goamules
Well-known
I'd often heard the Industar 22 and it's predecessor the Fed 50/3.5 are "as good as an Elmar." Maybe some are, but the quality variation must be very high, because the 3 FSU 3.5 lenses I've tested do not do as well as a 1940s Elmar I own.
A couple years ago I did this test: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=113110 which showed the Elmar was much sharper. But that I-10 needed cleaning, so the flare made it easy to discount the FSU lens.
So today I tested two more against my coated 1946 Elmar. Both are Feds, one an uncoated early pre-war one, the other a coated post-war. All three are comparably clean and scratch free.
This should be easy to guess which is the uncoated Fed, but can you tell which is the Elmar? At F5.6 on a G1.
A couple years ago I did this test: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=113110 which showed the Elmar was much sharper. But that I-10 needed cleaning, so the flare made it easy to discount the FSU lens.
So today I tested two more against my coated 1946 Elmar. Both are Feds, one an uncoated early pre-war one, the other a coated post-war. All three are comparably clean and scratch free.
This should be easy to guess which is the uncoated Fed, but can you tell which is the Elmar? At F5.6 on a G1.
gb hill
Veteran
I can't really tell much difference in #2 & #3. Maybe just a touch better detail in #3. The I-22 is a great lens but I haven't a clue whih is the Elmar so I guess #3.
goamules
Well-known
You're right, the last is the Elmar. Look closely at the wood grain on the bench, on the right side. Also note the twigs in front of the bench. Look at the rusty bomb, and how the tones are all very sharply there. The Elmar is sharper in all. Here are the two shots larger. It's easiest to compare if you open each in a different browser tab, then flip between them:
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8376/8543193678_0cefc6a09a_k.jpg
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8104/8543195876_cb94c58077_k.jpg
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8376/8543193678_0cefc6a09a_k.jpg
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8104/8543195876_cb94c58077_k.jpg
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
What was the testing procedure?
goamules
Well-known
The camera was on a tripod, locked down. Lens mounted, then digitally zoom focused on the left front vertical armrest of the bench. Aperture priority, camera on self timer to let vibration from pushing the shutter button settle down. Each lens shot at F3.5 and 5.6.
Dralowid
Michael
Part of what you pay for when you buy a Leitz item is manufacturing consistency. I'm sure it is possible to find a Fed lens that is actually as good as an Elmar but you haven't...and nor have I...!!!
I'm sure others will rush to prove me wrong.
I'm sure others will rush to prove me wrong.
dabick42
Well-known
A very good example of the capabilities of the not-so-humble Elmar 50 f3.5.
I own uncoated, coated and redscale variants of this lens and I'm always delighted at how well they perform, especially the uncoated version.
A haze-free, unscratched example should have pride of place in every Leica user's camera bag. It was the lens that started the legend, after all....
I own uncoated, coated and redscale variants of this lens and I'm always delighted at how well they perform, especially the uncoated version.
A haze-free, unscratched example should have pride of place in every Leica user's camera bag. It was the lens that started the legend, after all....
pete hogan
Well-known
Nice test of those lenses, Garrett. The Elmar image is definitely sharper as displayed on my iPad. It also shows that the FSU lens does pretty well IMHO.
Ron (Netherlands)
Well-known
Nice ! I did some test in the past as wel with a 22 Industar and a Fed 50 against a 1946 elmar. But the elmar was only slighty better than the industar - differences less than in your test. The Fed 50 was the bad performer in my tests as well.
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
The camera was on a tripod, locked down. Lens mounted, then digitally zoom focused on the left front vertical armrest of the bench. Aperture priority, camera on self timer to let vibration from pushing the shutter button settle down. Each lens shot at F3.5 and 5.6.
I'd say the focus on one of the lenses must have been off. The cacti at the left hand side are sharp in both images, but in the left image the cacti obviously are at the end of the DOF (bench in front is in focus too) while at the right image they are at the beginning of the DOF. That has no sharp bench but some of the dirt further back seems to be in focus.
But, it might just be me...?
FrankS
Registered User
I don't see any dirt in focus farther back in the right hand picture.
Ron (Netherlands)
Well-known
The camera was on a tripod, locked down. Lens mounted, then digitally zoom focused on the left front vertical armrest of the bench. Aperture priority, camera on self timer to let vibration from pushing the shutter button settle down. Each lens shot at F3.5 and 5.6.
My impression is that the top left part in the picture at the right, is somewhat sharper than the picture at the left. But it is much more fussy at the right side.....could it be that the lens is somewhat decentered?
goamules
Well-known
It could be anything wrong with these old Feds and Industars but that's the point. I've tested several and none were as good as the Elmar. Even people that think they've got a good one, may not have ever done an A to B comparison with an Elmar. Others just repeat what is said online, that "they're just as good." I'm an engineer, and I like proof. I'm not saying they all are bad, just that a buyer better understand he may easily get a bad one.