Leica LTM 50mm daily driver: Canon 1.8 or Elmar 3.5?

Leica M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
Whateverist

Whateverist

Well-known
Local time
1:38 PM
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
247
Since these lenses appear to be roughly in the same ballpark price-wise, which would be recommended as a 'main' lens?

From a purely practical standpont, the elmar collapses which is a big plus; but I've heard good things about the Canon and the extra stops might be handy.

ANy recommendations either way? Or perhaps alternatives to these two?
 
Elmar if a red Scale or a coated one. All red Scales are coated.

Both lenses will need to be stopped down 1+ stop to work their best.

I would not consider a non coated lens.
 
How important are size and weight to you? For me, it's a big deal in a daily carry camera, which makes a collapsible the only real choice (I use a FED 50/3.5 for 50mm in that role). In normal daytime use I rarely find the slow speed to be an issue. There are plenty of other options if you don't mind a full-size non-collapsible lens, but there are a couple of intermediate choices as well - if you're patient you might find a Summar, Summitar, or Canon 50/1.9 (all of which are collapsible, but not as small as the Elmar) in the same price range.
 
02Pilot said:
How important are size and weight to you? For me, it's a big deal in a daily carry camera, which makes a collapsible the only real choice (I use a FED 50/3.5 for 50mm in that role). . . .
Click to expand...

I agree with the the Pilot, assuming you are using a Leica screw mount (LSM) or a LSM-clone. If so then I would definitely get a Elmar coated, both because it was built for and fits with the camera and because of size/weight.

What is virtually unique about the screw mount camera with a collapsable 50mm lens? SIZE. It means I can take my IIIf - Elmar 3.5 with me everyday to work without a second thought. With the collapsed lens it is both compact and SLENDER - fits right into your briefcase. Ditto for traveling.

If these considerations don't matter to you, then you might prefer the Canon for speed and more modern rendering.
 
If it was me, I would go for the compact package - ie Elmar 50. And don't disparage the uncoated lenses - they can deliver good stuff too. Others may have different experiences, but I have not had any issues with flare in my specimens. If I need, I shade the lens with my hand.

If you are using an ltm Leica, I guess you aren't in the speed game. Thus you could just as well take your time and enjoy the slower pace.

But the convenience of slightly more easy-to-find filter size, ease of changing aperture and being non-collapsible may swing it in favour towards the Canon for you.
 
One can't use filters, another has weird filter size requered step-up.
But I would get Elmar it is Leitz on Leica, has its charcter at 5.6-8 and might works as main lens with 400 films.
 
I have both lenses. If you want a pocket camera with small package, choose the Elmar. If you don't mind having a small camera bag with you, take the Canon. The Elmar is more fun to use. The Canon can handle difficult light situations better.
 
I have no experience with the Elmars, but my Canon 50 1.8 (early chrome serenar) performs excellently. Images from it are intriguing and rather beautiful color wise. Here's a quick example:

tumblr_nre1k1n0al1t37vbjo1_500.jpg


Has what some would consider crazy bokeh at times, but I love it.
 
Ko.Fe. said:
One can't use filters, another has weird filter size requered step-up.
But I would get Elmar it is Leitz on Leica, has its charcter at 5.6-8 and might works as main lens with 400 films.
Click to expand...

19mm screw-in filters should work fine on the Elmar (same size as Argus used, so not as hard to find or expensive as you might think), and a simple 40-40.5mm step-up or slip-on Series VI adapter for the Canon gives access to readily available filters.
 
raid said:
I have both lenses. If you want a pocket camera with small package, choose the Elmar. If you don't mind having a small camera bag with you, take the Canon. The Elmar is more fun to use. The Canon can handle difficult light situations better.
Click to expand...

I have both lenses too and agree 100% with Raid's assessment.
 
The Elmar's aperture is too fiddly for me to use daily. I had a nice example and sold it, the compact nature was not enough to sway me. I'd take the Canon every time.
 
Fixcinater said:
The Elmar's aperture is too fiddly for me to use daily. I had a nice example and sold it, the compact nature was not enough to sway me. I'd take the Canon every time.
Click to expand...

When I first started using the Elmar I thought 'ugh, this is going to be a pain to use all the time'. It turned out to not be as troublesome as I thought it would be. I'm rarely changing aperture settings in the moment since I take light readings when I get outside, and as the light changes throughout the day, so I have a pretty good idea of what to set the aperture to in order avoid fiddly situations. I think it's a great lens.
 
I agree with fadedsun: the 50/3.5 Elmar is a nice lens, gives beautiful renderings with pretty good contrast. The lens is pretty usable: I don't find changing the aperture problematic; you get used to it - or at least this has been my experience. It's the complications that come from the location of the aperture that are difficult. So if you like to use filters or you want to use a hood - perhaps not a bad idea in tough lighting conditions - you'll have problems that require work arounds - not insurmountable though.
 
I think there have been enough suggestions now, until the original poster comes back with more information about what he's trying to do. Otherwise, we're just guessing.

OP: will you shoot in low light? Do you mind turning a tiny aperture on the Elmar? Those types of things would be helpful to know about YOU.
 
Fadedsun said:
When I first started using the Elmar I thought 'ugh, this is going to be a pain to use all the time'. It turned out to not be as troublesome as I thought it would be. I'm rarely changing aperture settings in the moment since I take light readings when I get outside, and as the light changes throughout the day, so I have a pretty good idea of what to set the aperture to in order avoid fiddly situations. I think it's a great lens.
Click to expand...

I suppose it comes down to your style of working. I agree it's a very nice lens but I tend to change aperture more frequently between wide open to blur the background/have faster shutter speeds and then stopping down for static scenes) so taking the hood off (I had a FISON) and prying at the ring ended up with me needing to clean the front element of fingerprints, which made me miss shots.

The Canon or even a Summitar is simply more convenient, unless you highly value the collapsible nature of the slower lens. I'm accustomed to bringing larger kits around so even the Canon is a dream for my shoulder compared to the Pentax 67 or my EOS SLR kit.
 
If you like the Canon, use it.

If you like the Elmar, use it.

Both provide excellent photos assuming that you do your part.

I prefer the Elmar 50/3.5 on my M and my LTM. They are good solid lenses.

I use A36 push on filters for my Elmar LTM. E39 filters for the Elmar M.

I'm pretty sure that you can get them to flare if you try, most any lens will flare if the sun is in the right spot. To be honest, I don't remember that ever being a problem.
 
goamules said:
I think there have been enough suggestions now, until the original poster comes back with more information about what he's trying to do. Otherwise, we're just guessing.

OP: will you shoot in low light? Do you mind turning a tiny aperture on the Elmar? Those types of things would be helpful to know about YOU.
Click to expand...

I mainly shoot natural light, but for low light situations I prefer higher-ISO film to fast apertures. The tiny aperture is not a dealbreaker for me - I've used I-22s - but it's not something I'm a tremendous fan of either. the responses so far have been pretty helpful :)
 
Well maybe try one of the faster collasibles then, like a Summicron or Hektor. Or from Nippon Kogaku a 50/2 Sonnar. There are others, mostly from the 1950s. You get F2 or F2.5, and they collapse pretty small (not as flush as an Elmar though). I got the Nippon F2 recently, and it's really light, fairly small, and sharp. They're rare in collapsible mount LTM though. Compared to an M3 tank, with Summicron DR, it's pocketable.

19044823653_64edafe720_c.jpg
 
Hi,

My prefered all time lens is the redscale elmar...but i have to say the canon 50mm f1.8 is an outstanding piece of glass...it´s sharp from 1.8 on, doesn´t have focus shift...it won´t ever disapoint you.
I tested it against the rigid summicron with my m9, the results weren´t that good in favour of leica to hand over that amount of money for it.

So i still prefer the elmar, it´s sharp, low contrast and collapsible, also it does have a moral price.

:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom