Leica ELMAR for landscape

[renes]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

You may wish to compare the Leica MTF graph for both lenses (see herewith).

 

MTF for both look good and similar for what I see, do you see any significant difference?

 

You might be aware that many wide M lenses do not seem to fare well on the current Sony Alpha series cameras with perhaps the exception of the a7s which I do not own. I cannot speculate on what Sony might come out with and how it will accommodate Leica M or R lenses, but only comments from users once a new Sony comes out will help us determine how our M lenses might fair on a new camera. See my PM.

 

Thanks for pointing it out, indeed I have heard that Leica wide M-Lenses do not perform best on Sony A7 (soft corners) but I forgot about it. That makes camera choice more difficult. M240 seems best for large prints but it's out of my budget.

[wda]

Thanks for your advice! ...I base my choice on many images I have seen in the net, and these taken with Elmars and Elmarits ,especially landscape, impressed me most. I wish to see more landscape taken with Summarits.

With respect, unless your pictures are not going beyond 'the net', OK. But taking account of the calibration complexities, or more probably lack of screen recalibration by all participants in the chain of originating and displaying pictures, I would not rely entirely on what is perceived on 'the net'. Colour rendition is subject to too many variables in my opinion.

[renes]

With respect, unless your pictures are not going beyond 'the net', OK. But taking account of the calibration complexities, or more probably lack of screen recalibration by all participants in the chain of originating and displaying pictures, I would not rely entirely on what is perceived on 'the net'. Colour rendition is subject to too many variables in my opinion.

 

That's all true, all I can do is limiting the images I rely on and account the colour to Leica forum site or some other Leica guys sites, or some Leica books. My Eizo monitor is calibrated.

[skinnfell]

I very much agree, that with 24, 50 and 90 elmars you are perfectly set for landscape. These lenses are very low distortion, very sharp and very light. The last bit is not unimportant for landscape as this practise often involves a good bit of hiking.

 

I think the usefulness of elmars is very undercommunicated in the Leica M world. These lenses are the very epitome of M photography in my opinion: the mix between smallest possible mass and highest possible image quality.

(And some charming quirks which do not detract from the experience IMO)

 

That said, should you still want to do some low light photography, 35mm will offer the best balance between usefulness, large aperture and hand-holdability.

A summicron would suffice but if you got loads of money, go ahead and get the 35 1.4 "FLE".

[skinnfell]

I never seen landcape samples taken with them... so not sure if they are good for landcape (especialy Macro). Will 90/2.8 Elmarit be a better choice compared to 90/4 Macro if IQ only matters?

 

 

Here you go: four samples from 90 macro. Not sure if they fit the standard definition of "landscape photography" but then again I don't do that anymore.

 

All four are pretty much straight from camera with only slight contrast/exposure adjustment.

 

I have owned 90Apo, 90 elmarit (1995), 90 elmarit (1969), and 90 tele-elmarit (1983). I currently have the 90/4 macro and have no intention of going back to any of the previously mentioned lenses. It offers the best match between performance and weight/handling.

 

PS. These 900px samples (as per forum rules) does not do this lens justice. Believe me, the images are razor sharp from corner to corner.

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!

[MarkP]

You mentioned that you have a ZM Planar. If it is the 50mm lens you are unlikely to get a sharper image for landscape with a Leica M- lens except perhaps the 50 APO-Summicron. I have the 2.8/50 Elmar-M which is a wonderful little lens but I would not choose it over my1.4/50 Summilux for where optimum IQ is required. It is not a modern Elmar with respect to IQ & rendering compared to the 21Super Elmar-M, 24 Elmar-M, or the 90mm Macro-Elmar-M.

In 35mm the 35 Summilux FLE is probably the best for this. It is a very different story if you want the 'older' style Leica rendering. You mentioned the 28-50 MATE of which I have the 49m v2 which is very good but not a modern rendering lens and probably not sharp enough at the edges for landscape if that is what you require.

 

Amongst the 90s I agree that the Macro-Elmar probably can't be beaten for IQ performance in this focal length, including edge to edge sharpness, such as for landscape at all apertures. Maybe the photo in the first post of this thread I started some time ago may demonstrate its centre & edge performance for you:

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m-lenses/228593-praise-4-0-90-macro-elmar.html

[tobey bilek]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

90 macro is an exceptionally fine lens. It works well close and far unlike other 90`s.

 

90 2.8 Elmarit original also works well close and far, but it is an older lens lacking the micro contrast of the 4.0. Still it works well enough for me to keep and use it on my visoflex.

Tele Elmarits are a totally different animal with size the most important consideration.

 

There is nothing wrong with the 50 Elmar last version, sharp at 4.0 and works close and far. Mine is as sharp as my Summicrons stopped to 4.0.

 

35 mm , the best is the ASPH, second the version 4. The ASPH is ok but not in the same class as 21.24,. It is a 1996 pre digital design. I patiently wait for an update.

 

I will not use off brand lenses.

[gyoung]

But with wide angles so much depends on the camera used. I love my 35/2 asph on film and on the nex 6 but plenty of evidence it doesnt do well on the sony a7 cameras, and photozones test of it on the M9 isn't too impressive.

 

Gerry

[algrove]

Thanks for pointing it out, indeed I have heard that Leica wide M-Lenses do not perform best on Sony A7 (soft corners) but I forgot about it. That makes camera choice more difficult. M240 seems best for large prints but it's out of my budget.

 

I understand your budgetary concerns. Some used M240 treated with TLC can be good buys today, but even at that could be double the price of a new a7II. Also, keep in mind that Zeiss ZM lenses were originally designed for film bodies and not digital. The interview with a Zeiss person on the Sonyalpharumors site today again confirms this information. Thus, I assume that is why you are asking about Leica lenses.

 

The biggest trouble I have had along these lines is viewing images on the screen from an internet jpeg which might not or might not look good in person. For me that makes for a very difficult choice.

[renes]

Two Elmars got on my list: it's Elmar 24/3.8 and Elmar 90/4 Collapsible.

 

Not sure about 35mm and 50mm yet... but maybe there is a place here for R, like Elmarit-R 60/2.8 Macro (impresive MTF) and Emarit-R 35/2.8 (can not find MTF) ?

[Jeff S]

I'm not clear on your bias toward Elmars or Elmarits for color rendering….or other aspects. The names primarily refer to aperture, not to lens design per se, which is often specific to the lens and the designer's intent. I wouldn't, for instance, say that every 'modern' Summicron ASPH….28, 35, 50, 75….have the same attributes and rendering characteristics….let alone compare older versions of the same.

 

Beyond that, there are of course many other things in the overall workflow….film or digital…that influence print results, including color.

 

Why not stop looking at charts and TRY one lens at a time to see how it works for you over time? Then decide what you most need next. Chances are you'll grow to like whatever lens(es) you choose….there aren't many clunkers in the Leica lineup.

 

Jeff

[bjornthun]

The 24/3.8 Elmar corresponds to a Distagon-ish Biogon in the Zeiss line and a 50/2.8 Elmar-M corresponds to the Zeiss Tessar type.

 

By a Distagon-ish Biogon, I refer to the Zeiss ZM Biogons, which are all mildly retrofocus. This means that their back fical distance is greater than it would have been for true symmetrical Biogons.

[otto.f]

Two Elmars got on my list: it's Elmar 24/3.8 and Elmar 90/4 Collapsible.

 

Not sure about 35mm and 50mm yet... but maybe there is a place here for R, like Elmarit-R 60/2.8 Macro (impresive MTF) and Emarit-R 35/2.8 (can not find MTF) ?

 

There you mention something. The Elmarit 60 R is an astounding lens for its price and for a long time a bit underrated or forgotten as the better standard lens on an R body. I am not so sure whether you get the best out of it for landscape, its (relative) strength lies between 10m and shorter if I remember well. This is all not considering 'strange' bodies like Sony

[otto.f]

I'm not clear on your bias toward Elmars or Elmarits for color rendering….or other aspects. The names primarily refer to aperture, not to lens design per se, which is often specific to the lens and the designer's intent. I wouldn't, for instance, say that every 'modern' Summicron ASPH….28, 35, 50, 75….have the same attributes and rendering characteristics….

 

Can't think of any other rational reason than price and weight. I indeed really don't think that some kind of color rendering is specific for Elmars

[philcycles]

I shot landscapes with a coated screw mount 3.5 Elmar for many years.

Beautiful pictures and compact as well.

[ho_co]

The 50 Summilux ASPH is by most account APO....

There was some discussion of this claim on the forum a couple years ago.

 

I believe all such accounts are based on a single source, viz David Farkas's report that Peter Karbe told him it was apochromatic.

 

Thus the lens is by one account an apo, not by most.

[Jeff S]

Karbe explains in this interview the extraordinary lengths, and expense, Leica took to minimize chromatic aberrations in the lens, although here he doesn't specifically use the term APO.

 

Jeff