highdesertmesa wrote:
Looking forward to the comparison. I just bought the 50 Elcan titanium
Received the lens just now and did a quick resolution test.
My impression is that the Rigid is better corrected for axial and lateral CA and it's much sharper at the very corners. Their center and mid-field performance is very similar though. Here are some 100% crops showing center, mid-field and extreme corners:
CENTER at f/2
MID-FIELD at f/2
EXTREME CORNER at f/2: The Rigid does significantly better here and that's the overall performance of the Elcan. (I've tried 2 copies)
Different lighting but here is the Leica 50/1.4 Lux @f/2 (compared to the CV 50/2 APO). I think the Rigid is capable of higher resolution at the very corners but the Lux has a curvature shape towards this area.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Received the lens just now and did a quick resolution test.
My impression is that the Rigid is better corrected for axial and lateral CA and it's much sharper at the very corners. Their center and mid-field performance is very similar though. Here are some 100% crops showing center, mid-field and extreme corners:
Thanks for these. The Elcan performs about as I expected at f/2 infinity given what I've read about it its design story, which might be summarized as "a robust lens with adequate optical performance and a reasonable cost from a military budget perspective".
highdesertmesa wrote:
Thanks for these. The Elcan performs about as I expected at f/2 infinity given what I've read about it its design story, which might be summarized as "a robust lens with adequate optical performance and a reasonable cost from a military budget perspective".
I think the extreme corner crop above does not tell the full story though. The Elcan does falls apart at f/2 at the 'very' corners but the overall corner performance is not far behind. I usually don't post huge image comparisons but here an expanded 'corner' view for both lenses. Definitely more CA and less resolution/contrast for the Elcan replica but I'd say it's ok general shooting where the subject is at center or mid-field.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I think the extreme corner crop above does not tell the full story though. The Elcan does falls apart at f/2 at the 'very' corners but the overall corner performance is not far behind. I usually don't post huge image comparisons but here an expanded 'corner' view for both lenses. Definitely more CA and less resolution/contrast for the Elcan replica but I'd say it's ok general shooting where the subject is at center or mid-field.
Makes sense. It sounded like the cost-cutting resulted in an image circle a bit smaller than optimal. "Image circle was being pushed too far" or something like that was the quote, I can't remember exactly.
This original compact design may be partial driven by the military application requirements, one of them is to operate in high temperature environment. The Elcan optical design is a four-element and four-group so no elements were glued together, as high temperature may affect the glue. This may lead them to eliminate glass elements in the back optical group to maintain compactness, which contributed to the smaller image circle due to lack of optical correction. The design of Summicron 50 Rigid, on the other hand, was more "sophisticated" and it has a larger sharp image circle, even larger than the current Summicron 50 (v5) at open f-stop. The Summicron 50 Rigid is my favorite 50, especially for monochrome M bodies.
highdesertmesa wrote:
Makes sense. It sounded like the cost-cutting resulted in an image circle a bit smaller than optimal. "Image circle was being pushed too far" or something like that was the quote, I can't remember exactly.
---------------------------------------------
ocean2059 wrote:
This original compact design may be partial driven by the military application requirements, one of them is to operated in high temperature environment. The Elcan optical design is a four-element and four-group so no elements were glued together, as high temperature may affect the glue. This may lead them to eliminate glass elements in the back optical group to maintain compactness, which contributed to the smaller image circle due to lack of optical correction. The design of Summicron 50 Rigid, on the other hand, was more "sophisticated" and it has a larger sharp image circle, even larger than the current Summicron 50 (v5) at open f-stop. The Summicron 50 Rigid is my favorite 50, especially for monochrome M bodies. ...Show more →
Makes sense to me. Each element belongs to its own group and therefore no glue was needed for this optical design. Possibly the lens was able to sustain higher than normal temperatures and still work without image degradation.
I'm not quite sure about the reduced image circle as optical vignetting is lower on the Elcan.
I just did a rendering comparison between the Leica 50mm f/2 Rigid (v2) and LLL 50mm f/2 Elcan and here are my initial thoughts:
Both have a classic draw with noticeable specular highlight outlining. I find their character similar but there are small peculiarities that helps me differentiate between them. The Rigid is capable of slight higher resolution/contrast on subjects focused anywhere in the frame and that's clear even at 50% magnification. In high contrast light both show axial CA but the Elcan shows more purple fringing.
The background OOF rendering is also slightly higher in contrast and more structured for the Rigid compared to the Elcan, especially off-axis. The main giveaway between these two lenses is the higher optical vignetting for the Rigid which means more swirling effect depending on distance. At first glance they share similar draw though.
I can tell them apart because I'm testing them side by side and analyzing their rendering at high magnification but the differences are not obvious, except for the optical vignetting difference.
The Elcan is also better corrected for 'veiling' flare when shooting against the light but perhaps that flare is pleasant for B&W shooting. I need more time to experiment with this.
Overall similar performance and rendering but the Rigid does better terms of resolution and contrast at all distances. The corners are the most obvious. Both lenses can definitely be used for landscapes but the Rigid would be my choice and it's outstanding starting at f/4.
My Leica 50/2 Rigid copy is front-focusing slightly (rangefinder) and therefore my tests were done with the help of LV.
Backlit scene: More prominent veiling flare from the Leica 50/2 Rigid. It's lower in contrast than the Elcan for this scene but still sharper at focused area.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Congrats on the new lens! It's nice to get a special edition without breaking the bank. It looks very nice from the pictures.
[EDIT – removed reference to issue with new Elcan – tester error]
The samples you posted – wow, it's almost impossible to tell the difference between the lenses with regard to rendering if not seen side-by-side. The copy I got was sharp enough that it surprised me, though. Hmm, wonder if I should keep a decentered copy that happens to be super sharp
highdesertmesa wrote:
Well, turns out it looks nice indeed, but it was a bit softer on one side of the frame than the other even at f/8. Not sure if I will try another copy. Did you get your Elcan test copies from Popflash? If so, do you remember the serial number(s) of the one(s) you sent back as decentered? If so, would you PM me? I want to be sure they grab a "fresh" one if I do an exchange
The samples you posted – wow, it's almost impossible to tell the difference between the lenses with regard to rendering if not seen side-by-side. The copy I got was sharp enough that it surprised me, though. Hmm, wonder if I should keep a decentered copy that happens to be super sharp ...Show more →
With only 4 elements, one would think this lens would have low variation.
It could be production batch or perhaps tolerance is not tight for each group.
It's incredible that my copy of the Leica Rigid from the late sixties is perfectly centered on the M10-R. It does front-focuses though, so it's going to DAG. Both of my LLL Elcan copies are aligned with the RF.
I thought the Elcan was very sharp at center but the Rigid is even sharper. I agree that without a side by side, they look very similar though.
