FrankS
Registered User
No connection, etc.
http://www.photo.net/gc/view-one?classified_ad_id=672211
Don't these usually go in the $600 range?
http://www.photo.net/gc/view-one?classified_ad_id=672211
Don't these usually go in the $600 range?
back alley
IMAGES
i wonder if it's the new version?
K
Kyle
Guest
back alley said:i wonder if it's the new version?
It is the new version, and that price is about right. I've seen a few on ebay for between $475 and $525. There was one for sale here recently that went untouched for a couple weeks at $550 and finally sold for $500, IIRC.
FrankS
Registered User
http://www.photo.net/gc/view-one?classified_ad_id=672458
And now there's a Canon 50 f1.8 II for $50!
And now there's a Canon 50 f1.8 II for $50!
peter_n
Veteran
I paid $455 for a current chrome Elmar-M 50/2.8 on PN a few months ago.
visiondr
cyclic iconoclast
I paid $580 for a Mint current chrome Elmar-M 50/2.8 including shipping and a chrome Leica UV filter from a member here back in June '06.
Ron
Ron
Biggles
My cup runneth amok.
What do you gents who own them think of them?
FrankS
Registered User
I like my original version.
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
That canon is the EF autofocus lens Frank.
$50 is about right for that one too.. it's the "plastic fantastic" version.
Dave
$50 is about right for that one too.. it's the "plastic fantastic" version.
Dave
FrankS
Registered User
dcsang said:That canon is the EF autofocus lens Frank.
$50 is about right for that one too.. it's the "plastic fantastic" version.
Dave
Ahhh, thanks Dave. I guess I've just got RF on my mind!
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
FrankS said:Ahhh, thanks Dave. I guess I've just got RF on my mind!
Don't we all Frank? Don't we all
Dave
visiondr
cyclic iconoclast
Biggles said:What do you gents who own them think of them?
I think it's a little gem of a lens. Sharp, small, doesn't flare easily, essentially zero distortion, good handling (as long as you don't have ham hands) and well built. I'm very happy with the performance at all apertures.
Ron
peter_n
Veteran
I really like the lens, but now mine is used where I need sharpness in the corners as well as the center, like architecure. This lens is superb between f5.6 and f8. But I've also used it quite a lot for people, the shot below might give you a sense of how it renders (unfortunately I had to make a lower resolution copy so maybe it won't look so good).Biggles said:What do you gents who own them think of them?
Attachments
W
wlewisiii
Guest
Now if I could just find a cheap prewar uncoated one I'd be happy...
William
William
visiondr
cyclic iconoclast
JimG
dogzen
I have a new 2.8 M that's much sharper then my 3.5 Elmar (no surprise). But the 3.5 images seem more interesting, more 'old school'. I'm using the 3.5 more then the 2.8.
K
Kyle
Guest
JimG said:I have a new 2.8 M that's much sharper then my 3.5 Elmar (no surprise). But the 3.5 images seem more interesting, more 'old school'. I'm using the 3.5 more then the 2.8.
If you wanna let that Elmar-M go for a good price let me know.
BTW, is that my old Canon 35/2 in your avatar? Looks good!
JimG
dogzen
Kyle said:If you wanna let that Elmar-M go for a good price let me know.
BTW, is that my old Canon 35/2 in your avatar? Looks good!
Kyle, That is in fact your canon 35m which I am growing very fond of. I have have been considering passing on my Elmar 2.8 as I have several other M 50's I use more often. I looking for an M Leitz f1.5 or M 35mm- trade? Let me know.
Biggles
My cup runneth amok.
Thanks for the comments and pictures, gents. I have a soft spot for compact but high-quality kit. Looks like this lens qualifies.
Share:
-
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.