This collapsable version is coated. NIB costs about USD 600.

Why would anyone use this if a NIB 50/2 cron latest ver would only cost USD 750?

Am I missing something besides the slight cost difference? The cron is as I know it, way better than the elmar.

COmments?

-- Yossi (yosslee@yahoo.com), April 24, 2002

Answers

the cron is not really "way better" at apertures 5.6 and smaller. consult photodo. people like the compactness of the collapsible lens. a collapsible 50 is also a leica classic, going right back to the beginning. it will be a sad day when leica finally drops this item.

-- roger michel (michel@tcn.org), April 24, 2002.

The Cron is better, though its also huge and heavy compared to the Elmar. If you want to travel light and compact (which is what the M was designed for in the first place), the Elmar is the way to go, question of priorities really.

-- Karl Yik (karl.yik@dk.com), April 24, 2002.

I think I'm floating off into a dream world. 50/2 M = "Huge and heavy"?! Not compared to anything, except a rice grain, perhaps.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), April 24, 2002.

The Summicron is better at f/2 which is reason enough for the small price difference. The only reason why I would have the Elmar is for a back up 50mm that I can collapse into the body when I am traveling light with just a 35mm and a small 90mm such as the VC 90mm f/3.5 APO. I have the earlier version for this purpose but honestly it is the last lens I reach for.

-- ray tai (razerx@netvigator.com), April 24, 2002.

summicron 50 "huge and heavy?" what the?! you must be kidding me.

-- Dexter Legaspi (dalegaspi@hotmail.com), April 24, 2002.

I had a collapsible current Elmar, it was a decent-performing lens not compact enough to replace my Summicron, either the 11817 I had at the time, or the 11819 (with pull-out hood). Once you get a UV filter and the screw-on shade (a PITA when changing filters)and a lenscap (the felt-lined friction-retained type that keeps falling off) on it, it isn't more than 1/4" shorter than the Summicron. Big deal. Plus, I ended up using the vented clip-on hood from my 11817 instead of the Elmar's shade, and a plastic snap-on lenscap. Moreover my Elmar was chrome and so it was actually heavier than the black Summicron. All in all it was a nice lens but of little purpose. For compactness I have a 5cm/3.5 Elmar collapsible in LTM which with an M adaptor collapses to about 1/4" from the body, good for carrying the M6 in a suitcoat pocket. Too bad that lens has such an obnoxious way to set the f stops (little ring around the front element with a tiny tab)and the UV filter is a huge clamp-on thing.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), April 24, 2002.

The real question should be: "Why would anybody pay USD 750 or even 600 for a 50mm lens?" ;-)
Stop looking for a logical relationship between a product w. a Leica label and its price.
After a while you will accept that it just doesn't make sense, and you will start enjoying the results you can get with the equipment.

-- Niels H. S. Nielsen (nhsn@ruc.dk), April 24, 2002.

OK OK, Huge and heavy is an overstatement, but you know what I mean.

-- Karl Yik (karl.yik@dk.com), April 24, 2002.

I have the current black Elmar-M which I am very happy with. Bought new from Delta International for ~$470 on sale (not $600 you quote). I like it for ergonomical reasons. I don't have to fuss with folding hood of current Summicron or detacheable hood of previous version. Also I don't like tabs. And I don't use filters. And you have to admit, when collapsed it is smaller then Summicron, which was the main reason for me to buy this lens. Speed is not an issue as I also have a faster 50. As one and only 50mm lens I would certainly recommend Summicron, but do not knock the Elmar because it does not make sense to *you*.

-- Alexander Grekhov (grekhov@wgukraine.com), April 24, 2002.

the current 50 cron is HUGE AND HEAVY compared to collapsible 50s of the past (about ten times the weight). i'd love to see an updated 50 3.5 elmar that is about the size of the old version. that would be a nice travel lens!! i think the current elmar has gotten way too big, not nearly enough savings in bulk to justify its existence. nonetheless it is a nice connection to the original barnack cameras.

-- roger michel (michel@tcn.org), April 24, 2002.

AT least someone agrees with me then :)

-- Karl Yik (karl.yik@dk.com), April 24, 2002.

I'm glad someone asked this question. After Glenn Travis' numerous posts claiming the 50mm Elmarit is the best lens for a Leica, I found myself wondering "Why?" and asked that very question in another thread. Since I do most of my shooting at large apertures, and the 'cron is barely bigger anyway, the f2 lens seems more sensible as a lone 50mm optic.

I also agree with the poster (above) who pointed out the absurdity of any 50mm f2 or f2.8 lens costing as much as the Leica optics. Hell, I once bought a very nice Nikkor 50mm f2 lens off eBay for $22, and it produces excellent results.

-- Douglas Kinnear (douglas.kinnear@colostate.edu), April 24, 2002.

I think Leica brought out the 50mm Elmar-M as a nostalgia trip, as it harkens back to the Barnack days, as the above post notes. Leica has something for everyone. I've used both 'cron & Elmar-m, and someone will have to show me where any difference in picture quality exists, except at f/2. My beef with the Elmar-M is close settings of aperature from about f/8, upwards. Between f/11 & f/16, you can set it at f11 1/2, but if you try to go to f/11 3/4, it will fall into f/16. The old Leitz lenses could be more accurately set.>>>>>>>>>>>The felt-lined lens cap, BTW, costs about $42.50 to replace, should it be lost. The lens hood screws on, so it probably won't get lost, but that little ditty (12 550) costs about $46.50. To say that the 'cron is "way better" than the Elmar, is a matter of opinion!

-- Frank Horn (owlhoot45@hotmail.com), April 24, 2002.

Personally, I don't understand why, in order to prove or disprove that a Leica lens is good, or "bad," that one needs to compare them. Only a complete idiot would ever think that any Leica lens is "bad," no matter how far back one goes in Leica history. Not only that, but each Leica lens tends to have its own magic. Now as soon as I say this, I know someone will pull out resolution charts to show how wrong-headed I am. So be it. You can go play with your charts, while I go play with film. In the middle ninety's Leica choose to re- examine the Tessar design. It had been thought that no further improvement could be made to this design. In re-examining the Tessar though, Leica engineers did see several areas that they thought could improve the design of this hundred year old Zeiss, 4 element, formula. One, the elements were designed with new glass formulations using very expensive rare earth elements that give very, very high indices of refraction, and, two, the placement of the aperture blades were moved between the second and third elements. One of the reasons I personally like Leica, is that each element or piece (certainly in the M line) receives the benefit of the finest engineering available. There simply is no second line! So it comes as no surprise to me, that the new Elmar-M, while being much smaller and simpler than the 'Cron, is very close to it, price wise. As for me, I simply love the signature of the Tessar design, made even more desirable with the distinct improvements of what are the most dedicated lens engineers around. Image to follow)

-- Glenn Travis (leicaddict@hotmail.com), April 24, 2002.

Glenn wrote: "Personally, I don't understand why, in order to prove or disprove that a Leica lens is good, or "bad," that one needs to compare them."

Nobody has claimed that any particular lens is "bad," but you have repeatedly offered the opinion that the Elmar 50mm is the best lens for the Leica M. I am merely asking "why?" And the photos you have posted do not answer the question, at least for me, as they do not visually illustrate results that could only be gotten with this lens, i.e., they seem to show results that could have been produced with a Summicron set at a comparable aperture.

When you write that the Elmar has a certain "signature," what do you mean? Can you explain in words or pictures what this looks like? I am interested in how the Elmar's results compare to those from other 50s.

Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to be difficult, but rather I am interested in why you like this lens. I have thought occasionally of buying one, and would like to understand its special attributes.

-- Douglas Kinnear (douglas.kinnear@colostate.edu), April 24, 2002.

For a while I had both Elmar-M and Summicron 50mm lenses and used them side-by-side. In the end I got rid of the Elmar-M because of bad lens flare (into the Australian sun), not as weather resistant (in light rain the lens interior fogged up!) and when you use the cylindrical hood (which you must do if you want to keep fingerprints off the front element) then the lens isn't much more compact than the Summicron.

On film the Summicron is sharper too, although admittedly you have to go to high mag. to see the difference.

-- Andrew Nemeth (azn@nemeng.com), April 24, 2002.

Does the current 50 Elmar focus as close as the Summicron? I find that .7 meter close focus much more useful than the 1 meter that the older lenses had.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), April 24, 2002.

Weights of 50 Elmars and Summicrons*:

Elmar f3.5 (1954-1961)	210g
Elmar f2.8 (1957-1974)	220g
Elmar f2.8 (1995-)	200g
Summicron (Collapsible 1954-1957)	255g
Summicron (Rigid 1956-1968)	285g
Summicron (1969-1979)	260g
Summicron (1979-1994)	225g
Summicron (1994-)	240g

*Indentifying Leica Lenses, Ghester Sartorius, Amphoto Books, 1999

-- Ken Geter (kgeter@yahoo.com), April 24, 2002.

give me a used $290 blk cdn cron over any elmar any day. it must be the retro-look people like. extending the lens is an extra step in order to take a photo, not to mention mechanical wear over the years.

-- Steve (leitz_not_leica@hotmail.com), April 24, 2002.

The current Elmar-M focuses to .7 meter.

-- Frank Horn (owlhoot45@hotmail.com), April 24, 2002.

coz in Thailand It's cheaper!!!!

-- Puchong Lau (doctorpuchong@hotmail.com), April 24, 2002.

So there is only a 20 gram difference in the current Summicron and Elmar--That would be pretty hard to even feel. So much for the big weight difference.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), April 24, 2002.

I have been very pleased with my 50mm Elmar-M. Although I have the rigid 'cron and the collapsible 'cron, I use the Elmar whenever I don't need f:2 (which is most of the time). The quality, so far as I can tell, is every bit as good as the rigid 'cron and noticeably better than the collapsible 'cron (much less flare). For me, the difference in weight is not important, but the collapsed size is. I can put the camera in my pocket much more easily with the Elmar. Also, the Leica case with the wrist strap is compact. I got my Elmar-M for $450. new with the no-fault warranty since there was a $200. rebate last year. I probably would not pay $650. for it.

-- Jack Matlock (jfmatlo@attglobal.net), April 24, 2002.

A new purchaser of the 50mm Elmar-M is none other than Erwin Putts! He just bought one for his new M7. His tests show the Elmar-M outperforms the 50mm Summilux at all common apertures. Two salient quotes from his 4/11/02 # 67 newsletter answers quite well the question originally poised by Yossi on why to buy this lens:

"the Elmar is delightfully compact and very smooth to use (focusing is buttersmooth as is the aperture ring). It delivers more than 100 lp/mm over the whole image area at f/4 and smaller."

"The M7 with the Elmar is a very classical combination: compact, easy to use, superb image quality and high user satisfaction. The Leica after all is the unobtrusive camera for impressionistic shots in low- light conditions. Can the Elmar deliver? Yes and it is a beautiful match to the M7."

-- Doug from Tumwater (dbaker9128@aol.com), April 24, 2002.

Douglas wrote: "When you write that the Elmar has a certain "signature," what do you mean? Can you explain in words or pictures what this looks like? I am interested in how the Elmar's results compare to those from other 50s."

I've posted as many photos and as much information as I'm going too. I'm really not interested in whether you buy the Elmar-M or not, or whether your swayed by my argument for it or not. Do your own homework, and make your own decision.

-- Glenn Travis (leicaddict@hotmail.com), April 25, 2002.

I have always been intrigued by the Elmar.

Question:

How long is the lens when collapsed, and without hood, filter or cap attached?

Thanks.

BTW, the black Elmar weighs 170 grams, which is 70 grams lighter than the Summicron.

-- Dan Brown (brpatent@swbell.net), April 25, 2002.

"I've posted as many photos and as much information as I'm going too. I'm really not interested in whether you buy the Elmar-M or not, or whether your swayed by my argument for it or not. Do your own homework, and make your own decision."

My point is that you have not really made an argument in favor of the lens -- rather you have posted some inconclusive photos and the opinion that the Elmar-M is great. I am merely asking why you think it is great. Why you prefer it to other 50s for the Leica M. It is not a question of whether I am swayed by your argument, because you haven't made one.

And if you really don't care what anyone else thinks about your lens choice, why keep offering your opinions of the lens?

-- Douglas Kinnear (douglas.kinnear@colostate.edu), April 25, 2002.

A collapsed Elmar-M, without a filter or hood, extends 25mm out. Put on the lens protection filter and it extends 29mm out; add the hood (12 550) and it extends to 40mm. Converted to inches, the above figures are: 1 inch, 1 5/32 & 1 9/16, respectively. Great 50mm user! (Extended, with filter & hood: 57mm or 2 1/4 inch.)

-- Frank Horn (owlhoot45@hotmail.com), April 25, 2002.

Thank you, Frank. It certainly is the smallest and lightest M-mount Leica lens. A classic too, those are the appealing aspects.

-- Dan Brown (brpatent@swbell.net), April 25, 2002.