50mm 2.8 Elmar-m

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I've handled the black version and it did seem a bit un-Leica flimsy. Is the silver/brass version more solid?

 

I have no idea about this. My late 6-bit coded black copy looks perfect.

[g2van]

I have this lens the black version - love it - wonderful, small, light, sharp. Yes in the beginning, it takes time to get used to how to pull it out properly but like everything else it's a short learning curve.

 

I have heard that one should never mount the lens when it is in its collapsed position because when you extend it in camera, it may damage the mount / rf alignment - anyone can confirm this?

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[tsleica]

Silver/Brass is solid like a rock!

[tsleica]

I have never heard of such an info or rumor, which does not mean that it does not exist of course. Would you have any evidence about it?

 

Read it on some Leica forum or another years ago...Summicron sales were down..as the Elmar-M was so good..

 

No, it's the Summarit-M 50 mm 1:2.5 that killed the Elmar.   

 

 

I'm talking about before the Summarit series...

But if someone knows the exact timeline of all of this..that would be great..

Edited February 6, 2018 by tsleica

[lct]

Read it on some Leica forum or another years ago...Summicron sales were down..as the Elmar-M was so good.. [...]

 

Never heard of this either. As clear as i recall the Elmar was not highly rated at the end of its life and was sold for only 840 EUR in 2006. Leica wanted to sell its new Summarits for obvious reasons so when they appeared in 2007, the Elmar died down amongst general indifference if memory serves me well.

[Abram]

I sold my black copy last year and almost immediately regretted it. I wound up buying another one  (in chrome this time) early last month and I'm so glad to have it back. It's just such a satisfying lens to use and shoot with and I happen to really love the rendering!

 

Here's a few samples from my earlier one all on Tri-X

 

Amber. by Abram Goglanian, on Flickr

 

San Francisco Explorations by Abram Goglanian, on Flickr

 

San Francisco Explorations by Abram Goglanian, on Flickr

[otto.f]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I've handled the black version and it did seem a bit un-Leica flimsy. Is the silver/brass version more solid?

It’s about as lightweight as the Summicron 35 iv and that’s the whole idea I’d say. Don’t see so much in the all the weight that Karbe dumped in our photobags. An M4 weighed 545grams, together with these lenses you had about 800grams, that’s what feels natural to me. Indeed, from time to time you might want to tighten the tube of the Elmar to be certain of good focus, but that’s all in the game with a Leica M. Will van Maanen does it perfectly.

[lct]

Summarit 50/2.5 is shorter than Elmar 50/2.8 and is optically superior. As suggested by Ko.Fe above, it is close to Summicron, with more resolution and sharper edges and corners than Elmar but it has not the same character obviously. Tessar vs Planar, Elmar vs Summicron, old story.

Edited February 6, 2018 by lct

[otto.f]

Is pleasant bo-keh optically inferior?

[UliWer]

I do not know whether the Elmar-M had an effect on the sales of the Summicron.

 

Prices may give an idea: 

 

When the Elmar-M was first sold seperately in 1995 it was only offered in silver version for 1748 DM; the Summicron in 1995 was 1578 DM in black, and 1748 DM in silver.  

 

Then the Summicron slowly became more expensive - 1999: Elmar 1648 DM black /1848 DM silver;  Summicron 1698 DM black/1898 DM silver 

 

Two years later the price relation changed significantly: Elmar black 670 € (this was 1310, 41 DM) ; Summicron black 1125 € (2200,31 DM) in 2001. So the Elmar got less expensive - very rare for Leica products - , while the Summicron participated in the very steep price increase of all other Leica lenses and cameras. 

 

In the last year of the Elmar in 2007 it was 900€, the Summicron was 1450 € (both black). The 50mm Summarit was introduced one year later at 1000,-€.

 

Usually one does not increase prices sharply if something does not sell; usually one decreases prices if something is hard to sell. Though with Leica those economic laws aren't always right.

 

When I bought my first Leica lens the dealer praised the Elmar very much and wanted to sell it to me but I sneered at it. I wanted the Summilux. 18 years later I think the dealer was not wrong. 

Edited February 6, 2018 by UliWer

[01af]

I'm talking about before the Summarit-M series ...

At the time the Elmar-M 50 mm was discontinued, we didn't know about the upcoming Summarit-M lens series yet. But those at Leica Camera did.

 

 

Is pleasant bokeh optically inferior?

No.

 

But optically inferior lenses often (not always) do have pleasant bokeh.

[UliWer]

Talking about the different versions of the 50mm Elmar one should mention one of the last unrevealed mysteries of Leica history:

 

Sometimes in this forum the 1:2.8/50 Elmar is called "Elmarit". This is wrong of course since the Elmar was always named Elmar. Though with 1:2.8 the name "Elmarit" seems to be justified since all modern Leica lenses with 1:2.8 were named Elmarit - the Summaron being an outlier.

 

But there was a 1:2.8/50 Elmarit for the M - never produced by Leica but developed as a protoype. As far as I know yet (I may be wrong) this lens was only mentioned in one single source. In the magazine  published by the German Leica Historica "VIDOM" No.107 p. 84ff there is an article by Georg Mann about the engravings on Leitz prototype lenses. On two photos he shows a lens with the prototype number 0001 070 which is engraved "Elmarit 1:2.8/50mm Leitz Wetzlar". Mann does not give any explanations about this lens, but only says that it was a rigid lens for the M.  On the photos you see a black anodized lens which looks like a slimmer version 3 Summicron or like a shorter "thin" 90mm Tele-Elmarit.

 

So I presume that this protoype was developed during the same time as these two similar looking lenses - between 1970 and 1980.  It would be interesting to know something about the optics: was it the same as the "old" collapsible 1:2.8 Elmar, which was discontinued about ten years earlier? Or did it have already the new optical design of the later Elmar-M - brought to the market 15 years or more later? Or was there an "intermediate" design, perhaps even a three lens version as for the late 90mm Elmar? One does not know anything about this mistery prototype.

 

Anyway: Leitz decided not to produce it, which seems reasonable. The Summicron was the "standard" lens for the M. A new 50mm Elmarit could only be looked upon as a cheep addition, for which there was no substantial market. 

[tsleica]

To my eye..the 50mm Elmar-M..is one of Leicas best ever..just an incredible lens..for its rounded and balanced perspective..its hard to take a bad photo with it..really hard to do...

[jaapv]

I have this lens the black version - love it - wonderful, small, light, sharp. Yes in the beginning, it takes time to get used to how to pull it out properly but like everything else it's a short learning curve.

 

I have heard that one should never mount the lens when it is in its collapsed position because when you extend it in camera, it may damage the mount / rf alignment - anyone can confirm this?

That is what is said, notably by Leica. However, I never managed to do so.

[Michael Geschlecht]

Talking about the different versions of the 50mm Elmar one should mention one of the last unrevealed mysteries of Leica history:

 

Sometimes in this forum the 1:2.8/50 Elmar is called "Elmarit". This is wrong of course since the Elmar was always named Elmar. Though with 1:2.8 the name "Elmarit" seems to be justified since all modern Leica lenses with 1:2.8 were named Elmarit - the Summaron being an outlier.

 

But there was a 1:2.8/50 Elmarit for the M - never produced by Leica but developed as a protoype. As far as I know yet (I may be wrong) this lens was only mentioned in one single source. In the magazine  published by the German Leica Historica "VIDOM" No.107 p. 84ff there is an article by Georg Mann about the engravings on Leitz prototype lenses. On two photos he shows a lens with the prototype number 0001 070 which is engraved "Elmarit 1:2.8/50mm Leitz Wetzlar". Mann does not give any explanations about this lens, but only says that it was a rigid lens for the M.  On the photos you see a black anodized lens which looks like a slimmer version 3 Summicron or like a shorter "thin" 90mm Tele-Elmarit.

 

So I presume that this protoype was developed during the same time as these two similar looking lenses - between 1970 and 1980.  It would be interesting to know something about the optics: was it the same as the "old" collapsible 1:2.8 Elmar, which was discontinued about ten years earlier? Or did it have already the new optical design of the later Elmar-M - brought to the market 15 years or more later? Or was there an "intermediate" design, perhaps even a three lens version as for the late 90mm Elmar? One does not know anything about this mistery prototype.

 

Anyway: Leitz decided not to produce it, which seems reasonable. The Summicron was the "standard" lens for the M. A new 50mm Elmarit could only be looked upon as a cheep addition, for which there was no substantial market. 

 

 

 

Hello UliWer,

 

I think that the reason that the 35mm F 3.5 Summaron was called a Summaron & was not called an Elmar might be:

 

The predecessor to the 35mm F3.5 Summaron, which is a 6 element "Double Gauss" formulation was the 35mm F3.5 Elmar, which is a 4 element "Tessar" design.

 

I think that Leitz might, among other things, have been trying to link the increase in performance across the entire image or/& at wider apertures that the Double Gauss formulation brought to the 35mm focal length: To the 50mm F2 Summicron's improvements (Also a Double Gauss formula.) in those areas.

 

Altho Tessar designs sometimes provide better image quality in the center 1/3d or so of the image, of lenses covering narrower angles, at medium apertures, than Double Gauss formulations & some other designs do. As in the relationship of central image quality at the apertures of F8 & F11 of the 100mm F4 Elmar (A Tessar design.), as compared to that same center of the image with the 100mm F2.8 Elmarit.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

Edited February 7, 2018 by Michael Geschlecht

[derleicaman]

Here's one taken with my chrome version Elmar-M with my MM, Golden Gate Bridge. Incredible detail in the original image. I was also using the ZM 25/2.8 and my 35/1.4 Summilux ASPH, but the images with the Elmar-M were the best of the bunch. All were handheld.

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!

[tsleica]

Nice photo of the Golden Gate bridge...brings back memories of when I lived in a houseboat in Sausalito back in the 70's..

[otto.f]

That is what is said, notably by Leica. However, I never managed to do so.

Neither did anyone here on the forum report a damage caused by mounting collapsed 90’s or 50’s. Now that would be very special: if someone had a problem with his Leica and would not communicate it here !

[lct]

Leica warns against mounting collapsed in all its instruction manuals since the M8 if memory serves but this doesn't apply to Macro-Elmar 90/4 which protrudes less deeply. The worst case is that of Elmar 90/4 collapsible from the sixties which protrudes a lot more. As for Elmar 50/2.8, v1 and v2 don't protrude the same way but their "tube" cannot touch the sensor anyway. I would not take the risk to trigger the shutter when the lens is collapsed though, but i have no evidence that this could damage the lens or the shutter. BTW never collapse any Elmar when using the CL, this would damage the camera.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Adrian Lord]

I have several collapsible  - Elmar 5cm 2.8; Summaron 3.5cm f3.5; Summitar 5cm f2. All used and collapsed into M9 with no problems. 

 

All produce great images too. There really is no need to break the bank to get into Leica.