P
Peter
Guest
I need some information on the above-mentioned lens. Will this lens collapse completely into the Bessa R2? Will it hit the ledge in front of the shutter? 🙂
Leica Elmar M 50mm/2.8
- Thread starter Peter
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 24
- Views 4K
back alley
IMAGES
my understanding is that the bessa cameras cannot take a collapsable lens. at least you cannot collapse them all the way.
joe
joe
Huck Finn
Well-known
Peter, see Stephen Gandy's site at www.cameraquest.com
Refer to his writ-up on the R2. At the bottom of the page he has a section on Collapsible lenses. Re your question, it depends on which version. The latest version: yes, but collapse gently. The original version partially collapses.
Refer to his writ-up on the R2. At the bottom of the page he has a section on Collapsible lenses. Re your question, it depends on which version. The latest version: yes, but collapse gently. The original version partially collapses.
P
Peter
Guest
Thanks for the pointer! 🙂
peter_n
Veteran
Great lens Peter, if you're interested. It's very underrated because of the Summicron, but I've had both and personally I prefer the results from the Elmar-M. A couple of pics from this lens from my gallery below:
Elmar-M pic 1
Elmar-M pic 2
Elmar-M pic 3
Elmar-M pic 1
Elmar-M pic 2
Elmar-M pic 3
Flyfisher Tom
Well-known
I know this is an old post, but for those interested ....
The newest Elmar-m will collapse partially into Bessa R(x) cameras, but not completely. The Bessa R(x) cameras have a shorter depth than Leica M cameras, and they have a built-in ridge that prevents the lens from collapsing into the shutter.
By the way, the Elmar-M is an incredible lens with exceptionally smooth bokeh. Highly underrated lens.
The newest Elmar-m will collapse partially into Bessa R(x) cameras, but not completely. The Bessa R(x) cameras have a shorter depth than Leica M cameras, and they have a built-in ridge that prevents the lens from collapsing into the shutter.
By the way, the Elmar-M is an incredible lens with exceptionally smooth bokeh. Highly underrated lens.
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
Flyfisher Tom
Well-known
First, let me say I like Stephen and his site ... but it is unfortunate that cameraquest (an otherwise very helpful site) gives a less than flattering single sentence blurb about the Elmar-M only being for 'collectors' (without citing any reasons or other details as far as I can find).
I'm not sure where that highly underserved rap comes from. A lot of people who haven't actually used the lens seem to hold the same opinion (based largely I assume on just looking at lens speed rather than actual results).
Actual results are that it is as sharp as the summicron at equal apertures, and the OOF signature has a classic yet crisp look to it ... the best way I can describe it is that the photos have summicron sharpness but a very smooth OOF rendition that reminds me of the 2.8 Planar and 3.5 Xenar of the Rolleiflexes. Probably one of the few modern lenses that incorporates the virtues of modernity with the characteristics of the classical. Does that make any sense, perhaps someone else can describe it better.
By contrast, KB Camera 's review site gives a glowing review of the Elmar-M. So there is some appreciation out there, particularly from users.
Like I said, I like Stephen's site quite a bit, and have usually found his reviews to be very good, but on the Elmar-M, he, his source or his information is (with all due respect) ... wrong :angel:
I'm not sure where that highly underserved rap comes from. A lot of people who haven't actually used the lens seem to hold the same opinion (based largely I assume on just looking at lens speed rather than actual results).
Actual results are that it is as sharp as the summicron at equal apertures, and the OOF signature has a classic yet crisp look to it ... the best way I can describe it is that the photos have summicron sharpness but a very smooth OOF rendition that reminds me of the 2.8 Planar and 3.5 Xenar of the Rolleiflexes. Probably one of the few modern lenses that incorporates the virtues of modernity with the characteristics of the classical. Does that make any sense, perhaps someone else can describe it better.
By contrast, KB Camera 's review site gives a glowing review of the Elmar-M. So there is some appreciation out there, particularly from users.
Like I said, I like Stephen's site quite a bit, and have usually found his reviews to be very good, but on the Elmar-M, he, his source or his information is (with all due respect) ... wrong :angel:
richard_l
Well-known
Also, the Elmar-M may be more flare resistant than the 'Cron. Anyhow, mine is.
Richard
Richard
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
Just how compact is the modern Elmar when collapsed? I'm thinking of a collapsible for use as a "body cap that takes photos" for my M3 as a small supplement to the, um, less than small 75 'lux that should be arriving Real Soon Now. The good words said here about the Elmar are encouraging me in that thought. But I do want something quite small indeed...
...Mike
...Mike
Flyfisher Tom
Well-known
Mike,
It is about the size of the CV 21 when collapsed into the M body. And, actually slightly smaller than the collapsible 1st version 50/2 summicron.
Makes my M pocketable. I use it without the hood, don't need it (this lens does not have a flaring problem at all).
You won't be disappointed 🙂
It is about the size of the CV 21 when collapsed into the M body. And, actually slightly smaller than the collapsible 1st version 50/2 summicron.
Makes my M pocketable. I use it without the hood, don't need it (this lens does not have a flaring problem at all).
You won't be disappointed 🙂
Flyfisher Tom
Well-known
Mike,
keep in mind that this photo shows the lens with the HOOD and HOOD cap on, so it is in reality even smaller when used without the hood (which, as I indicated, you won't need as this lens does not suffer from flaring).
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=218022353&size=o
keep in mind that this photo shows the lens with the HOOD and HOOD cap on, so it is in reality even smaller when used without the hood (which, as I indicated, you won't need as this lens does not suffer from flaring).
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=218022353&size=o
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
That's plain mean 😀 I shouldn't be encouraged. Now I just need to figure out the logistics of converting a near-perfect M-Hexanon 50/2 into one of these (I'll keep my other Hex 50 that shows wear on the focus ring).Flyfisher Tom said:
...Mike
Flyfisher Tom
Well-known
Sorry Mike, I just like seeing lenses go to good loving homes 😉
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
FrankS
Registered User
I'll soon be getting an elmar 50 f2.8 Classic. I've read that the build quality is better on the first version, but that the current M version is sharper. Does anyone have any experience with both?
Flyfisher Tom
Well-known
FrankS said:
Frank,
I have the current version, and its build quality is as good as any Leica lens I've ever owned (including modern as well as the old classics 50/2 DR and Rigid). Smooth extension, buttery focusing, extremely high tolerances.
So if the first version is better, it must have been made out of Kryptonite by Rolex watch elves 🙂
FrankS
Registered User
Goes to show you I guess, that you can't believe everything you read. 🙂
MCTuomey
Veteran
Peter, I recall a post recommending use of an elastic hair band around the barrel to prevent its complete collapse into the bessa body. Kind of a safety lock, if you like.
Any way, here's one more voice in favor of the Elmar. I like it to the point where I prefer it for all-around use to my 50/1.4 'lux.
Any way, here's one more voice in favor of the Elmar. I like it to the point where I prefer it for all-around use to my 50/1.4 'lux.
Flyfisher Tom
Well-known
Mike,
Thanks for that tip. I think others have also suggested cutting clear plastic tubing from a hardware store in the right diameter as a stop.
cheers
Thanks for that tip. I think others have also suggested cutting clear plastic tubing from a hardware store in the right diameter as a stop.
cheers
