steed Posted November 4, 2009 Share #1 Posted November 4, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) I realize that the question is subjective, but what do the faithful find to be sharper, the 2.8 Elmar 50mm or the 3.5 Elmar 50mm? John W Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 4, 2009 Posted November 4, 2009 Hi steed, Take a look here comparative sharpness question. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
UliWer Posted November 4, 2009 Share #2 Posted November 4, 2009 Depends on which 2.8/50 Elmar we are talking about: if it is the last version, which was made from 1994 to 2007 it is certainaly much sharper and a lot more contrasty than any of it's precedessors. When you compare the first version of the 2.8/50 Elmar to it's companions, the classical old version with the 3.5/50 is considerably sharper and more contrasty - if it is coated, which all the numbers from about 900.000 were. The 2.8-version has rather low contrast fully opened and only from f 1:5.6 it is as good as the 3.5-version. The 2.8 was a step backwards, I think it was only produced because they thought the old version "outfashioned". In practize the half stop doesn't matter. I should always look for the M-mount with 3.5 (rarest and cheapest of the Elmars on second hand-market) or for the screw-mount with the red scale, if I were not going for the modern version. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted November 5, 2009 Share #3 Posted November 5, 2009 I have the old 2,8 (in SM) and the "new" 3,5 (in BM) and always preferred the 3,5... the BM version I think is optically identical to the Red Scale SM which is still an amazing lens.Never tried the "modern" 2,8. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UliWer Posted November 5, 2009 Share #4 Posted November 5, 2009 ... the BM version I think is optically identical to the Red Scale SM which is still an amazing lens.... That's my impression as well. When I compare a nickel-version from 1932 which was coated later to a "red-scale" SM-version and a 3.5/5cm M-mount version, I see no differences at all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tobey bilek Posted November 5, 2009 Share #5 Posted November 5, 2009 Have all three and agree with above. Might add the 3.5 Red Scale stopped to 22 still makes a pretty decent neg where as diffraction seems to get to the others at 16. It is also the smallest of the bunch, but f stops are around the glass and can be fussy to change. I will never sell mine Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted November 6, 2009 Share #6 Posted November 6, 2009 A while ago I posted some test shots taken with a black scale 3.5, red scale 3.5 a the 2.8 (old version). The 2.8 is a tad softer wide open but looked the same as the red scale 3.5 once stopped down from 3.5. The red scale lens was more contrasty and slightly sharper than the black scale lens - the front element is slightly different, its more than just coating (although coating will improve the performance of an uncoated lens of course). Ultimately they are all very good lenses, but my favourite would be the red scale Elmar (or M mount 3.5 which as above, I suspect is an identical lens). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andym911 Posted November 15, 2009 Share #7 Posted November 15, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) agree with all above the 3,5/50 red scale is simply unbeleivable for sharpness and contrast. Can be bought for relatively small money and used on either Digital M or Film M is unbeatable value in my opinion....got to be one of my all time favourites...and sooooo small! andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.