Elmar or the summicron, which one would you get. Thanks Will

-- Will Staples (wis11@hotmail.com), December 22, 2000

Answers

How about a nice clean collapsible Summicron--best of both worlds? I wish they still made that one--I'd be first in line.

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), December 22, 2000.

50/2 Summicron latest version or series prior to the latest version.

-- M.V. (mahv@xtra.co.nz), December 22, 2000.

Will,

For a company where you can expect to pay hundreds of Dollars for a single f-stop over the next slower model, the Summicron is either a great deal, or the Elmarit is over priced. To me this is a no- brainier... I never wished that the lens on my camera was slower, but if I had a Dime for every time I would have killed for one more f- stop in lens speed.... well, I'd have a group of Dimes.

In the past, I have used the collapsible Summicron on my M3s, and really enjoyed the portability. But in real life, if your camera is ready for use, the lens is extended and hood mounted... so the size advantage is only valid during transport.

I'd go with the Summicron. The price to performance ratio makes it a best buy.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), December 22, 2000.

My solution to that dilemma was to locate a pristine collapsible Summicron screw-mount - circa 1960. Now I have a pocketable solution for my screw mount body and (with an adapter) for my M body, too.

Not easy to locate, and not cheap either, in primo shape. Watch out for cleaning marks on these early Summicron coatings. Be patient! If you are a member of or join the Leica Historical Society of America (LHSA) members are very helpful locating prime examples of equipment you are looking for. They are meticulous, exacting, and dead-on in terms of pricing. I found my lens for about the same price Elmars of the same period and shape were going for.

Of course, if you haven't got the screw-mount requirement, you'll have a much easier time locating a good bayonet version.

Good luck!

-- Ken Shipman (kennyshipman@aol.com), December 22, 2000.

50 f2

-- grant (g4lamos@yahoo.com), December 22, 2000.

I suppose that you are considering the Elmar for it's compactness, but if you consider that it's length when extended and hooded (and filtered?) is about the same as the Summicrons with it's hood slid in, why bother? Go for the extra stop! Mike

-- mike pailliotet (pailliotet@telocity.com), December 22, 2000.

I second the motion. The Summicron in any of its incarnations is the way to go. The later versions are a little contrastier, an advantage with black and white. The collapsible model, the "rigid Summicron," or the dual range are a little lower in contrast, which can be an advantage in color work. I have 3 different incarnations of this lens. My collapsible Summicron, circa 1954 or so, still sees a lot of duty. It has pretty much the same compactness for travel or carrying in a coat pocket, that the Elmar has. If you get one, you won't be sorry.

Regards,

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), December 22, 2000.

P.S. I should add that I don't see the used Elmars going for any less than the collapsible Summicron, at least locally in St. Louis. The middle $300 range, say $350 or so, is typical for the Summicron. I've seen the Elmar going for more. Collector value, don't you know.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), December 22, 2000.

The Summicron is a sharper lens. They both weigh almost exactly the same. The ELmar protrudes less when collapsed, but more when extended. The Summicron doesn't rotate when focused so it's easier to find the f stop, and unlike the Elmar won't change the focus when you change the aperture.

-- Bill Mitchell (bmitch@home.com), December 23, 2000.

Which version of 2.8 and which version of Summicron? If you are comparing the current versions of each, then I'd have to advise buying the Summicron. Unless you remove the shade from the collapsible lens, it is not much more compact than the Summicron, is one stop slower, and by all counts not quite as stellar a performer. I owned a chrome version of the latest 50/2.8 and sold it.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), December 23, 2000.

The virtues of collapsable lenses are best suited to screw mount bodies. For Ms, get the Summicron, and if you want collapsable, f/3.5 Elmars are truly small.

-- John O'Connell (boywonderiloveyou@hotmail.com), December 24, 2000.

Just to balance the argument, I have both. The 50 f 2.8 [new version] is a much better lens at the stops that I use. To each his own.

Gregor

-- Gregor (Gregor10001@yahoo.com), December 24, 2000.

Gregor: You have both of what? Both the Elmar and Summicron, or f/2.8 Elmar and f/3.5 Elmar? Which apertures do you use?

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), December 24, 2000.

The Summicron (any version) gives a better "bokeh" than any Elmar. Elmar' "bokeh" is looking double image and in rags.

-- Victor Randin (www.ved@enran.com.ua), December 25, 2000.

I voted with my wallet for a black rigid summicron for my M2. I'm not disappointed. Sometimes it would be nice if it was even smaller, but I always use the lens hood, and would on a collapsable.

-- Mark Wrathall (Wrathall@aon.at), December 26, 2000.

Hi all,

found this usergroup by coincidence - I wonder what a near mint 2.8/50 Elmar goes for these days. I have a Summilux 1.4/50 & use the Elmar in my newly aquired CL. But I think a 2/40 would be more convenient, even though that's a Minolta and not a Leitz lens.

Kind regards,

- Josef

-- Josef Schwarz (schjos@usa.net), February 14, 2001.

Hello I used to have a 50mm f 2.8 Elmar, the latest generation. I sold it and bought a 50mm f2 Summicron because of the following. 1- Sometimes I would accidently collapse the lense when turning the aperture ring. 2- It became a pain to constantly extend the lens for use. 3- I tested it against a Summicron and foud out that the edge to edge sharpness and contrast were better on the summicron. Although the Elmar is a fine lens in my case I'll take the superior performance gain(Although slight)of the Summicron over the Elmar

-- Francesco Rizzuto (cucciolo13@home.com), August 19, 2001.

I have the Elmar and the prior Summicron (with focus tab). Here's my $.02:

Points for the Elmar: * The Elmar weighs less (170g vs. 240 for latest Summicron; 245 vs. 335 in chrome). * It costs several hundred $ less. * It collapses enough to make the camera nearly pocketable. (Although people will say that with the hood it's not much shorter than the Summicron, remember to compare apples to apples, or hood to hood: it really is shorter.) * The hood is rigid and sturdy, compared to the extensible one, and it's more likely you'll have it on when you need it, compared to the prior Summicron. (Note: the above comment re: focusing moving when changing aperture does not apply to the current Elmar.)

Points against: * Collapsing and extracting as you shoot is self- defeating; you'll probably only collapse it to transport it. * Without the hood, it's hard to grab it to extract it. * May be optically good, but the Summicron is a legend. * Sometimes you really want that extra stop.

The bottom line? I shoot people, and for me, it's one thing: the focus tab. I have found that with a little practice I can focus the camera as I'm raising it to my eye by positioning the tab where I've learned it should be given the subject distance. It's faster than autofocus. Why Leica stopped making the focus tab is beyond me. My advice - get the prior Summicron. A compromise in size and weight, and well worth the extra money.

Hope this helps.

-- Van Barletta (van@theramp.net), October 21, 2001.

The Elmar has it's distinctions and I even thought of getting it too. My big suggestion is, yes, get one but only after you already have a 50 'cron or 'lux, plus a 35 ('cron or 'lux), plus a 75 or a 90, plus a 21 or a 24.

Sort of get the idea?

My 6K$ worth.

-- Michael Kastner (kastner@zedat.fu-berlin.de), October 21, 2001.