Version IV 28mm Elmarit

[gjames9142]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am wondering if anyone has experience with the fourth version of the 28 mm elmarit -- there are several for sale at the moment. As an 8x10 shooter, I have a weakness for Dagors, which have good resolution stopped down, as well a wonderful smoothness. The term "nice and contrasty" is for me a contradiction in terms. I suppose I could shell out the money for a new 'cron, but I tend to shoot everything at f5.6-8. The earlier lens is a bit bulky, which is a drawback, but I could probably live with it. Anyway I would appreciate any first-hand experience here.

[Leicaquarters]

Hi. If you are curious to know what a 28mm can do: here are two examples. Shot at Beaune France. Lens production number 11801 (version IV is as far I can check 11804)

Regards

Peter

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Leicaquarters]

Hi again.

To complete the story: ISO 160 1/350 - 5,6 both pictures.

Regards

Peter

[adan]

First, each of the 28 Elmarits has a different character. The 11801 Peter says he used was the original v.1 (and now collector-priced) non-retrofocus 28 from the 1960's. Nice, but I wouldn't use it to judge how the later lenses render.

 

v.1 11801

v.2 11802 (although some have the number 11801 R, it appears)

v.3 11804

v.4 11809

v. 5 (ASPH)

 

This link lists the 28mm versions + the 5-digit catalog numbers, and thumbnail descriptions that are (IMHO) pretty accurate: Leica M 28mm Lens Price Guide

 

The v.4 28 Elmarit is almost exactly the same size as the Summicron - it was the v.3 that was really bulky (but also really smooth tonally, and sharper in the corners than the v.2).

 

I really like the v.3, except for the size - I reviewed it here: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/customer-forum/45854-praise-mandler-lenses.html

 

Although I have to say I recently tried a v.4 on an M9 and it was smoother than I remembered on film.

Edited September 29, 2010 by adan

[gjames9142]

Thankyou both. Andy, I remember that head-dress from another post. It also underlines the fact that light itself has qualities of sharpness and mushiness. This is helpful to me -- I think I will go for a version IV. Save myself close to $3,000.

 

Geoffrey James

[leicashot]

I just did a quick comparison of the v3 and v4 and the v3 was sharper in the corners wide open. Not huge but noticeable. Center sharpness was equal as well as distortion. Not sure about flare as I was indoors.

 

IMHO the v3 is the most underrated Leica lens, and possibly one of the best.

[Leicaquarters]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Dear Adan,

Thanks to you I know I have a collectors item!

I started searching what 28 mm lens I really have and I found in a book written by R. Rogliatti that there are two versions of this lens.

The first one was produced at Wetzlar (1965 - 1972), protruding into the camera and therefore not suitable for the M5 (swinging lightmeter cell).

Mine is made in Canada (1978), one element less (8) and less protruding so I can use it on my M5.

I am aware of the fact that each 28 mm lens produced after the one I own will be better. That's just development. But I am quite happy with the results.

 

Regards,

Peter

[luigi bertolotti]

Dear Adan,

Thanks to you I know I have a collectors item!

I started searching what 28 mm lens I really have and I found in a book written by R. Rogliatti that there are two versions of this lens.

The first one was produced at Wetzlar (1965 - 1972), protruding into the camera and therefore not suitable for the M5 (swinging lightmeter cell).

Mine is made in Canada (1978), one element less (8) and less protruding so I can use it on my M5.

I am aware of the fact that each 28 mm lens produced after the one I own will be better. That's just development. But I am quite happy with the results.

 

Regards,

Peter

 

Yes, the story of the versions of the 28 2,8 is a bit complicated by the fact that Leitz retained the same code (11801) for two designs that are indeed very different (and , btw, the very first version - 9 elements - was produced also in Canada, even in more items than in Wetzlar.. some books make a bit of confusion about); your shots confirm your assertion that 28s have always became better in time: I have one of the very first (2.063.241 - Wetzlar 1964) ... is a rather rare collectible, cosmetically perfect, but indeed a rather poor performer... with a vignetting that is significant even into the cropped frame of M8 (on which, also, makes the metering uncorrect): my other 28, a version3, is miles over.

Edited October 2, 2010 by luigi bertolotti

[oronet commander]

Mine is always glued to my camera and consider it the best lens I've ever had: sharp, sweet and offering 'dense' (I don't know how to put it) and beautiful colours.

 

These are examples of photos taken with it:

 

Flickr: oronet.commander's stuff tagged with elmarit

[Xmas]

but indeed a rather poor performer... with a vignetting that is significant even into the cropped frame of M8 (on which, also, makes the metering uncorrect): my other 28, a version3, is miles over.

Hi

 

The type I is a very old lens, and wont have good correction off axis with large apertures.

 

It wont meter properly with M6 or later M or with M5s, indeed you need to check that the mount has been altered (milled) before you try it on a M5, or risk damage.

 

Noel

[james.liam]

Somewhat off-topic but does anyone know whether the R 28 Elmarit v.2 is optically related to any of the pre-aspherical M-versions? The R 90 APO is the identical optical formula as the M-version but wrought large. Wondering if the same applies to the excellent R 28 v.2.

Edited October 14, 2010 by james.liam

[adan]

Nope - difference being that the R system requires substantial retrofocus design for lenses shorter than 50mm to clear the mirror, whereas the M system does not. Not a problem for 90s and 135s, though, and the R and M have often shared designs in those focal lengths since the 1960's.

 

However, R and M lenses designed in the same era by the same designer with the same goals often shared some overall characteristics or fingerprints, even if the glass bits are substantially different. E.G. the 21 Elmarit pre-ASPH and the huge 19mm Elmarit-R v.1, designed a couple of years apart by Walter Mandler in Canada, have very similar contrast and color rendition, even though starkly different optics and size. There is to my eye a kinship in imaging between the v.2 R 28 and the v.4 M 28 (both from Solms in the 1990s) - even though the glass is quite different.

 

(Side note - the very first Leicaflex Standard has a mirror lockup and shared a 21mm design (no ttl viewing) with the M system. With the advent of the Leicaflex SL, the mirror lockup went away, and wide R lenses have gone their own route ever since.)

 

(Side note for the precisionists - M lenses wider than 35mm have been SLIGHTLY retrofocus in design since 1980 or a bit earlier, to allow metering. But they are still very different designs than corresponding R lenses.)

[bocaburger]

I am wondering if anyone has experience with the fourth version of the 28 mm elmarit.

 

I have one, which replaced my v.3. The v.4 is clearly sharper in the corners as well as crisper (contrast) at f/2.8 to f/4, but from there down there wasn't any remarkable difference. In fact, my C/V Ultron f/1.9 (not the M-mount f/2) performs from f/2.8 with uncanny indentical-ness to the v.4 Elmarit, which itself is said to be virtually identical from f/2.8 with the Summicron. Any of these (v.3, v.4 Elmarit, Summicron, f/1.9 Ultron, and Elmarit-ASPH) would probably be indistinguishable from one another in your proposed use from f/5.6 down. I have a preference for small, light lenses so I'm sorry I didn't get the ASPH Elmarit when it was priced equal to the v.4. Now the ASPH is about 50% higher on the used market.

[viboons]

I have got my 28mm Elmarit last month. It is good in most of the time except ,at any aperture setting, I can get sharp but not very sharp image of black subject on bright background. Another thing is ring of the edge of red lamp shot with wide open at night.