ELCAN replica lens posts

[Ed Schwartzreic]

Boy, if Emile’s images don’t push people to try out this lens, I don’t know what will! My prototype has some sort of likely aluminum alloy shell, and Kevin told me months ago that LLL will want it back eventually. So, at that point, I will likely get a production one. But I really like how light in weight the prototype is, combined with its imaging properties, so I will be sad to see it go — whenever.

My 50/2 Apo Summicron weighs almost three times as much as this prototype. The Summmicron has much better performance in the field than the ELCAN, but the central and/or in-focus performance of the ELCAN is its equal. That is impressive. Guess which one I would like on my shoulder all day, or for street shooting. Maybe I can make a deal about keeping the prototype.

 

[Erik van Straten]

My 50/2 Apo Summicron weights almost three times as much as this prototype.

I decided some time ago to use never ever aspherical lenses again. I simply don't like them. The older spherical lenses, with all their flaws, can have a poetic character which is very attractive to me; I don't mean sweetness, but character. I'm happy that now lenses are made like this one and the Heliar Classic 50mm f/1.5. The aspherics are all heavy and big too.

Erik.

 

[Ed Schwartzreic]

IMO Asphericals are sort of like what happened with digital recording of music. In both cases, the initial and following years things tended to be rather harsh. Currently things in both cases feel more mellow. The 35/2 Apo-Summicron ASPH has a really sweet, if understated, gestalt to me, plus being incredibly accurate. The 50/2 Apo-Summicron ASPH is just a tad more in your face than the 35, but o/w similar. Both are indeed heavy.

Horses for courses. Most of the time I will be happy with a lens like the ELCAN replica plus a regular 35/2. I used the 3rd gen 35 Summicron or the old 35 Summilux for years, quite happily. My 50 of choice was a 50/1.5 Millennium Nikkor, with an old Orion adapter. But that was in film days, mostly.

Ed

 

[Erik van Straten]

But that was in film days, mostly.

Ed

My film days are not over yet. I only shoot film. I still can shoot with all that nice old film cameras out there.

Erik.

 

[raid]

I bought a new CV 50/2 APO and then a CV 50/1, so I have done my fair share of buying yet another 50mm lens for a while,

 

[Ed Schwartzreic]

Throughout my life I have veered between 35s and 50s as my preferred lens. So, I have both in my armamentarium, in depth, through the years. Nowadays, being old and tending towards shooting people pictures mostly, I prefer 50s. But I will still carry both with me if I am going somewhere. If I have an assignment, either external or self-imposed, of course everything from super WA to 180 with doubler might be in play.

My last use of film was about 6 years ago. I had to give up my darkroom space to another family member, so now I would tend to shoot either C41, or send out Tri-X or the like to a lab. But the bug has yet to bite.

 

[james.liam]

I bought a new CV 50/2 APO and then a CV 50/1, so I have done my fair share of buying yet another 50mm lens for a while,

Famous last words.

(After reading through your recent threads on CZJ lenses just out of curiosity, I inadvertently stumbled upon a stunningly refurbished , all-brass, single-coated, pre-War 2/50 CZJ that I neither needed nor ever considered buying. Scoundrel!)

 

[raid]

Congratulations on getting the CZJ lens!

 

[teddy]

In fact the LLL Elcan is the best of the bunch.

Incredible lens. I love the bokeh, the freedom from distortion and the sharpness.

Erik.

Erik, what you've done here is extremely intertesting to me. However as a personal preference - the best performing lens here is the DR as it is small, highlighly corrected when it comes to suppressing the "halation" or backlight scenes and keeping the form of things and their outline. Less capable lenses in this regard are the Elcan, Elmarit and Sumarit 50's. This is a deal braker for me when it comes to lenses amongst other qualities. In general I think the Elcan is less resolving but for the type of construction it is quite respectable. This also shows us how good the DR is in difficult lighting scenes but it also does have weakness when it comes to flare - yet in the backlight scenes it still retains resolving power.

 

[Emile de Leon]

As great as the DR is on film..incredible resolving power..
My copy sucks on digital..really sucks..

 

[raid]

My DR has given me excellent results with a cheap M4/3 camera. It was with an Olympus EP2.

 

[james.liam]

As great as the DR is on film..incredible resolving power..
My copy sucks on digital..really sucks..
Which is unfortunate.
Dont know if all of em are the same..
But the DR is the last lens I would use on digital..
And the 1st lens I would use for high resolution film.

Does the DR differ optically from the Rigid? I thought not.

 

[Emile de Leon]

I think its the same. DR & Rigid.

 

[james.liam]

I think its the same. DR & Rigid.
I really need to test this more when I have time.
Maybe there is a sensor that is better..

I've used a 50 Rigid on an M9M and it was pretty impressive.

 

[Erik van Straten]

Erik, what you've done here is extremely intertesting to me. However as a personal preference - the best performing lens here is the DR as it is small, highlighly corrected when it comes to suppressing the "halation" or backlight scenes and keeping the form of things and their outline. Less capable lenses in this regard are the Elcan, Elmarit and Sumarit 50's. This is a deal braker for me when it comes to lenses amongst other qualities. In general I think the Elcan is less resolving but for the type of construction it is quite respectable. This also shows us how good the DR is in difficult lighting scenes but it also does have weakness when it comes to flare - yet in the backlight scenes it still retains resolving power.

The DR is afaik a first type of the Summicron rigid (50mm f2) with a possibility to make close-ups. The Summicron rigid is indeed one of the best lenses Leitz ever made. I was pointing only on the flare control; this seems to be - surprising - very good on this Elcan-copy. That is what I wanted to say.

Erik.

 

[Ed Schwartzreic]

I own several of the Rigid Summicrons. They are a wonderful lens. I have never owned a DR, probably because one never turned up at a price that I could see clear to buy. It certainly used to be said that these r were somehow better than their Rigid cousins, but I don’t know of any rigorous comparison being made. Can anyone here point to such a study?

Ed

 

[Emile de Leon]

LLL Elcan!!!

 

[teddy]

@ Emile de Leon - The Elmar 2.8 and the DR at f2... WOW! I have always loved the Elmar M 2.8 (Type 2), it has a well balanced contrast and sharpness. Fantastic Emile de Leon

 

[Ed Schwartzreic]

Viewing this on my iPad, so perhaps not fully optimal. What strikes me about the ELCAN replica at f/2 is that the number “5”, the point of focus, is already in the field and not at the center of the lens. So, it shows degradation wide open, from the basic optical properties of this triplet-serviced lens. The DR does not. However, IMO the central sharpness of the ELCAN remains superior, and the f/5.6 performance also seems the best to me, except perhaps the Elmar.

A very nice set of test shots indeed. Thanks.

Ed

 

[Emile de Leon]

DR is best resolving I would think..