early elmarit-m 28mm 2.8 asph

[JOE58BC]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

HI,

Is ther any significant difference between early elmarit-m 28mm 2.8 asph  (1993-4 ) and later 2010s? Looking to purchase a used version from early 1990s?

Thanks

[Mute-on]

Try Google  … 

e.g. 

 

 

[pippy]

13 hours ago, JOE58BC said:

...Is ther any significant difference between early elmarit-m 28mm 2.8 asph  (1993-4 ) and later 2010s?...

I could be mistaken but as far as I'm aware the first 28 f2.8 ASPH appeared in 2006. The previous (4) versions of the 28 / 2.8 had no aspherical elements in their optical design.

Philip.

[lct]

No asph in the nineties indeed. The first Elmarit 28/2.8 asph (11606, aka asph v1) came in 2006 for the M8. See technical data below.

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!

LeicaM_2828_11606_spec.pdf

[pippy]

2 hours ago, lct said:

No asph in the nineties indeed. The first Elmarit 28/2.8 asph (11606, aka asph v1) came in 2006 for the M8. See technical data below....

And what a spectacularly good lens it is!

Although it was designed during the M8 (i.e. x1.33 crop) era it performs almost faultlessly wide-open on the subsequent full-frame sensor cameras suggesting that Leitz / Leica were already thinking ahead in Digi-M terms as well as, of course, satisfying the requirements of existing analogue users.

To quote the late Erwin Puts;

"At full aperture the (v1 ASPH Elmarit) lens produces a medium to high contrast image with excellent retention of detail over the full image area. There is no vignetting and only in the extreme corners the definition drops and small details are lost. The outlines of major subject shapes are well preserved....
At f/4 the lens is already at its optimum with very high corner to corner definition. Compared to the (Summilux 28) there is a subtle and visual difference: the Elmarit records very fine detail with more contrast and it is easier to detect very fine detail.
At f/5.6 there is, on close inspection, a very slight improvement in crispness of the textural details, only visible when the image is enlarged to 400% on screen..."

Philip.

[pedaes]

1 hour ago, pippy said:

And what a spectacularly good lens it is!

The two later versions are excellent but not a 'night and day' improvement.

Edited March 14 by pedaes

[pippy]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

4 minutes ago, pedaes said:

When he tested this and the new version Sean Reid  found this version stronger in the corners on a digital sensor.

In all honesty the sole reason I, personally, went for the v1 ASPH (11606) over the v2 (11677) was the difference in lens-hood execution. That of the former being tiny and that of the latter being 'huge' by comparison. Subsequently I have discovered that the clip-on 12504 hood can be used with the 11606 which helps no-end when using a Circ. Pola filter.

Philip.

[lct]

Too bad Leica don't make reversible bayonet hoods like Minolta did for the M-Rokkor 28/2.8.

[pippy]

9 hours ago, lct said:

Too bad Leica don't make reversible bayonet hoods like Minolta did for the M-Rokkor 28/2.8.

Back in 'the old days' of lenses whose form tapered from focus-ring to filter thread they produced excellent hoods which di so such as the 12585 (35 / 50) and 12575 (90 f2.8). Nowadays the lenses follow a different aesthetic one aspect of which is that reversible hoods are not going to be a simple matter in terms of design.

Philip.

[lct]

4 hours ago, pippy said:

Back in 'the old days' of lenses whose form tapered from focus-ring to filter thread they produced excellent hoods which di so such as the 12585 (35 / 50) and 12575 (90 f2.8). Nowadays the lenses follow a different aesthetic one aspect of which is that reversible hoods are not going to be a simple matter in terms of design.

I never really understood why Leica chose the current screw-in hoods instead of the clip-on's you're referring to. For now, bayonet reversible hoods seem to be made only by Cosina as far as M-mount lenses are concerned. As for the Elmarit 90/2.8 asph v1, the rectangular 12526 is not reversible and neither is the vented 12504. They both have their charms though 😎

Edited March 15 by lct

[pippy]

18 minutes ago, lct said:

I never really understood why Leica chose the current screw-in hoods instead of the clip-on's you're referring to. For now, bayonet reversible hoods seem to be made only by Cosina as far as M-mount lenses are concerned. As for the Elmarit 90/2.8 asph v1, the rectangular 12526 is not reversible and neither is the vented 12504. They both have their charms though 😎

We might be straying a tad from the OP's question but....

I can forgive the 12504 and 12526 as in both cases their protrusion from the front of the filter-surface is negligible (being 10mm and 14mm respectively).

One 'problem' which rears its head on occassion when trying to reverse a clip-on hood on an older lens - such as the 12585 with a 35mm Summaron (M) - was that the infinity-lock button will foul the hood's rim. An interesting solution to the infinity-button 'thing' was seen with hoods such as the XOONS for the 50mm f1.5 Summarit. Because of the size and dimensions of this hood there is plenty of room left at the lower-left of the reversed hood to accommodate the I-Lock. Furthermore it was designed so that although it has a very generous 20mm 'shade-depth' when in the used position and a screw-in filter is in use (25mm if no filter is fitted) it actually sits completely behind the front of a filter-rim when reversed for bag-stowage.

Philip.

[pedaes]

1 hour ago, pippy said:

We might be straying a tad from the OP's question but....

That's a first then!☺️

[costa43]

The Elmarit you refer to based on your timeline is the version 4, it was released in 1992 and was in production until around the time the m8 was released in 2006.. A little bigger than the asph versions but a really good performer too. Some prefer it to the asph for its rendering and then again some don’t. You’ll get used to this on the forum. No such thing as a bad lens, they all have their own personalities. 

[adan]

On 3/13/2025 at 8:29 PM, JOE58BC said:

HI,

Is ther any significant difference between early elmarit-m 28mm 2.8 asph  (1993-4 ) and later 2010s? Looking to purchase a used version from early 1990s?

Thanks

The only significant differences between the 1993-2005 Elmarit 28mm non-ASPH, and the 2006-present 28mm Elmarit ASPH - outside of an optical lab, are:

Size and weight - which is what the ASPH design achieved. The v.4 Elmarit non-ASPH is the size and weight of the original 28mm Summicron ASPH: 41mm x 53mm.

Imaging tint (the 1993 lens is oh-so-slightly warmer and browner/yellower, ASPH is a bit bluer-magenta)).

Overall contrast (as opposed to MTF microcontrast of finest details.) 1993 version has little tolerance in high-contrast scenes (e.g. sunlit faces against shaded backgrounds, on digital).

The 1993 lens has slightly better corner MTF at all apertures - may be the better choice for static landscape/architecture shots where corners are more significant.

Edited March 16 by adan