50/3.5 Elmar in M-mount.

[erikhaugsby]

Does anybody know if the 50mm f/3.5 Elmar in M-mount (styled much like the 50 f/2.8 Elmar) is the same optically as the 50 f/3.5 in LTM?

 

[Tom A]

Yes, the 50mmf3.5 Elmar in M-mount is the same as the late LTM Red Scale Elmar 50f3.5. In M-mount it is far more convinient to use as it has a"proper" aperture ring. No more trying to get to that little lever in the front! I always supected that the famous Bokeh of the 50/3.5 elmar was caused by accumulation of dirt from fingers touching the front element!
My personal opinion is that the Elmar M 50 f3.5 is a better lens than the 50/2.8 that followed. Particularly in wide open mode and at close focus the f3.5 shines!
You do need a hood for it though - just like the 2.8 version it is flare sensitive. I just use a generic 39mm screw in hood for it.
Oh, you can also use regular 39mm filters on that lens AND still be able to change the aperture!
The newer version of the 50/2,8 is a different story altogether. This is a lens that is as good as the Summicron and it has a parallell mount - no more rotating aperture ring. Both the old 50/3,5 and the 2.8 in M-mount were supplied in chrome. In bright sunlight it is difficult to see any numbers or dots on the barrel.

 

[erikhaugsby]

Thanks, Tom.
I've played with the first version 50/2.8 and was terribly annoyed by the rotating barrel (it makes changing the aperture one mean feat if the lens isn't infinity locked); I didn't know the new version had a non-rotating barrel.

 

[xayraa33]

I agree with Tom, I found that the f3.5 is a better preformer than the f2.8 Elmar .