Jump to content

Elmar 5cm F3.5 Red Scale vs Summicron 5cm "Radioactive" vs Summicron 5cm "Rigid"


jochiongv

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Belated Easter Greetings...

 

Seeking advice on picking one of the lenses in the title (or others to consider).

 

Fell in love with how my recently acquired Summicron-C 40mm renders with the M-P and slowly learning to appreciate and enjoy the "vintage" look. Thinking of getting a 50mm lens--this is my favorite FL--as my alternate "as-light-and-small-as-possible" walk around setup. Shoot 99% in color, intent is people subjects, from the waist up. (Did some impromptu test shots with all above lenses but still cannot decide...)

 

Can these lenses render with sufficient micro-contrast and/or color subtleties to see some 3D effect?

 

Can these lenses render colors with sufficient gradient detail?... As opposed to "flattish"... 

 

Will the Elmar's aperture ring mechanism get to be annoying to use after a while?

 

Can the yellow tint in the "Radioactive" indeed be cleared by simply leaving the lens under sunlight for a few--or more than a few--days?... Any risks in doing this? 

 

Is the non-"Radioactive" (also) collapsible Summicron 5cm rendering any noticeably different from the "Radioactive"?

 

I was able to discern that the "Rigid" renders (to my eyes) very "good looking" shots right away, but this is no longer as small as the collapsible lenses.

 

Trying to avoid the dreaded buyer's remorse. Could use the advice of those of you with more experience in similar treks. Thx in advance.

Edited by jochiongv
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I may sound like a grouch here, but for the life of me I don't understand if you've already done test shots with the three lenses in question , why are you bothering with the opinion of others? Trust your own eyes! Only you know if you like the results. As far as the Elmar's aperture ring - of course it can get annoying after a while, but it bothers some people and not others...depends on which of those people you are; it doesn't bother me, and I've used most of Leicas lenses produced between 1950-2002, but it bothered the guy I bought the lens from. If you do some research on removing the tint from thorium lenses, you will see that with care it is quite easy to remove the tint by exposing the lens to the sun, but you need to ensure that in doing so you don't overheat the lens....which you can do by wrapping the mount in aluminum foil...and it can take more than a few days...it took me a month on a Super Takumar which had the same issue.

 

I guess my bottom line is to not get too obsessive about all the exact details of lens selection to the point of being unable to make a relatively simple decision. 99% of the end result is in how adept you are in using the lens, composition and lighting, not in the nuances of its construction or slight rendering differences unless you are planning to do a lot of professional murals. I've been down the road of paralysis in lens selection too many times and found after many many years that choosing a good lens is the easy part...learning how to get the best performance out of it requires a massive computer between one's ears.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

With the Elmar you can carry the camera in your pocket. 

I don´t use my IIIf any more, but that was an advantage. 

The aperture ring is not super, but I could live with it (pocketcamera or no pocketcamera).

My opinion is inherited, because my father used Leica cameras with Elmars from 1938 on with the same arguments.

Jan 

Edited by jankap
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The M mount version of the 3.5 Elmar is the same optically as the screw mount Red Scale Elmar, is still collapsible, and has a conventional aperture ring. It is style like the 2.8 Elmar of the 1950s-60s. The 2.8 Elmar in M mount is more available, and is one of my favorites - I guess because it was the first Leica lens I used in the 1960s.

The non-radioactive Summicron Collapsible was actually the design intended (It uses the "kron" glass designated by the name), while the radioactive was an early substitute while they were developing manufacture of the intended glass. There were few of the radioactive made, and the kron type established the performance reputation.

i have cleared yellow radioactive Takumar lenses easily with a black-light Ultraviolet lamp. It only takes a couple of days, and avoids the heat of sunlight.

The rigid Summicron is an improvement over the collapsible due to optical changes.

Edited by TomB_tx
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

As said, choosing a lens is quite easy, use it at best may take some time.

A lens is not "better" than another one and it won't take better pictures than the "lesser one".

 

To be more positive, if this could help:

- out of my dozen of 50mm lenses, I can not point at the "best one" for all type of pictures

- of a Summicron 50 of same type, one may be more pleasing in portrait than other one that has stand better time passing

- the first one has some more aberrations and maybe some haze that the other one hasn't

- so, generality of characters from one type of lens is ok only for that only lens tested

- try the wanted lens by oneself is the best way not to be desappointed

 

Summicrons are different but never mediocre :) .

 

A side thought: why not "test" the last 50mm Elmar-M ;) 2.8/50, for it's lightness and compactness and "as good as can be an universal lens".

This one shines with my new M (type 262) and at f:2.8, very pleasing look of all kind of pictures.

:( man, sometime, I wish using a Summilux in place...

 

Regards,

 

Arnaud

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Why do you point specifically to the "radioactive" Summicron ?  The "real" radioactives are quite rare, and mostly of interest for collecting, not for using as your question does suggest... :unsure: ; apart this, the Elmar is of course more pocketable, but if, as you say, people is your target, and taken in remarkable foreground ("form the waist up") , the capabilty to use high apertures like 2 - 2,8 can be a plus... and a classic Summicron non collapsible is ALWAYS a smart choice.

Edited by luigi bertolotti
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Summicron V2 Rigid for IQ, F/2, 3D.

Elmar for weight, portability.

Summicron collapsible (V1) somewhat inbetween. I have no experience with the radioactive version.

But there are also dozens of other (including non-Leica) options if you are after a vintage look.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The M mount version of the 3.5 Elmar is the same optically as the screw mount Red Scale Elmar, is still collapsible, and has a conventional aperture ring. It is style like the 2.8 Elmar of the 1950s-60s. The 2.8 Elmar in M mount is more available, and is one of my favorites - I guess because it was the first Leica lens I used in the 1960s.

The non-radioactive Summicron Collapsible was actually the design intended (It uses the "kron" glass designated by the name), while the radioactive was an early substitute while they were developing manufacture of the intended glass. There were few of the radioactive made, and the kron type established the performance reputation.

i have cleared yellow radioactive Takumar lenses easily with a black-light Ultraviolet lamp. It only takes a couple of days, and avoids the heat of sunlight.

The rigid Summicron is an improvement over the collapsible due to optical changes.

Thx. Indeed I'm considering the M mount version you brought up, and had been advised by my contact here that the glass is the same as in the "Red Scale". I was not aware of the history re: radioactive glass as a substitute, interesting... Any thoughts/experience you could share of (any) rendering differences between the radioactive vs non-radioactive lenses? I had also read that the "proper" UV light source should be used for this process, i.e.: UV-A vs UV-B, that one will work, the other will not. Still researching...  

 

 

 

As said, choosing a lens is quite easy, use it at best may take some time.

A lens is not "better" than another one and it won't take better pictures than the "lesser one".

 

To be more positive, if this could help:

- out of my dozen of 50mm lenses, I can not point at the "best one" for all type of pictures

- of a Summicron 50 of same type, one may be more pleasing in portrait than other one that has stand better time passing

- the first one has some more aberrations and maybe some haze that the other one hasn't

- so, generality of characters from one type of lens is ok only for that only lens tested

- try the wanted lens by oneself is the best way not to be desappointed

 

Summicrons are different but never mediocre :) .

 

A side thought: why not "test" the last 50mm Elmar-M ;) 2.8/50, for it's lightness and compactness and "as good as can be an universal lens".

This one shines with my new M (type 262) and at f:2.8, very pleasing look of all kind of pictures.

:( man, sometime, I wish using a Summilux in place...

 

Regards,

 

Arnaud

Thx. I'll agree that choosing a lens "is quite easy", I'll submit however, that choosing the "right" lens is not. Nor am I even qualifying "better" or "lesser than" anything, let alone do I believe there's such thing as "best one" lens. I'm simply trying to get other's opinions/observations about the rendering differences and usability experience, which I hope--in conjunction with the research I've been doing myself, would help me make an informed decision. As stated previously, I would like to avoid (possible) buyer's remorse. Never occurred to me to consider the 50mm Elmar-M, not sure (for me) that's "vintage enough"  :)

 

 

 

Why do you point specifically to the "radioactive" Summicron ?  The "real" radioactives are quite rare, and mostly of interest for collecting, not for using as your question does suggest... :unsure: ; apart this, the Elmar is of course more pocketable, but if, as you say, people is your target, and taken in remarkable foreground ("form the waist up") , the capabilty to use high apertures like 2 - 2,8 can be a plus... and a classic Summicron non collapsible is ALWAYS a smart choice.

Thx. I specifically pointed to the "radioactive" unit as it was suggested by one of my local contacts as one to consider. Before, I didn't even know such things existed. Whether they're "quite rare" or "for-collecting-not-for-using" is unclear, and to some extent, irrelevant to me. Just as a reference, locally, there are at least 6 "radioactive" samples--some of which I've looked at, the others I could, should I wish to continue to consider. My relevant query was whether these render (tangibly) different from the non-radioactive versions, which are also available locally, at a somewhat lower price point. I use my gear, and have no interest in collecting nor endlessly acquiring more without an intended purpose. Your comment re: larger aperture as a plus for my intended purpose, is well taken and indeed one I'd agree with--in general. Based on various commentaries though, these versions of Summicrons (or the Elmar f2.8) render "soft" opened up, that f4.0 or smaller aperture is where they start to "shine"... If this is the case, then I'd be fine with the Elmar f3.5, which--based on various commentaries--is quite sharp even opened up... (I know, I know... it's what pleases my eyes what really matters :rolleyes: , what can I say, I have a "data-driven" type personality...)   

Edited by jochiongv
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...