Post Your Elmar Love... All versions

M

Membedeep

Member
Local time
8:39 AM
Joined
Oct 10, 2011
Messages
33
Has anyone used the LTM 2.8/50 Elmar? I am curious of what this lens is capable, beside what Ken Rockwell says. I have it and I wonder is it worth keeping it and use it. Thanks!
 
You may find that more people use the M version (Not Elmar-M which is another story altogether). I don't think the LTM 2.8 version is too common.

Michael
 
It's an excellent lens. It seems quite flare resistant. I was toying with selling mine but decided against it.
Pete

M version:

img061.jpg

img062.jpg
 
I have no experience with this lens but I ran into Tom A. a few months back and he had high praise for the last version. In fact, he even suggested that it was discontinued because it was eroding the sale of the Summicron. It was that good.

If I had not bought the Planar 50/2, I'd seriously consider this lens.

~ Hibbs
 
Would like to bring this thread back to life because this is a great lens that doesn't get much attention. After owning the f3.5 Elmar, and mulling whether to get a collapsible Summicron instead, I settled on the 5cm f2.8 Elmar in LTM, and I really enjoy it. It ticks all the boxes for me, and I hope others who are shooting this lens (M or LTM) will add some photos here.





Trying to scale focus close up. Need more practice!



Uncluttered shooting: scale focus on my 1f.
32783176410_5a06a1690f_c.jpg


Sunlight hitting the orange filter and front element of the Elmar. Need to use a hood...


A couple shameless string light bokeh shots wide open :D




My tenpura rice bowl shot close up using the SOOKY-M on my M3.
 
Except that wide open is way too soft for me, I like the way it renders from f/5.6 on.
Basically, I consider it an f/4 lens.
I've had two clean samples, bayonet version, and the behavior was exactly the same.
 
13Promet said:
Except that wide open is way too soft for me, I like the way it renders from f/5.6 on.
Basically, I consider it an f/4 lens.
I've had two clean samples, bayonet version, and the behavior was exactly the same.
Click to expand...

It's definitely not the sharpest tool in the shed wide open, and I agree, middle and smaller apertures are great. f4-5.6 still allows for some subject separation at near distances, eg. people photos etc.

f5.6ish
31148467876_076486729a_c.jpg
 
I've been interested in this lens on and off for a few years. The samples look nice, but based on what I'm reading, it's not likely to be a big advance on my 50/3.5 Elmar (except for ease of setting the aperture). GAS averted...(for now).
 
13Promet said:
Except that wide open is way too soft for me, I like the way it renders from f/5.6 on.
Basically, I consider it an f/4 lens.
I've had two clean samples, bayonet version, and the behavior was exactly the same.
Click to expand...

Not my experience.

When I had a clean 50/2.8 LTM copy ....

r1-Scan-140105-0002.jpg


r1-Scan-140105-0013.jpg


raw3-Scan-140125-0013.jpg


Roland.
 
I used to have the M-mount version, really liked it.

7.jpg

I have a 30x40cm darkroom print of this picture on the wall, it's a ISO 100, 1/15th second shot and it looks great. For people it's also great because wide open the DOF is just enough to have the person in focus but nicely separated from background.
 
helenhill said:
Ok, since I have never tried this version of the Elmar
but vaguely remember sone complaints in the ergonomics ... What was it ??
Click to expand...

Hello! So far I have heard complaints that it's not sharp enough wide open, and about the lens turning when you try to change the aperture

Personally I like the performance at f2.8, and the changing aperture - turning lens thing doesn't really bother me :)

I think this lens has so much more going for it than against it!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom