The LLL Speed Panchro II prototype arrived today. I thought it would make sense to post pics every day as I take them rather than have a hundred all at the end of my time with it. I barely had any daylight after it arrived, so forgive the hasty shots.
The lens itself:
Way smaller than it looked in photos very narrow but not too long
I kind of like the light aluminum prototype feels like nothing is attached
Giant "crab hand" focusing tab is awesome
Even though it's a prototype, the lens seems perfectly centered
IQ/rendering:
Infinity at f/8 is sharp corner to corner, at least at 24mp I was surprised by how sharp
Infinity is sharp at center, corners, and midframe
Resolves more detail at infinity and f/8 than my CV 50 f/1 at f/8
I can't detect any midframe sharpness loss at any distance
Focus point is sharp at any place in the frame
Rendering at f/2 looks like the 50 Lux, 50 Cron v5, and Thambar all gave their DNA to make this baby
Feels like an f/1.4 or f/1.8 lens wide open
Can't judge vignetting yet as I was using the very narrow hood (that will change for the final)
I was expecting a barely-sharp but moody lens, but I feel like I got smacked with something new (to me).
I would buy this copy if they sold it to me
Photos below were shot on the SL2-S with adjustments made in C1 (minimal to no change in saturation).
@highdesertmesa,
Thank you so much for sharing the samples and comparisons. After taking a closer look, it seems like the lens has a bit more glow wide open compared to the Elcan. The rendering also appears to be a bit more structured, which is interesting.
I'd love to hear your thoughts on this as well. Would you be able to post a few more side-by-side comparisons at different distances? I have to admit, I'm quite surprised at how well this vintage 50mm design performs in the mid-field, even when used wide open.
highdesertmesa wrote:
The LLL Speed Panchro II prototype arrived today. Can't figure out why after mounting the lens the aperture numbers are facing downward but the rest is normal lens works fine, though. Have a question into LLL and Popflash about that..
So when the lens is on your camera, the aperture markings are on the underneath i.e. you cannot see them if you are holding your camera and looking down at it and the lens?
A screen cap from that video selling presets shows what I assume is now the lens you are using
Fred Miranda wrote:
@highdesertmesa@,
Thank you so much for sharing the samples and comparisons. After taking a closer look, it seems like the lens has a bit more glow wide open compared to the Elcan. The rendering also appears to be a bit more structured, which is interesting.
I'd love to hear your thoughts on this as well. Would you be able to post a few more side-by-side comparisons at different distances? I have to admit, I'm quite surprised at how well this vintage 50mm design performs in the mid-field, even when used wide open.
Yes, I was surprised at how structured complex backgrounds were in the bokeh at f/2. Based on the samples in Ted's video, I expected it to be smoother like the 50 Lux, but it reminds me a little of the Voigtlander 50mm f/1.5 Heliar Classic samples in your review of that lens. I do see some 35 Lux pre-ASPH style glow to the highlights.
Here's a quick video clip with the lens (SL2-S, HD, 120fps to smooth out handheld movements). Sometimes it's easier for me to grasp the rendering of a lens this way. The flare will likely change some in the production version since LLL has stated the coatings will be updated to better match the original lens.
And here are some SOOC JPEGs shot this morning with the standard b&w film style on the SL2-S (no lens profile used):
highdesertmesa wrote:
Yes, I was surprised at how structured complex backgrounds were in the bokeh at f/2. Based on the samples in Ted's video, I expected it to be smoother like the 50 Lux, but it reminds me a little of the Voigtlander 50mm f/1.5 Heliar Classic samples in your review of that lens. I do see some 35 Lux pre-ASPH style glow to the highlights.
The aspherical 50/1.4 Lux has such a sleek and modern look and therefore I didn't expect this Cooke replica to look similar to it.
I have to say. It's interesting that you mentioned the 50/1.5 Heliar. So many vintage lenses seem to be reminiscent of this Cosina's 'classic', which is quite remarkable when you consider the Heliar's unique optical design.
If you download the last two at portrait distance and flip between them, you'll see the SPII is a longer focal length than the Elcan by probably a few mm, and the SPII has less distortion.
Desmolicious wrote:
Fine, send it over when you are done.
Hey, I have an M11 arriving tomorrow, so I'll get you that viewfinder blockage image this weekend. Going to play M11 freeze-up roulette (again) and see if I get a good one.
Wow, that was a really intriguing comparison! Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
I am a bit puzzled by the results I've seen. At long distances of 5 meters or more, I found that the Elcan's image resolution decreases noticeably even for subjects focused at center. This issue was not present in the new LLL 50/2 Panchro or the Leica 50/2 Rigid.
On the sample at closer distance, the Elcan yields higher resolution/contrast for the "cactus" located toward the edge but falls apart on your samples at 5 and 7 meter distance.
The Elcan has a higher contrast and a less defined outlining of specular highlights, but I personally prefer the more structured draw of the Panchro, as seen in your examples. While I understand that some people might have different opinions, this is my personal preference.
However, in your "FULL BODY PORTRAIT DISTANCE" sample, the Panchro appears to have a higher resolution and contrast on the main subject. Could this be caused by a misfocus? The same observation can be made in the infinity sample around the center, where I see that the Panchro yields higher resolution/lower contrast and on the other hand the Elcan shows higher contrast/lower resolution.
Finally, I noticed that the Panchro has a narrower field of view compared to the Elcan.
