Since the current 50mm Elmar 2.8 is resolving 100 lpm from f4 on,I was wondering if this lens might be the ultimate tripod lens for the M with slow film. Producing that medium format look with great enlargeability and spectacular detail.I'm very tempted to pick one up to see. Is there anyone out there that has a DR 50mm and has made comparisons and tests between these two killer resolution lenses? I have a DR and it is fantastic....is the Elmar better?

-- Emile de Leon (knightpeople@msn.com), April 27, 2002

Answers

Check what Erwin Puts has to say about the lens, he is great expert on these things. I don't think he has a report on his website about the Elmar 50 mm (http://www.imx.nl/), but it is certainly included in his book on Leica lenses.

-- Lex (lexb@wanadoo.nl), April 27, 2002.

Almost any Leica 50 from the 1960's to the present, stopped down and shot on slow film on a tripod, are so close in performance it has to be other factors that would influence the purchase decision. I doubt an Elmar would give you a significant difference over your DR unless the DR is fogged, fungused or the front coating has a lot of breakdown or wipe marks...in which case at worst it would render a lower overall contrast but no less sharpness. IMO as a Leica and Hasselblad user, if you want the medium-format look, look to medium format.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), April 27, 2002.

If you want spectacular medium format look, pick up an old Rolleicord or flex for less than the cost of the Elmar. You will not notice any difference with the Elmar over what you have-I'm certain of it. Don't get sucked into the lens test syndrome--its a great way to never be satisfied with what you already own.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), April 27, 2002.

By the way, who says the Elmar "can resolve 100 lpmm at f4.0"? High contrast or low contrast target? At what distance? What kind of film was used? I find these kinds of statements are meaningless in so far as judging how good a lens is.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), April 27, 2002.

Erwin Putts says the 50mm Elmar-M resolves over 100 lp/mm. In his private newsletter (#67 on 4/11/2002) he states: "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." Erwin just bought a 50mm Elmar-M to go with his new M7....

-- Doug from Tumwater (dbaker9128@aol.com), April 27, 2002.

Erwin just bought a 50mm Elmar-M …

… and Andrew Nemeth sold his a year ago. Who is right, who is wrong? Who cares! If you want a compact lens, get the Elmar, if you don't, get the Summicron. Sheesh.

-- Andrew Nemeth (azn@nemeng.com), April 28, 2002.

Andrew wrote: "If you want a compact lens, get the Elmar, if you don't, get the Summicron. Sheesh."

BTW, in the same newsletter I referenced above, Erwin states: "I have a Summicron 2/50 (current model, chrome), that I do not use that much, but use as a reference to compare too."

In contrast Erwin had sparkling words for the Elmar-M. His newsletter concluded with this paragraph: "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 28, 2002.

You cannot produce a true medium format look w. 35mm. I certainly have not been able to produce anything with my Leica that looks remotely like the results I could get from midrange Mamiya MF equipment. I often see people claim the opposite, but I have yet to see examples to back it up.
I agree w. Jay and Andrew, if medium format look is what you want, then go for the real thing.

-- Niels H. S. Nielsen (nhsn@ruc.dk), April 28, 2002.

If you are willing to use a good solid tripod then any lens will look spectacular.

-- ray tai (razerx@netvigator.com), April 28, 2002.

I am with Andrew Schank & Ray, I would strongly recommend a Rolleiflex 2.8f or 3.5f or even a Rolleicord Vb. A good tripod, stop down f5.6 or f8 and away you go.

-- sait (akkirman@clear.net.nz), April 28, 2002.

A tripod? What they say... If you are willing to carry one around and use it, you might as well increase your format size to medium format itself. Handheld, my Plaubel 670 or Rollei SLR produce print quality that the Leica cannot match. On a tripod there is no contest, none at all.

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), April 28, 2002.

IMO as a Leica and Hasselblad user, if you want the medium- format look, look to medium format.

If you want spectacular medium format look, pick up an old Rolleicord or flex for less than the cost of the Elmar.

You cannot produce a true medium format look w. 35mm.

Finally, some reality and common sense in this forum. As an ex- Hasselblad user (503CW/80f2.8), I strongly suspect that people who claim that they can get "medium format results" from Leica (or any 35mm for that matter) have never actually used medium format.

-- Anon Terry (anonht@yahoo.com), April 28, 2002.

Erwin just bought a 50mm Elmar-M to go with his new M7....

Yawn...

-- Anon Terry (anonht@yahoo.com), April 28, 2002.

Where's Glenn Travis. He is a very dedicated 50/2.8 user, and a very competent photographer at that, and should be able to give one of the best answers.

Where are you Glenn?

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), April 28, 2002.

My 35mm f/3.5 with bug eyes was spectatcular on a tripod on an M3. So is my Super Takumar 35mm f/3.5 with a Pentax Spotmatic SL screwmount.

If you are going to use a tripod, why not use more film area (MF or LF)? My 5x7 view handles just as easy as a Leica when both are put on tripods.

A good friend of mine used to put his Minox on a Linhof tripod! That was overkill.

-- Tony Oresteen (aoresteen@mindspring.com), April 28, 2002.

I use both the 50mm Elmar-M and a Hasselblad 501CM with 80mm Planar and 160mm Tessar CB lenses. Can the Leica/Elmar-M combo achieve medium format results? I think that it has for me under certain "qualified" circumstances. Those circumstances are when hand holding Velvia in the Leica/Elmar-M in the neighborhood of f/5.6 at 1/500 second. When I compare the Leica/Velvia chromes with E200 shot in the 501CM/80 Planar (handheld at 1/500) I get comparable grain and detail, as measured by my Rodenstock (6X6) 3X and Schneider (35mm) 4X & 8X loupes (respectively) to view roughly equivalent magnification ratios. The same results go for the 90mm Elmarit-M and 160mm Tessar. When I use 100 speed Fuji (Astia or Provia F) or Kodak (E100S) chrome, the Hassy and Zeiss lenses pull away in terms of fine grain and smooth tonality. I know that many dismiss Photodo and I too have some reservations with their testing methods but there is an interesting article comparing 35mm vs. medium format vs. large format: http://www.photodo.com/nav/artindex.html

-- Doug from Tumwater (dbaker9128@aol.com), April 28, 2002.

Doug, the medium format lenses have similar or slightly inferior MTF graphs but to get the same size image (all other things being equal) medium format needs less enlargement, thus providing better tonality and sharpness.

-- sait (akkirman@clear.net.nz), April 28, 2002.

For those who say that 35mm cant equal medium format I'm not so sure of that in regards to 11x14 and smaller enlargements with a lens of superior resolution like the DR 50mm w/slow film.You can put the slower film in a medium format camera also but it is a pain...with not too much gain.I own Rollies and a Linhof 2x3 and a Brooks veriwide and they are great with giant enlargements but maybe the advantage goes to the Leica when traveling light and nearly the same quality with the right lens...plus 36 shots per roll.The only reason I posted this is that if the Elmar really has that kind of resolution (100 lpm) from f4 on down than this might be a real consideration with a small tripod like the mini gitzo or even hand held with slow film on a bright day at f4 or 5.6.

-- Emile de Leon (knightpeople@msn.com), April 28, 2002.

I think that to decide to use the Elmar in this way, just because somebody happened to get 100 lpm with it, would be to make this particular criterion into more of a gold standard for lens selection than it probably should be. Erwin got a good example of the lens, certainly. With the exposure his writings get, Leica probably made sure of that. Lenses have other important virtues besides resolving power. Unless you are doing aerial reconnaisance work, maybe resolving power shouldn't be the overriding criterion. I still am inclined to think the Summicron is the best overall.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), April 28, 2002.