Elmar-M 50mm 2.8 II

[Ronald M]

I have two, 3964xxx and 3993xxx. The 364 is chrome and not coded. The rear element is coated but appears thinner coating , more transparent , and with a green cast. 399 is black, weighs less, factory coded, and has a heavy blue coding like you would see on older lenses.

Maybe the 396 was a multicoated which look different than single. It would be easy to mistake for not coated.

Images appear the same.

 

[Papercut]

at Crissy Field, SF -- a while back (I'm years behind in my scanning.)


Paula by Kevin, on Flickr

 

[pepeguitarra]

The Elmar-M 50/2.8 Black latest version

The Elmar-M 50/2.8 Black latest version

Does this the Elmar-M 50/2.8 Black (newest version) fit on the Leica M5?
Can you collapse it completely? Or you still have to put the tape to avoid collapsing inside the camera?

 

[Ronald M]

Does this the Elmar-M 50/2.8 Black (newest version) fit on the Leica M5?
Can you collapse it completely? Or you still have to put the tape to avoid collapsing inside the camera?

New version collapsed goes 3/4" back from the front of the mounting flange. 3/4" = 18 mm

You will have to see where the metering arm is positioned. My M5 is long gone.

 

[giulio stucchi]

m6, elmar-m 50 2.8, tmax 400, dd-x 1+4

Giulio

 

[giulio stucchi]

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

Giulio

 

[Ronald M]

New version collapsed goes 3/4" back from the front of the mounting flange. 3/4" = 18 mm

You will have to see where the metering arm is positioned. My M5 is long gone.

With the help of wife, I found my original 50 2.8 from 1950 something.

The flange to end of optical cell is exactly the same as the new black one above, 3/4 inch.

I remember using the old one on the M 5

 

[Pete B]

And the early Elmar is no slouch

Scan-160810-0003 by Mr Chombee, on Flickr

Pete

 

[fer_fdi]

Giulio, really wonderful pictures with the Elmar-M
and with great sharpness and volume

 

[giulio stucchi]

Muchas Gracias Fer!


Giulio

 

[giulio stucchi]

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

Giulio

 

[fer_fdi]

again, beautiful. And those shots show well how this lens draw, thank you

 

[giulio stucchi]

Thank you.

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

Giulio

 

[jaapv]

Sorry, the image quality is a LOT different. The redesign in the nineties of the Elmar 50, called the Elmar-M is quite extensive, making it in a very sharp lens.
The image quality improvement will clearly show on digital images.

 

[scigeek]

Sorry, the image quality is a LOT different. The redesign in the nineties of the Elmar 50, called the Elmar-M is quite extensive, making it in a very sharp lens.
The image quality improvement will clearly show on digital images.

I'm sure you are right - indeed it would be strange if Leica had not improved the 50 Elmar over the years.

What I mean is that for normal use the results from each lens are not really noticeably different. The image shown above is from my first roll of film shot through an old, uncoated Elmar - I was staggered at the quality considering this was handheld at 1/20th of a second, the lens was wide open, and the film was processed and digitised through a High Street Chemist for £7.00.

I contend that both lens are capable of excellent results.
I prefer the lighter, smaller, less obtrusive lens to the decidedly bulky and heavier newer Elmar, even at the price of a marginally less quality image. I concede that to fit the old Elmar on an M one would have to factor in a mount (which would then add weight and bulkiness).

Extending the point somewhat, I think I also prefer shooting the LTM camera over the M6. I absolutely concede that it is far slower to shoot.

 

[scigeek]

And the early Elmar is no slouch

Scan-160810-0003 by Mr Chombee, on Flickr

Pete

Nice image and kind of backs up what I'm saying. That results from the older Elmar are not really noticibly different.

 

[mcfingon]

I own a 1946 Elmar 50/3.5 and now a 1997 Elmar-M 50/2.8. One of the biggest differences I can see is that the new one is bitingly sharp and contrasty at f2.8 and extremely resistant to flare, as shown above my son's helmet in this shot with the Elmar-M on the M3. I also enjoy shooting the original Elmar on my Leica III for that Barnack feeling.

 

[Ronald M]

I'm torn on this lens; I love my 50 'cron, too, so it seems like overkill to have this AND the other. Still, haven't managed to bring myself to sell it yet...

I must have six fifty mm lenses, all Leica. They go from 50 3.5 Red Scale to 1969 V4 and two the last version of 50 2.8. This will haunt you as long as you own a Leica.

The easy lesson is the lenses improve through the years, mostly at wide apertures.

 

[mcfingon]

Extending what jaapv said, I think the image quality improvements of the Elmar-M show even on film. Another advantage compared to my LTM 50/3.5 is it focuses to .7m instead of 1m. Here the sharpness at that distance is demonstrated on my M2, the only film body I have that will allow .7m rangefinder coupling.

 

[jaapv]

I have four Elmars ranging from a 1937 3.5 to a 2006 Elmar M. I think the mid-fifties 2.8 one is the softest, the 2006 Elmar-M the sharpest., the old 3.5 is no slouch either, but lower contrast and more aberrations.
Anyway, the Elmar-M is quite able to keep up with the newest Leica lenses.