Leica Lens Compedium info concerning the Elmarit-R 2,8/35

[Guest tadakuni]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi all here,

 

Concerning the Elmarit-R 1:2,8/35:

 

AFAIK there are three different versions of this lens :

 

Here are three pictures:

 

- version I (chrome variant): http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/images/7/72/R-35f28-i.jpg

- Version II (on the left of the picture): http://www.digicamclub.de/attachment.php?attachmentid=2877&d=1231604778

- Version III: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/images/6/6b/R-35f28-iii.jpg

 

My question:

 

Does the version II already have the same outstanding optics as the version III?

 

I ask, because I am not sure how to interpret the info concerning this lens in the 2001 edition of the Erwin Puts “Leica Lens Compedium”:

 

- on page 159 Erwin Puts writes that the last and outstanding version of the optics has been introduced in 1973. 1973 is the year the version II of this lens has been introduced. So this would imply that the answer to my question is: “Yes, the version II of this lens does already have the same outstanding optics as the version III.”

 

- on page 218 Erwin Puts writes that the last outstanding version of the optics has been introduced in 1979. 1979 is the year the version III of this lens has been introduced. So this would imply that the answer to my question is: “No, the version II of this lens doesn’t have the last outstanding version of the optics. The last outstanding version of the optics has been introduced in 1979 when the version III of this lens has been introduced”.

 

So it would be great if someone here should perhaps know for sure if the version II of this lens - introduced in 1973 - does already have the same outstanding optics as the version III - introduced in 1979 - or not?

 

Thanks in advance and kind regards!

[luigi bertolotti]

I'm not an expert on R lenses, but if you look at our Wiki Section, the story seems clear : version II (1973) and version III (1979) ARE different (7/5 vs. 7/6 optical schema). Probably, a typo in Puts'book...

[Guest tadakuni]

I'm not an expert on R lenses, but if you look at our Wiki Section, the story seems clear : version II (1973) and version III (1979) ARE different (7/5 vs. 7/6 optical schema). Probably, a typo in Puts'book...

 

Thanks for your answer. AFAIU the Leica Lens Compedium there have been three versions of the optics and according to the Lens Compendium only the last one is the one with an outstanding performance.

 

The first two versions of the optics are both reviewed on page 158 under the headline "2,8/35 Elmarit-R (I), 1964":

 

1st version is 7/5 (see Fig. 141 on page 159 of the LLC).

 

2nd version is already 7/6: "...a change in the optical cell where the 2nd and 3rd element are no longer cemented, but have a tiny airspace. Performance hardly changed, so it is a matter of opinion if one would recognize this as a seperate version. Sometimes optical changes are made for reasons of production technique and not necessarily to change and improve the performance." (LLC page 158)

 

So if it's correct what Puts writes about the 2nd version of the optics this is already a 7/6 version, too, just like the much improved 3rd version of the optics.

 

The 3rd version of the optics is reviewed on page 159 under the headline "2,8 Elmarit-R (II), 1973": "...has much improved overall contrast..."

 

So taking into account your typo theory IMO all this can be interpreted in (at least) two different ways:

 

1st possible interpretation (correct year in the headline on page 159):

 

At some point in time between 1964 and 1973 there has been a minor change in the optical cell of the version I of this lens (picture in my previous post). Then in 1973 version II was introduced with a new and final version of the optical cell.

 

2nd possible interpretation (1973 in the headline on page 159 is a typo. Correct would be 1979):

 

When the version II of this lens (see the picture in my previous post) has been introduced in 1973 there has been a minor change in the optical cell of this lens (the tiny airspace between the 2nd and 3rd element). When the version III of this lens (see the picture in my previous post) has been introduced in 1979 it was introduced after a revision of the optical cell (see Fig. 142 on page 159 of the LLC) with a much improved performance.

 

But I admit that I have some doubts concerning your typo theory:

 

In the "Content" of the new edition of the LLC you can still read the same "typo" concerning the year of introduction of the final version of the optical cell:

 

"7.14.15. Leica Elmarit-R (II) 35mm f/2.8 (1973)"

 

So my question still is if someone here perhaps knows for sure if the version II of this lens - introduced in 1973 - does already have the same outstanding optics as the version III - introduced in 1979 - or not?

 

Thanks again and kind regards!

[lct]

Why outstanding? I have no experience with this lens but it looks rather mediocre here: Leica Elmarit-R 35mm f/2.8 (E55) Lens Review

[Guest tadakuni]

Why outstanding? I have no experience with this lens but it looks rather mediocre here: Leica Elmarit-R 35mm f/2.8 (E55) Lens Review

 

Sorry if "outstanding" should be a misleading term. Please read "outstanding" in the sense of "much improved in comparision with the 1st (7/5) and 2nd (7/6 with tiny airspace) version of the optical cell".

 

Sorry for the perhaps misleading term.

 

Kind regards.

[integrale]

I use a converted 3rd version as my walk-arouond lens on a Nikon D700 - it easily outperforms my Nikkor AF-D 35/2. Maybe not outstanding, but a solid performer and it is by far my most used lens.

[luigi bertolotti]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yup... once again is better not to enter in questions you have never gone deep into... (I said not to be an expert on R... and simply surfed the Wiki which, regrettably , is often not so precise). So, tonight I have read what I have in Lager, Laney, Sartorius, Van Hasbroek :

1) only the first is 7/5, both 2nd and 3rd are 7/6 (typo in Van Hasbroek... 1st version in 7 elements... 3rd version "...still with eight elements")

2) Lager (very trustable, imho) writes in detail that the 3rd (1979) version is "optically identical" to the 2nd (1973); Laney and Sartorius both write that the 3rd has a new, redesigned mount and maintains the same optical schema of the 2nd.

 

So... one could hint that the 2nd has the same performances as the 3rd : I stop here... never had any SLR in my life...

[Guest tadakuni]

Laney and Sartorius both write that the 3rd has a new, redesigned mount and maintains the same optical schema of the 2nd.

 

So... one could hint that the 2nd has the same performances as the 3rd : I stop here... never had any SLR in my life...

 

Thanks for this great piece of info and for taking the trouble to do some research on this topic.

 

Have a nice day and lots of fun!

[garyp]

I think Luigi is correct. At some point in the past I remember reading that the difference between the 3rd and 2nd versions were simply the redesigned barrel and hood configuration. That it was done simply to make the lens lighter and more convenient with the built in hood.