Elmar-M 50mm 2.8 II

Leica M3/Elmar-M 50mm f/2.8/TMY400/AdoxMCC110

Erik.

48012571897_109cdd76d8_b.jpg
 
The Elmar M goes everywhere with me, I must have had it for 15 years or so. It has been dropped, been underwater briefly and generally abused. It is my favourite for all sorts of reasons and quite different from its ancestors. I suppose being chrome it is a bit heavier than a black one but it is so small anyway.

At one point I did have to send it away because it had developed some slack in the mounting. All it needed was a little grease.
 
South African oranges East of the Iron Curtain? What on earth has the world come to?!

Great picture, keep them coming!
 
I don't know, Michael.
This is the eigthteenth century synagogue of Stolin in the south of the Belarus republic. On their way to Moscow in 1941/1942 the Germans killed all the 12.000 Jewish inhabitants of this town.

Leica M3/Elmar-M 50mm f/2.8/TMY400/IlfordMGFB

Erik.

50193544691_639e17fc49_b.jpg
 
Erik van Straten said:
I don't know, Michael.
This is the eigthteenth century synagogue of Stolin in the south of the Belarus republic. On their way to Moscow in 1941/1942 the Germans killed all the 12.000 Jewish inhabitants of this town.

I think Stolin featured in a BBC programme called 'Who do you think you are?' in which 'well known' people retrace their ancestors. Unfortunately I cannot remember who the programme was about.

Maybe another BBC watcher can help?
Click to expand...
 
Coming back to the beginning of this thread who is going to volunteer to accurately describe, in words, the very real differences in rendering between the Elmar M and what I shall call the Elmar 2.8 (ELMOM)?


I'm not up to it.
 
The coating of the Elmar-M is more effective, therefore there is more contrast: the blacks are deeper.
On the other hand the diaphragm of the Elmar-2.8 has fifteen blades or so - I've never counted them - and therefore the bokeh is sometimes better. The Elmar-M has only six blades. The diaphragm of the Elmar-2.8 is situated between the first two elements of the lens and that of the Elmar-M between the the last two.
The sharpness of both lenses is about the same I would say.

Erik.
 
Certainly agree with your comments about the effects of the better coating.

Haven't experienced anything different re aperture so can't comment.

Michael
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom