UliWer Posted February 27, 2010 Share #21 Posted February 27, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) Differences between the two versions become very obvious in low light/high contrast situations: 1. Version at 2,8: 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! 2. Version at 2.8: The estimated aperture shown in the Exif is f/4.8 for the 1. version and f/5.7 (!) for the 2. version - both "misguessed" by the camera as it was F/2.8 and 1/6 sec. in both cases (no hood, same UV/IR-Filter). I think this is caused by the first version showing profound black of the dark parts with the histogramm going steep up on the left side, which is veiled by the 1. version where the histogramm does not even touch the left side. Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! 2. Version at 2.8: The estimated aperture shown in the Exif is f/4.8 for the 1. version and f/5.7 (!) for the 2. version - both "misguessed" by the camera as it was F/2.8 and 1/6 sec. in both cases (no hood, same UV/IR-Filter). I think this is caused by the first version showing profound black of the dark parts with the histogramm going steep up on the left side, which is veiled by the 1. version where the histogramm does not even touch the left side. ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/113772-leica-50-elmar-28-samples-and-differences/?do=findComment&comment=1241239'>More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 27, 2010 Posted February 27, 2010 Hi UliWer, Take a look here Leica 50 Elmar 2.8 samples and differences?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
UliWer Posted February 27, 2010 Share #22 Posted February 27, 2010 Some more boring examples? 1. Version at 2.8: [ATTACH]190247[/ATTACH] 2. Version at 2.8: [ATTACH]190248[/ATTACH] 3.5/50 Elmar with M-Mount (my favourite one) at 3.5: [ATTACH]190249[/ATTACH] Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted February 27, 2010 Share #23 Posted February 27, 2010 There is no real difference: none of the collapsible lenses would touch the shutter... As i wrote above, there are real differences in the diameter of the tube's bottom. I can see them in person on my 1962, 1994 and 2004 versions. I did not say that the lenses touch the shutter. Some of them do touch the roller cam of my R-D1 and R-D1s bodies. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UliWer Posted February 27, 2010 Share #24 Posted February 27, 2010 Sure my assumption that the differences were "not real" was unjustified, as I really measure 30.00mm for the 3.5/50 from 1954, 30.02mm for the 2.8/50 from 1958 and 30.04mm for the 2.8/50 from 1995 - always at the extreme edges of the tube's end. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
epand56 Posted February 27, 2010 Share #25 Posted February 27, 2010 Here other four examples of the 50/2.8 collapsible circa 1996, a couple in low light. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted February 27, 2010 Share #26 Posted February 27, 2010 Is it the lens or the photographer, Enrico? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
epand56 Posted February 27, 2010 Share #27 Posted February 27, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) Is it the lens or the photographer, Enrico? What about a good mix, Jaap? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted February 27, 2010 Share #28 Posted February 27, 2010 A tool is only as good as its user... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bybrett Posted February 28, 2010 Share #29 Posted February 28, 2010 Differences between the two versions become very obvious in low light/high contrast situations:. Nice comparison. I use the hood from a 90 Macro Elmar-M on my 50 Elmar M. See my weddings on the link below for examples. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.