Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
I find it odd that you continue to wax lyrical about antiquated and technically "imperfect" lenses in one breath only to deride entire processes and mediums as outdated with the next.
Personally, I'd much rather see a bad photo on wet plate than an average photo on digital. Not only can I appreciate the work that's gone into it, but wet plate - done well or not - has a haunting, evocative look that's hard to replicate with any other medium.
Ian Ruhter's work in the medium is truly bloody stunning, for instance: Suspended In Time Prints
When I think through the logistics of making some of those photos - especially the snowboarding ones! - I'm astounded. The dedication and the amount of thought needed is mind-boggling. But that doesn't change the fact that they're utterly beautiful in every way.
Also:
Don't be a dick. DoK said nothing to you that warranted that sort of response; it was completely unnecessary.
raydm6
Yay! Cameras! 🙈🙉🙊┌( ಠ_ಠ)┘ [◉"]
^^ Thank you for the link @Coldkennels! Amazing work and impressive CV. Great web site layout also. Interesting the "Alchemist" tag.
raydm6
Yay! Cameras! 🙈🙉🙊┌( ಠ_ಠ)┘ [◉"]
Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
Yeah, it's truly phenomenal stuff. I stumbled upon his work when he did the snowboard project with Foursquare many years back. He's also done insanely super-large photos using the back of a van as a camera; there's a beautiful (if slightly pretentious) documentary showing his process and some of the results here: Wet Plate Photography with a Giant Van Camera
boojum
Mentor
I have no doubt that you find what I think odd. It seems irresistible to you. After all, to you the similarity between a lens from the 1940's and a photographic technique from the 1840's are pretty similar. Perfect. And with your logic a lousy sculpture done with a screwdriver on a cinder block would be better that Michelangelo's David. Unassailable logic. No one can argue with you on that. You are a model and font of wisdom.I find it odd that you continue to wax lyrical about antiquated and technically "imperfect" lenses in one breath only to deride entire processes and mediums as outdated with the next.
Personally, I'd much rather see a bad photo on wet plate than an average photo on digital. Not only can I appreciate the work that's gone into it, but wet plate - done well or not - has a haunting, evocative look that's hard to replicate with any other medium.
Ian Ruhter's work in the medium is truly bloody stunning, for instance: Suspended In Time Prints
When I think through the logistics of making some of those photos - especially the snowboarding ones! - I'm astounded. The dedication and the amount of thought needed is mind-boggling. But that doesn't change the fact that they're utterly beautiful in every way.
Also:
Don't be a dick. DoK said nothing to you that warranted that sort of response; it was completely unnecessary.
The comment on instructing me in English was not directed at DoK.
Again, you need only sweep the sidewalk in front of your home.
Maybe take up knitting?
Last edited:
This word choice is unnecessary and unacceptable and your comment could also equally apply to yourself. An apology is in order , don’t you think? Or would you prefer to be placed on moderation?
Erik van Straten
Mentor
gelatin silver print (cooke amotal 50mm f2) leica mp
Amsterdam, 2023
Erik.
Amsterdam, 2023
Erik.
scautez
Established
Hi all, I was wondering for anyone who has the 50mm Elcan replica which is the lighter version of the lens. Light Lens Lab state the weight range to be: Weight: 200g to 235g (Depending on finishes). Perhaps the LTM version is the lighter or the titanium maybe.
boojum
Mentor
Has anyone here bought and used an Elcan?
TL7
Member
There are some..
I used mine a lot last year and like it.
boojum
Mentor
Would you expand on that? There have been stories of very poor QC - 50% failure rate - and detractors abound. OTOH I have seen YT reviewers quite happy with them. So any real life experience would be interesting. I need talent more than a new 50 but a good vintage or resurrection of a vintage is always interesting. I have some CV's and while the color and detail are great I like the old Sonnars and the resurrected Sonnar, the Bertele.
This is a hobby not a profession so I am only required to be interested rather than talented and successful, thankfully. And lenses are a relatively cheap pastime, especially the ones coming from China which are often quite good.
So fill me in with your impressions and examples if you care to.
jonal928
Well-known
Since I bought it, I don't take it off the camera. Well, I'm exaggerating a bit, but most of the time the LLL Elcan is attached to the camera to stay.
L1000110_LLL ELCAN 1-2-50 S2 by Jeri Leibovits, on Flickr
**
L1000110_LLL ELCAN 1-2-50 S2 by Jeri Leibovits, on Flickr**
boojum
Mentor
Since I bought it, I don't take it off the camera. Well, I'm exaggerating a bit, but most of the time the LLL Elcan is attached to the camera to stay.
**
This is a report I have read before. That is a strong endorsement. I'm not the sharpest knife on the tree but that looks like a pretty good image to me. What's the portfolio look like?
Yokosuka_Mike
Abstract Clarity
I find it odd that you continue to wax lyrical about antiquated and technically "imperfect" lenses in one breath only to deride entire processes and mediums as outdated with the next.
Personally, I'd much rather see a bad photo on wet plate than an average photo on digital. Not only can I appreciate the work that's gone into it, but wet plate - done well or not - has a haunting, evocative look that's hard to replicate with any other medium.
Ian Ruhter's work in the medium is truly bloody stunning, for instance: Suspended In Time Prints
When I think through the logistics of making some of those photos - especially the snowboarding ones! - I'm astounded. The dedication and the amount of thought needed is mind-boggling. But that doesn't change the fact that they're utterly beautiful in every way.
Also:
Don't be a dick. DoK said nothing to you that warranted that sort of response; it was completely unnecessary.
I love it! All of it!
Mike
jonal928
Well-known
You can see the works shot with the LLL Elcan 50/2 lens on my flickr. For your attention, since Leica does not allow the user to set the Elcan in its digital M cameras, all the photos taken with the lens in question with the Leica M11, appear in Exif as if they were taken with a Summicron lens, which is not the case.
L1000323 S3 by Jeri Leibovits, on Flickr
L1000471 S3 by Jeri Leibovits, on Flickr
L1000315 S2 by Jeri Leibovits, on Flickr**
TL7
Member
I used mine a lot last year and like it for its easy to use and such a fast tiny lens.
Some people dont like the "backwards" apeture ring but I like it as its real quick.
You buy it for what it is..
If you want the 50 APO..then..well...you get that one instead..lol..
Some people dont like the "backwards" apeture ring but I like it as its real quick.
You buy it for what it is..
If you want the 50 APO..then..well...you get that one instead..lol..
boojum
Mentor
I find it interesting from all I have read. And I like the older, vintage lenses. I agree with the common thought that the current lenses can have great color and definition but lack the "character" of the vintage lenses. I do not want to re-ignite the CCD vs CMOS wars but I do like what vintage lenses do on CMOS sensors. It could just be my imagination. The question now is whether the Elcan can do for me what the Bertele and Amotal do but better? The Elcan is almost reasonable in price. But does it fill my needs.? And then there is that old CZJ 5cm f/1.5 which is also sweet and a very nice KMZ '57 Jupiter 8.
I could just keep the money and spend it on fast women, strong drink and black cigars. Maybe Santa will have one in his sack.
I could just keep the money and spend it on fast women, strong drink and black cigars. Maybe Santa will have one in his sack.
jonal928
Well-known
Since you mention the CCD wars against the evil CMOS. I should point out that I am not going to get rid of my Leica M8 anytime soon. But because I wanted a lens whose results would be a little more picturesque and less clinical than what is obtained by combining a modern lens connected to a camera with a 60 megapixel sensor. Therefore I find that the LLL Elcan 50/2 lens fits my requirements, like a glove that fits the palm of my hand.
Any conceptual comparison between ex-Soviet lenses, simply does an injustice to ELCAN. It is enough to hold the lens, to be impressed by its tiny, solid, and high-quality structure. Over the past year, the Elcan 50/2 lens has been practically welded to my camera. In other words, only when I really need the services of a higher maximum aperture, or a change in the focal length of the lens, only then; the Elcan removed, but not for long...
boojum
Mentor
I understand completely. And there are some trash Soviet lenses, agreed. But there are also some plums out there and by luck I got one in the '57. I really like the Bertele and the Amotal, both extremely well made, but that '57 KMZ J8 can hold its own in image. This link to a shot at Bornstein's here in Astoria with some fishing boats unloading at night shows the J8 well.
The other two lenses are very good, too. One vintage and the other vintage resurrection with enhancements. And the CZJ 5cm f/1.5 . I have to shoot more with that. And while the Bertele does not always seem sharp on the M9 it shines on the X2D. And the Bertele FOV covers the entire X2D sensor, nice. ;o) I don't need any more lenses. But the Elcan has some charm to it and the price is good for what you get. Just the idea of a Leica lens designed and built in Canada is great. I have a fondness for Canada. I lived and studied there in another era. And the Elcan is interesting for that Canadian angle, the simplicity, the smallness and so on, and it takes good pictures, too. So the question is do I fritter away money on lenses or debauchery, neither is needed. LOL
As for M8's, I have one, too. It has color that I like a lot. I perceive it as a little warmer than the M9 but that is a SWAG. I have not tested them side by side. It is a good camera. With the M8, M9 and M240 I run the UV/IR filters all the time. Sonnar Brian, who knows a thing or two about lenses and Leicas, says this is wise. I am not going to challenge him.
This is a link to some of what I have wasted time and money on. The Bertele and Amotal and KMZ are there. It is the usual amateur crap but what the hell, I am doing as well as I can. West Phalia’s albums | Flickr You can get an idea of what the Bertele and the Cooke Amotal can do. And why I need an Elcan like a hog needs roller skates, but . . .
Cheers.
Last edited:
jonal928
Well-known
I'll start from the end, I loved the spirit of your album, and now I can understand your creative optical rationale.
Although the lens doesn't really matter and I say the same things about the camera. But it is important to understand
and remember that a combination of camera and lens, one that creates an inner physical and mental connection with
them, is the best of all worlds that photographers could hope for.
From the personal aspect, not everyone will be able to spend the tens of thousands of dollars embodied in the price of
an original Elcan lens. But hey, you can get the Chinese LLL Elcan for a fraction of the price - a lens that has all the right
ingredients in its DNA.
*Attached is a photo from my Leica M8, without connection to Elcan, and of course without any hot IR filter on the lens.
L1001344 S3 by Jeri Leibovits, on Flickr**