R. Topcor 300mm f2.8

[dennis_w3]

<p>A moment of being in the right place at the right time brought me a piece of late 1950's photographic history, the fast and cool 300mm f2.8 R. Topcor in its original leather case, one of about 700 made. Not having the time to check if it had the factory Topcon mount, I hit the Buy It button, and it arrived a few days ago. Factory Canon modification, to my initial dismay (being a Topcon fanatic), but on closer inspection, the mod was just an additional machined aluminum Canon collar mounted with set screws <em>around </em>a Topcon mount. After removing the adapter, an RE Super mounted right up; I checked infinity focus, and it was dead on. The glass is spotless, focusing is smooth, barrel is excellent, filter drawer slides nicely into its slot, and the hood, while showing a few minor battle scars, is quite nice and very functional. Front element is 4.75 inches in diameter.<br>

A couple of interesting things about this lens: it actually appears to be uncoated, maybe no surprise in 1958--does anyone know for sure? Also, it was the first <em>fast</em> 300, according to Cameraquest's research. It was sharp, too; Camera 35 tested it in 1969 and found that WIDE OPEN, its resolution was 56mm center and 34mm at the edges. By f/8 it was 80mm center and 65 at the edges. I'm assuming that was lines per mm. I'll try to attach a couple of initial tripod photos, from this dreary and dark morning after last nights snow here in MN. Scanned in a Minolta Dual IV using Vuescan.</p><div></div>

[dennis_w3]

<p>Abandoned Radio Flyer</p><div></div>

[dennis_w3]

<p>Old car</p><div></div>

[JTG1]

<p>Very nice lens and results!</p>

<p>~Jack</p>

[Mike Gammill]

Excellent results. Looks like this lens could give some of later designs a "run for the money."

[ridinhome]

<p>Yeah but it isn't a Leica so....</p>

<p>Just kidding, just kidding...very cool find. 'Grats.</p>

[gene m]

<p>Yup.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I think that most German lenses by 1958 would have had some kind of coating but maybe not multi-coating. Some of the early coatings are not so obvious in color/etc as the later ones. I have some lenses that I know were coated, sometimes even saying so on the lens, that it's hard to tell by just looking at the surface.<br>

Topcon, I don't know about, but your results look very good.</p>

<p>The strange thing I've found is that, as recently as a few years ago, long lenses of, say, 200mm and up often went very inexpensively on eBay. This was especially true for mounts that were a little less common than M42x1, for example, and particularly for Exakta mount lenses. I have some Meyer 300 and 400mm pre-set lenses in Exakta mount for which I paid more in shipping than for the lens itself.</p>

<p>Great find!</p>

[john_shriver]

<p>That was an awesome deal. $300 Buy-it-Now. I'd have clicked the button if I'd seen it! I've only seen one go for less, and it was in lousy condition.<br>

Looks like you have one sturdy tripod there -- and you need it now.</p>

[Karim Ghantous]

<p>Awesome find! Who says you need modern equipment? The only issues I see with the Topcon system is that it lacks wide-angles shorter than 28mm. AFAIK.</p>

[dennis_w3]

<p>Well, diameter doesn't make a lens any better at sharpness or color, but it certainly makes it faster; also necessitates the use of a tripod--at 7 pounds, it is too heavy to hand-hold. <br>

I can't tell if this lens has any coating or if it has a single layer coating. The hood, fully extended, is 7 inches deep, so there is ample protection against direct glare. <br>

John, I was the second person to see it on *bay, a true stroke of blind luck. I've never seen one before, only lusted over photos of them. Now, if I could only get the 85 1.8 back that I stupidly sold years ago, and for which I paid $75.</p>

[dennis_w3]

<p>Karim, actually, Topcon made a 25mm f3.5 Topcor and a 20mm f4 Topcor, both RE Auto Topcors. I have one of each, plus the 28mm and 35mm; all are fine wide angle lenses.</p>

[marc_bergman1]

<p>Dennis,</p>

<p>Wonderful find. I wasn't aware of this lens. </p>

<p>I did look through my magazines and found the Camera 35 lens test. They were astonished with the results of this lens and the other Topcors they tested.</p>

<p>Here are the first test results.</p><div></div>

[marc_bergman1]

<p>Here are the second test results.</p><div></div>

[marc_bergman1]

<p>The author of the article said this:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I have never been so impressed by a lens system as I have been with these Topcor lenses.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Here is the third test results.</p><div></div>

[rick_drawbridge]

<p>Very impressive, and a rare find, especially at the price... Well done, <strong>Dennis</strong>.</p>

[rdm]

<blockquote>

<p>Isn't multicoating all about handling flare?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not really, Flair may be one main reason for the coatings but it is only one thing.</p>

[winfried_buechsenschuetz1]

<p>I am quite sure that all lenses made for serious photography were coated back in 1958.<br>

In the early 50s, some french camera manufacturers offered their cameras with and without coatings but the price difference was not very big.<br>

However, there are different kinds of coatings, and sometimes the effect is not obvious unless you compare it to an uncoated glass or lens element surface. Also, it is not impossible that the coating has been removed by improper cleaning, but this usually leaves some spots which are visible in reflected light.<br>

There are several reasons for usiing coated lenses. First, is flare reduction. Also, with uncoated lenses, the designers have to care about light spots projected from the lens surfaces to the film plane. There was a popular german book about photographic lenses, early editions still mention the "light spot" problem but the editions from the late 50s do not mention it any more. Also, coating improves light transparency of the lenses (the T mark on coated Zeiss lenses is the designator for "transparency").<br>

Since designers have to care less about flare, light spots and transparency when using coating, they have more freedom to use more lens elements and glass-to-air surfaces. Early Sonnar lenses have a block of three lens elements cemented together to avoid reflective glass-to-air surfaces.<br>

Multicoating is an improval over simple coating. It also allows to control the spectral transmission a bit - a standard single-layer coating usually is most effective in the green range of the spectrum, but red and blue light is still reflected - hence the violet "shine" on many single-coated lenses. Multicoating allows to use several layers of coating, each effective in a somewhat different range of the spectrum, providing even reduction of reflections over the entire visible light spectrum. By "shifting" the maximum effective spectral range for reflection reduction you can also affect spectral transmission of a lens, resulting in a "warmer" or "colder" (or neutral) image colour.</p>

<p> </p>

[profhlynnjones]

<p>Dennis, I guarantee you that the lens is coated. Some of those coatings were virtually invisible such as some of the Kodak "golden" coats.The last lens makers that I'm aware of to finally coat lenses were in around 1937/38. Obviously, it is a single coat, however some companies used multi coats on certain internal elements in the area of 1957 or 58, perhaps some Nikkors and some Leitz internals. The 7 coat super multi from Pentax was guilding the lilly, there were lots of optics people in the US that were doing 2 and 3 coat in various spplications and they were just as good.</p>

<p>Lynn</p>

[john_shriver]

<p>Well, I just haggled for one on eBay. Made an offer of $700 and got it. Includes case and all four filters. Perfect glass. Helical needs re-lube.<br>

Serial number 340079, very early unit. <br>

It is coated, but it's a coating that reflects a slight warm tone. </p>

[john_shriver]

<p>The lens came needing work. Focusing mount was extremely stiff, and clearly not able to focus to infinity.<br>

I spent five hours at the workbench today fixing it up. Focuses smoothly now, properly collimated, clean, looks sharp.<br>

Anyone who wants info on how to work on one, feel free to contact me.<br>

Now I'll send one of the filters to a friend with a lathe, who will make me replacements for three of the little buttons (handles) that are missing.</p>

 

[dennis_w3]

<p>John, how did that lens turn out? I've used mine a few times but it's so big and heavy it can be a hassle. Sure draws some comments though. </p>

[john_shriver]

<p>I shot some with it, using some quite expired Velvia 50, just to have something slow enough to shoot at f/2.8 in bright light. Carried to the local high school, and shot sports practices on Velvia. It's sharp, and follow focus works pretty well with it. What it proved most is that you need a really good tripod for this lens. Which makes the camera, lens, and tripod kit really heavy.</p>

[richard_zhao1]

<p>I just bought one from Ebay. The lens is still on the way to my home. Looking forward to test it out.</p>

[john_shriver]

Just bought another (!) one from eBay, this one modified with a Pentax 645 lens mount. That has such a long register it can be adapted with commercial adapters to most 35mm cameras, and quite a few medium format ones. So I'll play with it on my Pentax K-1. Wonder if it really covers 6x4.5cm...