Current vs old 50mm Elmar 2.8

[anoldsock]

I have the older 50mm Elmar 2.8 M (possibly uncoated), but can't help but wonder how it would hold up against a newer version of the lens. I know there are a couple of threads out there on the net, and in trying to research it no one has really given a comparison of the two...at least from what I can find.

I understand that the two lenses may have different characteristics and provide a different photographic feel, so I guess what I'm trying to say is would it be worth my while to purchase the current version of the lens even though I already have the older version?

Does anyone who have used both of these lenses have any comments in terms of contrast and image quality/sharpness? Thanks in advance!

 

[normclarke]

Hi,
Having used both versions in my opinion the extra cost of the newer is hard to justify.
The only tangible advance was the increase in contrast that the new lens offered. IMHO the old lens was better made. Is this a case of GAS?

Cheers,

normclarke.

 

[anoldsock]

I'm not familiar with the term GAS, but I assume it means Gear Acquisition Syndrome? If so, I think it might have a full blown case of it.

It's not that I'm unhappy with the older version, but I'm curious as how it would compare with the newer version. I don't want to feel like I'm missing out on anything and just want all the information available so that I can justify upgrading or not.

Some smart-alec may argue that if I'm not unhappy with the older version, then why would I want the new one? Well...it's the curiosity that is getting to me. But you know how it goes, needing something and wanting something are two completely different things.

 

[BillP]

The new one is a significant advance on the old, both in handling and performance. If you look at the MTF charts this is beyond doubt. The Elmar-M displays Summicron levels of performance slightly stopped down. Handling is also significantly improved with a non-rotating front element making aperture selection much easier. Of course the coatings are modern too. I have had this lens for more than five years, from new, and nothing would make me sell it.

I can post many examples, but am at work at the moment! Go to my Flickr account, linked from my signature, and look for the Seville stream. Shots there are marked with lens used. The Elmar-M was my mainstay.

Regards,

Bill

 

[Ronald M]

The old Elmar is like the old DR/rigid Summicrons. Nice lenses, nice contrast, nice sharpness, but a different look than the newest and the new elmar is more like the newer ones, contrasty and very sharp. I consider it bridge design between the Mandler optics from 1980/90 and the newest.

Yours should have a bluish front element from the coating. None were furnished uncoated.

The new one has a faster focus, ie less rotation is required to get from far to close.

The old one has better mechanics, but the new one is ok. The new one is the lens that lives on my everyday camera, new 90 4.0 and 35 2.0 pre asph live in the bag next to it.

 

[anoldsock]

It seems like the overall consensus is that the features of the newer elmar warrants the purchase. There was a black one on the forum for $600 a couple of days ago, that was actually the motivation behind this post.

I kind of regret not jumping on it now.

 

[raid]

The old type Elmar may be one of the few Leica lenses where "old" is actually "better".

 

[anoldsock]

Raid,

Just curious...why do you say the old is actually better? In your opinion is it better in terms of build and ergonomics or is the image quality meaning contrast/sharpness better?

I would be more interested in the quality of image the lens may produce than I am in the construction and ergonomics.

Thanks for your input!

 

[tomasis]

new summarit looks better choice. you get compact lens and don't need to extend the tube or so.

I have old elmar but it stays unused due heavy haze inside the elements. This will get overhaul some time for sure. But mechanics are soo good, wow! Probably the best I ever had.

 

[WoolenMammoth]

I have a new and an old 2.8 and dont find owning both redundant (providing you really like 50's). They produce significantly different negatives. So long as I own an Mmount camera I will have that elmar-m, its a truly amazing lens.

 

[oscroft]

I've got the new version and it is very sharp and very contrasty (the contrast can actually be a bit too much in bright light, but it can be a great help in duller lighting). I certainly wouldn't part with it.

 

[furcafe]

If you want 1 in chrome, I can sell you mine. Just send an email if interested.

It seems like the overall consensus is that the features of the newer elmar warrants the purchase. There was a black one on the forum for $600 a couple of days ago, that was actually the motivation behind this post.

I kind of regret not jumping on it now.

 

[Windscale]

I think it is a matter of taste. All new lenses would be more contrasty and sharper. I have not got the new version but I have used it as my friend has one. But if you were to look for the 'oil painting' feel with plenty of shadow details, then you will be looking at the Elmar. My collapsible Elmar M 2.8 is always fitted to my M3. Now, because of old age and bad health, unless it is absolutely necessary, I would only carry one lens when I take the M3 out.

 

[Paul T.]

I'd rather go for the old one, at current prices.

I bought a new Elmar-M from p.net for $495, and it's a good lens, but I didn't particularly prefer it to 'older' lenses like my SUmmicron C, or the Jupiter 8 on my Kiev . Also, it's not that compact a lens, and in the end I bought an excellent collapsible Summicron for $275, and sold the Elmar, for the price I paid.

I think at $600 the Elmar is somewhat overpriced (I recognise used prices have followed those for the new item). Even new, there is hardly a huge R&D bill for Leica to pay off. But I wouldn't mind paying $300 or so for a nice older version, or a little more for a new Zeiss Tessar reissue.

 

[anoldsock]

Thanks for the reply Windscale, did you have any opinions of the newer version Elmar? It appears as though you prefer the older version for the 'oil painting' look, or did you mean that was the result of the current version?

Again, thanks everyone for your help. What makes the decision so difficult for me is that I don't have a chance to go to the camera store and try out the lens. There's no place that I can actually go and do a physical inspection. I tried a search online, but there are no real world optical comparisons of the two lenses side by side. I tried a flickr search, but it's hard to tell if the photographer used an older version or a newer version. Anyway, again I really appreciate everyone's help. It's what makes this forum so great!

BTW, I'm trying to simplify my gear too and trying to be more of a one lens person my self.

 

[raid]

I bought an older version 50/2.8, and just love the results.

Here is a link to a recent thread on my first results:

http://rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=57486

 

[WoolenMammoth]

If you want an old lens with an old feel, check out the old elmar. Mine has a "thickness" to it that I cant seem to find in other lenses, its entirely unique. If you want the *idea* of old but with somewhat of a refined edge sharpness and definitely higher contrast you'll be happier with the new elmar-m. there is no other lens I have used that can replicate the photos with the elmar-m, especially with it fully stopped down. However you go, providing you dont pay too much for a new used, elmar-m, the price is pretty stabilized on both of these and neither are really fetished over by leica people so I think it would probably be pretty safe to buy and try and sell without a loss if its not to your liking. Thats what I did and kept both, really love the look.

 

[Windscale]

Thanks for the reply Windscale, did you have any opinions of the newer version Elmar? It appears as though you prefer the older version for the 'oil painting' look, or did you mean that was the result of the current version?]

The new version was sharp and contrasty. The 'oil painting' effect that I referred to is softer and retaining much more shadow details so giving you a more 3 dimensional feel. The sharp and contrasty pictures are something that really hit you in the eyes. But you may get eye fatique when looking at them for longer. Of course, one can only look at pics this way when they have been blown up to 8x10 or larger. But then if one were just doing 3x5 or 4x6, any cheap lens will do!

For the same reason, ie comfort to the eyes, that I sold my Zeiss 8x20 binoculars and bought the Leica 8x20.

 

[richard_l]

I have an old f/3.5, the new f/2.8, but not the old f/2.8. The old f/3.5 is wonderful, and I suppose it has sort of the 'old' look (whatever that is). The new f/2.8 is extraordinary, as good as the Summicron 50mm (at the stops I normally use) with much less tendency to flare.

Richard