Fred Miranda wrote:
I'm wondering if what he's describing as field curvature might actually be gradual fall-off, as suggested by the MTF graph. Since the center seems to have higher resolution than the original, the drop-off from center to mid-frame and corners could just feel more noticeable. It would be great if he could show the field curvature shape at different distances from both lenses, especially since he still has the original Angenieux for comparison.
That said, I really appreciate the images, thoughtful testing, and balanced observations he's shared.
Sonnar-7 wrote:
Yeah, I think that’s really what he means, the same axis quick gradual fall-off that produces some sort of smears already mid-frame. That could be an annoyance indeed if too strong or quick even if you love character in a lens. He shows a comparison just with one photo with the OG Angenieux.
That said, the photos he took are gorgeous but he said he had a tough time getting those few shots. He still likes them quite a bit. It’s also nice to see how he did put some effort into his review with as you said balanced observations and photos. It’s refreshing....Show more →
I checked the linked review. I got the feeling it would be a "I don't shoot brick walls" type of non-technical walk-about review, but then there are the black and white focus test charts, I guess to show SA and/or potential LoCA. With so many comments about field curvature, it would have a been helpful for at least one 'technical' shot of a patch of grass or gravel processed through PS's find edges filter to better illustrate what, if any, field curvature is actually present. Given he actually had access to an original S21, and claimed the LLL has more curvature, it would have been informative to see an actual comparison of FC from each. Maybe the situation didn't allow it? But the result is it just leaves more questions in my mind.
I did find it humorous though that he's not a fan of bokeh swirl, which was also a criticism in his LLL 50/1.2 review. But that's fair, it's totally a subjective thing, and often I feel similarly. Yet, in the Dallmeyer Kinematograph review, which has even more wild swirl than these two, it appears to be a desirable feature. Maybe because it's so over the top and used for effect. Anyway, in all three reviews I got the feeling that his definition of field curvature is what we consider to be off-axis focus/sharpness falloff. It could be caused by true field curvature, or it could just be poor off-axis performance. The review just doesn't provide enough suitably illustrative photographs to determine which it is, which maybe wasn't its objective. But nice feeling to the photos!
rscheffler wrote:
With so many comments about field curvature, it would have a been helpful for at least one 'technical' shot of a patch of grass or gravel processed through PS's find edges filter to better illustrate what, if any, field curvature is actually present. Given he actually had access to an original S21, and claimed the LLL has more curvature, it would have been informative to see an actual comparison of FC from each. Maybe the situation didn't allow it? But the result is it just leaves more questions in my mind.
That was exactly what I was thinking. Since he had both lenses, a simple field curvature test like this one comparing the S21 and Z21 would be more useful than any description or guess.
The Z21 takes inspiration from the Angenieux S21, but if you compare the original S21 optical formula with the version released by Light Lens Lab, you'll notice that some of the element shapes in the Z21 are straighter and less 'spherical'. In fact, the Z21's design is actually closer to the original Taylor and Hobson "Opic" design, which predates both.
I find it curious that both S21 and Z21 are unique in their use of 6-element double gauss, since most fast lenses of the era, like the Speed Panchros, typically used a 7-element design. (Just like the LLL 50/2 SP2)
For those of you that have the LLL 50mm f/1.2 (1966) and the Leica 50mm f/1, how would you compare them? From my read of their individual reviews, it seems the 1966 has more character while the f/1 has a unique mix of sharp and soft (painterly?) plus glow.
Bonus: how would each compare with the Leica 50mm f/1.4 pre-asph .
Mostly interested in max aperture image quality comparison.
I spent some time capturing images with the LLL elcan at the Monesterio de Piedra in Spain, a beautiful spot and one that is great for exploring the characteristics of the elcan lens and its 3D pop. These are all adapted Nikon images, I still need to shoot film with my Leica MP, but I didn't want to bring it to Spain passing through Heathrow that has a reputation for ruining film in security.
I quite like the LLL Elcan lens, as long as the F2 limit is not a problem, and I usually stop down a couple stops the rendering has many applications, the vintage look works well with old construction such as this in Spain, but in a prior post I showed photos from Greenland with the elcan and it works well with some scenery applications.
My elcan that I purchased from pop flash is well constructed and I so far have none of the issues some have reported, Tony checks the lenses so it ensures all is well.
The military must have used the Elcan lens to shoot images from aircraft, a nice day over Mt Rainer presented a similar opportunity to use the use the Light Lens Lab Elcan reproduction lens. This image was captured through a not optically perfect aircraft window, that also might have been the situation for its military use although I would imagine not at this altitude and the subject was more likely manmade facility of some kind.
rscheffler wrote:
Not sure if we've previously had a glimpse of LLL's founder, Mr. Zhou, but a photo was recently posted in an update by them about their film project:
Here's an image showing how the Light Lens Lab 50mm f/2 Elcan performs wide open at around 3m, giving a sense of its distortion, vignetting, resolution, and contrast across the frame. Minimal post-processing applied.
There is some pincushion and noticeable vignetting. The lens is very sharp at center.
Nice, I am pleased you did this, it meshes with what I see on landscapes and in buildings, I like the way that the Elcan draws the eye to the middle, such as hallway like I posted in the Spanish monastery, or the Greenland eroded ice, for the right subject I think the Elcan is a good choice, but maybe not an absolute general lens but it is quite good. I want to work with it with a Leica MP and see how it does with film, a summer project for me. I also have been shooting a couple or so stops down, so even better.
, some garden shots with Speed Panchro II on M11.
