Elmar-M 50mm 2.8 II

[Erik van Straten]

Great capture!
I remember you used to post print scans from MG FB 5K if I'm not mistaken?

Thank you!

Yes, I did, but the job I have now doesn't permit that I do anything time consuming like making wet prints, unfortunately.

Erik.

 

[miha]

Thank you!

Yes, I did, but the job I have now doesn't permit that I do anything time consuming like making wet prints, unfortunately.

Erik.

You are welcome.
I'm in a similar situation for quite some time now; I wish I could print more than say half a dozen times a year...

 

[awilder]

I use to own one when shooting with Leica 10 yrs ago and it was a great optic with lovely rendering. It didn't flare under some circumstances like the 50 Summicrons (including V5) wide open despite the fact that the modern Elmar-M rear optical group was uncoated. Never understood why this was the case as I've seen this on more than one sample.

 

[Dralowid]

Great overview, Michael! Thank you very much.

Indeed a very good lens. I think it is optically the same as the last LTM-version, known as the "red scale Elmar", but the mount is much better of course. I am not sure if there is an LTM-version of this ELMAM, like ELMOO.

Erik, not that I know of.

Awilder, mine's coated.

Michael

 

[Robert Lai]

Hi Jon,
When I was discussing the bulky and heavy double Gauss lens, I was referring to the Canon 50 1.4, not the Elmar M.

Just to clarify in case there was any confusion.

 

[Erik van Straten]

despite the fact that the modern Elmar-M rear optical group was uncoated

The rear group of mine - 3668458 - is indeed uncoated. I've never noticed this. The rear group of the Color Skopar - 9221094 - is uncoated too. Interesting.

Erik.

 

[giulio stucchi]

One more portrait, this time my two young niecies.

m6, elmar-m 50 2.8, tmax 400, perceptol 1+1

Giulio

 

[rodt16s]

Just a note about nomenclature or the names of these various Elmars. Please correct me if I am wrong.

50mm 3.5 LTM mount was called Elmar and coded ELMAR. This is the original classic lens in all its variations. '30 - '59

50mm 3.5 M mount was called Elmar and coded ELMAM / 11110. This is quite a rare lens made between '54 and '61. One doesn't hear much about it but I understand it is very good, as you would expect. Ergonomically it is similar to ELMOM below.

50mm 2.8 LTM mount was called Elmar and coded ELMOO. '57 - '62

50mm 2.8 M mount was called Elmar and coded ELMOM /11112. '57 - '74

Note that none of the above are called 'Elmar M' or 'Elmar-M'

Then in 1994 the M6J kit comes along with a different 50mm 2.8 Elmar in M mount called Elmar-M.

The M6J Elmar-M is optically the same as what was to become the Elmar-M but with the addition of a focussing tab that looks like an infinity lock, a mount that looks more 'traditional' and a chrome 'beauty ring'. It is chrome only and and I do not know its code. There are other variations with different engravings for limited editions.

In 1995 the Elmar-M is introduced. Chrome 11823 and black 11831. No focussing tab etc etc. Again there are limited editions.

The point that I am labouring with is that the original M mount Elmar (ELMOM) is not called Elmar-M, that name only applies to the post 1994 lenses.

...retires to darkened room exhausted...

Perhaps this well help
L-R
Uncoated
Red Scale
M- 3.5
M- 2.8
M6J

M Fit

Can't help with ltm 2.8

 

[Dralowid]

Yes the mount of the M6J lens is quite different and more 'retro' looking than that on the production Elmar-M.

Interesting this business about coating on the rear group of the Elmar-M. Just double checked mine 3726647, yes rear element is coated.

 

[giulio stucchi]

I will check mine tomorrow about the coating, serial is 3724475.
Maybe Tom A has some inputs on this subject_?

Giulio

 

[Nigel Meaby]

Mine is 3732334 and as far as I can see the rear isn't coated.

Edit: Looking at mine in daylight, as opposed to LED ceiling lights last night, It does appear to be coated the same blue as the front element unless I'm just seeing it bleeding through from the front element.

 

[jonmanjiro]

Very interesting that some Elmar-M rear elements are coated and some are not.

Mine is a very late 6-bit coded lens, No.4047xxx, and the rear element is coated. The coating looks identical to the coating on the front element.

 

[pepeguitarra]

Black vs. Silver

Black vs. Silver

Is there any difference between the Elma-M 50/2.8 black and the silver?

 

[jonmanjiro]

Is there any difference between the Elma-M 50/2.8 black and the silver?

As with most other modern Leica lenses, the barrel of the black version is anodized aluminum (lighter) whereas the silver version is chromed brass (heavier).

I never really understood the infatuation some people have for the heavier silver lenses. Nicer to fondle for sure, but for actual shooting why carry around the extra weight if you don't have to?!

Optically they're identical, as you'd expect.

 

[giulio stucchi]

m6, elmar-m 50 2.8, tmax 400, perceptol 1+1

Giulio

 

[Tom A]

[/url]H298 #5 Group Shot @ f2.8 by T&T and Mr B Abrahamsson, on Flickr[/IMG]ica M6, Elmar 50mm f2.8 II at f2.8. Bronze sceptre of a "family" groupshot - popular posing spot for non - bronzed subjects.

 

[giulio stucchi]

m6, elmar-m 50 2.8, tri-x 400, lc-29

Giulio

 

[michaelwj]

m6, elmar-m 50 2.8, tmax 400, perceptol 1+1

Giulio

This one is really great Giulio. Brilliant.

 

[Erik van Straten]

This one is really great Giulio. Brilliant.

I agree.

Erik.

 

[giulio stucchi]

Thank you Michael and Erik.
They are my brother and his youngest daughter.

Giulio