i bought a 50mm f2.8 elmar-m

[steve edmunds]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

i have owned a 1960 50mm f2.8  elmar for about 6 months but wanted the newer elmar-m .

when it arrived it was obvious that it was not as well made as the earlier version, more obvious than i imagined but i was amazed by the overall performance and beautiful character of my 1995 elmar-m and the much better ergonomics on the newer version.

i have this neat little bag with my Q2 and M262 with the elmar-m  and its great fun allied to stellar performance in my view.

i use to own a Rolleiflex-T which i think had a Tessar type lens and now i have this little wonder.

[Advertisement]

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

[TomB_tx]

Both are good lenses - I've used the original 2.8 Elmar on and off since 1966 or so - the first Leica lens I tried on a borrowed M2. Since then I've used both the ltm version on a IIIf&g and the M mount version on M4 to M9 - it still takes lovely images, and I also love the mechanical design and build quality. Several years ago I also got the newer Elmar-M redesign and I agree with your comments. The non-rotating barrel is nice, and image quality is excellent. For a modern design the construction is still pretty good if you don't compare it to the original. 

[Tessar.]

Did you get the black or chrome version?  The black is made from aluminium alloy and the chrome is chromed brass and correspondingly heavier.  The chrome version feels better made.

[UliWer]

The Elmar-M - other than all previous collapsible lenses from Leitz - has no defined position to fix the extended lens. Therefore you often find the scales in an awkward position. 

[pedaes]

21 minutes ago, UliWer said:

has no defined position to fix the extended lens

Not sure about this, as mine (chromed brass) seems to have a defined stop and stays fixed.

As @Tessar. said, the late Erwin Puts in his Compendium states the Chrome version is better built than the Black, but difficult to understand why that should be.

 

[wizard]

vor 51 Minuten schrieb UliWer:

The Elmar-M - other than all previous collapsible lenses from Leitz - has no defined position to fix the extended lens. Therefore you often find the scales in an awkward position. 

As noted above, the Elmar-M of course has a defined position when extended. Just rotate the lens barrel until it hits the hard stop, which is when the lens' aperture scale is in its correct position, too. With some lenses it takes more force to reach that stop, but it is definitely there. Works perfectly on my two samples.

 

vor 20 Minuten schrieb pedaes:

Erwin Puts in his Compendium states the Chrome version is better built than the Black, but difficult to understand why that should be.

I own and use both a black and a chrome copy of that lens. The chrome copy is heavier, and therefore conveys the impression of having more build quality, but in reality my two lenses feel exactly the same as regards barrel in and out function, focussing function etc. Even their optical performance is indistinguishable (both lenses perform very well and render extremly sharp).

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 hours ago, wizard said:

As noted above, the Elmar-M of course has a defined position when extended. Just rotate the lens barrel until it hits the hard stop, which is when the lens' aperture scale is in its correct position, too. With some lenses it takes more force to reach that stop, but it is definitely there. Works perfectly on my two samples [...]

Different experience here. On my late copy of the Elmar-M 50/2.8 (6-bit coded black variant) there is not one but three hard stops, same as on the Macro-Emar 90/4 v1 (no experience with v2). Same apparent quality as the Macro-Elmar too, both with brass helicoids.

[pedaes]

39 minutes ago, lct said:

not one but three hard stops,

Yes, but it is obvious which is the correct one to align markings correctly.

[wizard]

vor einer Stunde schrieb lct:

On my late copy of the Elmar-M 50/2.8 (6-bit coded black variant) there is not one but three hard stops, same as on the Macro-Emar 90/4 v1

Yes, that's because the retracting lens barrel has three tabs, every one of which may interact with the hard stop. My lenses are the same. I wrote that my lenses have "a defined position", and did not say they have only one defined position 🙂.

 

vor 42 Minuten schrieb pedaes:

Yes, but it is obvious which is the correct one to align markings correctly.

+1

Edited March 17 by wizard

[lct]

42 minutes ago, pedaes said:

Yes, but it is obvious which is the correct one to align markings correctly.

Indeed obvious in good light with my eyeglasses on but fact is there are 3 hard stops, as opposed to 1 only on my almost 70 yo Summicron 50/2 v1 that i much prefer from this viewpoint. Old pots make good soup 😉 YMMV.

[RF’sDelight]

vor 16 Stunden schrieb steve edmunds:

…i was amazed by the overall performance and beautiful character of my 1995 elmar-m…

Best combination of size and performance for a modern 50mm M-lens until the Summarit-M 2,5/50 was released.

[lct]

1 minute ago, RF’sDelight said:

Best combination of size and performance for a modern 50mm M-lens until the Summarit-M 2,5/50 was released.

Now Skopar 50/2.2. What it has not, and neither has the Summarit, is the triplet design and associated rendering of the Elmar.

[steve edmunds]

On 3/16/2025 at 11:50 PM, Tessar. said:

Did you get the black or chrome version?  The black is made from aluminium alloy and the chrome is chromed brass and correspondingly heavier.  The chrome version feels better made.

I got the black , i was hoping for the chrome but the only one available in the UK was very expensive so i got a black version from MPB  [ i never use ebay] .

[steve edmunds]

9 hours ago, lct said:

Now Skopar 50/2.2. What it has not, and neither has the Summarit, is the triplet design and associated rendering of the Elmar.

Some of your historic posts about the lens played a part in my purchase and i also have fallen for the characteristics of this lens.

Not only that its the only camera/lens combination  that comfortably fits in my little bag with my Q2!! when retracted on my M262.

[UliWer]

vor 19 Stunden schrieb wizard:

I wrote that my lenses have "a defined position", and did not say they have only one defined position 

Yes, as I wrote "no defined position" I meant "not one defined position" (but three).

vor 19 Stunden schrieb pedaes:

Yes, but it is obvious which is the correct one to align markings correctly.

If you explicitly search the right position. With previous collapsible lenses you couldn't go wrong even if you didn't look at it.

vor 20 Stunden schrieb lct:

there is not one but three hard stops, same as on the Macro-Emar 90/4 v1 (no experience with v2).

The tube of my Macro-Elmar (v. 2) can't be turned around even when it is not fully extended. So you always hit the right position. 

[John Robinson]

I have the silver version almost permanently mounted on my (silver) M9.  Despite having other Leica 50mm lenses, this is the one I keep going back to.  A charming lens that draws very nicely and it is just the right size and weight for a camera to carry around all day.

Edited March 18 by John Robinson

[wizard]

Am 18.3.2025 um 10:13 schrieb UliWer:

If you explicitly search the right position. With previous collapsible lenses you couldn't go wrong even if you didn't look at it.

Well, it is not rocket science to chose the right position.

[luigi bertolotti]

2 hours ago, wizard said:

Well, it is not rocket science to chose the right position.

No, but I admit that extracting the lens and not seeing always at once the f stop scale is a (minor) annoyance.

Edited March 26 by luigi bertolotti

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[wizard]

vor 25 Minuten schrieb luigi bertolotti:

... but I admit that extracting the lens and not seeing always at once the f stop scale is a (minor) annoyance.

For some reason, that has never ever happened to me. If I collapse the lens from the correct position and then extract the lens again, I always end up in the correct position. To end up in a wrong position would require to turn the lens tube in the collapsed position, and there is no functional reason to do that.

[luigi bertolotti]

1 hour ago, wizard said:

For some reason, that has never ever happened to me. If I collapse the lens from the correct position and then extract the lens again, I always end up in the correct position. To end up in a wrong position would require to turn the lens tube in the collapsed position, and there is no functional reason to do that.

On the contrary, happens to me... 🤔.. thinking well (and hair splitting... 😁) I think it has to do with cap removal... probably my typical gesture is extracting the lens (with cap) and remove the cap with some casual "rotation".... ending with a casual position of the lens extracted and firm... must find a better action...

Edited March 26 by luigi bertolotti