A question to owners of both the first Elmar (50 3.5 v1) and the last one (50 2.8 v2)

[Juan Valdenebro]

It’s often said this lens is better than that one… It’s often true, but it usually refers to lenses’ performance wide open… And now with digital M’s lots of things are seen indeed when we compare, but what about fast film and small apertures?
I’m about to get the first elmar and make it my every day lens because 1)it really really collapses, 2)it has no distortion, 3)I use 50’s mostly between f/8 and f/11 at 10 feet (I can do direct sun without filters with my Bessas at 1600 and 1/2000) on 400 pushed film. I shoot this way always. When light is low I have other lenses and cameras, and generally I carry that second option every day too, a Konica Hexar AF (a 35) or a fast 40 or 50, but I use that once a week or two, at most, as 1600 gives me use of 6 stops of light to cover most of the day (from 1/2000 to 1/60) so the decision on a compact 50 is an important one to me now… And, a flat camera for carrying when not in use, is something I enjoy deeply… It’s wonderful.
So, what do you think the same image at f/8 and f/11 would look like, with both lenses, on pushed film, mostly in terms of sharpness? I’m no fan of extreme sharpness, and I tend to imagine both images would be the same, but I don’t want to make a huge mistake… Would the 2.8 be really sharper, stopped down, than the old one at the same aperture?
Would both images be very different with a digital M? And what about diffraction? Less visible, or just not visible on film?
Thanks for all comments, ideas or images…
J.

 

[fad gadget]

I have a 1933 nickel uncoated and a 1946 chrome coated, along with a 2000, 50 Elmar M.

You will certainly notice the bump in contrast with the newer Elmar, but the control of flare is where the big difference is.

All mine are very sharp, the M has a slight edge on digital, but film very close.

The pocket-ability factor of the Ltm's is a definite bonus!

cheers/ken.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Thank you, Ken...
Do you (and other members) think a late production LTM one (coated) is a better idea for B&W than an uncoated one? Of course having it very well cleaned will be the first step...

 

[Brian Legge]

Good luck finding an older one without etched haze. The first I tried was unusable hazed and wasn't cleanable. I found a better one where it wasn't too bad... but the reduced contrast still showed up in some photos.

I moved on to the Elmar-M. Between the cost of a better condition older Elnar 2.8 and a CLA, you can get close to the cost of some Elmar-Ms... and you still have no idea how well the older Clem's will clean up or how quickly the haze may return.

It's a shame as the old lens in excellent condition is a good performer.

 

[Mjd-djm]

I have a coated Elmer from 1948 which has the slightest haze inside. The image quality is superb from 3.5 and perfect from 5.6 onwards... in my eyes, although it does still flare on occasion. It is fairly contrasty... but not too much. It has actually surprised me how good it is. I used it collapsed on my IIIg and it is a joy to use and carry. It amazes me how the IQ comes from such a compact package. I would never sell it.

 

[helen.HH]

Hard Call... Love all three
They are all a tad finicky in their 'handling '~ ergonomics
The first Elmar 3.5,from the 1930's, one has to use your nail to turn the tiny aperture ring close to the lens glass... drove me crazy
Version 1 f2.8 from the 1950's , one must push in the infinity lock to change the aperture ring so the focus does not change ... I have now gotten it down and it's easy second nature
Btw, got mine from Tamarkin and the Glass is Beautiful, no issues
Version 2 from the 1990's /Elmar M To me seems less robust in body ,never quite sure it locked into place
Of course that is just speaking from my own copies

As for rendering they are All sublime , rich, detailed & charming
My favorite is version 1 -50 f2.8
it seems to me to have the perfect balance between subtleties in micro contrast and glimmerings of modernity ...


Can't go wrong with any of the Elbars as long as you love the 'look' & are willing to surrender to abit of finger maneuvers 😉

 

[bakemono]

I have the red scale 3.5 and used to have the modern elmar-m 2.8.
Imho, the older lens has nicer rendering, the modern one was very contrasty and felt too harsh from time to time.
Sharpness wise at f8 / f11, there is no practical difference, both are very sharp.

 

[Erik van Straten]

This one is from a fixed Elmar on a Leica I (A) No. 52783, so from 1930. No coating. I really love this quality.

Leica I, Elmar 35mm f/3.5, Tmax400, Perceptol.

Erik.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Good luck finding an older one without etched haze. The first I tried was unusable hazed and wasn't cleanable. I found a better one where it wasn't too bad... but the reduced contrast still showed up in some photos.

I moved on to the Elmar-M. Between the cost of a better condition older Elnar 2.8 and a CLA, you can get close to the cost of some Elmar-Ms... and you still have no idea how well the older Clem's will clean up or how quickly the haze may return.

It's a shame as the old lens in excellent condition is a good performer.

Wow, that's new to me, Brian... I didn't know some of them could not be cleaned!
I guess, then, before buying there's no way to know which ones can be...

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

I have a coated Elmer from 1948 which has the slightest haze inside. The image quality is superb from 3.5 and perfect from 5.6 onwards... in my eyes, although it does still flare on occasion. It is fairly contrasty... but not too much. It has actually surprised me how good it is. I used it collapsed on my IIIg and it is a joy to use and carry. It amazes me how the IQ comes from such a compact package. I would never sell it.

So it seems coated LTM ones are a good option because yet they have the real collapsible design, and, coating helps a bit with flare...

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Hard Call... Love all three
They are all a tad finicky in their 'handling '~ ergonomics
The first Elmar 3.5,from the 1930's, one has to use your nail to turn the tiny aperture ring close to the lens glass... drove me crazy
Version 1 f2.8 from the 1950's , one must push in the infinity lock to change the aperture ring so the focus does not change ... I have now gotten it down and it's easy second nature
Btw, got mine from Tamarkin and the Glass is Beautiful, no issues
Version 2 from the 1990's /Elmar M To me seems less robust in body ,never quite sure it locked into place
Of course that is just speaking from my own copies

As for rendering they are All sublime , rich, detailed & charming
My favorite is version 1 -50 f2.8
it seems to me to have the perfect balance between subtleties in micro contrast and glimmerings of modernity ...


Can't go wrong with any of the Elbars as long as you love the 'look' & are willing to surrender to abit of finger maneuvers 😉

Hi Helen,
Thanks for all the detailed info!
Since I bought that 50 external finder from you, I've been enjoying 50's as I never thought I would: I used a 28 for many years, and then a 35, and now I feel 50's are more balanced for street as they allow me to stay a couple steps further... I'm learning slowly 🙂
Have a nice day!

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

I have the red scale 3.5 and used to have the modern elmar-m 2.8.
Imho, the older lens has nicer rendering, the modern one was very contrasty and felt too harsh from time to time.
Sharpness wise at f8 / f11, there is no practical difference, both are very sharp.

That's good to know... Let's hope the original ones aren't too far from that...

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

This one is from a fixed Elmar on a Leica I (A) No. 52783, so from 1930. No coating. I really love this quality.

Leica I, Elmar 35mm f/3.5, Tmax400, Perceptol.

Erik.

Hi Erik,
That photograph is amazing coming from equipment of that age... Thanks for sharing! Surely it gives me hope... 🙂
Seems like uncoated elmars can behave perfectly too...

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Well, honestly, this is the first time in my life I hear about "etched" haze... So, I have some questions:
Is that in some way related to a period of production?
Is it related to anything?
Has someone experienced it with coated/late production LTM elmars?
Is it visible?
How to avoid buying one of those?

Thanks everyone!

 

[x-ray]

It's true the whale oil used to lube older lenses can cause a film on the glass that can't be totally removed. My 8 element v1 35mm Summicron has haze that could not be totally removed. I picked it up super cheap and sent it to Youxin Ye for a CLA and he said many of these older lenses have haze that that can't be completely removed. It was a basket case and unusable when I bought it and it's certainly usable now. You have to use a flashlight and it's very faint but there. Fortunately it is faint enough to not effect my images.

I understand this is the case with some Canon LTM lenses too.

Buying old lenses is a crap shoot now. Prices are rediculously high and most have been heavily used. But what can we expect with equipment that's 60 - 70 years old.

I've not owned the latest version but had a couple of really nice 1936 - 37 elmars and other Leica lenses and thought they were amazing performers for the time. I did a documentary shoot with my last Elmar and vintage 28 Summaron alongside my 21 Elmarit, 35 Summicron V4 and 50 Summicron v4. I was amazed at how well the vintage glass looked even under strong backlight conditions. I intentionally shot wide open too. I'm not saying they're as good but amazing for the era.

 

[fad gadget]

Thank you, Ken...
Do you (and other members) think a late production LTM one (coated) is a better idea for B&W than an uncoated one? Of course having it very well cleaned will be the first step...

I like both the uncoated and coated for different reasons.
If one was just to purchase a single lens, I would say get the coated.
More forgiving on the flare side with slightly better contrast.

Setadel Studios often has some very good ones reasonably priced, Al's a very nice guy to deal with.
Send him a message and tell him what you're after, he can also have them serviced for you if needed.

I would recommend a lens hood for the bright sunny days, there is also a ring that can be added to the lens so the aperture can be adjusted from the outside, without requiring you to look at the lens and adjust with your finger.

Even with the hood it's more compact than the later M, and half the weight.
You'll love it!

cheers/k.

 

[Pioneer]

I seem to like the simpler lenses like the Elmars, the Tessars and the Triplets. The Elmar 50s are favorites of mine because of the combination of compact carry and understated image quality. Unfortunately I can tell you what I like when I see it but I can't always describe it in any way that makes sense, either to me or to others.

The earliest, un-coated, Elmar 50s produced a wonderful, low-contrast, quality you just cannot find in any modern lenses. If I want slap-you-in-the-face contrast I can get that out of just about any modern lens out there. But I have an old, wobbly, uncoated 1935 Elmar which I absolutely adore for the elegant low-contrast look of the prints. I think f/6.3 is my favorite stop for this lens. It may finally fall apart in my hands one day but I doubt I will ever sell it.

It is a bit hazy and, though Gus Lazzari tried, he could not remove it all. It has become part of the character that lives in the lens. Old lenses are a bit like old people, if they haven't developed some character over the years then they are just boring. Since I actually carry and use this lens more often then any other lens that I own it must not be boring.

I will agree with Helen that the Elmar 50/2.8 (ver.1) is probably piece de resistance of the Elmar line of lenses, at least in the 50mm lenses. Though I know it shouldn't matter all that much, the extra half of a stop in speed seems to help sometimes. Probably all in my head. It has a bit more contrast, the coating helps to reduce flare (though I do not consider any Elmar a problem for flare) and it is very smooth to use. I love how it handles environmental portraits. Just enough out of focus to allow your subject to stand out in a 3D fashion, but not enough to loose the context. Unfortunately it is competing for time on my M-A with the ZM Sonnar so it doesn't get a lot of road time.

I owned the "new" Elmar M 50/2.8 for awhile but it never seemed to get used. I am not certain why that was but I don't think it was any fault of the lens itself. I must not really like the look or ,maybe, the handling provided by the newer Leica lenses. When it is time to go out on the town they always seem to get left behind for the older, more experienced, lenses. I finally sold this Elmar for a good price and I have never really missed it. Nice lens, just not something that was impressive enough in its own right to reach out and grab me.

I do think that just about any Elmar will be fun to use and that you will like them. If I had to make a recommendation (which are normally ignored anyway) I would choose the Elmar 50/2.8 ver 1 and a nice, overhauled M3 to go with it. To me this is the finest combination, pairing an excellent rangefinder with the best baseline and magnification, with the finest Elmar lens ever produced. You will never miss focus (or you shouldn't) and you will certainly love the images you produce.

EDIT - Of course if you are an LTM fan, as I am, then you will have to make up your own mind. The newer, coated versions will have a tiny bit less flare (with an Elmar this is really not an issue folks unless the front objective has really been abused) and a bit more contrast. But for my money the uncoated lenses are the ones to look for. Shop around for a good example and you will not be disappointed.

 

[Erik van Straten]

Seems like uncoated elmars can behave perfectly too...

Yes, they can. This one is from another Leica I. I've had this one for many years. The lens had a terrible haze, but I did not know how to open it to clean. Finally I found a way to clean it and was rewarded with an amazingly sharp lens.

Leica I (A) No. 58734, Elmar 50mm f/3.5, 400-2TMY, Perceptol.

Erik.

 

[charjohncarter]

I bought my f3.5 50mm Elmar (1953) in 1964. I love it or I wouldn't be still using it today. Well, not yet today, but I used it yesterday. I'm with Helen though the aperture ring is a frustration so I usually set it a 5.6 or 8 and work around with the shutter. The size is a big plus though.

As everybody says no distortion, good color rendering, and extremely sharp at all apertures.

I have not had a big problem with flair, only once, and it was about 5 months after I bought it. At the time I thought 'oh no' so here it is: 1964 Winters California, it was 110 F that day:

1964 by John Carter, on Flickr

 

[fad gadget]

I bought my f3.5 50mm Elmar (1953) in 1964. I love it or I wouldn't be still using it today. Well, not yet today, but I used it yesterday. I'm with Helen though the aperture ring is a frustration so I usually set it a 5.6 or 8 and work around with the shutter. The size is a big plus though.

As everybody says no distortion, good color rendering, and extremely sharp at all apertures.

I have not had a big problem with flair, only once, and it was about 5 months after I bought it. At the time I thought 'oh no' so here it is: 1964 Winters California, it was 110 F that day:

1964 by John Carter, on Flickr

John,

They make a hood, and a another ring so you can adjust the aperture from the outside, it even shows the f stop on it.
They work great, I've got the hood. I paid around $150 for it, boxed in mint condition.