Although I own a closetfull of Leica stuff, accumulated over the years rather than collected, my favorite lens to actually use is a very late 50mm f:3.5 Elmar. I usually try to shoot at around f:8 plus or minus a little. There's all kinds of information available about the performance of Summicrons, luxes, etc (Erwin Puts, etc), but does anyone have comparative figures on the Elmar? I know it's not in the same league as a Summicron wide open, but how about stopped down? TIA

-- Bill Mitchell (bmitch@home.com), June 29, 2000

Answers

I don't know of any measurements, but my own experience tells me that the Elmar design is very sharp. I wouldn't be at all suprised to hear that it compares favorably to the Summicron at smaller apertures.

-- Joe Buechler (jbuechler@toad.net), June 29, 2000.

Almost every 50mm lens ever made for the 35mm format is fairly sharp at f/8. See Photodo.com for text and tables to confirm it. For more comments about your Elmar, see my web page
While I can't point you to a specific test of the Elmar, (PoP Phot did one back in the mid 90s, but I don't have a high opinion of their technical ability: They flunked the Summilux over a curved field!) See Mike Johnson's comments about lens testing before worrying further (the pointer is on my page).

-- Tom Bryant (tbryant@wizard.net), June 29, 2000.

Mike Johnson rules.

And if you're having good results with your lens, why bother with tests? A test result isn't going to change your photographs.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), June 29, 2000.

Jeff is right. The proof is in the images. My favorite "Leica " lens right now is a Minolta 40mm f2.0 from the CLE. Ive taken hundreds of great shots with it in all kinds of lighting situations, and at almost all lens openings. I now have total confidence that if I find good subject matter, hold the camera still and focus, I will be totally satisfied with the images I'll get from behind that lens. There's just something about the look of photos taken with it that just makes them pop of the page. I don't know that any test would be able to measure what it is I see and like, but I know when I see it!

-- andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), June 30, 2000.

I have been referred to a test in Modern Photography, April 1974. At the suggestion of others I am transcribing it here. 50mm Elmar #1457090 @1:47 magnification. Actual focal length=51.6mm. F:number/center lines/mm/edge lines/mm: 3.5/exc/66/acc/26/ /4.0/v.good/66/acc/30/ /5.6/goog/59/acc/37/ /8.0/go og/59/acc/37/ /11/v.good/59/acc/37/ /16/v.good/59/good/42/ /22/n.acc/4 7/good/42. Our "last model" 50mm screw mount Elmar was a superb performer, despite those "acceptable" resolution ratings at the corners of the field and a "not acceptable" in the center at f:22. On the optical bench it showed a very slight on-axis color fringe wide open which was practically gone by f:5.6. Corner sharpness was good even wide open, and while flare was rather large, astigmatism and lateral color were extremely low. Astigmatism was visible, but it disappeared by f:4.5, whil flare was eliminated by stopping down to f:5.6. Optimum performance was achieved at f:8.0. As usual, our field tests results corroborated our optical bench findings quie closely. Our test transpanancies were extraordinarily clean, sharp, and well-saturated to the corners of the field. Astigmatism was absent and axial color was just barely observable. Spherical flare was obviously very low, and no decentering was present in the pictures. even lateral color was not observable in shots made at any aperture. In a word: CRISP!

-- Bill Mitchell (bmitch@home.com), June 30, 2000.

Why not make it a little more readable?

Godfrey

---

Test from Modern Photography, April 1974

50mm Elmar #1457090 @1:47 magnification.

Actual focal length=51.6mm.

Resolution test:

f/number	center	lines/mm	edge	lines/mm
3.5	exc	66	acc	26
4.0	v.good	66	acc	30
5.6	good	59	acc	37
8.0	good	59	acc	37
11	v.good	59	acc	37
16	v.good	59	good	42
22	n.acc	4 7	good	42

Comments:

Our "last model" 50mm screw mount Elmar was a superb performer, despite those "acceptable" resolution ratings at the corners of the field and a "not acceptable" in the center at f:22. On the optical bench it showed a very slight on-axis color fringe wide open which was practically gone by f:5.6. Corner sharpness was good even wide open, and while flare was rather large, astigmatism and lateral color were extremely low. Astigmatism was visible, but it disappeared by f:4.5, whil flare was eliminated by stopping down to f:5.6. Optimum performance was achieved at f:8.0. As usual, our field tests results corroborated our optical bench findings quie closely. Our test transpanancies were extraordinarily clean, sharp, and well-saturated to the corners of the field. Astigmatism was absent and axial color was just barely observable. Spherical flare was obviously very low, and no decentering was present in the pictures. even lateral color was not observable in shots made at any aperture. In a word: CRISP!

---

-- Godfrey DiGiorgi (ramarren@bayarea.net), July 03, 2000.

Leitz Elmar was one of the finest lens of its time. It was designed by Leitz lens designer Max Berek patent in 1920, first productin 1925. In some literature, Leitz Elmar lens is refered to as a derivative of Carl Zeiss Tessar lens. Even though Zeiss Tessar and Leitz Elmar are all four element three group design, with a rear cemented doublet, but there is major difference between the Tessar and Elmar. It is in the postion of the stop. Tessar lens has two element two group in front of the stop and a cement doublet behind the diaphram; on the other hand, Leitz Elmar lens has one lens in frontof the diaphram, and one lens plus one doublet behind the diaphram. Structually different. Elmar was once my favourite lens, because of its compact size; I also used the 50mm f3.5 Elmar lens as enlarging lens. However, performance wise, the Elmar has being superseded by many other lens. PoP did a comparison test of modern lens vs classic lens, and I recall, it concluded that moderm lenses are better. Take for example, Carl Zeiss 50mm f1.4 Planar, it has resolution of 78 lpmm from 2.8 to f 5.6, 70 lpmm at f11. Nikkor 50mm f1.4 78 lpmm at f.5.6 to f8. The Elmar is slightly better than Minolta Rokkor 50mm f1.4 wiht 63 lpmm from f2.8 to f 11.

-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), July 05, 2000.

I agree with Martin. This is a good lens but the current crop of Summicrons/Summiluxes and the current Elmar-M 50mm are better by a long chalk. It takes great pictures at f8, but wide open the current lenses are miles better - night and day difference. I am talking of looking at slides blown up to 3 foot or so (K64). These differences are not so detectable using prints, of course. In my experience also as a comparison a 60s dual range Summicron is much superior. Mind you it should be though - the designs are separated by 35 years or so.

-- Robin Smith (rsmith@springer-ny.com), July 05, 2000.

In the 50s and before, Leitz lenses was no match for the abundant crops of super lenses from CarL Zeiss: Planar, Sonnar, Biogon, Hologon etc. Contax made great lenses, Leitz made great bodies. Things changed when great Leitz designer Walter Mandler of Leica Canada first introduced computer aided lens design and designed the 7/5 Leitz Elcan (stood for Ernst Leitz Canada ) and the 35mm/1.4 7/5 Summilux. Since then Leitz optik has being equal to Carl Zeiss. Ernst Letiz Canada Ltd at the beutiful town of Mindland at Georgian Bay was sold to Hugh Optics more than a decade ago; but this Hugh Elcan Optical Work still makes M/R lenes for Leica under contract. "Canadian balsam" also played a vital part in the excellent quality of Leitz optics.

-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), July 07, 2000.

Nobel laureate George Bernard Shaw taking picture with Leitz Elmar 50/3.5 lens

-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), January 12, 2001.

I got into Leica several years ago and have done dozens of comparative lens tests vs Nikon, Canon Olympus, Contax ,Tamron SP, Pentax.

The Leica screw mounts flare badly wide open , the 3.5 Elmar being unusable backlit. That said, used at 5.6 -8 they have never given a photo I was not pleased with. Old Leica is as good as new Nikon. Newer M lenses ( my newest is a 1990 50mm) are so sharp that they should not be used to photograph relatives concerned with the aging process! They are just great for all else. Handheld Leica don't shake like my SLR's . While the lens chart resolution is not much better ( 108 l/mm best vs 102 l/mm for my 55/ 2.8 Micro nikkor) it is much more noticeable in the final print -perhaps this is focus accuracy but probably vibration is more important.

This does not condemn my SLR's - they are easier to use and have much better flash abilities. My 100mm Zuiko yields outdoor images as sharp as my 90 tele elmarit - but not at 1/30th second! This is my quandary - the Leica stuff is better, but harder to use and lacks real tele ability. My cure has been to carry an SLR with a long lens to broaden my travel kit and use the Leica exclusively indoors. This is a weighty solution which may no longer be valid given the difficult nature of travel security post 9/11/01. My trusty OM2 with pistol grip motor drive2 and long lens resembles a terrorist weapon more than a gentle camera while my Leica is still innocuous and quietly non-threatening - which is probably the original intent of the Barnack design.

-- Bob Mikan (gotglasses@usa.net), November 08, 2001.