Elmarit-C 40/2.8 on digital CL

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Never been much tempted by the Elmarit-C 40/2.8 that i found too expensive and i have good 40mm lenses already but i stumbled by chance upon a mint copy at a price i could not refuse and GAS did the rest. Neat little lens on the digital CL, my smaller one so far besides LTM lenses. It shows no significant softness at any aperture on this body. The lens is of course less contrasty than modern lenses but a couple mouse clicks can fix it easily. Only serious flaw is flare when strong light sources are inside the frame. Compared to the Summicron-C 40/2, the later is less flare prone except when strong light sources are outside the frame. Also the 40/2 looks slightly sharper at f/2.8 with softer bokeh balls there but it has more CA than the 40/2.8. Not sure how the latter behaves on FF cameras though. It may have some softness at edges and corners as often with Tessar/Elmar designs, but i did not try the lens on FF yet and i don't feel urged to do so given how well it matches the digital CL. Couple of boring test pics at f/2.8 linked below. Silkypix 8 for raw conversion, PS CS3 for contrast & colors, no cropping, no extra sharpening. FWIW.
https://lctphot.smugmug.com/Diverse/Elmarit-C-4028-on-digital-CL-at-f28/n-SxCXwK

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!

 

 

Edited August 3, 2019 by lct

[ramarren]

Wow! Cool little lens. Ferociously expensive when I look them up ... but what a nice jewel!

[lct]

Half the cost of a new Summicron-M 35/2 asph or twice that of a mint Summicron-C 40/2 more or less. For collectors or fans of the Elmar design. Draws much better than my coated Elmar 35/3.5 from 1948 but not as well as my Elmar-M 50/2.8 from 1994. Hard to find modern Elmars or Tessars at wider focal lengths than 50mm though. 

[Matlock]

I have one that I bought many years ago when they were not too expensive, Stopped down  it is not too bad. I have fitted a Heliopan 39 x  0.75 filter which is far more convenient than the 5.5 with adaptor (unless you require the lens hood of course). The Heliopan filter is getting hard to source but, obviously the E39 filters will not fit as they are 0.50 pitch.

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!

[lct]

1 hour ago, Matlock said:

I have one that I bought many years ago when they were not too expensive, Stopped down  it is not too bad. I have fitted a Heliopan 39 x  0.75 filter which is far more convenient than the 5.5 with adaptor (unless you require the lens hood of course). The Heliopan filter is getting hard to source but, obviously the E39 filters will not fit as they are 0.50 pitch.

All apertures including f/2.8 seem to work fine on my digital CL (my pics linked above have been shot at f/2.8) so i guess your feeling comes from the fact that your copy is used on M or other full frame bodies. BTW the lens comes with the same rubber hood i've been using for 20+ years with the Summicron-C 40/2 and i don't use filters generally but 39mm x 0.5 filters can fit provided they are not screwed too hard. 

[Matlock]

2 hours ago, lct said:

All apertures including f/2.8 seem to work fine on my digital CL (my pics linked above have been shot at f/2.8) so i guess your feeling comes from the fact that your copy is used on M or other full frame bodies. BTW the lens comes with the same rubber hood i've been using for 20+ years with the Summicron-C 40/2 and i don't use filters generally but 39mm x 0.5 filters can fit provided they are not screwed too hard. 

I have used mine mostly on the Leica CL (film version). As you probably know the lens was withdrawn almost immediately because of the poor performance, hence it's rarity. I have the rubber lens hood but it does add to the size. It is not a good idea to use E39 filters as, even though they will fit, continual use will damage the threads so I stick to the hood and 5.5 or the Heliopan filters. I have had some pretty good results from the lens with my M10-D but it does need stopping down a little to yield good results. No doubt you are correct in your comments re. the use with the digital CL.

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

41 minutes ago, Matlock said:

[...] It is not a good idea to use E39 filters as, even though they will fit, continual use will damage the threads [...]

Well mine are still in good shape since the last century but i agree it is not a good idea to do that, or at least to advise to do that . When i used UV/IR filters more often than i do, i used to drop the glass of a 39mm filter together with a rubber gasket into the hood of my Summicron-C 40/2 but i ended up using more frequently the M-Rokkor 40/2 for Minolta CLE which uses regular 40.5mm filters. 

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!

Edited August 5, 2019 by lct

[Matlock]

1 hour ago, lct said:

but i ended up using more frequently the M-Rokkor 40/2 for Minolta CLE which uses regular 40.5mm filters. 

Yes I use the M-Rokkor from time to time and find it an extremely well behaved lens.

[lct]

23 minutes ago, Matlock said:

Yes I use the M-Rokkor from time to time and find it an extremely well behaved lens.

+1. Same for the M-Rokkor 90/4 that flares much less than the Elmar-C.

[Matlock]

38 minutes ago, lct said:

+1. Same for the M-Rokkor 90/4 that flares much less than the Elmar-C.

So I believe, I don't have an Elmar-C 90.

[ramarren]

I've used all of the Summicron-C and Rokkor-M 40mm f/2 lenses... While the CLE version is a little better performing on flare (due to multicoating, I believe), I still like the original just a little more. There is something in its rendering qualities that is slightly different and appealing to me. I also prefer the feel of the Leitz made lens ... the Minolta made versions have a slightly different feel to the materials and helicoid. 

Regards the M-Rokkor 90mm f/4, I have an early version which was made in Wetzlar on the same line as the Elmar-C 90mm. Later models were made by Minolta in Japan, maybe they did the multicoating on those. I don't know how much it helps or doesn't ... I always put good, metal lens hoods (third party made) on both the 40 and the 90, and the Elmar-C 90mm I have makes outstanding photographs. It's particularly sweet with the CL (less corner falloff wide open) but has returned wonderful results with the M9, M-P240, and M-D262 as well. 

[lct]

I prefer the feel of the Elmar-C 90/4 too but i find its focus throw too long compared to that of the M-Rokkor 90/4 for Minolta CLE. Aside from flare, the Elmar-C works fine on the digital CL though. Couple of snaps with that combo:
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-vG3g3LK/0/8e2db804/X3/i-vG3g3LK-X3.jpg
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-wkwX2Dd/0/3a479afa/X3/i-wkwX2Dd-X3.jpg

[jaapv]

Erwin Puts is rather scathing about the lens:

Quote

But even at optimum aperture, the performance is really below the standard of the day, and it would have been bad for the reputation of Leitz if this lens had become the standard lens for the CL [the film one]

 

[lct]

As Marco Cavina wrote (Google translation) « The Elmarit-C 40mm f/2.8 and its inglorious and premature end are repositories of various urban legends that have fueled a sad fame, to the point that this goal is now identified as a sort of "black sheep", a step false of the famous brand, an ugly duckling of which to speak as little as possible; curiously, this confusion of self-perpetuated prejudices is often based on rumors of uncertain origin, since only about 400 specimens of this objective have been produced, never officially put up for sale (it seems that the majority has changed hands at a symbolic price to appanage of the same Leitz employees), and very few have had the good fortune of a live empirical evaluation. » 
http://www.wetzlar-historica-italia.it/elmarit4028.html 

[M9reno]

I jumped for an Elmarit-C and have been playing around with it today.  I must say, I’m impressed, and left wondering what Erwin Putts was talking about.  There’s sharpness to the lens in the center, certainly, and a bright classic look overall.

(This is at full aperture showing one of my children playing with a new typewriter, which has fascinated them to no end. The sound of striking keys fills our house.)

This is on an M10 (not a CL), by the way.  In sum, nice lens, and sits beautifully compactly on an M body, too.  I’m pleased with my purchase.

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!

[jaapv]

You are lucky to have found one. It is one of those lenses that does far better on a camera than on a test bench.