How good is Elmar 50mm f2.8 (old) ?

[pb908]

I am looking for a nice collapsible 50mm leica for my "just CLAed by my self" Leica M2 to make my "travelling leica" package, and lucky that a friend of mine (in another island) have 50mm Elmar M f2.8 , the old one (196x), which is in nice condition and will be sold at acceptable price. bad thing is I can only test it untill I buy it !

googling here and there, what makes me interest are :
- 15 blades !!! circular shape aperture !! if you have some picture from this lens, please share
- smaller compare to a collapsible cron
- collapsible! will be a small package!

but searching the web is harder as most attemps ended with the new 199x elmar M.

so any idea how this lens will perform ? is this lens have the "popular" soft front coating element like the old leica lens have?
how about bokeh, sharpness and contrast ?
thanks for any information !

 

[jbielikowski]

Check this thread, then this and you'll love it. Coating look modern and hold well after 50 years.

 

[nobbylon]

make sure by looking with a strong magnifier and torch that there is no oil residue on the inside of the lens elements. This residue etches the glass and renders it into a soft focus dreamy look lens.
Front coatings are ok and on all the ones i've had seem to be harder than summicrons of similar vintage.
It's a sharp lens and bokeh is very nice, some pics here,
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nobbylon/sets/72157603840925267/

 

[roundg]

I have three of these lens. Two M mount and one LTM. They are excellent lens, very capable for either BW or Color.

Haze is a quite common problem for this old lens. Make sure you check the internal element of the front elements.

 

[Rob-F]

At the time this lens was designed, f/2.8 was a bit of a stretch for a triplet. Before the 2.8 Elmar, triplets were generally limited to f/3.5. It wasn't until the most recent version that they were able to get really good wide-open performance. But by stopping it down just a little, even the early 2.8 Elmar becomes a really good lens. I have one, and do not hesitate to use it for normal daylight photography at f/5.6. Even at f/4 it is already sharp in the central area. When I need f/2.8, I will reach for a Summicron or Summilux, as they are more highly corrected at these apertures.

 

[varjag]

The 2.8 Elmar is not a Cooke triplet. It's a 4-lens Tessar knock-off.

I tested the two versions side by side, there's not much practical difference.

 

[peterm1]

The 2.8 Elmar is not a Cooke triplet. It's a 4-lens Tessar knock-off.

I tested the two versions side by side, there's not much practical difference.

Yep true but in one sense so is the other post. Tessars are modified triplets with one element split into two to make a total of 4 elements.

 

[David Hughes]

Anyway, they're decent lenses and just right for the M2.

Regards, David

 

[kermaier]

It's a really good lens. A bit less sharp and contrasty than the newest version, and more prone to flare (also known as "Leica glow"), but it's almost modern in its performance.

A few ergonomic notes:
1. The focus throw from 1m to infinity is much longer than the newest version.
2. The aperture ring rotates with the lens barrel as you focus, which means that it's difficult to change aperture without moving the focus. (On the newest version, the aperture does not rotate with the focus mount.)
3. The front lens element is very close to the front rim of the lens, so you really must use a lens shade to guard against flare and also to protect the glass from accidental knocks, fingerprints, etc. As a minimalist solution, the hood made for the latest version fits perfectly on the vintage lens and allows you to put a cap on top of the hood.

(BTW, I have both versions, and I'm not letting go of either! 🙂 )

Enjoy,
Ari

 

[Tom A]

I have been using my M 50f2.8 v1 quite extensively in the last couple of weeks ( part of a Back to Basics" project - M2's, TriX and D76). If you go to our Flickr and tag "Leica Elmar 50mm f2.8 v1" there are plenty of samples with it. It has lower contrast than the newer v2 - but it is quite sharp. Good at close focussing too.
As stated, you need a hood and considering how close the front element is to "reality" maybe even a filter (UV) to keep it intact.
The "rotating" aperture ring can be a bit irritating - but you get used to it. Also check that the "lock" for using it fully extended is strong enough to hold it in place when you rotate the aperture ring. The aperture ring on the 50f2.8 v1 can be a bit stiff (there are a lot of blades to move) and it is easy to push the lens off the "lock" position.
It is truly a compact kit with the M2 and the lens collapsed. It will slide into a pocket of a jacket with no problems. Try to find a selection of 39 mm filters (the old color conversion ones are cheap) - remove the glass in them and stack them (keep the UV filter in place) and screw 3-4 of the filter rings on to it. Truly compact hood too. Or, try to find a hood for the v2 Elmar and use that. The "flared" hoods are too big and defeats the purpose of having a compact lens to start with.

 

[raid]

I have the older style 50/2.8, and I love it. It is plenty sharp.

 

[kermaier]

Or, try to find a hood for the v2 Elmar and use that. The "flared" hoods are too big and defeats the purpose of having a compact lens to start with.

Yes, the nice thing about the v2 hood is that it screws in and you put the normal cap on it. It doesn't add too much to the length of the lens collapsed, and it gives you a convenient handle to grasp when you're extending the lens for use.

The other "correct" vintage option is the ITOOY hood, which does not flare outward like the IROOA, and offers much more shade than the v2 hood. Drawbacks of the ITOOY are:
1. Very expensive and hard to find.
2. Must be removed to collapse the lens (though it can be reversed on the lens if you leave it extended, with a special hood cap).
3. Its rear edge comes very close to the aperture ring, which makes it a bit more fiddly to adjust with the hood mounted.

::Ari

 

[kermaier]

BTW, here's a sample from my 50/2.8 Elmar (1960s version, dual-scale, M-mount):

Shot at about f/5.6 on an R-D1s at ISO 200

 

[kermaier]

And one more, also on the R-D1s:

You can see the "Leica glow" in the way the flower is rendered.

 

[rogerzilla]

Bokeh is very good. Do consider a late screwmount Elmar; it's half a stop slower but even smaller, with amazing IQ for its simplicity. The f/2.8 does have a less annoying aperture control though.

This is a red scale Elmar 50/3.5 at f/16 and 1/100, not exactly the optimum settings for sharpness, but iut brings home the bacon:

 

[varjag]

Yep true but in one sense so is the other post. Tessars are modified triplets with one element split into two to make a total of 4 elements.

True, they are in the triplet family, but so are e.g. Sonnar designs: noone would refer them as triplets though.

 

[taskoni]

This is the only M-mount lens I owe. Often I think to get a faster one, but I love the way the Elmar renders and it's sharp enough for me. Looks absolutely beautiful on my M2. Here's a snap of my neighbor's daughter...

 

[Tom A]

The M-mount 50f3.5 is in my opinion a better lens than the v1 50f2.8. It is a bit more difficult to find though as it was a rather short run lens (around 10 000). It has the same rotating aperture ring as the 50f2.8 v1 - but it is better than the LTM version where changing aperture is a bit of a pain. The 50f3.5 or, as in the OP case the 50f2.8 is a great match for a M2. Small, sharp enough and as it is on a M - you can handhold it at really slow speeds - which reduces the need for a faster and bigger lens.

 

[ItsReallyDarren]

Aside from the speed, how different was the Elmar 50/2.8 (V1) to the 50/3.5? To the best of my knowledge they shared a similar 4 element/3 group design. Most of what I've picked up here and there was the 50/2.8 design was stretched from the 50/3.5 to get a little more speed.

The M-mount 50f3.5 is in my opinion a better lens than the v1 50f2.8. It is a bit more difficult to find though as it was a rather short run lens (around 10 000). It has the same rotating aperture ring as the 50f2.8 v1 - but it is better than the LTM version where changing aperture is a bit of a pain. The 50f3.5 or, as in the OP case the 50f2.8 is a great match for a M2. Small, sharp enough and as it is on a M - you can handhold it at really slow speeds - which reduces the need for a faster and bigger lens.

 

[Tom A]

I suspect that they just "opened" up the f3.5 to f2.8 and possibly lost a bit of the "edge' wide-open. i dont find that is bothers me (I have both) - both are good lenses and remarkably compact.