Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/03/13
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 11:53 AM -0800 3/13/00, Paul Chefurka wrote: >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Henning J. Wulff [mailto:henningw@archiphoto.com] >>Sent: Monday, March 13, 2000 2:33 PM >>To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us >>Subject: RE: RE: [Leica] pointless debate about cheap lenses > >>50 Elcan??? >> >>Somebody is actually using the Elcan to take pictures? It's >>worth a whole >>lot as a collectible, but not that much as a shooter, since it's a >>simplified lens and not nearly as good as many other 50's, and >>not likely >>as good as the 45/2 Contax. If I had an Elcan, I would put it >>up on eBay >>and buy something expensive and useful (or use it for my income tax >>installment). > >When I asked what the Leica lens was, that's what he said. I didn't see the >lens, but I've got no reason to doubt him. What was simplified about the >Elcan - the optical formula, or just the mechanical bits? > >They're a used equipment store and this lens was part of their stock, so I >guess they will be charging what the market will bear for it. > >Paul Chefurka It was optically simpler. I don't know at the moment where I have the diagram, but it had only 4 elements. The bonus was that the length of the lens was closer to that of the 35 Summicron (non-ASPH) than to that of the 50 Summicron. I only read one report on the optical performance, many years ago, and it didn't rate the lens very highly for whatever that's worth. This is of course all rather in the realm of hearsay, but in any case it's not likely to have been a true competitor for the 45/2, which is by all accounts a very good performer. Wide open the Contax lens should be a lot better, but by 5.6 the chances of seeing the difference on 4x6 prints seems unlikely, or at best inconclusive. * Henning J. Wulff /|\ Wulff Photography & Design /###\ mailto:henningw@archiphoto.com |[ ]| http://www.archiphoto.com