Are there any supporters of this lens in the forum? I have seen many posts over the last few months asking "which lens should I buy?", but I cannot recall anybody that supported this lens. I am curious... Does anybody use this lens and if so, how does it perform; what are its Pros vs Cons?

Thanks!

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), November 26, 2001

Answers

Jack, do you mean the current one? I had one a couple years back. It performed just fine. "Tests" I've read say it isn't as sharp as the current Summicron but you couldn't tell by me. The thing that disappointed me, and why I sold it, was that once I got a UV filter and the screw-on shade attached, even collapsed it stuck out from the body almost as far as the current Cron with the hood retracted. When I want to carry the M6 in my suitcoat pocket without a bulge, I put on a coated 50/3.5 LTM+adaptor, which packs in almost flat to the body.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), November 26, 2001.

Jay:

Actually, I was referring to either version of the f2.8 model, but any input on the f3.5 is welcome too. My interest is in a very "pocketable" M combo, but I also want the lens to be reasonably sharp...

Here is what I have heard: 1)The most recent version f2.8 is the sharpest, as the aperture blades were moved back and centered in the lens, and it focuses closer than the earlier versions, but is not as compact when collapsed. 2)The f3.5 version is pretty soft. 3)The first f2.8 version (with the little focus tab) is sharper than the f3.5, but not as sharp as the new f2.8, yet is more compact when collapsed than the new version.

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), November 26, 2001.

Jack, I don't recall an f/2.8 version with a focus tab. My old f/3.5 version had one, though. It did fold back almost flat--within 1/8 inch or so. Though it wasn't so razor-sharp as we are getting accustomed to ecpecting, I certainly didn't think of it as "soft," which I think is overstating the case. I think that for the specific purpose of having a pocketable fold-flat camera, the 3.5 would fill the bill. I just wouldn't sell the Summicron, but rather keep it available when the highest image quality is desired.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), November 26, 2001.

The only collapsing 50 that really gets flat enough to make it more than just a gimmick is the screw-mount 50/3.5. At f/5.6-8 it's surprisingly sharp and the contrast isn't too weak either. The latest 2.8 is the sharpest of all, and since it's the same size (but lighter!) as the M-mount 3.5 and early 2.8, as well as the collapsible Summicron, and doesn't cost (used) much more than the "collectibles", the choice really comes down to the LTM 3.5 vs current 2.8. When you then see that the current 2.8 isn't much smaller than a 50/2, you're really left with the screw-mount 50/3.5 if you want compactness...otherwise may as well stick with a current 50/2.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), November 26, 2001.

Just so happens I've been thinking of buying a 50mm collapsible Elmar as a travel lens. I still haven't decided whether to go with the old or current version. Nevertheless, I thought I would add my two cents to this conversation. Although the optics are probably better on the newer version, I like the fact that the older model has a focusing tab, which is a matter of personal preference. When I tried the newer model, the focusing ring felt narrow. Maybe it takes getting used to. Either one, though, is a winner. (Not, however, to be compared to the incomparable current 50mm Summicron.)

-- Dennis Couvillion (couvilaw@aol.com), November 26, 2001.

I’ve been fascinated by the little collapsible lenses, but wanted the latest in coatings and optical excellence. So I recently purchased a new 50/2.8 Elmar. It’s true that the shade, and a filter, if you use one, do make for a less than ideal pocketable camera. You really have to take the shade off, collapse the lens and cap it before it feels like something you can slip in a pocket. But it does weigh less than the 50/2. I have not done any “A vs. B” testing in which I shot a frame with one lens, and then with the other. I also tend to use the lens for daylight excursions, when I know I’ll be using smaller apertures, and the slow speed of the lens won’t be a limitation. I do like to shoot with strong backlighting. This really tests the flare resistance of a lens. From my limited knowledge of optics, my guess is that fewer elements mean less flare in these situations. So the simple Tessar formula should be a good performer. From what I’ve seen so far, it is. Here are two shots with the lens, from a hike up Mt. Major in Alton, NH. Neopan 1600 and Tri-X in Rodinal. Web reproduction being what it is, I should add that these images look great enlarged to 11X14, and I have no reservations or regrets about the performance of this lens.

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=447108&size=md http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=452306

-- Phil Stiles (Stiles@metrocast.net), November 26, 2001.

Phil: Is focusing awkward without a focusing tab?

-- Dennis Couvillion (couvilaw@aol.com), November 26, 2001.

Jack

The new 50/2.8 may be better optically, but the earlier version is much better made and more elegant. It's amazing how well made the older 50/2.8 BM (or SM lens) is made, down to the smallest detail (eg., it has a virtually circular aperture due to the use of many aperture blades). This lens is actually quite good; when stopped down it is very contrasty.

The 50/3.5 Elmar is probably not quite as good as the 50/2.8. The best version of the 50/3.5 lens is the later "red scale" version in SM or any 50/3.5 Elmar in BM.

Interestingly, according to Erwin Putts and Popular Photography, the very best Leica 50mm lens is the 50/3.5 Anastigmat (fully coated), currently offered only on the 0-Series Camera. PP says it is the second best 50 mm lens they ever tested (the best was a Zeiss 50/1.4 Planar). Maybe Leica will offer the 50/3.5 Anastigmat for sale in M mount.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), November 26, 2001.

Consider an old collapsible 50/2. I picked one up a while ago and am very happy with it. Mine dates back to 1954 and is in mint condition. It's a bit heavier because it's chrome, but not that much. I have a Leica UV filter and a lens hood from the new 50/2.8 on it and it is exactly the same length as the pre-ASPH 35/2 with the rectangular lens hood attached. It is really a great lens.

-- David Cunningham (dcunningham@attglobal.net), November 26, 2001.

Phil:

That first photo is great -- classic Leica look!

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), November 26, 2001.

Dennis, the tab is nice, but at least there's a lot of separation between the aperture ring at the front of the lens and the focus at the rear. I was a little surprised to see the iris leaves form a six- sided figure, just one step up from my Canonet. Thanks, Jack. I should have made that a clickable link. Timmy on the trail. If I could have only one 50, it would be the current Summicron. However, this lens (and a CV 21/4) don't add much weight to the kit. A whole other thread could be "what, if anything, is the Leica look?" Certainly sharp in the plane of focus. The older lenses have that glow (read flare?) The newer ones don't.

-- Phil Stiles (Stiles@metrocast.net), November 27, 2001.

Jack,

it’s impossible to find a noticeable difference between pictures made with the Elmar 3.5/50 coated, the older Elmar 2.8/50, the older Summicron 2.0/50, and the CZ Sonnar 2.0/50 if all of them have a glass in perfect condition. They have the equal resolving power, microcontrast, flare resistance. The Summicron 50mm gives a better bokeh because of Gauss-type design.

I tested these in living conditions. The two LTM Elmar’s 2.8/50 were among lenses treasured.

I should say that the older Elmar 2.8/50 is a great lens with no rotating barrel and having much more convenient F-stop disk than the Elmar 3.5/50. It gives slightly more contrast pics than an older ‘cron. Seems, either lanthanum or some very dense glass was used in it’s design. I don’t shoot with the latest version of Elmar 2.8./50. Victor.

-- Vicror Randin (ved@enran.com.ua), November 27, 2001.

Victor: Thanks for the reminder regarding the aperture setting ring on the f3.5 version!

Jay: What do you think of the aperture ring on the f3.5?

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), November 27, 2001.

Jack- Popular Photography tested the 50 Elmar-M and the 50 Summicron and there wasn't a dime's worth of difference, except for the f2 of the cron. I was at a camera show in Phoenix and saw a minty 50 Elmar-M. The price was right and I finally had a lens for my recently acquired M4-P. As has been pointed out in this forum, the quality isn't what the old Elmars had. It only has 6 blades in the diaphram. I dislike not being able to set the lens any closer than 1/2 a stop after you get to f8. The click stops are too pronounced and the adjustment wants to fall into the nearest click. I have a difficult time with the idea of a collapsible lens. It is always extended when in the camera bag. I think the rigid mounted Summicron 50 might be easier to use. It is not much more expensive. It has 8 aperature blades and has a built-in hood. For picture quality, it it top drawer. I like it a lot. Maybe the collapsible feature was just for the sake of nostalgia.

-- Frank Horn (owlhoot45@hotmail.com), December 01, 2001.

Isn't it amazing that Leica offer 4 50mm lenses for the M series! Not to mention the other compatible lenses. Thus, we are faced with a choice, which 50, or 50's, to get. Of course, the price performance of the Summicron is a seductive force that many, including me, has fallen for. Many times I have thought about a faster 50, but which one. The Noctilux is fantastic, but big and expensive. However, if the Summilux is considered the single stop differential respecting the Summicron seems too small to justify owning both lenses. This is where the Elmar starts to make sense. Get the Summilux for speed, and get the Elmar for compactness. Of course, the comments respecting filter and shade of the Elmar are true, it makes the lens rather large (in Leica terms). But if a shooter forgoes the filter and shade (which ain't the end of the world for the vast majority of shooting situations), then a Summilux/Elmar kit makes good sense.

-- Dan Brown (brpatent@swbell.net), December 01, 2001.

Jack: Just to complete the image set, here's a shot with the 50 f/3.5 screw mount on M4-P via adapter - complete with bright-ring bokeh and max-res blowup of fine detail (shot st f/3.5).

Makes Denver in 2001 look like Paris in the '30s (sort of).

I'm not sure which version this is - it was borrowed off a IIIf and had min. aperture of f/16.

In college on a IIIc I had a version that stopped down to f/22. Since the shutter was squirrely above 1/125th I shot a lot of Tri-X at 1/ 125th and f/22 and the resulting depth of field gave the look of a 35.

You DO need good fingernails to set ANY aperture. 8^)

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), December 02, 2001.