loneranger
Well-known
After seeing some truly amazing pics with the 50mm elmar here and on flickr, I've decided to buy one. My question is, there seems to be many versions, and different prices. Can someone help me with this. Is the latest version the best?
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
The latest version, Version II is the best. It is similar in performance to the latest Summicron. Some say it is better than the Summicron's. It is quite compact, but the collapsible feature is of limited use - only about 8-10mm saving.
The older f2.8 is a decent lens, but you need a good hood on it as it flares easily. Personally I prefer the M-mount 50f3.5 as I find that it has a bit more "bite' to it, even wide-open.
If you are primarily shooting color, go for the latest version - better color rendition. If you are shooting bl/w - go for either an old 2.8 or 3.5 - its a throwback to the 60's with Tri X.
As for hood on the early 3.5 or 2.8 - cheapest way is to pick up some 39 mm filters (the "color" balance one that nobody wants) - pop the glass out and "stack" them. I find that 5-6 of them is more than enough to shield the front element from stray rays of light. The version II should come with its hood (small, compact, screw in hood).
The older f2.8 is a decent lens, but you need a good hood on it as it flares easily. Personally I prefer the M-mount 50f3.5 as I find that it has a bit more "bite' to it, even wide-open.
If you are primarily shooting color, go for the latest version - better color rendition. If you are shooting bl/w - go for either an old 2.8 or 3.5 - its a throwback to the 60's with Tri X.
As for hood on the early 3.5 or 2.8 - cheapest way is to pick up some 39 mm filters (the "color" balance one that nobody wants) - pop the glass out and "stack" them. I find that 5-6 of them is more than enough to shield the front element from stray rays of light. The version II should come with its hood (small, compact, screw in hood).
payasam
a.k.a. Mukul Dube
I'd say the differences are of the order of 1,000,000:999,999. Just make sure that whichever one you buy is in good shape.
loneranger
Well-known
Ok, I am going to reveal how stupid I am, but both the 3.5 version and 2.8, are called "elmar", right? So if the "latest" version, is the best, are we talkiing about the now discontinued 2.8? Sorry I sound so confused....
ferider
Veteran
There is the classic Elmar 50/3.5 and 50/2.8, 1m min. focus, available in both LTM and M.
Then there is the "Elmar-M" 50/2.8 ("vii" as Tom referred to it), 0.7m min. focus, recently discontinued, a re-design of the classic lens. Comes in chrome or black and is an outstanding performer:
Best,
Roland.
Then there is the "Elmar-M" 50/2.8 ("vii" as Tom referred to it), 0.7m min. focus, recently discontinued, a re-design of the classic lens. Comes in chrome or black and is an outstanding performer:
Best,
Roland.
raid
Dad Photographer
Roland,
How did you keep the lens in this position? This is magic!
How did you keep the lens in this position? This is magic!
vrgard
Well-known
I regularly use an M-mount 50/2.8 elmar from about 1960. I like the modern cylindrical hood (from the modern 50/2.8 elmar; Leica no. 12550 in black and no. 12549 in silver) on my older lens. Sure, it makes it slightly less compact but it's a perfect match and provide the protection that Tom A is suggesting above. His idea of using old filters with the glass knocked out is, of course, perfectly valid as well. I also use a cheap plastic slip-on lens cap over the modern hood.
-Randy
-Randy
J J Kapsberger
Well-known
One key difference to my eye: the Elmar II delivers a more convincing 3D rendering with selective focus than does the Summicron. The Elmar's 3D rendering -- i.e., how the in-focus subject stands out from the OOF background -- has always impressed me. And I find it's bokeh pleasing.
I find the Elmar II is a great lens for portraiture.
Ronald M
Veteran
I would always say get the latest one.
The older one from 1960 is a nice lens, but not up to the modern one.
The 3.5 is very nice if you want the old time contrast rendition. The 2.8 from 1960 is like the DR/rigid from that period. The last is like the modern Summicron almost, but nicer. I have all three. My 3.5 is a coated Red Scale, the last of them.
50 2.8, 35 2.0 version 4 and a new current 90 4.0 is my quick go to lens kit.
The older one from 1960 is a nice lens, but not up to the modern one.
The 3.5 is very nice if you want the old time contrast rendition. The 2.8 from 1960 is like the DR/rigid from that period. The last is like the modern Summicron almost, but nicer. I have all three. My 3.5 is a coated Red Scale, the last of them.
50 2.8, 35 2.0 version 4 and a new current 90 4.0 is my quick go to lens kit.
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
Ronald, I have been using a loaner Macro Elmar 90mm f4.0 for a while. Nice lens - very sharp and contrasty. It also has that weird Macro adapter - it does work, but it is not the most user friendly item for close-ups.
The M-mount 50f3.5 is for all practical purposes a LTM Red Scale 50f3.5 in m-mount. The advantage is that you have an aperture ring on it - rather than the small lever in the front - which promotes fingerprints on the lens!!!!
The M-mount 50f3.5 is for all practical purposes a LTM Red Scale 50f3.5 in m-mount. The advantage is that you have an aperture ring on it - rather than the small lever in the front - which promotes fingerprints on the lens!!!!
Erik van Straten
Veteran
I am not sure about that. I have both lenses, but my M-version is a much better lens. Could be because of the better mount, though.
Erik.
MPerson
Established
I have a 1959 Elmar-M 50/2.8 (Type 1) and I love it. Usually resides on my M2 but has been known to slum it on an the MP or CL! I never use hoods or filters and never had any problems.
M2 | Elmar 50/2.8 (Type 1) | APX 100 | Diafine
M2 | Elmar 50/2.8 (Type 1) | APX 100 | Diafine
Erik van Straten
Veteran
Leica M2, Elmar 50mm f/3.5 in M-mount, TriX printed on Ilford MGIV fb.
The sharpness of this lens is stunning, and it is even over the whole negative. Screw-mount 50mm Elmars f/3.5 tend to have unsharp corners.
Erik.
The sharpness of this lens is stunning, and it is even over the whole negative. Screw-mount 50mm Elmars f/3.5 tend to have unsharp corners.
Erik.
coelacanth
Ride, dive, shoot.
I have (had till earlier today) two Elmar 50/2.8's. One is the latest version from 1997, the other was the first 2.8 elmar from 1966.
I am mainly a b/w shooter and liked almost true circle aperture blades so I kept the older one, and the new one is now in the mail to an RFF member.
A quick iPhone shot of older 50/2.8 on M4.
I am mainly a b/w shooter and liked almost true circle aperture blades so I kept the older one, and the new one is now in the mail to an RFF member.
A quick iPhone shot of older 50/2.8 on M4.
FPjohn
Well-known
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
I suspect the the "stiffer" mount of the M-mount 50f3.5 accounts for some of the improvement in performance.
We should be careful lauding the performance of this lens - prices will go up and it is already difficult to find on clean shape!
We should be careful lauding the performance of this lens - prices will go up and it is already difficult to find on clean shape!
loneranger
Well-known
I have a 1959 Elmar-M 50/2.8 (Type 1) and I love it. Usually resides on my M2 but has been known to slum it on an the MP or CL! I never use hoods or filters and never had any problems.
M2 | Elmar 50/2.8 (Type 1) | APX 100 | Diafine
Vow, this picture is so perfect. These little lenses can deliver. I cannot wait to get mine.
sepiareverb
genius and moron
Count me among those impressed with the 3-D rendition as well. Just shooting with the Elmar-M 2.8 (latest) today.
FPjohn
Well-known
Hello:
My subjective impression is that the "3d drawing" effect is a generic property of Tessar and Tessar-like designs, Elmar and Xenar included. IMHO.
yours
FPJ
My subjective impression is that the "3d drawing" effect is a generic property of Tessar and Tessar-like designs, Elmar and Xenar included. IMHO.
yours
FPJ
charjohncarter
Veteran
Mine is from 1953 so probably not a choice. But I love it. I still own it (bought in 1963), thanks to God, here is one from 1963.
