Leica 50mm 2.8 Elmar-M or Voigtlander 50mm 2.5?

[Erik van Straten]

I like how the Elmar-M renders.

That is a good point. Another aspect of the Elmar-M that I like is its shade.

Erik.

 

[lonemantis]

The rigid (v1) can hard to find without cleaning marks or haze and in black is very expensive. Nonetheless I'm interested in your choice Erik, given your experience with the Cv and Elmar-M.

The CV Heliar f2 might be a nice choice. Character at f2, modern from 2.8. Protrudes less than the Elmar-M when collapsed, and also has a short throw. For no fuss, the little Skopar is great.

[/URL]Compact/collapsible 50mms - size comparison - Leica screw / M mount by john m, on Flickr[/IMG]

I would second the recommendation for the F2 Heliar. I've tried too many 50s for Leica, and it's the only one I've kept. (besides the new 7Artisans F1.1, but we'll see if that lasts)

The Heliar feels built to Leica standards, and a lovely character that's simultaneously classic, but also contrasty and very flare-resistant.

I strongly disliked the Color-Skopar - the images had a very dull flatness to them. The build was good, but I dislike focus tabs. (purely a personal preference) I haven't tried the Elmar-M, but the images I've seen from it seem very nice and I don't think you'd be going wrong with it.

 

[Emile de Leon]

For me...and to my eye..the Elmar M is the perfect all around lens..so well balanced...so smoooth...I always wonder..how does it do that..
Leica took it off the market for a reason..it was cutting into Summicron sales..

 

[Erik van Straten]

I strongly disliked the Color-Skopar - the images had a very dull flatness to them.

I know that opinions on lenses are personal, but I have been using this lens for fourteen years and have never seen a picture from it that was dull and flat.

Leica M3, Color-Skopar 50mm f/2.5 (full aperture).

Erik.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Skopar images are not dull, they are sharp, but flat. IMO. And so are Crons from Rigid and newer, IMO. Sterile, sharp, no distortions, neutral.
On BW film I could get sharp image from Industar 61 and it is not flat. The problem is with lens build. Industars are not cute 🙂

Even 9$ Industar-26M 52 2.8 will do on bw film:

 

[Daryl J.]

A few years ago, a local store had a chrome Elmar 2.8 with a slightly bent filter ring and irrelevant scuffing on the barrel. Because of the damage, it was priced at $250.

The filter goes on just fine if not a little inconveniently.
It renders as new.

Since the lens is already damaged and my M4-2 had a rough previous life, they go where I would not take other cameras.

If one likes Tessar-style renderings, the 50/2.8 Elmar is a great choice.

 

[grouchos_tash]

Without cheating, can you really tell which lens is which? I thought the IQ from the Elmar was amazing (the best I've ever used) but I sold it. It was selling for £250 more than it cost me (and I needed the money otherwise I'd have kept it haha). It was excellent but, there was zero resistance when focusing and I found that made it harder to be accurate quickly. Although it was super light, it was longer than the Voigtlander and didn't have a focus tab.

Fomapan 400 in ID11


Ilford Pan 400 in HC-110

 

[Erik van Straten]

A few years ago, a local store had a chrome Elmar 2.8 with a slightly bent filter ring and irrelevant scuffing on the barrel. Because of the damage, it was priced at $250.

Was it an Elmar or an Elmar-M? There is quite some difference between the two.

Erik.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Gary, those two are very different objects to compare two lenses. And Fomapan 400 is very specific film. After I finished my first and last bulk of it and switched to normal film, I was very surprised to see my Color Skopar 35 2.5 to be sharp again 🙂.

But I'll be very surprised if cabbage comes from Skopar 🙂

 

[Erik van Straten]

Without cheating, can you really tell which lens is which?

A. Color-Skopar B. Elmar-M.

Erik.

 

[alfredian]

Both are good, chrome ones are on a brass core

Both are good, chrome ones are on a brass core

I have both, in chrome-on-brass and black-anodized-on-aluminum. Both are optically fantastic, both are more compact than Summicrons & Noktons. The brass Elmar-M's are plated onto brass cores & built like trucks but both of my black ones are nice & tight/smooth/sturdy. A dealer friend who sold me a chrome one was impressed by the black one - just as sturdy was his comment.

The Skopars are great but/yet come with the little ringlet mini-hood that is marginally useful in contrasty bright light. I got the accessory crinkle-paint finish square hood & that helps, but now you're not so compact. The best Skopar 50 is the S-mount one for Nikons - "dome" hood works as a hood & it's totally compact.

Yes, the Elmar-M has its own look & feel. I bought one just for a recent M-A purchase & have another on a releathered M4. I keep them in small Lowepro pouches meant for mirrorless digitals & it's the most compact rig I have other than Rollei 35s.

If you're on a budget definitely start life with a Skopar & consider getting the hood if you have the space & money, but start looking about for an Elmar-M and be prepared to move fast - they don't stay up long unless the seller has priced into dreamland.- alfredian

 

[Huss]

I strongly disliked the Color-Skopar - the images had a very dull flatness to them.

You've hurt the Color-Skopar's feelings...

Leica M3 DS, CV 50 2.5, Fuji C200

 

[Huss]

Another choice is the Jupiter 8 50mm f2.0. Tiny, super light weight, I paid $40 for a new old stock one.

Leica M4-2, J8, Kodak BW400CN

 

[Erik van Straten]

Another choice is the Jupiter 8 50mm f2.0.

Yes, it is a choice, but not a good one, dispite your beautiful portrait. The Jupiter has a tremendous distortion, I forgot wich one, puncushion or barrel vault.

Erik.

 

[rlouzan]

Chrome 50mm Elmar-m

 

[grouchos_tash]

Gary, those two are very different objects to compare two lenses. And Fomapan 400 is very specific film. After I finished my first and last bulk of it and switched to normal film, I was very surprised to see my Color Skopar 35 2.5 to be sharp again 🙂.

But I'll be very surprised if cabbage comes from Skopar 🙂

A. Color-Skopar B. Elmar-M.

Erik.

Nah, the first one was the Elmar-M 😀

I was happy with Fomapan 400, to be honest the only film I have noticed any 'lacking' has been Kentmere 400 which seemed to have odd looking grain and was kinda mushy.

 

[jsrockit]

I've used both... I preferred the Elmar. I think the Elmar-M is special in how it renders. The Skopar is just regular. Nothing wrong with that. I use many regular lenses. That said, both are tiny. Also, it is rare to have a 50mm shaped like a 35mm Summicron with tab. You cannot go wrong for the money here. In the end, I really liked the Summarit 50mm 2.5 the most.

 

[Erik van Straten]

Nah, the first one was the Elmar-M 😀

Yes, they are both good lenses.

Erik.

 

[Erik van Straten]

I really liked the Summarit 50mm 2.5 the most.

But mechanically it is not up to the other two. My repairman does not touch them.

I also like the Color-Skopar because you can use it on a Barnack.

The Summicron Rigid is also a very fine lens. Choosing is difficult.

Leica M2, Summicron 50mm f/2 rigid.

Erik.

 

[Daryl J.]

Erik: old 50 Elmar 2.8. I would love the newer variant, more as another choice for excellence than for diversity of character in my lens set.