Steve Bellayr
Veteran
Anyone have any comments on the last 50mm elmar-m collapsible as compared to the 50mm summicron?
WoolenMammoth
Well-known
love the lens to death. If I had to chose between the two I would chose the cron only and only only because of the extra stop. Its not the best lens for female portraits, but its just shockingly amazing. Totally odd that nobody really talks about it.
Steve Bellayr
Veteran
You pose another thread, however, lets continue. Why is the 'cron not the best for female portraits? I speculate that it is too sharp? If so, what lens do you use or recommend?
Avotius
Some guy
The modern summicron and the zeiss planar are so sharp it can be rather unflattering in all the details it shows off. I would suggest a Leica 50 summilux, the pre asph one, that while sharp, has a different character that one would not consider unflattering.
WoolenMammoth
Well-known
sorry if I wasnt clear. The cron is my go to lens for portraits. The Elmar is not particularly flattering for portraits because of its look. Its super high contrast and has a pretty steep edge to it. Ive shot a lot of portraits with that lens and it winds up bringing out lines in skin more than any other Ive used. This is the only scenario where the elmar kinda works against you. That and where you need an f2...
Rico
Well-known
The classic Elmar 50 is better for portraits.
richard_l
Well-known
My favorite Leica rig is the Elmar-M with either the M2 or M6. I have the latest Summicron 50mm, but I only use it if I anticipate needing f/2, which is seldom. The Elmar images are certainly crisp, but to me the contrast seems natural, not exaggerated. It is a bit more contrasty and less prone to flare than the Summicron.
However, if you prefer what some consider to be the 'classic' look: poor contrast, faded, hazy images, the new Elmar may be a bitter disappointment.
This is not particularly important
, but I believe the chrome Elmar-M on a chrome M camera to be absolutely gorgeous.
Last edited:
pfoto
Well-known
I had two current Summicrons and two current Elmar-Ms. The Summicrons can be sharper and they are cooler in color rendition than the Elmars. The Elmars have good sharpness out to the edges. Now I use a pre-ASPH Summilux 50.
ian_w
Member
I can't say more than I've said before on the elmar-M being my choice of the two. I owned the latest summicron and the elmar-M concurrently for a year and sold the summicron without much dismay. I prefer the rendering of the elmar-M, but will say that sometimes f:2 is necessary to get a shot. It's easy for us to say one is better than the other, but in the end it comes down to personal choice. Mine was the elmar-M for the grittier rendering and the was it blurs the background. There's a thickness to the outline that is appealing - and absent from the summicron - Thomas' shot above shows much of this.
Ian
Ian
Last edited:
Kristopher
Established
Hi,
I am a really big fan of the Elmar, the modern one. Actually, for B&W i think that Tessar type lenses are simply the best ones, that is, 4 elements in 3 groups. It is why the contrast is good and the flare is well controled.
Actually, tessar desings are not that sharp especially wide open. However, they give an impression of sharpness because of the way they render small details. Small details look more harsh than big structures. Also, they tend to give a lower contrast on out-of focus areas compared to the in-focus subject. This is true of the Elmar, but even more true about Zeiss Tessar.
Be aware that the distorsion is we controled, but not as fully as a double-gauss design, especially in the corners. I found that it is true in some situations, and not in others.
I am personnaly very fond of these designs, and I believe that modern (even if the Elmar was recalculated) are mainly corrected for color work, thats why I am not a fan of them. This is not simply about coatings, this is about the design as a whole.
This being said, I love the Elmar and I can't see the point of having another normal lens for 90% of the time I use it. However, I still prefer the rendering of the old single coated Tessar of my Rolleiflex.
If Zeiss was to produce a Tessar (preferably 3.5) and single coated, in its «c» series of ZM lenses, I would be the first one to buy one.
Kris
I am a really big fan of the Elmar, the modern one. Actually, for B&W i think that Tessar type lenses are simply the best ones, that is, 4 elements in 3 groups. It is why the contrast is good and the flare is well controled.
Actually, tessar desings are not that sharp especially wide open. However, they give an impression of sharpness because of the way they render small details. Small details look more harsh than big structures. Also, they tend to give a lower contrast on out-of focus areas compared to the in-focus subject. This is true of the Elmar, but even more true about Zeiss Tessar.
Be aware that the distorsion is we controled, but not as fully as a double-gauss design, especially in the corners. I found that it is true in some situations, and not in others.
I am personnaly very fond of these designs, and I believe that modern (even if the Elmar was recalculated) are mainly corrected for color work, thats why I am not a fan of them. This is not simply about coatings, this is about the design as a whole.
This being said, I love the Elmar and I can't see the point of having another normal lens for 90% of the time I use it. However, I still prefer the rendering of the old single coated Tessar of my Rolleiflex.
If Zeiss was to produce a Tessar (preferably 3.5) and single coated, in its «c» series of ZM lenses, I would be the first one to buy one.
Kris
WoolenMammoth
Well-known
Kristopher
Established
Well, I emailed Zeiss a couple months ago pleading for a Tessar. They answer was that they cannot divulgate their futures plans... Kind of a fuzzy answer. I am not sure if they would go for it or not, but I can only imagine the results of Kodachrome slide shooted at f/8 with this lovely lens.
By the way, I am not one of those who belive that stopped down lenses are all looking the same, actually, I think we put too much emphasis on bokeh and wide open performance.
I won't start a criticism of the «bokeh culture», but I must say that I find it quite annoying.
WoolenMammoth
Well-known
the real magic of this lens is totally stopped down. Its totally somewhat surprising that this is seldom mentioned. I get the feeling that people tend to lump all lenses stopped down kinda together, but this lens stopped down has the craziest 3-d effect that none of my other lenses seem to do.
ian_w
Member
WoolenMammoth...
WoolenMammoth...
Care to elaborate on that comment? How do mean "this lens stopped down has the craziest 3-d effect that none of my other lenses seem to do."?
I shoot the lens, but not often at f16.
Ian
WoolenMammoth...
Care to elaborate on that comment? How do mean "this lens stopped down has the craziest 3-d effect that none of my other lenses seem to do."?
I shoot the lens, but not often at f16.
Ian
raid
Dad Photographer
I have recently discovered the beauty of Tessar lenses after not using such lenses in the past. I got a 5cm/2.8 LTM Tessar that originally was an M42 lens but later was adapted to LTM. Then I bought a Tessar 5cm/2.8 made for the Contax I. The prior lens is sharper.
richard_l
Well-known
I thought that one of the selling points of the new Elmar is its extremely low (essentially zero) distortion over the entire field of view, which makes it a very good architectural lens. I don't think this is generally true of other Tessar-type designs.
the_jim
human
I just got a Rolleiflex T with a 75mm Tessar and was amazed at how 3-D it looks when stopped down. I am sure that the same must be true of the Elmar.
I also like to use the Nikon 45mm f/2.8P, which is a Tessar copy; it is very very good and costs much less than the Leica lens and when mounted on a small nikon body, makes for a very compact package.
Here is a shot (while not particularly impressive) that I think indicates this weird 3-D effect at f/16 on the Rolleiflex T:
I also like to use the Nikon 45mm f/2.8P, which is a Tessar copy; it is very very good and costs much less than the Leica lens and when mounted on a small nikon body, makes for a very compact package.
Here is a shot (while not particularly impressive) that I think indicates this weird 3-D effect at f/16 on the Rolleiflex T:
richard_l
Well-known
What are we supposed to look for in order to see the weird 3-D effect?
the_jim
human
Good call. This is completely subjective, but to my eye, the separation between the subject and background has a certain *pop* and then the lines on the apartment buildings also have a weight to their definition that seems tangible.
This gives me a certain feeling of space and depth that I don't always find in other lenses. Again, it's not a great picture and i don't really enjoy trying to give merit to my own images, but on my monitor the sense of 3-D-ness seems there. Whether you see that or not, is again, totally subjective.
monster
Established
I sold elmar-M for 3 months ago.
too bad :-(
i want it back.
too bad :-(
i want it back.