Lux 50 Asph to Summi 50 AA

[james.liam]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The difference is only dramatic from wide open to 2.8-4. The biggest difference is the transition from in focus to out-of-focus areas, which is very dramatic (instant) with the Apo.

The behavior from wide-open to ƒ/2.8-4 is precisely why one pays the admission price for these thoroughbreds.

 

I don't believe that a significant refresh of the 50 1.4 aspherical for the M is possible.

Less curvature of field would be nice.

Consider the 50 APO; some may argue that it's an ƒ/2 lens after all but what a feat of engineering whilst maintaining a 39mm filter thread, so Karbe & Co. should not be underestimated.

[lct]

Version 1 of the Elmar-M 50/2.8 collapsible is for the limited edition M-J, it has a "classical" chamfered barrel. Version2 is the general production one with the straight barrel.

Optically the two versions are identical [...]

 

I was not aware of this classification. I thought that v1 is the 1st optical version of the lens (1957-1974, #11012/11112/11612, rotating barrel) and v2 the 2nd optical version (1994-2007, # 11823/11824/11831, non rotating barrel) but i may be wrong. Any link to this classification? Just curious.

[BerndReini]

 

 

Less curvature of field would be nice.

Consider the 50 APO; some may argue that it's an ƒ/2 lens after all but what a feat of engineering whilst maintaining a 39mm filter thread, so Karbe & Co. should not be underestimated. 

 

I realized that I didn't formulate this very clearly. I am sure that the 50 1.4 for the SL will exceed the quality of the 50 lux aspherical for the M mount, but I do not believe a significant M mount upgrade of the 50lux is in store.

[jaapv]

Check all the books,amongst those Puts, (old) Leica Lens Compendium, page 115 . The designation Elmar-M appears only with the introduction of the optical redesign for the M6J.

The redesign kept close to the original formula too, the main difference was the relocation of the aperture blades and small tweaks to the glass types and coatings. For all the quality of the new design, quite a tribute to  the original.

[lct]

"Elmar-M" appeared in 1994 because the lens was called Elmar-M then (pic of my own lens below). My question was about versions 1 and 2. 

 

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!

[Stein K S]

Version 1 of the Elmar-M 50/2.8 collapsible is for the limited edition M-J, it has a "classical" chamfered barrel. Version2 is the general production one with the straight barrel.

Optically the two versions are identical.

All previous iterations of the 50/2.8 collapsible are called Elmar. Without the M.

 

Thank you! I was not aware of this. Caught by surprise that a limited special edition "earns" a version #. And no mentioning in Puts compendium either of version # on the "regular" Elmar-M.

 

regards, Stein

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Just for info, the 50/2.8 (i dare not say v2 ) from 1994 was presented as a "New edition" of the "Legendary Elmar" in the instructions manual of the M6J, at least in its French version.

[Stein K S]

"Elmar-M" appeared in 1994 because the lens was called Elmar-M then (pic of my own lens below). My question was about versions 1 and 2. 

 

DSC01441_after_02_web.jpg

 

Hi and thanks!

 

And THAT is a charming lens 

[jaapv]

"Elmar-M" appeared in 1994 because the lens was called Elmar-M then (pic of my own lens below). My question was about versions 1 and 2. 

 

DSC01441_after_02_web.jpg

Well, in that case Puts has it wrong Yours is a variant I was not aware of, straight barrel, tab and chrome front. What is the optical construction?  Or is it a variation on the M6J one with a straight barrel?

[Stein K S]

Well, in that case Puts has it wrong Yours is a variant I was not aware of, straight barrel, infinity lock and chrome front. What is the optical construction?

 

So.... the Elmar-M "retro-look" of ICT launched in 1994 with the special edition M6J is #1 and my Elmar-M (11831 black, 11823 chrome) which became regular sales item soon after, is #2... right?

[jaapv]

Yes.

[lct]

Well, in that case Puts has it wrong Yours is a variant I was not aware of, straight barrel, infinity lock and chrome front. What is the optical construction?

 

I don't know what Mr Puts said Jaap but my silver Elmar you can see above is the first v2 (sorry) sold in 1994 with the M6J. 

[jaapv]

So the misunderstanding is in the definition of "version" . Yours is the  limited edition first iteration of the new optical design then. The first Elmar-M. The later general issue  Elmar-M has a different barrel, no focus tab and black front.

Earlier lenses were called just "Elmar"

[lct]

Not sure i can follow you here. There is no optical differences from 1994 to 2007 and there is no zero version of this lens so 1st version is 1957-1974 and 2nd version is 1994-2007, in my humble understanding at least...

[jaapv]

What you call the first version is the Elmar, what you call the second version is the Elmar-M. Leica named the lenses differently, so they must be regarded as separate lenses.

The Elmar remained more or less the same from 1957-1996?, the Elmar-M was introduced as a limited-edition for the M6J in 1994 and soon  came as a second version general issue, with basically only cosmetic changes.

So if one mentions an Elmar-M it will always be a post-1994 lens.

The same naming convention applies to the Elmarit and Elmarit-M (1974, IIRC), BTW.

[lct]

The lens did not remain the same from 1957 to 1996 Jaap and the 1994 special edition is an Elmar-M as you can see in my pic above. As i tried to explain with my poor English, the Elmar-M was regarded by Leica as a new edition of the same lens which appeared in 1994 on the M6J and remained in production with cosmetic changes up to 2007. Now if the Elmar-M were a new lens instead of a new version, as per your opinion, the 1640 copies of the 1994 special edition would not constitute a new version per se wouldn't they so there would be one version only of the Elmar-M. What would v2 consist in then?

[jaapv]

No, the Elmar did not remain the same, glass types changed, the barrels changed, etc. Any number of versions if you like.  The M6J lens was the first run of the Elmar-M, a complete design overhaul, the regular Elmar-M  was a mechanically modified successor. You do realize that we are talking about owner-assigned terms here? The only distinction Leica made was from Elmar to Elmar-M.

[lct]

What about version 2 in all that?

You are not trying to elude my question are you?

BTW there are only 1640 people owning an Elmar-M for M6J in the world. Question: How many of then own also an Elmar sans M and a latest copy of the Elmar-M? Answer: at least one, yours truly

[lct]

[...] You do realize that we are talking about owner-assigned terms here? The only distinction Leica made was from Elmar to Elmar-M.

 

Well i don't try to have the last word here (never me ) but following this reasoning, we would not have version 3 of Elmarit 28/2.8 or version 4 of Summicron 35/2 for instance and Summilux 35/1.4 from 1976 would be a different lens to Summilux-M 35/1.4 from 1981 although they were the same besides the M marking.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jaapv]

Yes.