I was wondering what is the performance of the rather compact Elmar 50mm f2.8 M-mount latest model? It's the lens which went with the Leica M6J special edition and I was wondering how it was considering that it is a relatively slow lens compared to the Noct. Is it ASPH? I looked at the optical diagram and it didn't seem so but it's hard to tell. :)

After all, it just looks like a solid lens to add to the M-Rokkor.

-- Alfie Wang (leica_phile@hotmail.com), February 23, 2002

Answers

The Elmar that came with the M6J is not identical to the current Elmat-M. The M6J model has a vintage-style focusing tab. The current production model does not.

I have the current production model and it is a nice, compact lens that I use quite often because of its size. However, the images produced by it, although quite good by any standards, do not have quite the snap of those taken with the 50 Summicron. The Elmar, nevertheless, is a very good lens that is up to Leica standards.

I have no idea how the Elmar compares to the Noctilux or Summilux and would be interested in reading the comments of others who are able to compare the performance of those lenses.

Dennis

-- Dennis Couvillion (couvillion@aol.com), February 23, 2002.

The performance of the 50 2.8 is not up to the same standard as the 50 Summicron. Of all the lenses in the Leica line-up M this one stands out as the only deliberate anachronism. Its also a popular myth that the Elmar is more compact than the Summicron. In the absolute sense of the word... yes. But fitting that hood on (which does little to control the inherent flare in this design) reduces its desirability as a compact lens. 4 the $$$$ U will B better off getting a second hand current generation Summicron (with the removable hood and focus tab if possible)... if you're planning on using it.

-- John (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), February 23, 2002.

I've only recently begun using Leica equipment. I bought by M6TTL with the 50/f2.8 collapsible Elmar BECUASE of its deliberate anachronism. I then followed up with a 35/f2 Asph. and a 90/f2 APO asph. I've "rediscovered" the value of using a 50mm "normal" lens and use it a lot. My 50/f2.8 Elmar compares favorably with the 50mm SLR primes I've used in the past (Minolta, Nikon, Canon). I don't have a 50mm Summicron or Summilux so I can't help you with that comparison. I can say that the slides I've taken with the Elmar blend in just fine with those I've taken with the 35 and 90 Summicrons. I went for the deliberate anachronism and haven't been disappointed.

Dale Griffith

-- Dale Griffith (dgrif55@aol.com), February 23, 2002.

Alfie, the Elmar's performance should be more than adequate for your needs. Hell, any of the Leica lenses should be more than adequate for your needs.

-- Richard (rvle@yahoo.com), February 23, 2002.

Being an Elmar-M advocate, I have to answer. This lens is based on the Classic Zeiss "Tessar" design, and the most recent member of the lens family that made Leica what it is today. This lens was re- examined, and heavily modified and updated before it's most recent release, with the addition of elements of very high refractive index. Also, the placement of the aperature was redesigned. Tessar's always seem to me to have their own signature, and this is what draws me to them. Personally, I feel they have a way with tonal graduation that is missing from other designs, which would also imply that contrast, and "sharpnest" (or the illustion)would also be affected. To me, these lenses (Tessar designs) are razor sharp while retaining a poetic tonal graduation. But to each his/her own. My own example continues to make photography exciting.

(Leitz M6; Elmar-M 50mm 1:2.8, B+W KR 1.5 MCR, Fuji Sensia II 200)

-- Glenn Travis (leicaddict@hotmail.com), February 23, 2002.

The 50/2.8 Elmar-M is a 4-element, 3-group Tessar design. It does not use any asperical elements.

Tessar designs often turn up in 45mm "pancake" lenses (Contax 45/2.8 Tessar, Nikon-Olympus-Pentax 45mm pancake lenses), with the emphasis on compactness i/o state-of-the-art performance. Typically they are described as a bit soft wide-open, with maximum performance requiring a fair amount of stop-down: f8-f11. More complex optical designs are usually regarded as better performers---better wide open and requiring less stop-down to reach max performance.

That said, some prefer Tessar rendition, and specifically seek out Tessar designs. Whether you can see the difference or not depends on your technique, how large you enlarge, and your eyes. I've used both the Elmar-M and Summicron-M, and not seen any significant differences, but Leica for me is usually hand-held and ISO 400+. I usually jump to medium format for stuff I think I might want to blowup big.

The new Elmar-M does outperform the classic Elmar 50/2.8, and Puts' site has tests and comparisons of the Leica 50mm lenses, as well as the collapsible Konica 50/2.4 (not a Tessar design).

I found the Elmar-M collapsed difficult to extend without having the hood attached. Attaching the hood made it a lot less compact, and in fact made it not much more compact than a Summicron-M w/built-in hood. It takes a few seconds to extend and lock the lens, so it takes longer to snap after extracting the camera from a bag or pocket. I wound up trading mine away and using a 40/2.0 Rokkor-M for when I want the body/lens combo as slim as possible.

The Elmar-M does have a cool retro feel to it, though, and I did find the focus ring and aperture ring very easy to use. Once extended and locked it handles very nicely.

Cheers,

PB

-- Paul C. Brodek (pcb@skyweb.net), February 23, 2002.

Allow me to elaborate on my previous comments:

The Elmar-M, with hood attached, is more compact than the last Summicron designs, with built in hood or snap on hood, when stowing the camera in a bag, but not by much. Outside the bag I find it quick and easy to retract the lens; this, IMO, is a non-issue. When out of the bag I leave the lens fully retracted and ready to shoot. It occurred to me one day that one is not limited to the lens hood that comes with the lens. Sometimes I now use a snap on #12585H lens hood which I carry separately in the bag just as I would with the Summicron. I put the hood on when I'm using the lens; take it off when I put the camera away. Therefore, when collapsing the Elmar lens before putting the camera away in the bag, the camera/lens outfit is extremely compact without any lens hood. The lens is a very good performer, but the "look" of the images is quite different from those taken with a Summicron. I would agree with the comments of others in that regard. But, when speaking of this lens being compact, I'm really talking about when the lens hood is removed and the lens is collapsed, which is great for not taking up much room in a small camera bag.

Dennis

-- Dennis Couvillion (couvillion@aol.com), February 23, 2002.

Paul, in your second paragraph you seem to point to several faults with the Tessar design, not being specific as to whether this is applicable to the Elmar-M, or not. (I don't believe it is.) Yet in your third paragraphy you state that you can see no significate difference between the Elmar-M and Summicron-M. Fest up, which is it? Historically, your second paragraph was interesting, but what has it to do with the Elmar-M? Problems could have been specific to the manufacture, and not to the lens design itself. Secondly, I'd like to point out that if you can load film into a Leica, then extending the lens is a snap.

-- Glenn Travis (leicaddict@hotmail.com), February 23, 2002.

Someone who has access to both the 50mm Summicron and 50mm Elmar-M should do a side-by-side comparison and post it here. Shoot with both at f/2.8, on up. Shoot situations that could reveal flare. If you have the Summilux and Noctilux, put those in the equation as well.

-- Frank Horn (owlhoot45@hotmail.com), February 23, 2002.

Frank's mention of a side-by-side comparison is unquestionable. I only have an older 2/50. I would only like to say that I have also met several Leica friends (of many countries) who bought the Elmar since they already had a 2/50 (having liked 50s in general) and then just bought the Elmar for the simple reason that it is also a 50 but the historic, nostalgic model. All of the "disadvantages" it may have are then irrelevant.

-- Michael Kastner (kastner@zedat.fu-berlin.de), February 23, 2002.

For a while I had and used both recent versions of the Elmar-M and Summicron M 50mm's. In the end I got rid of the Elmar as it flared much more (in the Australian sun), wasn't as shower proof and as others have noted, with its cylindrical lenshood wasn't much more compact than the Summicron.

You can read more notes about this in the FAQ at nemeng.com/leica/ 012b.shtml

-- Andrew Nemeth (azn@nemeng.com), February 23, 2002.

In response to Glen's questions:

Gee, I didn't think I had anything to fess up to. :-}

I've seen both "objective" test-based opinion (see Erwin Puts' tests) and "subjective" use-based opinion (at least three in this thread already) that the Elmar-M does share at least some of the limitations of the Tessar design. I suspect that, given Leica's talent for lens design and manufacture, the Elmar-M may be as tweaked and fine a Tessar-design lens as possible. It still only has 4 elements and so can't correct for as many aberrations as a 5- or 6-element design. I wonder if a 4-element aspherical design would work....

Yet I didn't see any difference when I compared prints from my Elmar-M and my Summicron-M, and you seem to think that's contradictory. It's not, at least in IMO. Lower-performance MTF graphs don't necessarily result in visible lower on-film performance, yet the absence of visible on-film performance doesn't mean identical bench-test reults.

On the optical bench there's a performance difference, some see this and dislike it, some see it and like it, some see it and don't care, some don't see it at all. Your mileage may vary, often depending on camera use, film choice and image processing/viewing.

In terms of handling, I didn't mean that extending and locking the lens, with hood attached, was difficult. It's not difficult at all, but it does take more time than when using a rigid lens. I found slipping an M6, with the Rokkor-M, in and out of a pocket repeatedly to be faster and more convenient than extending and collapsing the Elmar-M every time the M6 went in and out of my pocket. Alfie's mileage may vary, but he was, after all, asking for opinions.

Cheers,

PB

-- Paul C. Brodek (pcb@skyweb.net), February 23, 2002.

If people are buying the current 50mm Elmar for its anachronistic quality, why not go the whole hog and get a truly compact lens, the '57 f2.8 Elmar? The image quality is'anachronistic', in a very nice way, and when collapsed, unlike the current lens which is barely smaller than a Summicron, it will fit in your pocket while on the camera.

-- Steve Barnett (barnet@globalnet.co.uk), February 24, 2002.

At f4 all four 50MM lenses are about the same printed up to 11x17. The same holds true at 5.6 and 8. Beyond that, the Summicron seems to hold it's sharpness the best followed by the Elmar. the other two are best kept at wider than F8. Below f4 the Noctilux is the champ among MY lenses. Kajabbi

-- nedLearned (ned@kajabbi.comn), March 01, 2002.