Hi! I just bought a new version Elmar 50/2.8. I compare this lens with my Nikkor 50/1.4: both use the same film type, same sutter speed, same apperture. The result ? Very sadly, the Elmar 50/2.8 does not perform better than the Nikkor 50/1.4. I wonder if the performance of the 50/2.8 justified the high price! Can anyone help me? Thank you very much! Chih-Chien Lin

-- Chih-Chien Lin (chihchienlintw@yahoo.com.tw), January 05, 2002

Answers

Sure I can help you. I'll pay you $100 for that awful Elmar, it will make a really cool paperweight ;>)

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), January 05, 2002.

Chih-Chien:

I haven't done any comparitive testing but I find that the Nikon lens is much better at f/1.4 and f/2.0. Hope this helps.

Art

-- Art (AKarr90975@aol.com), January 05, 2002.

:-)...............

-- (applemac97@aol.com), January 05, 2002.

Hi: I think that some of you misunderstand me. I am new to photography (7 months). I like my Nikon FM2 and I also like my Leica M2. They belong to different style. I just wonder if there are some methos that can help me to get the best out of my Elmar 50/2.8 (e.g. film type, color or B&W?...) Thank you very much. Chih-Chien Lin

-- Chih-Chien Lin (chihchienlintw@yahoo.com.tw), January 05, 2002.

I´m not an expert, but I belive that triplet designs are better suit in apertures from 5.6 to 16 or closer, so landscapes and day ligth work can be it´s best subject, you should try it in portraits in the wider apertures.

And why not look on the early work of HCB or Kertez and all those early leica masters, that kind of lens were their daily bread.

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), January 05, 2002.

Chih-Chien:

I am sorry, didn't mean to make fun of you. I just got carried away. I use a cron and have never used the Elmar [actually, I have never seen one]. I'm sure someone here will answer you.

Art

-- Art (AKarr90975@aol.com), January 05, 2002.

I'm not sure how you decided one lens was better than the other. Are you sure your rangefinder is perfectly calibrated in the camera so focusing was done accurately with the Elmar?

I have found that pretty much all the Nikon 50mm lenses are excellent, and your 1.4 Nikkor may have more contrast at the middle apertures than the Elmar. The extra contrast often gives the appearance of better sharpness, but it has drawbacks as well, like being less able to capture subtle shadow detail. The Leica lenses are overly expensive, some of it is due to small production and the hands on labor required to build them. I find the Summicron to be a bit sharper than the Elmar, but even then, my $80.00 f1.8 Nikkor isn't blown away by the $800 Summicron except at f2.0. If you want to see a BIG improvement in image quality over your Nikon, maybe you should ber considering a medium format camera.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), January 05, 2002.

I agree with Andrew. The differences between Leica and other top- tier lenses from various brands in 35mm are there to be found but reports that Leica glass "blows them away" should IMO be viewed with skepticism and try-it-yourself before you plunk down the plastic. OTOH, moving up to any pro-quality medium format, you will see a dramatic difference even with small enlargements. There are areas where medium format can't touch 35mm (size/weight; long, fast teles; large film loads and fast motordrives, to name three)but image quality isn't one.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), January 05, 2002.

To be more serious, I agree with Andrew and Jay to some extent. I can tell the difference between Nikon and Leica lenses; I try to exploit the difference to my advantage.

Still for quality; My blad makes a signicant difference in quality; if we go to 4x5 or 8 x10 there is no comparison. Just depends on what you are doing and what results you want. There is no formula for success.

Art

-- Art (AKarr90975@aol.com), January 05, 2002.

I can see comparing image quality between 35mm and medium-format because today's MF cameras operate similar to 35's in many respects. Large-format is a complete paradigm shift: loading film-holders, viewing upside-down images under a dark cloth, exchanging holders for each shot, etc. Never caught my fancy, even if the image quality is extraordinary.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), January 05, 2002.

I have a Nikon 50mm f1.8 (and like you I have the FM2n) and I compare it with the Summicron 50mm. The differences between the two lenses is particularly found at higher apertures. Apart from others, one of the major benefits of a Leica lens can be seen at wide apertures. Try to take a pictures at night without flash, and you will be happy you bought the Leica. Aside from the benefits of range finder, Leica lenses seem to give pictures with a 'depth'. Most of us, many times can distinguish a Leica picture with others. Try pictures at various apertures and shutter speeds and check your picture clarity and true reproduction of colors throughtout the picture. You should be able to see the difference. You will know where to use Leica. You will be glad you get to use Leica. I know I haven't used an Elmarit. But I suppose the basic qualitities aren't very much different.

-- Mallik Kovuri (mkovuri@gtemail.net), January 06, 2002.

Chih-Chien

I can only tell you that according to those who objectively test lenses, the 50/2.8 Elmar M (new formula) is still NOT considered one of Leicas best. This is a four-element lens, and the degree to which optical errors have been corrected is not as high as in the current version of the 50/2.0 Summicron-M (six elements), which is still Leica's best regular production 50 mm lens.

Leica does make a 50/3.5 multi-coated Anastigmat collapsible lens, for their special edition 0-series camera. This is a superb lens, optically probably their best 50 ever. But so far, they have not released this lens for general sale.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), January 06, 2002.

normali;Elmar IS an old formula'like TESSAR improvemend is very difficult even with modern glasses

-- jean (jeantollio@hotmail.fr), January 06, 2002.

The current Elmar is a terrific lens and IMHO as good as the Summicron by f/4. If you can find one at a good price ($200 less than the Summicron) then you should consider it. However I would recommend the Summicron for the extra stop. Also I am extremely biased for Leica lenses and will say some nonsense that the worst Leica lens is better than the best Nikkor................

-- ray tai (razerx@netvigator.com), January 06, 2002.

Ray, Im glad you said it was nonsense before i had to! But seriously some people genuinly claim that when firstly cant possibly have tried every lens out there. Each manufacturer has a reputation for making a better focal length lens than another no one is top at every focal length. Sorry to say though the elmar isnt even king in the Leica stable the Summicron is, and thats where Leica earn is reputation.

-- Joel Matherson (joel_2000@hotmail.com), January 07, 2002.