Re Topcor 2.8/35 vs. Konica Hexanon 2.8/35 - surprise

[alex ph]

Recently I put a question how to get rid of some lenses without major regrets. One of the best, and most pleasant, replies that came from the forum members was: try to get some more valuable or more special items. Why not? This is what I said to myself and made a purchase. I have been for long curious about a Re Topcor lenses. Having an APS-C Sony Nex, one of the most versatile options is a 35mm lens which makes the set "normal". So I opted not to wait for a special occasion, seen their relative rarity (which, I presume, is highly related to the very activity of the forum members). I got a BIN and entered into possession of my most expensive single lens acquisition by that day.

Looking in the internet at pictures taken with Topcors in bright sunny days and often including close distance objects that gives to the background a tremendous OOF touch, I was expecting something really special. To appreciate this specialty I put myself immediately to compare this very well built Topcor with a more frequently found and slightly less appreciated, but really great and beloved Konica Hexanon 2.8/35.

Here is the the couple in question. Both have a large front glass, Re Topcor has 49mm while Hexanon having a larger 55mm.




I first did some quick and most esthetically poor shots of test and comparison. And, frankly speaking, the results puzzled me. I will turn back later to that point. Then I went out to shoot the real world, under the grey skyes. And here I discovered that maybe I like more the way Topcor renders shiny and crhomed surfaces, as it puts an accent on them, as well as on magenta and green and blue tones in general. Briefly speaking, it seems that Topcor tends to undeline the cool extremity of the colour spectre more than Hexanon. While Hexanon gives an image which is closer to real life, and I appreciate that no less. These nuances a part, both give a very good output, even in bad weather and weak light.

But what about the recognizable rendition of Topcor that should pop out once you put the lens on your camera? Here I got my first puzzle. Could you tell which shot is made with which lens?

#1


#2


Well, I imagine, this is not very difficult for those specific shots, as Topcor favours magenta and chrome. So, the first is Topcor, the second is Hexanon.

And here is a couple more of real life shots, this time in the evening lights.

#3


#4


When the lights are off, this makes it makes more difficult to say which one is which. The evening shots are tweaked harder to reduce red overtones and some other excesses of how the Nex processes by default lowlight jpgs. But even though, it sdeems to me that shiny surfaces are better and nicer rendered with Topcor. Here, once again, first goes Topcor and Hexanon follows.

And now time for suprise. Here are some test shots I took under mostly blush light, in order to peep sharpness and colours. From the very beginning I did not expect much of contrast, especially in wide open shots (maybe it is a good general way to compare lenses, other than under bright sun?). But I expected that Topcor will easily outperform Konica which is sometimes criticised for lack of sharpness and abberations. So long so well, which lens goes for which shot?

Here is the test situation first. It is taken with both lenses wide open:

#5


And here is a side-by-side comparison of 100% unprocessed crops. So, could you tell apart the Topcor from the Hexanon?

#6


I bet you won't. Or even, as myself looking at the image in the first time, you might say: Hmm, Topcor is very well known for its special sharpness and great rendering, and as long as the left image renders a bit more details, that must be Topcor. And that'll be wrong. Because the left image is Hexanon which delivers details slightly better wide open.

#7 Time to switch off the light one more time. Here is the test scene at 3.2 or so (both lenses have half-stops between 2.8 and 4)



#8 And this is what we have after a 100% unprocessed crop is done. Which one is which?



Here, I must say, there is virtually no difference in sharpness and detail. Some differences in colour tone might be an artificial Nex effect, as the camera often changes colour gradient from one shot to another when in low light. Just for reference, the top is Topcor and the lower is Konica.

And finally some pixel peeping with an indoor object, wide open, 100% crop unprocessed. Which is which?

#9


I imagine, you are alerady tired of the same question repeated so many times. For me, no particular difference, except that Hexanon (lower) confirms once again a slighly sharper rendition of details.

So, my suprise comes from what I read on Topcor distinction. I was expecting I don't no which kind of jump in image quality. And I paid for that expectation five times more expensive that for my faithful Hexanon. Well, as you might notice, it is sligtly beaten on the thread ring, so I got it cheaper than it is usually traded.

But still, is it my particular version of Topcor slightly worse than yours? Or is Re Topcor 2.8/35 slightly overrated in general, seen as a part of the bunch of glorious Topcor primes? Or, simplier, is Konica Hexanon 2.8/35 is slightly underrated?

I'd appreciate your ideas about the Topcor I got, basing on this comparison and on your own experience with the both 35mm.

And to put some entertainment at the very end, here is another real life shot taken with one of the two lenses. I gently pushed the contrast. Could you say which lens it is taken with?

#10

[y]

[calvin83]

Nex-5N, a camera I have used for many year, is not a very demanding camera. Both lens are good enough for the 16MP sensor. The black 35/2.8 is much more rare than the chrome one which it command a high price.

[Macca]

I`ll hazard a guess the last one is the Konica. There`s a harshness to my eye about the Konicas rendering which the Topcor doesn`t have. They aren`t as robust as Konicas and I`ve seen enough variation in my own samples of this and other Topcors to know you can get a less than perfect copy. However I agree the 35mm is better at short to medium distances, especially close ups.

[stevemark]

Both the Topcor RE 2.8/35mm and the Konica Hexanon AR 2.8/35mm are constructions from the early 1960s. Their lens sections are quite similar:
http://www.artaphot.ch/topcon-re/re-auto-topcor-lenses/509-re-auto-topcor-35mm-f28
http://www.artaphot.ch/konica-ar/objektive/393-konica-hexanon-35mm-f28 (first lens section!)

Both lenses are - compared to later constructions from the mid-late 1970s (Canon nFD 2.8/35mm, Minolta MD 2.8/35mm and others) - quite poor performers.

Stephan

[Lightshow]

Topcor lenses have a collectors aura about them, and in general, they live up to it, and Konica are more or less forgotten, their register is far too short to mount on any dslr, so they and Canon FD/FL lenses were largely forgotten during the lens adapting renaissance, and now thanks to the second renaissance thanks to Mirrorless cameras, all the orphan mounts are finally receiving their moment in the spotlight, so to speak.

I've read that Japan used Konica lenses as a standard with which to measure other Japanese lenses, I've been looking for the source of this claim, but have yet to find it.

[papasito]

I had the HEXANON 2,8/35 lens.

Good lens, it's ok.

With that lens, you get what you see.

Neutral contrast, in the way of the 60's and the first middle of 70's.

Good resolving power.

Serius 35 mm lens.

Too much neutral to me.

[iangreenhalgh1]

The 2.8/35 is a standout in the Hexanon line, it's one of the best Hexanons with really impressive IQ imho. I have four of them, an early F mount preset, an early AR mount, a later AR mount and a late AR mount which looks like the OP's copy. All of them are great, supposedly the same optics unchanged, but I find the oldest F mount is the best of the bunch as it has a level of 3D pop that would make you think it was a Zeiss T* lens, amazing for a 1960s single coated optic.

I have a silver copy of the Topcor RE Auto 2.8/35 too and imho it's almost as good as the Hexanon, but not quite and isn't quite as great as some other RE Topcors.

I'd be more than happy with either the Hexanon or Topcor, they are both in the upper echelon of 35mm lenses and easily compete with better known and more expensive lenses like the Flektogon 2.4/35, Distagon 2.8/35, Biogon 2.8/35, Curtagon 2.8/35 etc.

Anyone who calls the Topcor and Hexanon poor performers is missing the point, they are very fine lenses capable of very good performance, where they have weaknesses is in being single coated and having large front elements, so they need a hood and for the shooter to be cogniscent of the lighting conditions, particularly the position of the sun. I have several other 1960s 35s of similar construction - Canon FL 2.5/35, Meyer Primagon 4.5/35, W-Komura 2.8/35, Sankor 2.8/35 spring to mind, they are all similar in that they are very sharp, medium contrast and have something later designs lack - character. My favourite of the lot is the Primagon, despite being the oldest and slowest and most prone to flare, it has superb colours and a character and pop to it's images that really stands out. The Hexanon, the early F mount one, is probably my second favourite.

[guardian]

I lack a practiced eye and never have had a keen sense regarding IQ. Nevertheless, I was quickly able to pick out the Hexanon lens straightaway. One wonders (well, at least I wonder) how much more vivid the comparison might have been had the Hexanon shots been snapped through the remarkable Hexanon 35mm f2 lens.

[Sciolist]

"So, could you tell apart the Topcor from the Hexanon? "

It would be interesting to compare them on a full frame sensor if you get the chance Alex, and take corner crops to compare. Then you could see if they are still much of a muchness as individual lenses. Maybe the plaudits are related to the area of lens you're not using. Just an idea. I have no knowledge of either lens.

[stevemark]

[alex ph]

Sorry, fellows, for my belated reaction. Had some work to do.

Macca, what an eye! You are right grasping Hexanon in the last shot. Even though I ask myself why you qualify that look as "harshness". Very interesting how you grasped the character.

Guardian, same to you: amazing how you could tell Hexanon in all the situations. Do you have a clue how to say it in words?

Y, thank you for the link! The comparison looks interesting. In some cases a bit difficult to say the sharpness, as there are many small objects withtin the frame. But the images give an idea of the character and the "airness" of each lens.

I think no one got my message like "Topcor is crappy". On the contrary, I was amazed by Hexanon in comparison, the lens I already liked, which reveals itself standing in the same row with the cherished Topcor. So, I am totally agree when those of you who say the Hexanon is serious and the top league lens.

Sciolist, it would be interesting indeed to compare them on FF. I don't have such an opportunity limited with an APS-C. But Stephan, if you can add your copies to the comparison list it would be really great. I am very curious (and I presume, some of the members also) to see how both lenses behave when the sensor expands up to FF.

I would like to add one touch about the Topcor. I like to shoot in the dark. And one of the points to evaluate the lens for me is the "dark test", handheld or leant on some improvised solid base, such as the top of a garbage bin or a parapet wall.

So I took the Topcor for an evening walk and should say it nicely renders colours in darkness. I am not sure it captures more of them compared to Hexanon. I would say it gives maybe in some way less natural and in the same moment more intriguing (wider?) range to colours which is easier to play with and ajust in post-processing. Here are some samples at f4, all colour corrected:


#1


#2 A 100% crop, unprocessed


#3


#4 A 100% crop, unprocessed


#5


#6 A 100% crop, unprocessed


#7


A very fine lens indeed.

[konicamera]

Eh, ho! Y'a d'la flotte...

[stevemark]

[Sciolist]

Nice job Stephan .

[iangreenhalgh1]

Well, no-one shoots a landscape/cityscape wide open, that's just bad technique.

Secondly, how many copies of this lens have you tested? Sadly I don't have a FF camera that will mount them as I have four copies from the earliest F mount preset to the last rubber grip one in AR mount. I suppose I could them on a Konica SLR, then again I don't actually care enough about the corner performance at full aperture to bother.

I've said it before and it bears repeating, the corner performance at full aperture is not the only characteristic of a lens to consider.

The Hexanon 2.8/35 is a very capable lens, yes, there may be better 35mm lenses, but that doesn't make the Hexanon a poor one, just one that has limitations in it's performance envelope and a good photographer would learn those limitations and work within them.

I mean, what if this was the 1960s and no better lens was available? What would you do, sit around bemoaning the 'poor performance' of your lens and waiting for better lenses to be developed and mass produced, or would you do the sensible thing and learn how to get the best from the lens you have by working within it's performance limitations?

Topcor RE Auto Topcor 2.8/35 on Sony a850, 24mp FF, sharp right to the corners, but of course, it's not wide open.



As the old saying goes, 'tis a bad workman that blames his tools'....

[guardian]

[stevemark]

[iangreenhalgh1]

My god, you talk a lot and say very little worth hearing.

How did we ever manage on this forum before we had this Swiss know-it-all to tell us how to think...

[Lightshow]

Play nice.

[Sciolist]

[Teemō]

[tb_a]

[iangreenhalgh1]

Well said.

I agree, shooting a landscape wide open would be a matter of last resort.

[stevemark]