50mm - Collapsable Summicron vs. Elmar-M (Silver)?

jsrockit

jsrockit

Moderator
Staff member
Local time
5:32 PM
Joined
Nov 5, 2009
Messages
22,662
Looking at both of these lenses as a compact 50mm for my M3. What are the charectoristics of each lens and what would be the overall more versatile choice (outside of f/2.8 on the elmar)?
 
If by Elmar-M you mean the modern, recently discontinued Elmar, it is a modern lens w/a modern look (higher contrast, more flare-resistant, sharper wide-open, etc.) when compared w/the collapsible Summicron, which is from the '50s. That said, f/2.8 cannot substitute for f/2 if you need it.

jsrockit said:
Looking at both of these lenses as a compact 50mm for my M3. What are the charectoristics of each lens and what would be the overall more versatile choice (outside of f/2.8 on the elmar)?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
The older Elmar has more color and contrast that the collapsible Summicron.

I would take a Elmar any day. The recently discontinued Elmar is a thoroughly modern lens.

The older elmar is very much the clone of the DR/Rigid lenses which many love. Just missing the 2.0 which is not that great, trust me.

If you want a decent 2.0, get a 1969 version Summicron or the newest one. The coll cron at 2.0 is not that great, low contrast and resolution. Falls in barely useable. Around 4 it gets good, but so does the elmar.

The f scale rotates as the older Elmar is focused.
 
I have owned two copies of the collapsible Summicron, one Elmar ca. 1965, and the recently discontinued Elmar-M. My favorite by far is the Elmar-M, but I think your preference will depend on where you fall in the vintage v. modern spectrum.

Of the three, I liked the coll. Summicron the least. As I said, I tried two copies, and they were both too soft and flat for my taste. I also found the bokeh, which I usually don't pay much attention to, distracting.

The mid-60s Elmar strikes a good compromise between vintage and modern. I would have kept that lens if not for the fact that the aperture ring turns with the focus ring, so it's never quite where you expect it; you also have to be careful not to lose focus if you are changing aperture mid-shoot. This issue is not as bad as it sounds and can be worked around if you really like this lens. Value-wise, this lens is tops.

The Elmar-M is one of my favorite lenses, and one I find difficult to describe. It is sharp and contrasty, and seems to produce blacker blacks than any other lens I own. Note that with its dedicated hood it is bulkier than the other Leica collapsibles, but that doesn't really bother me. I mostly leave the lens extended unless I'm storing it for a long period.
 
I was looking at the early Elmar-M in silver (like the way it looks, like the results I've seen, relatively inexpensive)... but I wasn't aware that the aperture ring moved with the focus. Do the apertures at least have click stops? In the past I used a summar and that was annoying and slow to use. So, if I want a collapsable, the Elmar looks like the one to get.
 
jsrockit said:
I was looking at the early Elmar-M in silver (like the way it looks, like the results I've seen, relatively inexpensive)... but I wasn't aware that the aperture ring moved with the focus. Do the apertures at least have click stops? In the past I used a summar and that was annoying and slow to use. So, if I want a collapsable, the Elmar looks like the one to get.
Click to expand...

Yes, it has click stops. You eventually get the hang of using one finger to stop the barrel from rotating while you use another finger to change aperture settings. But the lens works much better in "set-it-and-forget-it" mode, IMO.

Also, which is a nice touch, the aperture scale appears on both sides of the lens, so you can see the settings at both near and close focus. (As opposed to some other 1950s/60s collapsibles I've seen, that have the scale only on one side, so you have to turn the camera upside down to see the settings if focus has rotated the aperture markings out of view.) This is particularly helpful because the classic Elmar 50/2.8 has a pretty long focus throw from 1m to infinity, by modern standards. (I don't know how the modern Elmar-M compares in this regard.)

::Ari
 
I have elmar and focus ring moves a lot with the aperture ring. I always thought my lens has an issue. So is that normal? It may need oil then to stop moves that much?

I am truly happy with elmar. It is so compact and it has such a nice signature, hard to describe. I recently developed a roll from elmar and I was amazed by the results. Such a high resolving power I can see small details kms away!
 
I go counter-stream here: you will hardly see any difference at f2.8, for, say, 10x14, except for the Elmar being more flare resistant. It is very important though for either lens that you get a copy as clean as possible (watch for haze, cleaning marks are less important).

I were you, I would purchase based on size / condition / price. Also the classic Elmar can not be collapsed into some bodies such as the Bessa R*, while the Summicron can.

The DR or rigid Summicron is another story. Best pre-60 Leice 50, IMO.

Roland.
 
kermaier said:
Yes, it has click stops. You eventually get the hang of using one finger to stop the barrel from rotating while you use another finger to change aperture settings. But the lens works much better in "set-it-and-forget-it" mode, IMO.i
Click to expand...

Agree. The workaround for me was to be more conscious of the aperture I wanted to use, then set it before I began focusing and composing.

To the OP, do have a look on flickr for images taken with the coll. Summicron. Ronald is correct, at f2, it's very soft and you may not like it. Or then again, maybe you will. Unless prices have gone up, the Elmar is usually cheaper than the coll. Summicron.
 
While I would not go so far as "barely useable," it was soft enough--in my experience--that I avoided f2 on both copies of the coll. Summicron I owned. So in effect, "barely useable" turns out to be not far off--again, for me.
 
I didn't think the collapsible Summicron I had (now with another RFF member) was soft at all in the center and wide open. Some resolution fall off to the corners though, typical of lenses back then. Very similar to the classic Elmar.

The DR/rigid was the first computer-aided Mandler design. Quite different in finger print, and very high center resolution wide open.

Roland.
 
Last edited:
ferider said:
I didn't think the collapsible Summicron I had (now with another RFF member) was soft at all in the center and wide open. Some resolution fall off to the corners though, typical of lenses back then. Very similar to the classic Elmar.

The DR/rigid was the first computer-aided Mandler design. Quite different in finger print, and very high center resolution wide open.

Roland.
Click to expand...

I agree with that - and I owned that same lens!

I think people might be extrapolating from their own lens, with cleaning marks of whatever. Wide open, you get a slightly more 50s style look, but eminently useable; at f/5.6 it's very crisp.

I own a book of John Hedgecoe photos of Henry Moore, on which I think he used that same lens. They are superb.

I did own the modern Elmar M as well, I found it a good lens, but actually preferred the classic look of the SUmmicron; the modern Elmar now seems very overpriced to me compared to a Collapsible Cron.
 
Good points all, and no arguments from me if you own copies of the coll. Summicron with which you are happy. It just didn't work out for me.

I'll add in re: the two coll. Summicrons I owned: both were scratch-free, and both were CLA'd (the second one by Sherry Krauter), so they were in very good condition. The softness wide open was still not to my taste.

Re: prices: my second collapsible Summicron cost about $375, including the CLA. My modern Elmar-M cost $500. Although an overambitious seller will try to get up to $700 for the Elmar-M, that doesn't mean that's what you should pay.
 
The collapsible Summicron underwent one major change in its optics, and some minor tweeking. The best that I've owned are SN13xxxx and later. the earlier lenses were not quite as sharp. The Type I Rigids (and DR, same optics) are a bit sharper.
 
Last edited:
I have to wonder if some of the folks describing their experiences with the coll. cron remembered to extend the lens ... I forgot once, with a FSU I22 and got all "soft" images.

They are an old lens, and pre '53 or so, they may have Thorium elements in the front.

Mine was bought as "excellent" here on RFF, but as usual, it needed a full rebuild and CLA. Now it takes photos as well as any Summicron I've ever seen.

Examples here are wide open, no hood.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom