the_jim
human
So a few months back, I was looking for a Tessar type lens to use on my Zeiss Ikon, so I jumped on fedka.com and picked up a 50's era FED 50/3.5.
The front element looked like the surface of an ice-skating rink and the results were pretty mediocre, which surprised me because the Tessar on my Rolleiflex T and the Nikon 45mm f/2.8P are both phenomenal lenses.
One day, I was cruising ebay, and stumbled upon a red-scale Elmar in excellent condition so I couldn't resist. For the sake of my own curiosity I thought I would attempt a very basic, non-scientific lens test between the two lenses.
Here are the pictures. Both were shot wide-open around 5:00pm on my Zeiss Ikon. The film used was Tri-X developed in 76 1:1. The lighting conditions were changing quickly so there is a little discrepancy there.
So which is which? Fed 50/3.5 or red-scale Elmar 5cm?
a:
b
P.S. Focus was on the nail sticking out at 45 degrees or so.
The front element looked like the surface of an ice-skating rink and the results were pretty mediocre, which surprised me because the Tessar on my Rolleiflex T and the Nikon 45mm f/2.8P are both phenomenal lenses.
One day, I was cruising ebay, and stumbled upon a red-scale Elmar in excellent condition so I couldn't resist. For the sake of my own curiosity I thought I would attempt a very basic, non-scientific lens test between the two lenses.
Here are the pictures. Both were shot wide-open around 5:00pm on my Zeiss Ikon. The film used was Tri-X developed in 76 1:1. The lighting conditions were changing quickly so there is a little discrepancy there.
So which is which? Fed 50/3.5 or red-scale Elmar 5cm?
a:
b
P.S. Focus was on the nail sticking out at 45 degrees or so.
sweathog
Well-known
Top one is the Elmar, that is my unscientific answer.
the_jim
human
Perhaps. Or possibly not.
sweathog
Well-known
Well, I stick with my hypothesis. I've got a fairly decent chance of being wrong.
helen.HH
To Light & Love ...
Just a BLIND Guess....
the first shot elmar
I have an old uncoated 1938 /Elmar 35/3.5
which renders soooo contrasty beautiful lights & darks
on my rd1
and an old 50 /1.5 jupiter i bought from Fedka /which is spot on crisp
my Favorite is the Elmar
though never tried a RED SCALE elmar
Cheers ! h
the first shot elmar
I have an old uncoated 1938 /Elmar 35/3.5
which renders soooo contrasty beautiful lights & darks
on my rd1
and an old 50 /1.5 jupiter i bought from Fedka /which is spot on crisp
my Favorite is the Elmar
though never tried a RED SCALE elmar
Cheers ! h
retnull
Well-known
Top is Elmar ...(?)
the_jim
human
Might be. Why do you think so?
The Elmar was almost $350 with shipping. The FED lens was a little over $50.
Last edited:
the_jim
human
Anyone else?
Solinar
Analog Preferred
The top one has better contrast and the gritty appearance of the Soviet Tessars. The bottom image is easier on the eyes and more Elmar-like in my opinion.
the_jim
human
Cool, thanks for the guess.
Does one of these images look like it came from a lens that costs seven times as much as the other?
John Robertson
Well-known
50mm Industar (Collapsible mount) 1/60 @ f4.
The Elmar Red Scale I had was no sharper!
The Elmar Red Scale I had was no sharper!
Erik van Straten
Veteran
The second picture is smoother and has better contrast, due to the better coating of the redscale.
BTW, what is the redscale's serial number? There are many converted lenses from the thirties around that look like redscale Elmars, but they are not.
Erik.
BTW, what is the redscale's serial number? There are many converted lenses from the thirties around that look like redscale Elmars, but they are not.
Erik.
pvdhaar
Peter
Top one looks like what comes out of my FED50/3.5 (the one in my avatar)..
nzeeman
Well-known
imho first is much better , and he said " the results were pretty mediocre" with fed. so judging from that elmar is first...
Avotius
Some guy
I think the bottom pic is the elmar, I have a redscale elmar, seems kind of like what I might get from it but there sure is not much in it to choose from, btw I paid 90 dollars for my elmar....
besk
Well-known
I prefer the bottom one - the out of focus areas are more pleasing. Hopefully it is from the Elmar because I own one.
the_jim
human
Ok...time for the reveal. (drum roll please)
The top photo is the Elmar. @Erik Van Straten: the serial number dates it as a '53.
To me, it is clear that the Elmar is better corrected than the Soviet lens. It also shows better overall tonality. The FED looks a little swirly and lower in contrast.
That being said, as many people liked the look of the FED, for $50 it is not an altogether bad lens. Its look could be useful in many situations.
The top photo is the Elmar. @Erik Van Straten: the serial number dates it as a '53.
To me, it is clear that the Elmar is better corrected than the Soviet lens. It also shows better overall tonality. The FED looks a little swirly and lower in contrast.
That being said, as many people liked the look of the FED, for $50 it is not an altogether bad lens. Its look could be useful in many situations.
the_jim
human
$90!!!
I imagined that there must be a an army of Chinese business men driving around in Maseratis and Bentleys, collecting vintage Leicas, driving up the used prices.
Guess not.
Lucky for you.
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
My Fed 50 gives me better results than your second pic, though...given that the Elmar is in "excellent" condition and the Fed is all scratched to hell, we should cut it a break.
I do like the first pic better. Bokeh is as good as the Fed, and there is more appealing contrast to me. But I've been curious about the difference between these lenses, and it's nice to see that both give good results!
I do like the first pic better. Bokeh is as good as the Fed, and there is more appealing contrast to me. But I've been curious about the difference between these lenses, and it's nice to see that both give good results!
fferreres
Newbie
Elmar RS
Elmar RS
Decade+ old thread. I have a few of these variants. I need a new Tessar as it seems so behind. The FED is good, not that high resolution but the image is very nice and stopped down it is sharp. The Elmar Red Scale I got is perfect for a 42MP sensor and the eye lashes and eyebrows appear with nice contrast and delicately thin and the whole image looks crispy. it also has very nice contrast, and when sun is on a side and using wide open, I use the shade that cost me $20 (original).
Out of my dozens other 50mm, it's my favorite. I can zoom in 12x with the Riii, and focus to perfection. I am sure the modern version may have more contrast, but I already have the problem of too much contrast in my older RS Elmar that more would not help any picture. Note the lens excels at portraits in particular. One can see the shape of the pores, the photos are hyper-realistic.
I also don't hesitate to use the Elmar wide open, every time I want. The Tessar has much lower contrast wide open but gets great by f4.5 or 5.6.
Elmar RS
Decade+ old thread. I have a few of these variants. I need a new Tessar as it seems so behind. The FED is good, not that high resolution but the image is very nice and stopped down it is sharp. The Elmar Red Scale I got is perfect for a 42MP sensor and the eye lashes and eyebrows appear with nice contrast and delicately thin and the whole image looks crispy. it also has very nice contrast, and when sun is on a side and using wide open, I use the shade that cost me $20 (original).
Out of my dozens other 50mm, it's my favorite. I can zoom in 12x with the Riii, and focus to perfection. I am sure the modern version may have more contrast, but I already have the problem of too much contrast in my older RS Elmar that more would not help any picture. Note the lens excels at portraits in particular. One can see the shape of the pores, the photos are hyper-realistic.
I also don't hesitate to use the Elmar wide open, every time I want. The Tessar has much lower contrast wide open but gets great by f4.5 or 5.6.