Leica Elmar 50mm F2.8

i havent had an old elmar for a while, i remember it being very good on film, the new elmar-m (modern) is a spectacular lens though, very sharp with gentle rendering of backgrounds. not too sharp, just right in balance.
i beleive bolt, old elmar and newere elmar-m are superior the the older cron.
 
The old Elmar 50mm f/2.8 is a good lens, but the Elmar-M 50mm f/2.8 is an outstanding lens.

Leica M3, Elmar-M 50mm f/2.8, Tmax400.

Erik.

9505829566_dc50b65572_c.jpg
 
I owned the old version, collapsible chrome Elmar 50/2.8 ... I was always impressed with the build quality and the overall sharpness of the lens. It was a really good "do-it-all" versatile 50mm. I kind of regret selling it. It especially did a great job with black and white film.

Here's a sample shot with Neopan 400, developed in HC-110.

6009029491_6d9f3860d8_z.jpg
 
sanmich said:
How would the old 2.8 Elmar compare to the Summicron collapsible?
Click to expand...

Puts it to shame in my opinion. Color saturation and contrast are much better.

Pics are more like the Rigid/Dual Range Summicrons

New version is even better. Have two of those and one old one.
 
I have both....

I have both....

I dont think the ELMAR will put to shame the summicron unless the SUMMICRON is not a good copy.
I have both lenses and a good summicron is an amazing lens.
it has more bite than the ELMAR . the rendering is different . if I have to put an image I would say the SUMMICRON is masculine and the ELMAR more feminine .

Ophir
 
I own a '58 Summicron and a '58 elmar. Contrast and saturation is better with the elmar, but it is in better condition (no scratches, while the summicron has quite a few cleaning marks). I seem to nail focus easier with the elmar compared to the summicron. I wish that the aperture ring stayed in place as it does on the summicron. Other than that, it has quickly replaced the summicron as the go to lens in my bag. I love the look of it.
 
Additional note: I don't know of others have noticed this but when I shot color film with my 1950's Elmar, the overall color-cast of my negatives was 'different' than my Summicron DR. The Elmar probably had different coatings and it generally produced cooler tones than my other 50's.

I preferred shooting the Elmar with black and white film, but it was generally a very capable all-around lens. I'm sure the modern version is even better.

This is a shot taken with my 1950's Elmar, Leica M6 and Kodak Ektar 100.

5595540264_d9a7cfb45e_z.jpg
 
Elmar 2.8 v. Summicron

Elmar 2.8 v. Summicron

I think it would be fair to say that a 2.8 Elmar with later coatings would a good match for picture quality with the old Summicron collapsible, but certainly not the 'look'. But that's not an issue either, they are just different, the Tessar looks 'flatter' and less 3D, whatever that means. I think that's why the Elmar does black and white so well.

The Elmar is more even toned, but that is not to say that contrast isn't there. In Photoshop you can really crank it. As I have said before, high contrast glass is fine, but even with Photoshop it's harder to take away contrast than to add.

The newer Summicrons, the DR and forward, are better all 'round.

Don't get me wrong, I still shoot my 2.8 Elmar. I like the folder camera look that it has.
 
Pioneer said:
Technically the Elmar lenses are not Tessars (the aperture is in a different location) and they certainly aren't Triplets, Cooke or otherwise.

But I don't hold that against them. They are certainly nice lenses anyway. :)
Click to expand...

Half right. Elmars are not Tessars for the reason given. The Elmar has four elements in three groups; the rear group being a cemented doublet. A triplet is any lens with three groups of elements. An Elmar is a triplet.
 
Erik, those fine shots will provoke me to get out my Elmar-M again!

I've used it stopped down on MM with what look to me like good results, this one being two files stitched together:

Live Oak Park, Berkeley by Kirk Thompson, on Flickr

Someone above commented on the gentle bokeh without circles from the Elmar. I don't often use my modern one wide open, and I've never owned a 'senior' one and a youthful one at th same time; but in pictures I've noticed that older Elmars had more aperture blades than mine (only 8). So I'd expect the bokeh to be different.

I'm impressed, however, by the gentleness of the OOF areas in Erik's images.

Kirk
 
Elmar M 1st is an M mount version of the original 50/2.8 LTM Elmar, with the aperture iris right behind the first lens and with almost circular aperture. It is lower contrast, and somewhat soft wide open, sharpens up around f 5.6-8. The second version has been made in the nineties, I believe as part of some special edition Leica, and then it has remained in production for a few years. The lens has been recomputed, the aperture is now more recessed and it only has 6, although somewhat curved blades. One minor improvement is that the f stop ring does not rotate when you focus - I believe Tom Abrahamsson was actually responsible for that ;-). The good news though, is that the lens is substantially sharper and very flare resistant, while conserving a Tessar like 3D effect and very pleasant bokeh. Mr Puts claims it is almost at par with the later Summicron versions, perhaps even sharper in the field. The rendering in B&W is particularly equilibrated, with medium contrast.
 
Being pedantic one key difference is that the first 2.8 Elmar for M mount (ELMOM/11112) is not called Elmar-M.

The latter, Elmar-M (11823/11831) is the lens from the '90s
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom