cameosis
word? up!
hi all,
could anybody tell me a bit about the above mentioned elmarit's (1965 / 2063***) resolution? -> lp/mm (center/edge) <-
i have been searching online, but there is only information pertaining to the current asph version to be found, plus puts' lens compendium doesn't say anything in that regard, either.
thanks much,
tomislav
could anybody tell me a bit about the above mentioned elmarit's (1965 / 2063***) resolution? -> lp/mm (center/edge) <-
i have been searching online, but there is only information pertaining to the current asph version to be found, plus puts' lens compendium doesn't say anything in that regard, either.
thanks much,
tomislav
JJW
Established
1st Generation 28mm M-Elmarit
1st Generation 28mm M-Elmarit
It is a very sharp lens in the center, but less so towards the edges.
The big difference between this lens and newer designs is in the contrast. The 1st Generation Elmarit has noticeably low contrast.
You can check this thread to compare performance between that lens and the current Voigtlander 28s, which are outstanding, by the way.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14013
1st Generation 28mm M-Elmarit
It is a very sharp lens in the center, but less so towards the edges.
The big difference between this lens and newer designs is in the contrast. The 1st Generation Elmarit has noticeably low contrast.
You can check this thread to compare performance between that lens and the current Voigtlander 28s, which are outstanding, by the way.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14013
Huck Finn
Well-known
Tomislav,
The place where you are most likely to find this information is an old issue of "Modern Photography" from the 1960s. This is exactly the kind of information they reported in their lens tests. I've found that the back issues are stored in the stacks of a number of universities.
Although Puts doesn't specifically report the lp/mm numbers in his lens reviews in the "Compendium", most of his conclusions are drawn from this kind of MTF data. So, it's safe to say that this lens doesn't do as well in lp/mm in the corners & on the edges at it does in the center at almost any aperture since this is what his comments indicate.
Erwin is a nice man by all reports & is fanatically devoted to lens analysis. I wonder if he wouldn't mind sharing his numbers with you if you e-mailed him. Just a thought . . .
Best of luck with your research.
Huck
The place where you are most likely to find this information is an old issue of "Modern Photography" from the 1960s. This is exactly the kind of information they reported in their lens tests. I've found that the back issues are stored in the stacks of a number of universities.
Although Puts doesn't specifically report the lp/mm numbers in his lens reviews in the "Compendium", most of his conclusions are drawn from this kind of MTF data. So, it's safe to say that this lens doesn't do as well in lp/mm in the corners & on the edges at it does in the center at almost any aperture since this is what his comments indicate.
Erwin is a nice man by all reports & is fanatically devoted to lens analysis. I wonder if he wouldn't mind sharing his numbers with you if you e-mailed him. Just a thought . . .
Best of luck with your research.
Huck
x-ray
Veteran
I previously owned a 1st version for five or six years and now for the past ten years have a 2nd version. The 1st version has much more illumination falloff at the edges. It always reminded me of my 21 3.4 super angulon. I really didn't care for the 1st, it wasn't a stellar performer in any respect. I do not have a CV 28mm but do have the 25mm in Nikon RF mt and find it superior in illumination, contrast and resolution to both the 1st and 2nd Leitz 28mm's. I've never felt the 28mm was one of Leicas stronger lenses.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=5045
www.x-rayarts.com
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=5045
www.x-rayarts.com
cameosis
word? up!
guys,
thanks a lot for your replies, i appreciate them.
don, i have talked my father into giving me the lens, together with the summilux 35 and a leica m 3 and m 5 -- in that regard, i cannot complain at all, given the price it normally commands (admittedly among collectors, not users it seems). on the other hand, i have not yet had the chance to shoot a lot with it, as i am picky about my motives and do not want to just shoot for technical comparison purposes (besides, i am a tech idiot anyway, so there). i love its design, however.
huck, the problem with the modern photography magazines is that i live in germany, so i have no access to them. therefore, i would have to know which issue an elmarit test was in to give it a shot and try finding it on ebay. as to puts, duh! the simplest suggestions are often the best -- i am a bit on the overly complicated side, so emailing him directly has not even crossed my mind before you mentioned it, lol.
cheers,
tomislav
thanks a lot for your replies, i appreciate them.
don, i have talked my father into giving me the lens, together with the summilux 35 and a leica m 3 and m 5 -- in that regard, i cannot complain at all, given the price it normally commands (admittedly among collectors, not users it seems). on the other hand, i have not yet had the chance to shoot a lot with it, as i am picky about my motives and do not want to just shoot for technical comparison purposes (besides, i am a tech idiot anyway, so there). i love its design, however.
huck, the problem with the modern photography magazines is that i live in germany, so i have no access to them. therefore, i would have to know which issue an elmarit test was in to give it a shot and try finding it on ebay. as to puts, duh! the simplest suggestions are often the best -- i am a bit on the overly complicated side, so emailing him directly has not even crossed my mind before you mentioned it, lol.
cheers,
tomislav
JJW
Established
Since you now own it, you could just also shoot some test pictures with the lens and determine if you like it.
I believe the English have an expression... "the proof is in the pudding".
I believe the English have an expression... "the proof is in the pudding".
Film dino
David Chong
Dont know if this really helps - but Erwin Puts' 2002 "book" [" Leica M-Lenses. Their soul and secrets"] written for Leica has a short comparison of the older Leitz 28s- this pdf download (1.3MB) doesnt appear to be be at www.leica-camera.com but I could email it if you send an email add via PM
x-ray
Veteran
Sounds like a great deal to me. I would use it and enjoy it and see how I like it over a period of time. I'm just not a 28mm fan even though I own one. I like the 21mm and 35mm and find they fit into my style of shooting much better. In slr shooting I've always loved the 24mm and 35mm but again hardly use a 28mm. The 1st version 28 is certainly good but not one of the lenses Leica built their reputation on. Many people disliked the first version 35mm summilux but I owned one (wish I had it back) and shot many excellent images that would have been difficult with anything slower.
I actually have a 28mm Leitz lens that I love for the softer flaring images. I often shoot with my IIIC (the one in the avitar) with uncoated 28mm 6.3 Hektor, 50 uncoated elmar and 90 uncoated elmar. I shoot on a modern remake of super-xx and process in DK-50 for a very pleasing vintage look. What you like depends on what your expectations and needs are and not the number of lines per mm and HFT curves. Remember the most important factor in photography is what's 2 inches behind the camera.
You'll find examples of the first version summilux in my gallery
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=5045
In real life I've found that I do not like some of the more modern lenses for my look. I have said for some time that I think many of the modern lenses are technically superior but they've lost their personality. This might be difficult for some to understand but after nearly fifty years of shooting and a hundred thousand plus rolls later you start to understand the different personalities of lenses.
You've got a great setup so enjoy it.
I actually have a 28mm Leitz lens that I love for the softer flaring images. I often shoot with my IIIC (the one in the avitar) with uncoated 28mm 6.3 Hektor, 50 uncoated elmar and 90 uncoated elmar. I shoot on a modern remake of super-xx and process in DK-50 for a very pleasing vintage look. What you like depends on what your expectations and needs are and not the number of lines per mm and HFT curves. Remember the most important factor in photography is what's 2 inches behind the camera.
You'll find examples of the first version summilux in my gallery
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=5045
In real life I've found that I do not like some of the more modern lenses for my look. I have said for some time that I think many of the modern lenses are technically superior but they've lost their personality. This might be difficult for some to understand but after nearly fifty years of shooting and a hundred thousand plus rolls later you start to understand the different personalities of lenses.
You've got a great setup so enjoy it.
cameosis
word? up!
don,
i absolutely agree with you, i suppose i just wasn’t making myself clear enough: i have shot great pictures with simple compact cameras or even with one-use cameras. i need to »feel« photographs—or songs for that matter—in order to be able to say that they are good, excellent or ace.
as such, i am very happy with my fsu equipment or some so-called »no name« lenses.
the reason i look for the technical specifications of the elmarit is mainly to familiarize myself with my equipment’s background, if you wish, not to decide on its value or acceptability.
i have checked your gallery before, it’s impressive—but you know that already, haha.
lastly, i remember one funny anecdote that i read somewhere on someone’s blog: a photographer was once invited to a friend’s place for dinner—he took some of his pictures along to show them to the hostess as well. she was impressed and said: »your camera certainly takes beautiful pictures.« after dinner, he whispered to her: »that was delicious—your pots cook excellent food.«
i absolutely agree with you, i suppose i just wasn’t making myself clear enough: i have shot great pictures with simple compact cameras or even with one-use cameras. i need to »feel« photographs—or songs for that matter—in order to be able to say that they are good, excellent or ace.
as such, i am very happy with my fsu equipment or some so-called »no name« lenses.
the reason i look for the technical specifications of the elmarit is mainly to familiarize myself with my equipment’s background, if you wish, not to decide on its value or acceptability.
you have nailed it perfectly.
i have checked your gallery before, it’s impressive—but you know that already, haha.
lastly, i remember one funny anecdote that i read somewhere on someone’s blog: a photographer was once invited to a friend’s place for dinner—he took some of his pictures along to show them to the hostess as well. she was impressed and said: »your camera certainly takes beautiful pictures.« after dinner, he whispered to her: »that was delicious—your pots cook excellent food.«
dreamsandart
Well-known
The 1st version 28 Elmarit is 'Leitz Classic Glass'. It does have noticeable light fall off in the corners (vignetting) if you are in the habit of underexposing color positive film, but this can be use creatively too. In the f4-8 range its great, a nice handling pre-focus quick working lens with half-stop aperture ring and smooth focus.
Its a 'collectors' lens these days, the Japanese love it and call it 'sexy' because of its shape with the hourglass curves. It is an unusual lens also with its protruding rear element that interferes with the internal metering on M cameras. So in general its for those people that have been using it a long time, or those that just want a very classic look - on the camera, and in the photograph.
Its a 'collectors' lens these days, the Japanese love it and call it 'sexy' because of its shape with the hourglass curves. It is an unusual lens also with its protruding rear element that interferes with the internal metering on M cameras. So in general its for those people that have been using it a long time, or those that just want a very classic look - on the camera, and in the photograph.