John7617
Newbie
I have been reading various threads regarding the pros and cons of each of these lenses, but I would like to hear from some of you who actually own both lenses.
I currently use a summicron 50 mm f/2 on my MP and I'm considering the purchase of a new Elmar 50 mm f/2.8 due to the portability of this lens. I know the size of the Elmar with the hood is not greatly different from the 35mm, but several people have suggested the Elmar f/2.8 can be used without the hood, with little or no flare. That would make it small enough for a coat pocket.
So my question to those who own both lenses is whether or not the different characteristics of each lens justifies owning both lenses, one for portability and one for the extra stop in lower light. For those who own both, does lens one sit in the closet or do you actually use both? Does the lesser contrast of the Elmar produce images equally pleasing (but in a different way) as the summicron?
I currently use a summicron 50 mm f/2 on my MP and I'm considering the purchase of a new Elmar 50 mm f/2.8 due to the portability of this lens. I know the size of the Elmar with the hood is not greatly different from the 35mm, but several people have suggested the Elmar f/2.8 can be used without the hood, with little or no flare. That would make it small enough for a coat pocket.
So my question to those who own both lenses is whether or not the different characteristics of each lens justifies owning both lenses, one for portability and one for the extra stop in lower light. For those who own both, does lens one sit in the closet or do you actually use both? Does the lesser contrast of the Elmar produce images equally pleasing (but in a different way) as the summicron?
payasam
a.k.a. Mukul Dube
Are you sure that the current Elmar has less contrast than the Summicron?
markinlondon
Elmar user
I own a tabbed Summicron and a 1965 Elmar. They are both great lenses but the Elmar gets more use due to the neat package it makes with an M body.
Summicron at f4
Elmar at f4
A different look but as to which is better, I haven't worked that out yet. the Elmar does not lack contrast. The new model is even snappier.
Summicron at f4
Elmar at f4
A different look but as to which is better, I haven't worked that out yet. the Elmar does not lack contrast. The new model is even snappier.
J J Kapsberger
Well-known
Erwin Puts briefly compares the current versions of the two lenses in his Compendium. He notes that at f/5.6 the two lenses are similar. At f/2.8, the current Elmar has the same fingerprint as the current Summicron at f/2.0, "be it with slightly less overall contrast."
I now own both lenses, having received my Elmar (current) just yesterday. A week ago I shot a roll of Velvia or Provia (I've forgotten which) using a c.1960 Elmar f/2.8. It's an absolutely beautiful lens--tack sharp with really nice bokeh. If the Summicron is sharper (and I have no reason to doubt that) I imagine the difference will only be realized with very careful technique.
I now own both lenses, having received my Elmar (current) just yesterday. A week ago I shot a roll of Velvia or Provia (I've forgotten which) using a c.1960 Elmar f/2.8. It's an absolutely beautiful lens--tack sharp with really nice bokeh. If the Summicron is sharper (and I have no reason to doubt that) I imagine the difference will only be realized with very careful technique.
sepiareverb
genius and moron
I've got the current Summicron and the current Elmar. The Summicron is my main lens- I shoot with it about 75% of the time these days. The Elmar is on an M6 that I carry around when I'm not actively out 'shooting'- on trips to the grocery store, etc. I like that it can be such a compact thing. Optically I see little if any difference between the two at 810, but I've not yet printed anything larger from the Elmar to give a fuller comparison. Note that I favor the light from behind or to the side and rarely shoot into the sun, so flare isn't really an issue for me- some images on recent rolls shot with the 35/2 ASPH and the 50 Summicron both showed tremendous flare when shooting into the sun. In one case I like the look on the negative, the other I don't. Will get proofs done next week and see how they look in positive. Some folks have commented on the Elmar and low flare, so keep this in mind if that flarey light is your usual stuff.
If you're printing 810 or even 1114 I don't think there would be much difference in print quality that you'd see between these two lenses. In larger prints my bet would be on the Summicron as the better performer, but again I've not yet tested this, and at those smaller sizes the Elmar is absolutely top notch.
It was reading the Putts review of the Elmar (see JJK's post above) that got me interested in this lens, mainly for the compact size keeping my day to day camera that much more portable- without sacrificing the quality neg of the 50/2. Note that the included hood does bring this up to nearly the same size as the Summicron, it is smaller, but not much. That smaller size does allow the camera/lens to get in and out of my small Domke much more easily than the 50/2 or the 35/2 with that 'sticky' rubber hood cap.
If you're printing 810 or even 1114 I don't think there would be much difference in print quality that you'd see between these two lenses. In larger prints my bet would be on the Summicron as the better performer, but again I've not yet tested this, and at those smaller sizes the Elmar is absolutely top notch.
It was reading the Putts review of the Elmar (see JJK's post above) that got me interested in this lens, mainly for the compact size keeping my day to day camera that much more portable- without sacrificing the quality neg of the 50/2. Note that the included hood does bring this up to nearly the same size as the Summicron, it is smaller, but not much. That smaller size does allow the camera/lens to get in and out of my small Domke much more easily than the 50/2 or the 35/2 with that 'sticky' rubber hood cap.
richard_l
Well-known
I have both. The Elmar is not less contrasty than the Summicron.John7617 said:
Richard
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
JNewell
Leica M Recidivist
Did all of the same, for all of the same reasons...
waileong
Well-known
Summicron isn't really a low light lens. Elmar isn't really compact. YMMV, but with only one stop difference, I don't see why I'd want both lenses.
My low light combi would be a 50/1.4 asph, and it works great even in broad daylight. If I want a different signature, I might take a 60's Elmar for daylight.
My low light combi would be a 50/1.4 asph, and it works great even in broad daylight. If I want a different signature, I might take a 60's Elmar for daylight.
Last edited:
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
raid
Dad Photographer
Magus,
This statement leads me to consider a super lens match-up!
1. Summilux ASPH
2. ZM Planar
3. Summicron
4. Fred's latest lens: 60/1.2
What da ya think?
Raid
This statement leads me to consider a super lens match-up!
1. Summilux ASPH
2. ZM Planar
3. Summicron
4. Fred's latest lens: 60/1.2
What da ya think?
Raid
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
raid
Dad Photographer
Dear Magus,
Next, I would need these lenses!It is easier said than done. There are "people" here who cannot and will not separate from their lenses ... [hint]
I am get soon the Pentax 43mm lens for a try out!
Raid
Next, I would need these lenses!It is easier said than done. There are "people" here who cannot and will not separate from their lenses ... [hint]
I am get soon the Pentax 43mm lens for a try out!
Raid
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
palec
Well-known
I don't have Summicron (only 40mm), but Elmar-M 2.8 - the older type with 15 blades. From the photos I've seen and compared with mine, the Elmar has it's own very unique look. Personally I like results on bw film more than colour ones. Still it's lens for daylight, wide-open is not as sharp as Summicron.