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

Well, I'd like to see more examples of images made by the lenses mentioned.

I have 5 Collapsible Summicrons. The two 13x's are better that the two Thorium Summicrons, and better than the SN115xxxx lens.

Also have a Type I and Type II Rigid 50/2 Summicrons, total of Seven 50/2 Summicrons. I just shimmed a 90/2 Summicron for the M8. It was off a bit on my cameras. Glad the optics module unscrews so easily.
 
The focus will move while adjusting the f-stop, so I tend to keep one finger on the lock/focus tab, also I find the hood obscures the Ap ring a bit. I have both the 2.8 and 3.5 M-Elmar and think the 3.5 is a cut above the 2.8.
 
rodt16s said:
The focus will move while adjusting the f-stop, so I tend to keep one finger on the lock/focus tab, also I find the hood obscures the Ap ring a bit. I have both the 2.8 and 3.5 M-Elmar and think the 3.5 is a cut above the 2.8.
Click to expand...

Yes, on the classic Elmar 50/2.8, the "correct" ITOOY clip-on hood sits a bit too close to the aperture ring for comfort.

While it is much shallower, and so doesn't provide as much shade, the screw-in 12549 hood made for the modern Elmar-M works well (and looks good) on the Elmar classic.

::Ari
 
Brian Sweeney said:
Well, I'd like to see more examples of images made by the lenses mentioned.

I have 5 Collapsible Summicrons. The two 13x's are better that the two Thorium Summicrons, and better than the SN115xxxx lens.

Also have a Type I and Type II Rigid 50/2 Summicrons, total of Seven 50/2 Summicrons. I just shimmed a 90/2 Summicron for the M8. It was off a bit on my cameras. Glad the optics module unscrews so easily.
Click to expand...

Hey Brian,

I'm away from my main computer, but I'll see what I can dig up in the next few days (also, it's been a while since I owned these lenses, and I'm not sure if I did a good job labeling my files). But let me emphasize that my assessments/opinions are based on real-world use of all these lenses.
 
Let me ask this to everyone first:

Name of first F2.8 "Elmar" is Elmar 50/2.8, recently discontinued latest (and maybe the last) offspring of 50mm Elmar family is Elmar-M 50/2.8, correct?

Changing aperture on Elmar 50/2.8 moves focus if you don't hold the barrel/tab.

Changing aperture on Elmar-M 50/2.8 DO NOT move focus.

I love my Elmar-M and will not part with it.

4371587266_362f320838_o.jpg
 
rodt16s said:
The focus will move while adjusting the f-stop, so I tend to keep one finger on the lock/focus tab, also I find the hood obscures the Ap ring a bit. I have both the 2.8 and 3.5 M-Elmar and think the 3.5 is a cut above the 2.8.
Click to expand...

Isn't the 50/3.5 Elmar a whole different animal regarding aperture setting? I thought that lens has a little aperture tab on the front face of the lens that you can't even reach with a hood mounted....
 
Added some 100% crops of the images taken at F2, above.

These are with the same lens at F4:

picture.php


100% crop:

picture.php


I cleaned the haze out of this lens myself, and it has near mint glass. Again, in my personal experience with 6 collapsible Summicrons, the three later copies with SN in the 13xxxx range have been better than the three early ones that I have.
 
Isn't the 50/3.5 Elmar a whole different animal regarding aperture setting? I thought that lens has a little aperture tab on the front face of the lens that you can't even reach with a hood mounted
Click to expand...
You can get both an M mount 2.8 and 3.5 Elmar, they have the apertures on a ring like a Summitar etc. Of the Two I believe the 3.5 is not so common.
For the record my 2.8 is 172**** and the 3.5 is 133****
 
kermaier said:
Isn't the 50/3.5 Elmar a whole different animal regarding aperture setting? I thought that lens has a little aperture tab on the front face of the lens that you can't even reach with a hood mounted....
Click to expand...

That's correct Ari, at least for the LTM versions of the Elmar 50/3.5. I've never seen an Elmar 50/3.5 in M-mount, so I don't know if Leica changed the way you set the aperture on THAT lens as Leica did w/ the version 1 Elmar 50/2.8. I think Tom A has a 50/3.5 in M-mount; my understanding is that this version of the Elmar is pretty rare.

The v.1 Elmar 50/2.8 was made in both LTM and M mounts (i've got one of the former); v. 2 (recently discontinued) is usually referred to as the Elmar-M 50/2.8.
 
I googled Elmar-M 50 and this five years old thread comes up.
Can't leave it without leaving comment here for those who will google the same as I did.

I have used for real world photography Summar, Summitar and collapsible Cron with film Leicas. None of the lenses I owned were in collector condition.
My pictures as printed scans or darkroom prints from all three old Leica 50/2 lenses were sharp enough at f2 for 8x10 and slightly larger prints.

But all three are gone now, this is why I googled Elmar-M 50 🙂

BTW, one of my close friends can't focus with Leicas precise enough. I'm looking at him every time he tries. No idea why it is so difficult for him, but I never give him camera with lens set to f4 and wider.
 
Choosing between the two is really hard, given that they are both in pristine condition. A pristine condition Summicron collapsible is hard to find. The Summicron collapsible was the favorite lens of Cartier-Bresson. It has a very strong and beautiful signature, but has also a propensity for flare.
The new Elmar-M 50mm f/2.8 is an extremely fine lens.

Erik.
 
I still have a pristine Collapsible Summicron in the 132xxxx range, and it is in no way "flarey" or "soft" wide open. Its rendition wide open is reminiscent of the Nikkor 50 f/1.8 AI that I had for many years. There is a little bit of spherical aberration giving some veiling, but it is still very sharp. By f/2.8, the veiling is gone, and by f/4 it is very, very sharp.
It works great for close ups with the IIIG and the ADVOO, or the IIIF (and earlier) with the SOOKY.

Mine was overhauled by DAG to get rid of internal haze. Perhaps those with bad optical performance are actually looking at the effects of haze in their lens?

I have recently obtained the last version Elmar M 50 2.8, so I don't have images yet to compare to.

Also, the last version 50 Summicron pre-ASPH which is a killer at all apertures. But by f/4, except for the higher contrast of the last Summicron, there doesn't seem to be much visible difference.
 
I have had three collapsible Summicrons and two later ones. For me, the best was any of the collapsibles. Wide open it gets called soft, but it really is not--the wider you work the more "glow" there is around details, but the core of sharpness remains. Another lens that does this nicely is the Voigtlander 28/1.9. This is much like how old portrait lenses worked, and it took me a while to appreciate that it wasn't just a lack of sharpness, but something else, better than raw detail. Maybe for color I'd like a modern lens, but all I shoot with Leicas is B&W film. When I want crisp detail at f/2, I reach for a Nikon SLR with the 50/1.4AI.

Collapsible Summicron below, Tri-X in D76. The possibilities of this lens wide open combined with doing a lot of 8x10 film recently and picking up a moderate dislike of grain, have me exploring TMax 400--a film I've never used. No results yet, though.



Patrik with Tecchler cello
by Michael Darnton, on Flickr
 
For clarity please only refer to 11823/11831 as "Elmar-M", this is the recent lens introduced in 1995.

Elmar 50mm f2.8 in M mount is ELMOM/11112 from 1957-1974.

Both excellent but very different animals.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

E
Summicron-M 50mm vs Summicron-R 50mm
Replies
2
Views
315
Godfrey
Godfrey
Roastchestnuts
Leica 50mm summicron collapsible
Replies
19
Views
2K
RS2
RS2
tortellini_man
first M mount film body
2 3
Replies
56
Views
5K
JohnGellings
J
K
50mm lens for the Leica CL (film)
Replies
13
Views
557
splitimageview
splitimageview
C
LTM Collapsible 50mm f/2 Summicron vs. 50mm f/2.5 Color-Skopar vs. 50mm f/1.5 Nokton?
Replies
17
Views
2K
shawn
S
Back
Top Bottom