ELCAN replica lens posts

[Ed Schwartzreic]

L1004467.jpg by woodswoman57, on Flickr

This is one of the first images I made with the ELCAN replica prototype. Wide open at f/2. There may have been slight camera movement. Pupils are quite sharp on magnification, even if it may not come through in what I am posting.

This image visually looks like other ELCAN portraits I have seen.

Ed

 

[Ed Schwartzreic]

ELCAN f:2 tractor crop by woodswoman57, on Flickr

ELCAN replica prototype at f/2. M10 Monochrom

 

[raid]

This is exciting, Ed! Thank you for the images.

 

[Erik van Straten]

Looks like a good lens!


Erik.

 

[kram]

Ed, Thanks for posting.

 

[Ed Schwartzreic]

It needs to be mentioned that the tractor image was cropped, from a 50mm FOV to a 90mm FOV approximately. I could not get safely close enough for the image to be full frame.

However, as part of the testing I am doing on this lens, it is instructive to see that the loss of definition towards the outer areas of the lens field, which one might assume are due to DOF issues, are more intrinsic to this lens' optical formula. If one can zoom in from the flickr image, one sees a very ragged bokeh.

Overall the ELCAN has a fairly large "sweet spot" in its center, which suffices for reportage and informal portraits, and mostly makes a pleasing image, even full frame. But it definitely is not SOTA, but has a clear fingerprint.

ELCAN f:2 tractor full frame by woodswoman57, on Flickr

 

[raid]

Thanks, Ed. This lens may not be a favorable option for everyone. It is another tool in the tool box.

 

[Ed Schwartzreic]

Agree with you completely, Raid. I am writing about it at length.

I like the lens. It is small - about the size of the first generation Leitz 35/2's - so it feels unobtrusive and compact. I like the way it handles and the way it writes, even with its faults. I can see using it fairly often as the sole lens I might carry, since mostly I shoot people pictures. I usually am a 35mm fan for similar ergonomic reasons, as well as liking the FOV. But then I have to get even closer - or crop. Here I can stand a bit further away.

 

[raid]

Agree with you completely, Raid. I am writing about it at length.

I like the lens. It is small - about the size of the first generation Leitz 35/2's - so it feels unobtrusive and compact. I like the way it handles and the way it writes, even with its faults. I can see using it fairly often as the sole lens I might carry, since mostly I shoot people pictures. I usually am a 35mm fan for similar ergonomic reasons, as well as liking the FOV. But then I have to get even closer - or crop. Here I can stand a bit further away.

I took some photos yesterday with a 1938 Carl Zeiss Jena 5cm 1.5. I forgot whether Brain S converted it to ltm or not, but it was most likely Brian. It is a very sharp lens if it is focused appropriately. It is low contrast, and it gives a curved horizon (pin-cushion?).

Still, it has its use as a wonderful lens.--- similar to what I see in the ELCAN that you are using, Ed.

 

[bluesun267]

I really like what I see so far!

 

[Erik van Straten]

Ed, what is "sota"? Forgive me my ignorance.

Erik.

 

[Erik van Straten]

I would like to have the lens. I like the blur around the central subject. However, it is not a lens to use all the time.

Erik.

 

[raid]

It is a specialty lens. It has its role. I am interested.

 

[Ed Schwartzreic]

SOTA = state of the art.

Today I will try to find something to photograph with the ELCAN that has a repetitive pattern, so that one can easily visualize the extent of the loss of definition in the outer zones and where it begins. I have a suspicion that this begins about where the 90mm frame lines might be, dialed in on an M camera. Unfortunately, no brick walls nearby that I can think of, and our house has no wallpaper and little wall space to hang up a newspaper because of many windows.

But I am quite curious to semi-quantify this.

I had also taken close-ups at f/2.0, cropped to 66%, so compare the center performance with that of the 50/2 APO Aspheric. I could see no differences or even that the ELCAN slightly surpassed to 50AA in contrast. These will be in my article.

 

[Ed Schwartzreic]

This is a rather poor testing target, but the best I could today. Xmas paper, tacked over a door. There is too much lighting on the left side of the paper no matter how I blocked the source, and the cat images on the paper are not printed crisply enough for such a test. At f/2.0, lowest ISO on M10; only post-processing is levels and a little burning in.

But at least one will get an idea of the fall-off in definition away from the center. I think that a 90mm equivalent frame would all be sharp.

Ed

L1004521 copy by woodswoman57, on Flickr

 

[Ed Schwartzreic]

Here is an f/2 shot of the top of one of the vegetables in our garden. One can see sharpness in the middle, then how it tapers off at the top and upper right. A good example of how (? not) to use this lens.

L1002352 copy by woodswoman57, on Flickr

 

[Ed Schwartzreic]

But the ELCAN works really well with people pictures. Fill frame at f/2.


L1002351 copy by woodswoman57, on Flickr

 

[mpaniagua]

Somehow, those 2 last images kinda remind me about Summitar. Bokeh isnt so busy like Summitar but contrast and general image remind me of that lens.

 

[mpaniagua]

And yeah, so far, I like what I'm seeing.

 

[Ed Schwartzreic]

Dr. Mandler compared the imaging to the earliest 50/2 Summicron. But the center is sharper than that IMO.