

why the UV in the name though...?


PostPosted: Sun Jun 21, 2020 7:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Smoli4 wrote:
Oldhand wrote:
There are adapters around for some digital cameras.
They are not cheap as they have to include a functioning aperture ring
Here is one for M43 Micro Four Third Adapter for Lumix, BPMCC, Olympus cameras
https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/UV-Topcor-Lens-onto-M43-Micro-Four-Third-Adapter-for-Lumix-BPMCC-Olympus-cams/182975095793?hash=item2a9a2a63f1:g:Pp0AAOSwYHxWLxNK&frcectupt=true


cute adapter. thanks.

why the UV in the name though...?


These lenses are UV coated and didn't need a seperate UV filter.


PostPosted: Sun Jun 21, 2020 7:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
caspert79 wrote:


These lenses are UV coated and didn't need a seperate UV filter.


Thank you man. now I got it. makes total sense


PostPosted: Sun Jun 21, 2020 3:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
caspert79 wrote:
Smoli4 wrote:


why the UV in the name though...?


These lenses are UV coated and didn't need a seperate UV filter.


Cool explanation - though most probably wrong Wink
(Hint: Do the RE Topcors need a separate UV -Filter?)

S


PostPosted: Sun Jun 21, 2020 3:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
caspert79 wrote:
Smoli4 wrote:


why the UV in the name though...?


These lenses are UV coated and didn't need a seperate UV filter.


Cool explanation - though most probably wrong Wink
(Hint: Do the RE Topcors need a separate UV -Filter?)

S


https://lens-db.com/system/topcon-uv/

Of course it's still no proof.


PostPosted: Sun Jun 21, 2020 6:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
caspert79 wrote:
stevemark wrote:
caspert79 wrote:
Smoli4 wrote:


why the UV in the name though...?


These lenses are UV coated and didn't need a seperate UV filter.


Cool explanation - though most probably wrong Wink
(Hint: Do the RE Topcors need a separate UV -Filter?)

S


https://lens-db.com/system/topcon-uv/

Of course it's still no proof.


Yes, take what s written there with a grain of salt, for example, Topcor 25 mm f3.5, they quote the manufacturer that the "drop in" UV filter at the back of the lens is part of the optical scheme and must always be inserted (or a different filter). I tested this on my lens and it makes no diference if it s without the filter Smile

https://lens-db.com/tokyo-kogaku-re-auto-topcor-25mm-f35-1965/


PostPosted: Mon Jun 22, 2020 9:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Just in passing, it's worth mentioning that this lens has very nice bokeh, rather like the Pentacon or Oreston.


PostPosted: Sun Jun 28, 2020 9:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
Yes, take what s written there with a grain of salt, for example, Topcor 25 mm f3.5, they quote the manufacturer that the "drop in" UV filter at the back of the lens is part of the optical scheme and must always be inserted (or a different filter). I tested this on my lens and it makes no diference if it s without the filter Smile


You tested the lens on the Topcon film SLR camera?.. I think no. So how can you claim that a filter is not needed?

I doubt that your tests were correct. Likely you never focused at infinity without the filter. Because without the filter, the lens will not properly focus at infinity and second order aberrations may appear at some combinations of focusing distances and apertures.

Also, some old photography films (and we talk about 1960s) were very sensitive to UV light, and that's the main reason why the manufacturer recommended to use at least a UV filter with this lens (UV filter was inserted into the rear bayonet mount by default at the factory). And front filters cannot be used with this lens because they would introduce mechanical vignetting.

And that was the reason why Topcon introduced another system, Topcon UV, with lenses with coating that protects film from UV light.

And modern SLR and MIL cameras do not need UV filters because digital sensors are protected from UV light. So, Topcor 25/3.5 can be easily used on modern cameras without UV filter, especially if focusing at infinity is not needed.

So, your claim "it makes no diference if it s without the filter" is pretty inaccurate because it is only valid if the lens is used on digital cameras and one does not focus at infinity.


PostPosted: Sun Jun 28, 2020 11:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
eugene1979 wrote:
Quote:
Yes, take what s written there with a grain of salt, for example, Topcor 25 mm f3.5, they quote the manufacturer that the "drop in" UV filter at the back of the lens is part of the optical scheme and must always be inserted (or a different filter). I tested this on my lens and it makes no diference if it s without the filter Smile


You tested the lens on the Topcon film SLR camera?.. I think no. So how can you claim that a filter is not needed?

I doubt that your tests were correct. Likely you never focused at infinity without the filter. Because without the filter, the lens will not properly focus at infinity and second order aberrations may appear at some combinations of focusing distances and apertures.

Also, some old photography films (and we talk about 1960s) were very sensitive to UV light, and that's the main reason why the manufacturer recommended to use at least a UV filter with this lens (UV filter was inserted into the rear bayonet mount by default at the factory). And front filters cannot be used with this lens because they would introduce mechanical vignetting.

And that was the reason why Topcon introduced another system, Topcon UV, with lenses with coating that protects film from UV light.

And modern SLR and MIL cameras do not need UV filters because digital sensors are protected from UV light. So, Topcor 25/3.5 can be easily used on modern cameras without UV filter, especially if focusing at infinity is not needed.

So, your claim "it makes no diference if it s without the filter" is pretty inaccurate because it is only valid if the lens is used on digital cameras and one does not focus at infinity.


Ha, live and learn they say!!!

Indeed the last time when i shoot film was some 30+ years ago. When i got the lens and saw the "drop in" UV filter i immediately removed it, i am well aware that on digital they are not needed, in fact i own cca 110 lenses and not a single UV filter, but i have hoods for all of my lenses which i always put on as mechanical protection.
When i first used the lens i noticed that i always have to focus almost at infinity for anything but close ups, but i noticed similar behaviour (though not that extreme) in a couple of other wide angle lenses (can t remember exactly which ones right now) so i thought it s normal.
I did a nice walk around with the lens and the images looked ok (i mostly shot at f8, f11):

https://www.flickr.com/photos/131684321@N03/albums

It was some time after i got the lens that i found that LensDB link, and again indeed i tested the lens with the filter and without it at very close distances. I CLA-ed most of my lenses and then many more, so i know what a huge difference a missing element makes, i was going by that logic in my test Rolling Eyes

After reading your replay i did an infinity test and yes, you are correct! Now i can focus with a bigger margin toward infinity, it looks like the lens has more depth of field now (perhaps it has less field curvature?), the borders/corners are better now.

Lesson learned, thank you! Time to do another walk around with the lens.

P.S. I wonder if the original colour filers (mine unfortunately came without them) available on ebay have the exact same effect?

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-Topcon-9-Filter-Set-for-Topcor-25mm-F3-5-RE-Lens-Genuine-Original/114268547173?hash=item1a9aefa865:g:ZyEAAOSw6ohe7upc

I also wanted to show two crops with and without filter but the upload doesn t work.


PostPosted: Sun Jun 28, 2020 11:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
I wonder if the original colour filers (mine unfortunately came without them) available on ebay have the exact same effect?


Sure. Because a filter for this very lens IS a part of the lens optical system despite the fact that it is detachable and interchangeable. So you'll have better corner/border sharpness and more DoF with any of filters mentioned in the ebay listing above, and not only with UV filter.


PostPosted: Sun Jun 28, 2020 12:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
eugene1979 wrote:
Quote:
I wonder if the original colour filers (mine unfortunately came without them) available on ebay have the exact same effect?


Sure. Because a filter for this very lens IS a part of the lens optical system despite the fact that it is detachable and interchangeable. So you'll have better corner/border sharpness and more DoF with any of filters mentioned in the ebay listing above, and not only with UV filter.


I was also going by the optical scheme i found here (eight row, mid column):

http://www.topgabacho.jp/Topconclub/lenscut.htm

Looking at the rear element it s convex toward the mount both on the scheme and on the lens (the filter is flat):

https://www.flickr.com/photos/131684321@N03/50053361903/in/dateposted-public/

I have the original square case and the front filter holder:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/131684321@N03/50053938761/in/dateposted-public/

and these are the 100% crops at f5.6, pretty obvious which is which:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/131684321@N03/50054186877/in/dateposted-public/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/131684321@N03/50054188282/in/dateposted-public/

Anyway thanx again, you brought new life to this lens Smile


PostPosted: Sun Jun 28, 2020 1:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
You are welcome.

--
Eugene
lens-db.com
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1