msbarnes
Well-known
I'm thinking about picking up this lens, any thoughts on..
1. Image quality/contrast/etc.
2. Ease of use on Leicaflex SL or SL2. I just have the SL but I wouldn't mind so much picking up an SL2 (which has split-image).
I normally use rangefinders but lately I've been into SLR's. I've been using my Leicaflex SL with 50/2 and 60/2.8. I've been thinking about the 35/2.8 but I fear that focusing might be too difficult.
1. Image quality/contrast/etc.
2. Ease of use on Leicaflex SL or SL2. I just have the SL but I wouldn't mind so much picking up an SL2 (which has split-image).
I normally use rangefinders but lately I've been into SLR's. I've been using my Leicaflex SL with 50/2 and 60/2.8. I've been thinking about the 35/2.8 but I fear that focusing might be too difficult.
Dirk
Privatier
There are two versions. The better, newer one has the 55mm filter diameter (E55).
I believe it only comes in a 3-cam version, which will work fine on the SL and SL2. I see no reason why focusing the Elmarit should be difficult, especially on the SL or SL2, which have exceptionally bright and easy to focus viewfinders. Buy without concern.
I believe it only comes in a 3-cam version, which will work fine on the SL and SL2. I see no reason why focusing the Elmarit should be difficult, especially on the SL or SL2, which have exceptionally bright and easy to focus viewfinders. Buy without concern.
oltimer
Well-known
I personally own the 1st version of this R lens, and even by outside sources it is optically the better lens. It was designed by the famous Leica lens designer Rudolf Ruehl.
allphotolenses.com/lenses/item/c_2663.html
allphotolenses.com/lenses/item/c_2663.html
Shac
Well-known
There were actually 3 body versions and 2 optical versions. The second version had a very similar body to the first and started at S/N 2157XXX. It like the first took series VII filters and had a separate hood. Optically it was the same as the 3rd (the one with the 55 filter thread and built-in hood.
The 2nd and 3rd are very good and some feel they best the summicron-R. As to whether they are better than the 1st - obviously there is some differences of opinion on the web
This might help
http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/index.php/R_Lenses_x_Focal_Length
As to the OP's Q's -
1) IQ is excellent
2) Should work fine on all Leicaflexs
hope this helps
The 2nd and 3rd are very good and some feel they best the summicron-R. As to whether they are better than the 1st - obviously there is some differences of opinion on the web
This might help
http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/index.php/R_Lenses_x_Focal_Length
As to the OP's Q's -
1) IQ is excellent
2) Should work fine on all Leicaflexs
hope this helps
dreamsandart
Well-known
My first 35 Elmarit-R was the second version bought new with a SL2. Sold and many years later I bought a Leicaflex that came with a 1st version. Can’t compare them side by side as I didn’t have them at the same time, but my thoughts on these two lenses…
No problem focusing either with the great finders in a SL/SL2. The 1st version was the original ‘wide’ for the Leicaflex system and Leica was just getting their feet under them with the SLR mirror clearance design. Its still a good lens, ‘old-school’ a couple stops from wide open for best image quality, but has a nice ‘classic image look’ and is very well built, like the Leicaflex/SL body made like a ‘tank.’ The 2nd version has a more effective squared hood, better coatings, and is better all around new optical glass formula. Again mount very well made.
Personally I’d be happy with either; the 1st being very ‘classic’ (we all don’t need a modern high contrast lens, especially with B&W), and the second more of an investment cost wise and better corrected opened up (by f5.6 they are probably about equal).
BTW: The SL is the best SLR Leica ever made, much preferred over an SL2 I feel, the full micro-prism SL being better is only part of it (can’t help but think of the the split-image as a fad of the times, for me less accurate and harder to focus).
No problem focusing either with the great finders in a SL/SL2. The 1st version was the original ‘wide’ for the Leicaflex system and Leica was just getting their feet under them with the SLR mirror clearance design. Its still a good lens, ‘old-school’ a couple stops from wide open for best image quality, but has a nice ‘classic image look’ and is very well built, like the Leicaflex/SL body made like a ‘tank.’ The 2nd version has a more effective squared hood, better coatings, and is better all around new optical glass formula. Again mount very well made.
Personally I’d be happy with either; the 1st being very ‘classic’ (we all don’t need a modern high contrast lens, especially with B&W), and the second more of an investment cost wise and better corrected opened up (by f5.6 they are probably about equal).
BTW: The SL is the best SLR Leica ever made, much preferred over an SL2 I feel, the full micro-prism SL being better is only part of it (can’t help but think of the the split-image as a fad of the times, for me less accurate and harder to focus).
oltimer
Well-known
Dreamsandart, I remember that period in time very well when the SL came out. I was one of many Leica owners during that time that had screw mounts only. There was very, very few M2 owners and for the same of the M3. This was a tough time to part out to get the newest item. The camera cost was low compared to getting the few lenses made for the SL.
mfogiel
Veteran
I bought the last version of this lens mainly for shooting wide open in the closer range - still have to develop the first rolls to get an idea how it performs. Close up it is supposed (according to Mr Puts) to be better than Summicrons.
dreamsandart
Well-known
The whole Leicaflex system was expensive back then
, but as was said, 'you got the body so you could put those wonderful Leica lenses on it leicapixie
Well-known
going off topic
going off topic
I would get a 28mm lens!
The dynamics, the more exaggerated perspective,the Dynamics,
make a great graphic tool.
The beauty of any SLR is the seeing!
I know the reason for 35, 50, 90.
Perfect for the M3 and M2.
The viewfinders of later m cameras are poor.
Squatter poor in comparison, of framing.
I own a M6TTL and one of each of the others..:angel:
Play with 28mm and see.
Harder to use than the 35, which has become so used, so ordinary.
I would not bother about front/back focus.
SLR no that easy to exact focus.TG!
Depth of field covers most..
The 1st, 35mm was considered stunning on introduction.
going off topic
I would get a 28mm lens!
The dynamics, the more exaggerated perspective,the Dynamics,
make a great graphic tool.
The beauty of any SLR is the seeing!
I know the reason for 35, 50, 90.
Perfect for the M3 and M2.
The viewfinders of later m cameras are poor.
Squatter poor in comparison, of framing.
I own a M6TTL and one of each of the others..:angel:
Play with 28mm and see.
Harder to use than the 35, which has become so used, so ordinary.
I would not bother about front/back focus.
SLR no that easy to exact focus.TG!
Depth of field covers most..
The 1st, 35mm was considered stunning on introduction.
dreamsandart
Well-known
Yes, generally faster lenses are not as good in the close range, but I wouldn't [in general] use a wide for close up unless I was going for some type of effect or only happen to have one lens with me and needed a close up. For the Leicaflex the 50 Summicron-R is really excellent in the close range, and ELPRO lenses make it easy to get closer still.
Although the original questions here were about the Elmarit and since the Summicron was mentioned, I have to admit, although it goes against conventional thought, its big and heavy, but I loved imagines from the 1st version of the 35 Summicron-R.