Elmar-M 2.8 50mm?

peadarceiteach · 01-08-2007

I've recently used rather large DSLR's and after using an MP have come to appreciate the compactness of it all. I have mounted a LTM VC Nokton 1.5 50mm and know it is a fine lens. Purusing the various sites, I'm aware of the collapsable Elmar (Elmarit)? - M 2.8 50mm.
I'm torn. I want the great portability of the Elmar, but am seduced by the Summilux M 50mm 1.4 (perhaps even the LHSA edition). I know, the Nokton is great, but with the MP I want the whole "Leica" photo experience. I know, I know. Kindly indulge me. Is there such a thing as Leicaitis)? Of course, the price difference between the Elmar and Summilux is significant. I've read both pro's and con's on the Elmar. I don't want to get caught in the whole "speedier is better" business with lenses, and would sacrifice the speed if the Elmar would be good. Comparatively it is priced well, has the portability I desire, I just don't know about image quality. I've tried various searches on the site...if you are aware of a pertinent thread, please share it. What are your thoughts on the Elmar 50mm 2.8? Many thanks.

Flyfisher Tom · 01-08-2007

Well, the good news is that both the summilux and elmar-M are great lenses. So you really can't make a bad choice.

The elmar-M in particular is a very underappreciated lens, at least until recently. High build quality, truly small profile when collapsed, flare-resistant (so really no need for the hood), and a very pleasing signature.

In some ways, it is unfair for me to link you to this member's gallery, as he (Beniliam, David) is exceptionally talented, and would have done equally excellent work with any lens. But it does give you a good idea of what the Elmar-M is capable of:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/68749072@N00/tags/elmar/

It is a gem to use both optically and in terms of ergonomics. Makes your M body truly pocketable. Peter_N, BudGreen also have some very good shots with this lens.

For the summilux, pre-asph, check Gabriel's fine work with it. Another proven winner.

good luck

Flyfisher Tom · 01-08-2007

And this may not be helpful at all, perhaps even devilish ... but have you considered what a great pair the Elmar-M AND the summilux would make ??? One for the compactness and the other for the speed when you need it

peadarceiteach · 01-08-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flyfisher Tom

And this may not be helpful at all, perhaps even devilish ... but have you considered what a great pair the Elmar-M AND the summilux would make ??? One for the compactness and the other for the speed when you need it

Thanks for the great link. It's great to see various shots with the Elmar. I need to find out what film he used.

Great idea, but yes it is devilish!

Get thee behind me, Tom!

Flyfisher Tom · 01-08-2007

lol, El Diablo he sits on my shoulder

by the way, here is Gabriel's excellent work with the 50 pre-asph :

http://www.flickr.com/photos/gabrielma/tags/summilux/

micromoogman · 01-08-2007

High resolution, compact, 39mm filter... I like it! But not as much as the 3,5 Elmar

THAT is Leica!
I took this to test the contrast and resolution at a close distance-->
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/phot...10&ppuser=4626

Paul T. · 01-08-2007

I used and enjoyed the current Elmar M for quite a while, but it's not that compact in practice; if I were buying new, I think I'd go for the new Zeiss Sonnar, which is just as compact, two stops faster, and has an attractive 'look.'

Flyfisher Tom · 01-08-2007

I respectfully disagree

When collapsed without the hood, the profile is as small as a 40/2 summicron-c or rokkor-m without hood. That's about as compact as it gets in Leicaville.

And as I said, I've found this lens to be extremely flare resistant, so I've never used the hood. Sort of defeats the purpose of compactness as well. Just not a hood man I guess

jja · 01-08-2007

Get the 50/2.8 Elmar first version from about the 1960s. It can be found for less than half the cost of the current one (used). I've had mine for a short while and like it a lot. Like Tom suggests, start w/ the Elmar, learn its strengths and limitations, and in the meantime save up for the Summilux (what I'm doing).

I did an informal test (testing sharpness only) with the 50/2.8 on a tripod and it was barely (and I mean barely) edged out by a current version 50/2 Summicron when both were shot at f2.8.

FrankS · 01-08-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by peadarceiteach

I've recently used rather large DSLR's and after using an MP have come to appreciate the compactness of it all. I have mounted a LTM VC Nokton 1.5 50mm and know it is a fine lens. Purusing the various sites, I'm aware of the collapsable Elmar (Elmarit)? - M 2.8 50mm.
I'm torn. I want the great portability of the Elmar, but am seduced by the Summilux M 50mm 1.4 (perhaps even the LHSA edition). I know, the Nokton is great, but with the MP I want the whole "Leica" photo experience. I know, I know. Kindly indulge me. Is there such a thing as Leicaitis)? Of course, the price difference between the Elmar and Summilux is significant. I've read both pro's and con's on the Elmar. I don't want to get caught in the whole "speedier is better" business with lenses, and would sacrifice the speed if the Elmar would be good. Comparatively it is priced well, has the portability I desire, I just don't know about image quality. I've tried various searches on the site...if you are aware of a pertinent thread, please share it. What are your thoughts on the Elmar 50mm 2.8? Many thanks.

Since the original poster already has the fast 50 Nokton lens, the more compact (and slower) Elmar is the ideal companion lens, IMO. For really compact, try the f3.5 Elmar, or for less than $30 or so, an FSU 50mm f3.5 collapsible lens.

cnguyen · 01-08-2007

I have the Summilux pre-asph latest version and love it. I would recommend the Lux eventhough it 's more money . You can always stop down to 2.8 with the Lux but can't open the Elmar to 1.4. or for the money you spend on the 2.8 why not getting the 50mm f2.0 Cron which has best resolution in Leica lens line.

Xmas · 01-08-2007

Leitz advertised about '58 - '60 that the cron at f4 edged out the elmar at f5.6, note guys leitz not moi, advertisment more cynical then Putsy...

Noel

FrankS · 01-08-2007

Like I said, you have a fast lens, now get a compact lens so you can put your camera/lens in your jacket pocket.

Eelco Amsterdam · 01-08-2007

M6 TTL 50 mm 2.8 Elmar (new model) Fujifilm NPS

F1000025.jpg

M7 50 mm 1.4 Summilux ASPH Kodak 400 VC

F1000012.jpg

visiondr · 01-08-2007

I used to own a 50 mm summicron and sold it when a new version Elmar-m showed up for sale here. I haven't looked back. I too love the small size. At first I wondered about the robustness of the construction of a collapsable lens. But, with time I've determined to my satisfaction that it's a very tough little lens. It's also a great performer. See the attached photo taken on a recent trip to Florence.

Ron

Rico · 01-08-2007

I have a Domke F-6 with default 2x2 insert: each pocket can hold an SLR prime. A collapsed Elmar 50 can drop straight into one of those pockets - with M body attached! The size and weight of this combo is addicting, and perfect for daytime. My Elmar is the '60s version, which has long focus throw and the attendant broad DOF scale. It also has a throwback to olden times, the 15-blade diaphagm: this gives a really convincing circular aperture at all f-stops. The current Elmar has 6.

markinlondon · 01-09-2007

I bought the '57 model Elmar about a year ago and it has hardly been off my camera ever since. I also have a current 50 Summicron and briefly had a Nokton. I'm sort of regretting selling the Nokton now. In bad weather I carry my M2 and elmar around in a Lowepro accessory pocket.

BudGreen · 01-09-2007

The 50mm Elmar was the first lens was the first lens I bought for my M7. I have since obtained a 50mm Summilux and Noctilux for when I need the speed or shallow DOF, but I still love the Elmar for its unique character and compactness.

It's hard to evaluate a lens based on scanned negatives, but here are a few from my gallery that I think show some of the character of this lens.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/phot...47&ppuser=4724
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/phot...78&ppuser=4724
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/phot...15&ppuser=4724
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/phot...51&ppuser=4724

Flyfisher Tom · 01-09-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rico

It also has a throwback to olden times, the 15-blade diaphagm: this gives a really convincing circular aperture at all f-stops. The current Elmar has 6.

The current Elmar-M has one of the loveliest bokehs out there with its 6 blades. Note that the 40/1.4 nokton has 10 (if I recall).

Guess whether the number of blades has an effect on bokeh or not

My personal opinion is that the number of blades to bokeh relationship is largely urban legend

visiondr · 01-09-2007

Tom, I think the reason the Elmar has such OOF areas is that the 6 bladed diaphragm is nearly circular up to f/4.5 or so (after all, it starts at f/2.8), at smaller apertures beyond that, you aint gittin much bokeh anyway.

Ron

FrankS · 01-09-2007

Here's an 50's 50 Elmar f2.8 image I jsut scanned.

Ronald M · 01-09-2007

New 50 2.8 is like the new lenses, all very sharp. Mine is growing on me everytime I use it.

The new 50 1.4 is like carrying a horseshoe around, nice if you find a horse or need to build muscle. Seriously it is like 5 Elmars.

Go for the `Lux only if you will use 1.4.

visiondr · 01-09-2007

I agree. The extra 2 stops can be a photo-saver. Still, the Elmar makes a very fine carry everywhere optic.

Ron

Rico · 01-09-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flyfisher Tom

The current Elmar-M has one of the loveliest bokehs out there with its 6 blades. Note that the 40/1.4 nokton has 10 (if I recall).

Guess whether the number of blades has an effect on bokeh or not

My personal opinion is that the number of blades to bokeh relationship is largely urban legend

Based on pictures posted on RFF, the current Elmar 50 has a most agreeable rendition, with the modern contrast of multicoating. I would be pleased to use one.

I consider bokeh to include both the optical rendering and the aperture shape, but that's just my definition of the term. I find a polygonal shape at smaller apertures to be quite ugly. On my SLR lenses with spring-loaded auto diaphragm, the lack of blades can be justified: on manual-diaphragm RF lenses, the practice smacks of cost-cutting. In the absence of point-sources and selective focussing, the issue is moot, of course.

Flyfisher Tom · 01-10-2007

Rico,

I agree, all things being equal, I too prefer round shapes to polygonal shapes in light point sources. I think a pleasing bokeh may be one of those things that is dependent on many factors, some we may never fully fathom. That's what makes it fun

cheers