50 2.8 collapsible

[ncd_photo]

Here's a couple more, some of the lens and one of my daughter at f2.8

 

[vrgard]

Thanks, Nick, for answering my question and for posting the additional pics. Looks great and now I can't wait to receive the original 50/2.8 on its way to me. Should be a great fit with my M3.

And thanks, jaapv, for the link to your shots. I assume those were taken with your M8 and 50/2.8?

Thanks guys,
Randy

 

[Biggles]

Wow. That lens has a very nice hand, wide-open. (Well-made picture, too.)

 

[sirius]

Here's a couple more, some of the lens and one of my daughter at f2.8

Hi Nick, that's a gorgeous camera and such a compact kit. Your photo is lovely. It has that Leica glow and all the tones that I love to see. I've never considered a combination like yours, but I must say that you've changed my mind. cheers

 

[dshfoto]

Attached is Example from an older version of the lens

Attached is Example from an older version of the lens

Elmar 5 cm 1:2.8 S/N 1575262
Wide open in available light in Starbucks

 

[vrgard]

dshfoto, can you provide a bit larger version of your image? It looks interesting but is rather small to truly appreciate.

Thanks,
Randy

Elmar 5 cm 1:2.8 S/N 1575262
Wide open in available light in Starbucks

 

[jaykuhlmann]

Front Element loose?

Front Element loose?

Hi,

I've been a lurker around here for a while, having never posted anything to the web. I've sure enjoyed the photos and the information.

I have a question now so I'll use this opportunity to say hello to everyone.

My question is whether the front of the lens should have any play in it. I just traded for one of the older versions of this lens and the aperture control ring and the housing for the front element is slightly loose relative to the rest of the lens. Is this normal play, or do I need to get it tightened at a repair shop?

Thanks fo the help.

Jay

 

[FrankS]

Hello and welcome, Jay!

I don't know, but you could try to just rotate that front lens portion that is loose relative to the rest of the lens as if you were tightening a bolt. If this doesn't do it, then by all means, take it to a repair shop with experience with this type of gear.

 

[kinoglass]

My two cents (or pennies): The older 2.8 Elmar used different glass formula than the current one. Having had both I stick to the old type, just because I like the results better. Truly I was disapointed at the new Elmar when I saw the chromes I shot. Finding a clean old Elmar is not that easy. Most have developed a deterioration of the first element inner coating matching the pattern of the diaphragm blades. Leica still sells replacements of it and I don't know if still is the old lanthamum rare earth formula or the ecological friendly new one. Curiously they are interchangeable.

I don't think one can truly compare the Summicron with the Elmar. They are different animals.

Oh, by the way, there should be no play once the lens is engaged on its mount.

 

[vrgard]

Thanks for your comments, kinoglass. Having just acquired an original Leica Elmar 50/2.8 M mount lens, I'm looking forward to seeing the results of which you speak. Until then, do you have any exemplary shots I could look at? Would be particularly interested in some representative shots taken with the original versus the modern Elmar lens.

Thanks,
Randy

 

[kinoglass]

Many moons are gone by since I did compare the results. The chromes I shot reminded me of trip I took to the SW of the USA back in the early seventies with a Nikormat. Shots in the open shadows were on the muddy side. Let me say that except for the pretty obvious, it is hard to see subtle differences between lenses on a computer screen. When you get your lens check the first element flat surface facing the diaphagm.

The beauty of the Elmar resides in its optical simplicity, rendering very good contrast and correction with four elements, the last two cemented. It is Leitz version of the ancient Zeiss Tessar. Leitz made a 3.5/35mm focal lenght version in SM. F2.8 seems to be the maximum aperture such a formula can afford.

 

[markinlondon]

<snip>
The beauty of the Elmar resides in its optical simplicity, rendering very good contrast and correction with four elements, the last two cemented. It is Leitz version of the ancient Zeiss Tessar. Leitz made a 3.5/35mm focal lenght version in SM. F2.8 seems to be the maximum aperture such a formula can afford.

There's also a short lived f3.5 version in M mount. Some people here prefer this lens. The larger aperture was made possible by the new glass formulations available to Leitz from 1957. Remember that 1957 is when the rigid Summicron was introduced as well. To my eyes the Elmar has a characteristic Tessar look with slightly lower contrast. The modern version has greater contrast and is sharper, I'm not sure about the new one but I love my 1965 Elmar sn 219xxxx.
Working on the old school formula of overexposing by one stop and reducing development by 20% it produces negatives on traditional emulsions that all but print themselves. The contrast is excellent and the drawing has Leitz written all over it. Here's a shot from last summer on FP4 at EI 50 in ID-11, k2 yellow filter. If I want more sharpness and contrast I'll load Delta 100.

 

[vrgard]

Just wanted to say thanks to kinoglass and Mark for the additional comments & information. Very enlightening. That's why I love this forum.

-Randy

 

[Roel]

A link to some shots of the Elmar M 50 2.8:

http://www.leica-camera-user.com/landscape-travel/16931-ice-snow-m8.html

Hi Jaap,

Nice pics! Can you let us know if this is the original version or the new version of the 2.8?

Thnx,
Roel