David Murphy
Veteran
I decided to test my recently acquired Canon IIF2 with my also recently acquired Tokyo Optical Simlar 5cm F1.5.
The Simlar is an interesting lens, quite fast and well made. It does not have an inspiringly impressive fit-and-finish like a similar Nikon lens, for instance (or even a Tanack lens), but it is competently constructed. My example is in good shape optically and mechanically. I obtained it on a Leotax S which was needing repairs (I sold it for parts). The Simlar was made by "Tokyo Optical" (is this Topcon?). I don't know too much about it heritage, but it's certainly not a common lens.
The Canon IIF2 I purchased from another member here recently. The IIF2 is interesting in that it has a larger finder than many other Canon bottom loaders and it is fairly uncommon. Production is indicated as 2,625 in Dechert's book and it was made during a five month production run in 1955. It is a fabulous small, precision camera, with extraordinary build quality. My example is in exceptional condition except for a slight wrinkle on one of the shutter curtains, which is one reason I needed to test it. Like all the Canon bottom loaders I have used, it is easy to load (for a bottom loader) and a pleasure to use.
The film was ISO 200 color print film from the 99-cent store processed at Walgreens Drug, and scanned on my CanonScan 8800F. A B+W UV filter was used on the lens. The shots were made between about F5.6 and F11. The subjects are only to test the camera and lens - no attempt at art is made here!
I think the color rendition and contrast of this lens are excellent. The sharpness is quite acceptable, but a true sharpness evaluation awaits a wider aperture low light setting. The combination of Simlar+IIF2 makes a very effective, quality combination for use.
The Simlar is an interesting lens, quite fast and well made. It does not have an inspiringly impressive fit-and-finish like a similar Nikon lens, for instance (or even a Tanack lens), but it is competently constructed. My example is in good shape optically and mechanically. I obtained it on a Leotax S which was needing repairs (I sold it for parts). The Simlar was made by "Tokyo Optical" (is this Topcon?). I don't know too much about it heritage, but it's certainly not a common lens.
The Canon IIF2 I purchased from another member here recently. The IIF2 is interesting in that it has a larger finder than many other Canon bottom loaders and it is fairly uncommon. Production is indicated as 2,625 in Dechert's book and it was made during a five month production run in 1955. It is a fabulous small, precision camera, with extraordinary build quality. My example is in exceptional condition except for a slight wrinkle on one of the shutter curtains, which is one reason I needed to test it. Like all the Canon bottom loaders I have used, it is easy to load (for a bottom loader) and a pleasure to use.
The film was ISO 200 color print film from the 99-cent store processed at Walgreens Drug, and scanned on my CanonScan 8800F. A B+W UV filter was used on the lens. The shots were made between about F5.6 and F11. The subjects are only to test the camera and lens - no attempt at art is made here!
I think the color rendition and contrast of this lens are excellent. The sharpness is quite acceptable, but a true sharpness evaluation awaits a wider aperture low light setting. The combination of Simlar+IIF2 makes a very effective, quality combination for use.
Last edited:
I picked up a Simlar 5cm F1.5 on a Leotax D-IV, early one with 4-digit SN. The lens and camera were "disasters", but I rebuilt the lens and Youxin fully restored the camera.
The Simlar is a 1-3-2-1, 7-element in 4 group Planar derived formula. The cemented pair of a standard Planar was split into a triplet. The advantage: 3 elements of lesser power, but cemented together to keep the number of reflecting surfaces to a minimum.
Wide-open, it is not as sharp as a Sonnar. At F4 it is quite good.
The Simlar is a 1-3-2-1, 7-element in 4 group Planar derived formula. The cemented pair of a standard Planar was split into a triplet. The advantage: 3 elements of lesser power, but cemented together to keep the number of reflecting surfaces to a minimum.
Wide-open, it is not as sharp as a Sonnar. At F4 it is quite good.
David Murphy
Veteran
Brian I wasn't aware the Simlar 50/1.5 was a 7-element design, which makes me all-the-more impressed. The D-IV is worth restoring as you know if the basic cosmetics are good - they feel solid like a slab of chromed steel in ones hand! Showa Optical and their partners in optics were certainly serious and innovative players in the early 35mm camera world, even if they did not achieve long term financial success.
Last edited:
furcafe
Veteran
Really? I've never disassembled mine, but my 5cm/1.5 Simlar strikes me as a very well-constructed lens. Doesn't have the aperture click-stops of the Nikkors, but seems to come from the same heavy-as-lead chromed brass construction as other high quality lenses of the same time period such as contemporary Canon Serenars, etc. Certainly the barrel seems heftier & tighter than those from some other Japanese manufacturers like Minolta (Chiyoko) & Yashica of the same era & later Topcon/Topcor & Fujinon lenses that were supplied w/the Leotaxes (Leotaces?).
Sample shots:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/furcafe/tags/tokyooptical5cm15simlarc195254/
Sample shots:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/furcafe/tags/tokyooptical5cm15simlarc195254/
Last edited:
f16sunshine
Moderator
I had a Simlar for a couple years. It's signature to me was very similar to a Summarit f1.5/50mm sharp enough open for Portraits or low light. The oof highlights can swirl violently with strong highlight features. I thought the build pretty heavy as well. Have fun David. Sounds like you have some interesting new kit.
David Murphy
Veteran
Hmm. Well I've been thinking about this a bit and why I feel this way. Yes it is heavy and solid. The numerical engravings on the aperture ring are in a rather small font and as you say there are no click stops. There engravings are in one color (black). The aperture ring itself is small -- too small for mindless use! The machining is simple ... turned brass (I suppose), with some use of circular knurled surfaces, but no complex milling as seen, say, on some Tanar lenses (or early Rokkors) and the like. There's nothing about the lens mechanical structure that really jumps out at you as mechanical art! It is certainly an excellent all-around performer though as your shots demonstrate better than mine.
An example of a mechanically inspiring rangefinder fifty to me, without doubt, is the rigid Summicron. I am ever amazed at the machine work and metal finish on this lens, not to mention the optics. As far as a Japanese counterpart, I need to consider that some more. Perhaps stacking a Summicron against early Japanese efforts is a little unfair.
An example of a mechanically inspiring rangefinder fifty to me, without doubt, is the rigid Summicron. I am ever amazed at the machine work and metal finish on this lens, not to mention the optics. As far as a Japanese counterpart, I need to consider that some more. Perhaps stacking a Summicron against early Japanese efforts is a little unfair.
Last edited:
It is a single-helical design, and the front rotates as you focus. The Nikkor has the more complex double-helical. Mine is very early, and the internal screws were slightly different head size, and had to be put back in order. The Nikkor was much more standardized, and I could use screws from a 1970s 135/2.8 Nikkor-Q in F-Mount to repair a 1950 5cm F2.
furcafe
Veteran
Thanks to you & Brian for the mechanical/engineering explanation. Like a lot of people (perhaps Harley-Davidson fans? 
), I tend to equate heavy metal w/high quality! Also since I started out using Contax RFs, I tend to look @ lenses from that system's perspective, where most of the fancy machining was in the camera body, not the lenses themselves (which were all either helical-less or single helical AFAIK).
), I tend to equate heavy metal w/high quality! Also since I started out using Contax RFs, I tend to look @ lenses from that system's perspective, where most of the fancy machining was in the camera body, not the lenses themselves (which were all either helical-less or single helical AFAIK).
hilltime
Well-known
Simlar 5cm/F1.5
Simlar 5cm/F1.5
I have the later Topcon 5cm/F1.5 which came on a Leotax F body. I assume this is the same lens just rebadged "Topcon". Again it is a very heavy chrome over brass construction which I have used for maybe 15-20 images, which I found to be very good.
Regards,
Gary Hill
Simlar 5cm/F1.5
I have the later Topcon 5cm/F1.5 which came on a Leotax F body. I assume this is the same lens just rebadged "Topcon". Again it is a very heavy chrome over brass construction which I have used for maybe 15-20 images, which I found to be very good.
Regards,
Gary Hill
I think the later lenses "Tweeked" the optics a bit. Mine uses 39mm filters, I've read the later ones use larger diameter. I suspect mine is the 10th lens that stopped down to F16 rather than F12.5. I found the number "10" scribed internally on several parts of the of the lens. Mine is the 74th lens made.
hilltime
Well-known
Simlar 5cm/1.5- Topcor 5cm/1.5
Simlar 5cm/1.5- Topcor 5cm/1.5
The filter size on mine is 40.5 and ser#153xxx, F stop 1.5-16. Always wanted to compare it to the Zeiss Sonnar 5cm/1.5, which in my experience has always been tops.
Gary Hill
Simlar 5cm/1.5- Topcor 5cm/1.5
The filter size on mine is 40.5 and ser#153xxx, F stop 1.5-16. Always wanted to compare it to the Zeiss Sonnar 5cm/1.5, which in my experience has always been tops.
Gary Hill
I took a walk with the Simlar and 1949 ZK Sonnar on the M8:
http://www.ziforums.com/album.php?albumid=204
I also have a few Zeiss Sonnar 5cm F1.5's. I figure the ZK and Simlar were made at about the same time.
ZK Wide-Open,
Simlar wide-Open:
http://www.ziforums.com/album.php?albumid=204
I also have a few Zeiss Sonnar 5cm F1.5's. I figure the ZK and Simlar were made at about the same time.
ZK Wide-Open,
Simlar wide-Open:
Last edited: