I just bought the Elcan for use with my Sony A7Rv.
Very compact, solid build quality and I like the slightly soft look it gives me....I shoot mainly portraits.
I also have the 35mm 8E but did not have time to test it much yet.
Based on the build quality of those two lenses I will definitely buy the Speed Pancro once it becomes available.
highdesertmesa wrote:
I can tell he's not used the Elcan for more than five minutes because he hasn't yet discovered how soft the point of focus is away from the center at f/2. He disliked that about the CV 35 1.5, and the Elcan is much worse.
That's the main reason I didn’t keep this lens.
When it comes to classic Leica 50/2 lenses, my preference lies with the Rigid version over the Elcan (or LLL copy), mainly because of its superior performance away from the center area of the frame. While the Elcan lens is sharp (enough) at center and has a pleasant feel, size, and classic rendering, I find the drop in resolution and contrast off-axis and especially towards the periphery to be too steep for my liking. This issue becomes particularly noticeable when photographing groups of people or subjects that extend across the frame.
Fred Miranda wrote:
That's the main reason I didn’t keep this lens.
When it comes to classic Leica 50/2 lenses, my preference lies with the Rigid version over the Elcan (or LLL copy), mainly because of its superior performance away from the center area of the frame. While the Elcan lens is sharp (enough) at center and has a pleasant feel, size, and classic rendering, I find the drop in resolution and contrast off-axis and especially towards the periphery to be too steep for my liking. This issue becomes particularly noticeable when photographing groups of people or subjects that extend across the frame.
The difficulty dismounting the lens is why I returned mine, but the performance away from the center is what kept me from buying another copy. I've landed on the 50 Cron v5 Safari (to semi-match my SL2-S Reporter) as my main 50 for now.
I've also sold my CV 35 1.5. I ended up needing more midframe sharpness at 1.4 than what I was getting, especially on the SL2-S, which is slightly more susceptible to the midframe dip in sharpness with that lens. Back to the drawing board for a small 35 M lens.
I've just received my LLL Elcan copy from them but, the focus is way out. At close focus it's a couple of CM's out around 0.7m-1m, and beyond it's still out. Really upset after waiting for a while to receive it, and having to pay extra import tax too. Anyone have issues with their LLL Elcan in the same way?
martincf wrote:
I've just received my LLL Elcan copy from them but, the focus is way out. At close focus it's a couple of CM's out around 0.7m-1m, and beyond it's still out. Really upset after waiting for a while to receive it, and having to pay extra import tax too. Anyone have issues with their LLL Elcan in the same way?
I've never had one where the focus was off with the rangefinder, but plenty of other issues – decentered and/or rangefinder not aligning at infinity being the two most common.
If I were to buy another LLL lens, I would probably drop it in the mail to DAG for focus and optical alignment before I even put it on my camera. I would just consider that as part of the cost and hassle of buying one, that the manufacturing must be completed by a third party.
Thanks for the reply. That's unfortunate. I suppose I could send it off to recalibrated, but that sucks. More cost. Out of interest, I have a suspicion that the focus tab goes to far anti-clockwise when close focusing to the extreme. The edge of tab's 'foot' aligns with the F16 marking on the top of the lens. Can you possibly confirm if that's true of your copy?
martincf wrote:
Thanks for the reply. That's unfortunate. I suppose I could send it off to recalibrated, but that sucks. More cost. Out of interest, I have a suspicion that the focus tab goes to far anti-clockwise when close focusing to the extreme. The edge of tab's 'foot' aligns with the F16 marking on the top of the lens. Can you possibly confirm if that's true of your copy?
The Elcan's tab does rotates excessively because of its ability to focus at close range. So, I believe what you noticed is normal operation for this lens.
I've experimented with several LLL Elcan copies, but none of them were ideal due to significant differences between copies. One of them was misaligned with the rangefinder, which is difficult to fix without removing the mount and adjusting the shims or realigning the helicoid. However, Don at DAG is capable of performing this task. Do you know if your lens is front or back-focusing when focusing with a calibrated rangefinder?
Misalignment with the rangefinder is pretty much the issue I'm describing I guess. So, the experiment I did was focus to something at 0.8m in the rangefinder; take a photo; refocus to what I believe would be correct, which ended up being around 0.82m or 0.83m. So back focusing? (My brain is struggling here with which it is )
martincf wrote:
Misalignment with the rangefinder is pretty much the issue I'm describing I guess. So, the experiment I did was focus to something at 0.8m in the rangefinder; take a photo; refocus to what I believe would be correct, which ended up being around 0.82m or 0.83m. So back focusing? (My brain is struggling here with which it is )
To check for focus accuracy, place a ruler perpendicular to the camera and use the rangefinder to focus on a number on the ruler. Then, examine the Liveview to see if that same number is in focus. If it is not, take note if the lens is focused behind that number (backfocusing) or in front of it (front-focusing). The use of focus 'peaking' could potentially enhance your ability to see this more clearly.
If you experience front-focusing, you will need to remove shims from the mount. On the other hand, if you encounter backfocusing, you will need to 'add' shims to the mount. The thickness required will depend on the extent of the misfocus.
Yep, I was going to perform the ruler test after work. Thanks. Regardless, it'll need fixing. I'm in two minds to keep it and get the service done, or send it back. The size of the lens is incredibly appealing so maybe I just need to do a bit of test shooting first (in Live View) to see if I actually like the images as well.
martincf wrote:
Thanks for the reply. That's unfortunate. I suppose I could send it off to recalibrated, but that sucks. More cost. Out of interest, I have a suspicion that the focus tab goes to far anti-clockwise when close focusing to the extreme. The edge of tab's 'foot' aligns with the F16 marking on the top of the lens. Can you possibly confirm if that's true of your copy?
Yes, more cost and hassle for sure. But how much would a real Leica Elcan cost and could you even find one? I think it's worth it if you end up liking how the lens renders.
I don't have the Elcan any longer to check the focus tab, but it looks like Fred answered that question.
Of for sure, I won't be hunting down an actual Elcan. The closest one can come to for a small 50 is arguably the Summarit f2.5 or f2.4. I have the 2.5 for a bit, lovely lens but clinical, and the 2.4 will be the same. I won't include the Elmar but I'm sure it does a good job too.
I am still struck by how sharp (enough) the 'Elcan' is in the center of the frame (at full aperture). It's a four-element lens designed in the 70's that opens up to f/2 (it's a little unfair to compare it to more complex, better corrected lenses). I have a handful of similar focal length, 4-ish element lenses, and it's sharper in the middle than all of them. It's even sharper than the much newer (design-wise) five-element Voigtlander Heliar 50mm f/2. Here's a whatever selfie, but a lens this small that handles this well and delivers this kind of quality...I love it.
_jim_ wrote:
I am still struck by how sharp (enough) the 'Elcan' is in the center of the frame (at full aperture). It's a four-element lens designed in the 70's that opens up to f/2 (it's a little unfair to compare it to more complex, better corrected lenses). I have a handful of similar focal length, 4-ish element lenses, and it's sharper in the middle than all of them. It's even sharper than the much newer (design-wise) five-element Voigtlander Heliar 50mm f/2. Here's a whatever selfie, but a lens this small that handles this well and delivers this kind of quality...I love it.
Desmolicious wrote:
We have very similar choices in cameras. I also use an M7, and M5 and..
My M5 is in the shop again...and I missed it...and I was in NYC and went to Leica Store - SOHO...and found a totally mint, in-box, 2003 0.85 M7 with recent CLA and finder upgrade. My wallet is a little mad at me, but I did what I had to do.
_jim_ wrote:
My M5 is in the shop again...and I missed it...and I was in NYC and went to Leica Store - SOHO...and found a totally mint, in-box, 2003 0.85 M7 with recent CLA and finder upgrade. My wallet is a little mad at me, but I did what I had to do.
Desmolicious wrote:
Sorry to hear about the M5 - what happened?
Well, one day I picked it up and it had the most annoying hair that had worked it's way into the rangefinder optics...right in the middle of the damn patch. The day before, no hair. I treat my equipment kindly, so this was a bit of a head scratcher.
At any rate, a repair guy was kind enough to pay a house call (he lives close to where I work) to get the hair our (which required taking the top plate off). In the process of putting the camera back together and doing a systems check, they wound the shutter and heard a snap. The end post that functions as the stop for the advance lever broke off. It was a totally random, freak occurrence. Unfortunately, that part doesn't exist anymore (unless you have a parts body). So, the camera has been with him for the last month while he fashions an new end post.
)
