Collapsible lenses, size comparison

[msbarnes]

I can't seem to find this information.

What are the lengths of these lenses when collapsed?
50mm f3.5 Elmar
50mm f2.8 Elmar
50mm f2.8 Elmar-M
50mm f3.5 Heliar

I'm basically looking for a collapsible 50mm that has a good balance between size, performance, and ergonomics. The Elmar-M is the one that I'm most interested in but does anyone know what a good price is on one? Ebay suggests $800.

 

[mfogiel]

Between these lenses, the first two are, I would say, for sentimental value photos, rather than all round photography. I have both 2.8 Elmars, and collapsed they are the roughly the same, however the Elmar M v2 comes with a little lens hood, which I like a lot, and it makes the lens a bit longer on the camera. I paid about 600 EUR for mine, and I think it has been money very well spent.The Heliar is apparently one of the sharpest 50mm rf lnses ever made. Another good option for B&W and slightly cheaper could be the 50/2 Collapsible Summicron - not really sharp wide open, but a very nice low contrast lens from f 2.8.
The gentleman at the bottom of this page, has apparently been quite satisfied with the results:
http://www.google.it/imgres?imgurl=...mm&start=240&hl=it&sa=N&gbv=2&tbm=isch&itbs=1

 

[Photo_Smith]

I have a 1947 Elmar ƒ3,5 and a 1950's Elmar ƒ2,8 here is a picture of them side by side.

Both are excellent performers for their time, probably not quite as sharp and contrasty as modern lenses but still very nice. I paid about £200 for the ƒ2,8 always found it good enough for me.

M4P Elmar ƒ2,8 Kodachrome 200
For some reason it looks sharper in the link:
http://www.pbase.com/mark_antony/image/61050500

 

[errorlogin]

My 2.8 collapsible Elmar from M2 is exactly 2cm, when collapsed.

800$? Oh, I just sold mine for 280 Euro and now I know, why there were so many interests.

 

[Monochrom]

Hi, the smallest size of a collapsed lens is that of the elmar 50mm f3.5, then all the others...really there´s nothing that can match that lens.

All the others will collapse about 2 cm...

The magic of the elmar 3.5 is that has a rotating mount, so the whole front of the lens will move as you focus it....
Also, the aperture ring is actuated from the front rim, and it helps a lot in keeping the size of the lens small..

After that desing mount all following lenses are more modern and therefore larger in size...

GReat lens the elmar 5cm f3.5!!!!

Try also the elmar 3.5cm f3.5 wide, it´s the size of the elmar collapsed :O

 

[msbarnes]

My 2.8 collapsible Elmar from M2 is exactly 2cm, when collapsed.

800$? Oh, I just sold mine for 280 Euro and now I know, why there were so many interests.

Roughly. I haven't searched very hard but it was confusing because a lot of people on ebay refer to the old elmar as the elmar-m. Reading some posts it seems to have gone up in value.

 

[msbarnes]

Hi, the smallest size of a collapsed lens is that of the elmar 50mm f3.5, then all the others...really there´s nothing that can match that lens.

All the others will collapse about 2 cm...

I get the same impression. My thinking is that for slim, the elmar 50mm f3.5 is simply unmatched but then the 50mm f2.8 Elmar-M doesn't need a hood (I don't think). For a bit of bulk the other Leica 50mm lenses seem a bit comparable in size relative to eachother. (50mm f2.8 Elmar< 50mm f2.0 Summitar < 50mm f2.0 Summicron)

Anyone know how the Heliar stacks up in size? I'm not too interested in this lens because of the filter thread is odd (27mm) and the lens is slow but I have a friend who has this lens, so i want to mount it on my M to see if it is compact enough for me. Then from there I can get a better sense of the other lenses (size-wise). If it is a relatively small lens and i feel that it is too big then I'm going to scrap the collapsible lens idea.

 

[Mattco26]

There are 3 Elmar 2.8 lenses. The 2.8 screwmount, the 2.8 M mount and the 2.8 Elmar-M. I have the 2.8 M mount and I love it. It collapses very small, but I keep a hood on it so I loose some of the collapsible advantage. At close to medium range distances its very sharp. Just how small do you need it to be and why?

 

[msbarnes]

There are 3 Elmar 2.8 lenses. The 2.8 screwmount, the 2.8 M mount and the 2.8 Elmar-M. I have the 2.8 M mount and I love it. It collapses very small, but I keep a hood on it so I loose some of the collapsible advantage. At close to medium range distances its very sharp. Just how small do you need it to be and why?

I don't know how small I need it to be. Small enough to fit in my coat pocket. I want to carry a Leica on me more often and without the crutch of a bag or neck strap.

I tested my Leica M body and it is small enough to fit comfortably in my coat pocket and I believe that the 50mm f3.5 is flat on the M so the size is more or less comparable. I stick a 50mm Rigid lens on my Leica M body and it is a bit bulky. Doable but I think I'd prefer not to carry it as a daily user. I think all the collapsibles are small enough, actually. The Elmar-M probably being the best bet because I can more comfortably go hoodless.

 

[besk]

I suggest that you at least consider the VC 50/2.5. It adds very little to an M other than weight!

I use it interchangeably with a Elmar 50/3.5 on a IIIf. The Elmar is very light.

 

[johannielscom]

I suggest that you at least consider the VC 50/2.5. It adds very little to an M other than weight!

I use it interchangeably with a Elmar 50/3.5 on a IIIf. The Elmar is very light.

+1 on that. Great lens, I need to get me one again...:bang:

 

[Roger Hicks]

I suggest that you at least consider the VC 50/2.5. It adds very little to an M other than weight!

I use it interchangeably with a Elmar 50/3.5 on a IIIf. The Elmar is very light.

Really? I find it HUGE compared with the 50/3.5 (and I own both). As indeed are most collapsible lenses.

Cheers,

R.

 

[msbarnes]

It seems that the most compact is the 50mm f3.5 by a margin, and then everything else is more similar in size.

How compact is, say, the 50mm f2.5 compared to the Canon/Nikon 50mm f1.4/1.5 lenses? I have those lenses as a reference and I find the difference between the two negligible. I'll have to browse flickr or find some numbers....

But I think that the Elmar-M is the best allrounder but at a higher price. I'm leaning towards that direction or possibly going with the cheapest for now (an industar 22, even) until I find one at a good price.

 

[ferider]

But I think that the Elmar-M is the best allrounder but at a higher price. I'm leaning towards that direction or possibly going with the cheapest for now (an industar 22, even) until I find one at a good price.

If you are looking for a modern all-arounder, and if it doesn't have to be a Leica lens .... there is currently one of these in the classifieds:

In contrast to your character lenses above, this is a full blown, flare resistant double Gauss design from the 90s, think Summicron v5 but collapsible. Also half stop faster than the 50/2.8 Elmar. Highest resolution lens I own, sharp in the corners also wide open.

Roland.

 

[z.bruce.li]

I was looking for a collapsible 50mm in LTM (for IIIf) and started with the cheapest option to test the water. And I have to say I'm having fun. It was a coated FED 50/3.5 (similar to Elmar 50/3.5), which is about the size of a lens cap when fully collapsed into the body. Resolution is very good stopped down, and decent wide open. The out of focus is pretty smooth, and fairly resistant to flare and ghosting even without a lens hood. Contrast is at least medium, not low. Surprisingly good little lens for little money.

 

[flip]

In contrast to your character lenses above, this is a full blown, flare resistant double Gauss design from the 90s, think Summicron v5 but collapsible. Also half stop faster than the 50/2.8 Elmar. Highest resolution lens I own, sharp in the corners also wide open.

Roland.

And the 50/2.4 has a cute little hood, to boot.