Tokyo Kogaku RE Auto TOPCOR 58mm F/1.4 best normal lenses of its era?

[Durlacher]

Greeting fellow forum members,

Some three months in the making, I am delighted to present my review of the Tokyo Kogaku RE. Auto-TOPCOR 58mm F/1.4.

Proclaimed by Topcon and Topcor enthusiasts to be among (to be) the greatest fast standard prime lens of its time!

It is a claim which is sure to cause some debate.

Please find below the video link for your enjoyment:



It’s a rather long video, performance results commence around 19 minutes in for those that want to skip past the history and specifications (although you’ll miss out on some fantastic imagery and period advertising).

Please note that this is intended as being the definitive guide to the Topcor 58 1.4 lens and was compiled from extensive research, cross referencing of information (there was a tremendous amount of conflicting data), period documentation and reviews.

It is a lens with an interesting back story, manufactured by Tokyo Kogaku (later to become Topcon Corporation) who were at the leading edge of 35mm camera technology in their time.

The story of Topcon itself is fascinating, being the second oldest specialised lens manufacturer in Japan. Among my research for the Topcor lens, I have part written a script (near on novel) detailing Topcon’s history since 1932. However, two thirds of the way through, having reached 1957, and it’s getting close to three hours long. I am not sure anyone would have the desire to sit through such a long video, but if there is interest, please let me know.

Of note, much of the historical information is now lost forever, many of the original contributors having since passed away, or websites and web pages since closed or disbanded with abundant dead links.

Oh – and is it the greatest standard prime lens of its time?

Not having tested its period alternatives, I couldn’t really say.

However, in isolation, it’s pretty damn good!

 

[dynachrome]

My version looks exactly the same except that it is marked 5.8CM. I did not have it when it first came out but I have many standard lenses in my collection from that time period. These include lenses from Konica, Minolta, Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Mamiya and I'm sure others. I consider the 57mm f/1.4 Konica Hexanon that I started out with more than 50 years ago to be better than the 50mm f/1.4 Nikkor-S of the same period. I have many examples of both by now. I like the rendering of the Topcor and its sharpness even now but it is quite a bit lower in contrast than more modern fast standard lenses. Canon made a substantial improvement when it updated its 50/1.4 FL from six to seven elements but it improved even more when the FD SSC version appeared in about 1973.

 

[ic-racer]

I have about twelve Topcor lenses but not that one.

Can you just show the MTF curve?

 

[Durlacher]

I have about twelve Topcor lenses but not that one.

Can you just show the MTF curve?

Regrettably, I was unable to find any mtf charts for the 58 1.4 - despite extensive research and reading of period publications.

 

[Paul Howell]

The Japanese Government picked the Konica 50 1.7, early version as the measuring rod to measure all other Japanese 50mm lens. Almost 20 years ago I used the last of my microfiche film and tested all my 50mm, I did not have a Topcon but did test a brace of 50mm. I used the Air Force test chart, my son high school microscope on low power. My Konica 50 1.7 followed by Miranda 50 1.9, both had close to 800 LPM followed the Pentax, Yashica, Mamiya, (all M42 mounts) Minolta, MD and Canon IIIG QL. All were so close I had a hard time reading the bars. Canon was at the low end and least sharp. I only had two fast 50s, Pentax 1.4 with radioactive element and Miranda 1.4 the Pentax 50 1.4 performed as well as the Konica, the Miranda 1.4 was good but not as close. Saying that, all including the Canon could resolve Tmax 100. As I did not do a color swaths test I don't know which lens has the best color and did not have the equipment to test for contrast and flare. .

The US Navy picked Topcon as their primary 35mm camera, Navy testing found all the Topcon lens they used as being better than Nikon.

 

[Durlacher]

The Japanese Government picked the Konica 50 1.7, early version as the measuring rod to measure all other Japanese 50mm lens. Almost 20 years ago I used the last of my microfiche film and tested all my 50mm, I did not have a Topcon but did test a brace of 50mm. I used the Air Force test chart, my son high school microscope on low power. My Konica 50 1.7 followed by Miranda 50 1.9, both had close to 800 LPM followed the Pentax, Yashica, Mamiya, (all M42 mounts) Minolta, MD and Canon IIIG QL. All were so close I had a hard time reading the bars. Canon was at the low end and least sharp. I only had two fast 50s, Pentax 1.4 with radioactive element and Miranda 1.4 the Pentax 50 1.4 performed as well as the Konica, the Miranda 1.4 was good but not as close. Saying that, all including the Canon could resolve Tmax 100. As I did not do a color swaths test I don't know which lens has the best color and did not have the equipment to test for contrast and flare. .

The US Navy picked Topcon as their primary 35mm camera, Navy testing found all the Topcon lens they used as being better than Nikon.

Thanks Paul, my goodness - that’s some dedication! Impressed with your testing methodology, that takes it to another level. Interesting to note Canon was at the low end of your measurements. I’ve been working on a new video featuring a canon lens from 1979 and what surprised me is that at the time, Canon seemingly wasn’t a serious contender for professional lenses. Nikon was at the forefront, Pentax, Minolta and Topcon were rated ahead of Canon! There were a few lens exceptions within the FD lineup, but ultimately it wasn’t until Canon embraced electronics (as Sony would do 30 years later with new technologies) that they began to gain market share and widespread respect among professionals.

And should any Canon users take offence at such observation, it is referenced from Canon’s former director:

Takishima : When the Canon EF came out, Pentax and Minolta dominated the consumer camera market at that time. Nikon has a monopoly of over 90% of the market share, and there was no chance for Canon to take advantage of it.

Mr. Yoshiyuki Takishima (Former Director of Canon, Former Head of Camera Business Headquarters, Former Head of Software - Head of Development Headquarters)

https://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/column/165/1221882.html

 

[wiltw]

I have about twelve Topcor lenses but not that one.

Can you just show the MTF curve?

Regrettably, I was unable to find any mtf charts for the 58 1.4 - despite extensive research and reading of period publications.

The reason for that is historical evolution...the MTF measurements simply were not commonly in use! As explained by Norm Koren in http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF.html

Introduction to modulation transfer function (MTF)​

---

​

Back in my youth, lens and film resolving power was measured in lines (or line pairs) per millimeter (lp/mm)— easy to understand, but poorly standardized. It was obtained by photographing a chart (typically the USAF 1951 lens test chart) and looking for the highest resolution pattern where detail was visible. Because perception and judgment were involved, measurements of the same film or lens were highly inconsistent. Lines per mm would have been more useful if it were measured at a well established contrast level, but that was not so easy; it would have required expensive instrumentation. The problem of specifying resolution and perceived sharpness was solved with the introduction of the Modulation transfer function (MTF), a precise measurement made in frequency domain. This made optical engineers happy, but confuses many photographers. The goal of this series is to shed light on the subject (literally as well as figuratively).​

But even the publication of MTF curves are not done in a uniform manner by all parties, as explained in https://www.japanistry.com/mtf-curves/

"As pointed out, Nikon perform their MTF test with the lens only wide-open; whereas Canon perform their tests wide-open and at ƒ/8.0. This is why the Canon MTF graph shown above had eight lines versus Nikon’s four. Testing at ƒ/8.0 provides useful information because (1) it provides a point of consistency when testing two lenses with the same focal length but different maximum apertures e.g. 50mm ƒ/1.2 vs 50mm ƒ/1.8, and (2) not all photographs are taken at maximum aperture—a landscape photographer for instance would value the data at ƒ/8.0 vs wide open."​

​

​

And even the very definition of MTF curves changes over time! Canon RF lenses are measured differently from all its prior lenses. As explained by Canon in https://www.usa.canon.com/learning/...ist/reading-and-understanding-lens-mtf-charts

"2018: CHANGES IN CANON'S MTF EVALUATION METHODS, AND MTF CHARTS​

In late 2018, coinciding with the introduction of Canon’s RF lens series for full-frame EOS R-series mirrorless cameras, Canon optical engineers made across-the-board changes to the way they evaluate lens optical performance, and how it’s displayed in MTF charts.​

Fortunately, for consistency, Canon has updated the MTF charts for all current EF, EF-S, TS-E, MP-E, and EF-M lenses, so that meaningful comparisons can still be made by critical Canon users. Canon RF lenses, of course, are also graded on these updated MTF evaluation methods.​

• Previous Canon MTF evaluation standards were calculated from criteria derived years ago from the film (analog) era, and not changed until late 2018
• Optical performance is now measured using more critical, demanding standards, based on digital imaging and the use of high-resolution digital image sensors in digital SLRs and mirrorless cameras
• Canon MTF charts will now only display MTF results at the lens’ widest maximum aperture — previous Canon MTF charts displayed results at both maximum aperture, and at an effective f/8

Because the new, updated MTF measurement system used by Canon is based on stricter, digitally-oriented criteria, if you compare older and new MTF charts, any previously-introduced lens may seem as though some aspects of its MTF results are now lower than before. Rest assured this is because it’s now being graded using more demanding criteria, and does not represent an actual reduction in a given lens’ actual ability to deliver contrast or resolution than it previously did."​

​

...so, by Canon's own declaration, you CANNOT compare older MTF curves against its own current MTF curves (much less directly compare those from different test centers)!

 

[Paul Howell]

The canon lens I tested was the lens on the fixed lens rangefinder the QL 1.7, I think it was a 5 element lens. I did not test any of the FD lens, at the time I did not own any Canon SLRs. Later I bought a T90 with a few lens including standard 50mm, I.9 or 1.7. The 50mm in daily use was as good as any 50mm I've used. The overall best 50mm I have ever used, if even for just a week as the Kern Swiss Macro 50 1.9 in Alpa mount. A friend's wife inherited a Alpas 11E with a few lens when her uncle passed away. They sent my the camera and the 50mm lens for week so I could test it before putting it up for auction. At that time I had already used my microfiche film, but using a standard test chart, not the Air Force chart, a color swath, and contrast strip, colors are really good, sharp as could test at the time. I see why Leica owners spend the money to convert the Kern to Leica M mount.