ELCAN replica lens posts

[Platinum RF]

If sold for $400, LLL will make lots of money, maybe. 😀
I mentioned the Summaron because I don't have it.

Raid you are rich enough to buy the real one, wear a fake Rolex will make you look like a real loser.

Summaron is not difficult to find, and price is reasonable compare to the current LLL 8 elements asking price.
If DJ optical OME the lens, the manufacture make 7artisans, TTartisans lenses, the cost will be significantly lower. For a simple 4 elements lens, there are plenty existing lens will give you degraded outer zone image quality - the 3D appearance, such as a f2.8 Tessar, modern Voigtlander 50mm f2 Heliar et al. The replica, if from Leica itself, it is called re-issued, from others it is called replica/fake/imitate wannabe or more precisely for LLL 8 elements - a Shanzai good.

The LLL 8 elements is not exactly 1:1 copy of Summicron version 1, a replica by definition is 1:1 copy, the LLL version focus helical is not the same as the original, loose tolerance will result in wobble lens, so the LLL 8 elements is not a replica, rather a Shanzai product by strictly replica definition.

According the internet posts, Mr. Zhou broken the Elcan lens element to study the composition of glass, I am not sure this is true or not, but if it is true this just like to analyze coca cola to make replica coca cola. LOL

 

[raid]

Raid it seems to me that LLL is more into uncommon or rare lenses that are very high priced or unobtainable as originals. Lenses that most people will not have ever seen in a shop....ones that make people speculate " Oh, that would be cool." As for the $400 Summaron, in a small shop, why would you spend time making an inexpensive product when you could use the same time to assemble an expensive one? Asking for a friend 🙂

Of course, you are right here. There was a Leica lens (was it the 50/1.2?) that sells for over $15k, and LLL was planning to make a replica of it. What happened to this one?

 

[raid]

Raid you are rich enough to buy the real one, wear a fake Rolex will make you look like a real loser.

Summaron is not difficult to find, and price is reasonable compare to the current LLL 8 elements asking price.
If DJ optical OME the lens, the manufacture make 7artisans, TTartisans lenses, the cost will be significantly lower. For a simple 4 elements lens, there are plenty existing lens will give you degraded outer zone image quality - the 3D appearance, such as a f2.8 Tessar, modern Voigtlander 50mm f2 Heliar et al. The replica, if from Leica itself, it is called re-issued, from others it is called replica/fake/imitate wannabe or more precisely for LLL 8 elements - a Shanzai good.

The LLL 8 elements is not exactly 1:1 copy of Summicron version 1, a replica by definition is 1:1 copy, the LLL version focus helical is not the same as the original, loose tolerance will result in wobble lens, so the LLL 8 elements is not a replica, rather a Shanzai product by strictly replica definition.

According the internet posts, Mr. Zhou broken the Elcan lens element to study the composition of glass, I am not sure this is true or not, but if it is true this just like to analyze coca cola to make replica coca cola. LOL

I don't make B&W prints, so I don't think I need the Summaron 35/2.8. I have seen online many posts in which users of such a lens praise its characteristics.

I like the original lenses, and I already had the 8 element Summicron when I ordered a replica of it. I used to own two original 8 element Summicron lenses, but I sold one off. I don't need any lenses at all.

 

[Erik van Straten]

I do not see any real need to replicate any 1950s-70s Leica M lens. Why make a new Summaron when the newer Summarits blow them away and would end up costing roughly the same? If the point is to use old optical formulas with "modern" lens coatings, that is an interesting idea, as the most significant drawback of single-coated 50s/60s optics is their tendency for flare and coma at wider apertures -- which really show up bigtime on color. But because newer lens designs are far, far better in nearly all traditional metrics, why revisit? Just buy the old lenses.

It's funny you think lenses are getting better. Lenses are getting different, but not better. Designing lenses with a computer has resulted in a lot of dull lenses with not much to do. All the coincidences that used to lead to beautiful effects produced by lenses are now polished away by digital design. Take Dallmeyer lenses for example. For old Dallmeyer lenses, such as the Super Six - from the early fifties - extremely high prices are paid. Very special types of glass have been processed in these lenses. These lenses really aren't blown away by the most modern designs.

Glass containing lead can no longer be used. No wonder that many people prefer older lenses that designers have indulged in.

Erik.

 

[rlouzan]

https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2926979

 

[Deleted member 65559]

Well hopefully, we will see if it is a silk purse or a sow’s ear. I think it a bit of both. A “Curate’s Egg” if one knows the story.

Ed

At the risk of sounding cynical, it will be another replica lens with special characteristics with which to post eminently-forgettable snapshots on the internet 😉 Thanks, I look forward to seeing more of Vince Lupo's glass plate slides taken with his Ermanox. ....

 

[Deleted member 65559]

It's funny you think lenses are getting better. Lenses are getting different, but not better. Designing lenses with a computer has resulted in a lot of dull lenses with not much to do. All the coincidences that used to lead to beautiful effects produced by lenses are now polished away by digital design. Take Dallmeyer lenses for example. For old Dallmeyer lenses, such as the Super Six - from the early fifties - extremely high prices are paid. Very special types of glass have been processed in these lenses. These lenses really aren't blown away by the most modern designs.

Glass containing lead can no longer be used. No wonder that many people prefer older lenses that designers have indulged in.

Erik.

Erik, let me be the first to say i agree with you entirely

 

[brusby]

What people have been excited about is the performance of this design in the center 2/3 of the field, were renderings are luminous and 3-D like.

That's the impression I got from the images produced by the original Elcan. If the replica could capture those characteristics, I'd be very interested.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that the CV 50mm f/2.5 will outperform and out-handle the proposed ELCAN if it ever sees widespread production.

Phil Forrest

 

[Erik van Straten]

I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that the CV 50mm f/2.5 will outperform and out-handle the proposed ELCAN if it ever sees widespread production.

Phil Forrest

I am a great lover of the CV 50mm f/2.5, now twenty years old, but I have to say that the unsharp backgrounds in pictures from this lens are sometimes a bit dull too. The Elcan produces livelier backgrounds, maybe unintentional ... but that is unimportant.

Erik.

 

[das]

Erik, let me be the first to say i agree with you entirely

While I cannot speak to the image characteristics of rare 1950s lenses that cost tens of thousands of dollars, I would agree that certain 1950s - 1980s lenses can possess some "non-scientific" quality that can produce memorable and/or world-class photos. However, if speaking about objective criteria of lens performance (i.e., those that do not depend upon subjective interpretation of the results), modern lenses are almost always better in those aspects.

 

[brusby]

. . . if speaking about objective criteria of lens performance (i.e., those that do not depend upon subjective interpretation of the results), modern lenses are almost always better in those aspects.

I keep getting a sense of deja vu and a reminder of the early days of solid state audio. Then-new transistor circuits -- with vanishingly low levels of distortion -- almost always tested much better than equivalent tube circuitry. But the trouble was tubes just sounded better, at least to me and many others.

Engineers will typically only test what they are aware of and they still don't know all the factors that are responsible for good sound any more than they know all the factors responsible for good images.

There are plenty of theories about things like even order harmonics in audio, and resolution and contrast in lenses, but those things only explain part of the story.

 

[Deleted member 65559]

I keep getting a sense of deja vu and a reminder of the early days of solid state audio. Then-new transistor circuits -- with vanishingly low levels of distortion -- almost always tested much better than equivalent tube circuitry. But the trouble was tubes just sounded better, at least to me and many others.

Engineers will typically only test what they are aware of and they still don't know all the factors that are responsible for good sound any more than they know all the factors responsible for good images.

There are plenty of theories about things like even order harmonics in audio, and resolution and contrast in lenses, but those things only explain part of the story.

Brusby, that is a very acute analogy. Like vinyl records and that part of the audio world, there is a good reason that there is a great appreciation in the electric guitar world for Fender tube amps. While 'testing' can prove one thing 'better' than another objectively. "Analog' music & darkroom printed photographs are often subjectively appreciated. You can use transistors, solid state components, or APO lenses to your heart's content, and some people will consider the results clinical or sterile....

 

[wolfxeon]

Let me bring some exciting news, here is one of the prototype lenses.

A photographer tested this lens and wrote an article (in Chinese, maybe can be translated?): https://i50mm.com/gear%e5%99%a8%e6%9d%90/%e5%91%a8%e5%88%b6elcan50-2-%e4%bd%bf%e7%94%a8%e4%bd%93%e9%aa%8c%e4%b9%8bf2%e5%a5%94%e9%a9%b0%e7%9a%84%e5%b0%8f%e9%87%8e%e9%a9%ac%e5%92%8c%e5%b8%a6%e5%88%ba%e7%9a%84%e7%8e%ab%e7%91%b0/

 

[Rob-F]

I do not see any real need to replicate any 1950s-70s Leica M lens. Why make a new Summaron when the newer Summarits blow them away and would end up costing roughly the same?

Are you so sure about that? My 35mm f/2.8 Summaron, even wide open, is remarkably good. Stopped down, it's just as good as my eight element Summicron.

35mm f/2.8 Summaron, Wide Open, hand held

35mm Summaron f/2.8, wide open, hand held

 

[Ed Schwartzreic]

The ELCAN in that Chinese site was prototype 01-0003. I hopefully will receive 01-0004.

Question: to have the PDF of my upcoming article on the original ELCAN 50/2 available here at RFF, is there some way other than a link to an outside site for this? Can a PDF be be directly presented in some way?

Ed

 

[raydm6]

The ELCAN in that Chinese site was prototype 01-0003. I hopefully will receive 01-0004.

Question: to have the PDF of my upcoming article on the original ELCAN 50/2 available here at RFF, is there some way other than a link to an outside site for this? Can a PDF be be directly presented in some way?

Ed

Although I've never used it, the paperclip icon - (Attachments) in the post editing window - may allow for a PDF file upload.

I don't see a way to present it directly inline, but I'll let others chime in.

 

[raid]

The ELCAN in that Chinese site was prototype 01-0003. I hopefully will receive 01-0004.

Question: to have the PDF of my upcoming article on the original ELCAN 50/2 available here at RFF, is there some way other than a link to an outside site for this? Can a PDF be be directly presented in some way?

Ed

Oh well; the dreadful 4!

 

[Dralowid]

Glass containing lead can no longer be used.
Erik.

...and here am I licking my Summar before polishing it with my tie. Wondered why my teeth fell out.

 

[kram]

Wolfxeon does bring exiting news, it does exist. Has it got special glass elements? With modern coatings and only 4 elements it should have good contrast.
Ed, I am looking forward to your article on the original Elcan. Nothing about it in my Erwin Puts book.