Jump to content

Elmar 50mm lens


wilhelm

Recommended Posts

Although I own a closetfull of Leica stuff, accumulated over the years rather than collected, my favorite lens to actually use is a very late 50mm f:3.5 Elmar. I usually try to shoot at around f:8 plus or minus a little. There's all kinds of information available about the performance of Summicrons, luxes, etc (Erwin Puts, etc), but does anyone have comparative figures on the Elmar? I know it's not in the same league as a Summicron wide open, but how about stopped down? TIA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Almost every 50mm lens ever made for the 35mm format is fairly sharp

at f/8. See Photodo.com for text and tables to confirm it. For more

comments about your Elmar, see my

<A href="http://www.wizard.net/~tbryant/photo35.html">web page</A><BR>

 

While I can't point you to a specific test of the Elmar, (PoP Phot

did one back in the mid 90s, but I don't have a high opinion of their

technical ability: They flunked the Summilux over a curved field!)

 

See Mike Johnson's comments about lens testing before worrying further

(the pointer is on my page).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeff is right. The proof is in the images. My favorite "Leica " lens

right now is a Minolta 40mm f2.0 from the CLE. Ive taken hundreds of

great shots with it in all kinds of lighting situations, and at

almost all lens openings. I now have total confidence that if I find

good subject matter, hold the camera still and focus, I will be

totally satisfied with the images I'll get from behind that lens.

There's just something about the look of photos taken with it that

just makes them pop of the page. I don't know that any test would be

able to measure what it is I see and like, but I know when I see it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been referred to a test in Modern Photography, April 1974. At

the suggestion of others I am transcribing it here. 50mm Elmar

#1457090 @1:47 magnification. Actual focal length=51.6mm.

F:number/center lines/mm/edge lines/mm:

3.5/exc/66/acc/26/ /4.0/v.good/66/acc/30/ /5.6/goog/59/acc/37/ /8.0/go

og/59/acc/37/ /11/v.good/59/acc/37/ /16/v.good/59/good/42/ /22/n.acc/4

7/good/42. Our "last model" 50mm screw mount Elmar was a superb

performer, despite those "acceptable" resolution ratings at the

corners of the field and a "not acceptable" in the center at f:22.

On the optical bench it showed a very slight on-axis color fringe

wide open which was practically gone by f:5.6. Corner sharpness was

good even wide open, and while flare was rather large, astigmatism

and lateral color were extremely low. Astigmatism was visible, but

it disappeared by f:4.5, whil flare was eliminated by stopping down

to f:5.6. Optimum performance was achieved at f:8.0. As usual, our

field tests results corroborated our optical bench findings quie

closely. Our test transpanancies were extraordinarily clean, sharp,

and well-saturated to the corners of the field. Astigmatism was

absent and axial color was just barely observable. Spherical flare

was obviously very low, and no decentering was present in the

pictures. even lateral color was not observable in shots made at any

aperture. In a word: CRISP!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<HTML>

<P>Why not make it a little more readable?</P>

 

<P>Godfrey</P>

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><H2>

 

<HR>

 

Test from Modern Photography, April 1974</H2>

 

<P><B>50mm Elmar</B> #1457090 @1:47 magnification.</P>

 

<P><B>Actual focal length</B>=51.6mm.</P>

 

<P><B>Resolution test:</B></P></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

<CENTER><TABLE BORDER=1 CELLSPACING=1 WIDTH="80%">

<TR>

<TD>

<CENTER><B>f/number</B></CENTER>

</TD>

<TD>

<CENTER><B>center</B></CENTER>

</TD>

<TD>

<CENTER><B>lines/mm</B></CENTER>

</TD>

<TD>

<CENTER><B>edge</B></CENTER>

</TD>

<TD>

<CENTER><B>lines/mm</B></CENTER>

</TD>

</TR>

<TR>

<TD>

<CENTER>3.5</CENTER>

</TD>

<TD>

<CENTER>exc</CENTER>

</TD>

<TD>

<CENTER>66</CENTER>

</TD>

<TD>

<CENTER>acc</CENTER>

</TD>

<TD>

<CENTER>26</CENTER>

</TD>

</TR>

<TR>

<TD>

<CENTER>4.0</CENTER>

</TD>

<TD>

<CENTER>v.good</CENTER>

</TD>

<TD>

<CENTER>66</CENTER>

</TD>

<TD>

<CENTER>acc</CENTER>

</TD>

<TD>

<CENTER>30</CENTER>

</TD>

</TR>

<TR>

<TD>

<CENTER>5.6</CENTER>

</TD>

<TD>

<CENTER>good</CENTER>

</TD>

<TD>

<CENTER>59</CENTER>

</TD>

<TD>

<CENTER>acc</CENTER>

</TD>

<TD>

<CENTER>37</CENTER>

</TD>

</TR>

<TR>

<TD>

<CENTER>8.0</CENTER>

</TD>

<TD>

<CENTER>good</CENTER>

</TD>

<TD>

<CENTER>59</CENTER>

</TD>

<TD>

<CENTER>acc</CENTER>

</TD>

<TD>

<CENTER>37</CENTER>

</TD>

</TR>

<TR>

<TD>

<CENTER>11</CENTER>

</TD>

<TD>

<CENTER>v.good</CENTER>

</TD>

<TD>

<CENTER>59</CENTER>

</TD>

<TD>

<CENTER>acc</CENTER>

</TD>

<TD>

<CENTER>37</CENTER>

</TD>

</TR>

<TR>

<TD>

<CENTER>16</CENTER>

</TD>

<TD>

<CENTER>v.good</CENTER>

</TD>

<TD>

<CENTER>59</CENTER>

</TD>

<TD>

<CENTER>good</CENTER>

</TD>

<TD>

<CENTER>42</CENTER>

</TD>

</TR>

<TR>

<TD>

<CENTER>22</CENTER>

</TD>

<TD>

<CENTER>n.acc</CENTER>

</TD>

<TD>

<CENTER>4 7</CENTER>

</TD>

<TD>

<CENTER>good</CENTER>

</TD>

<TD>

<CENTER>42</CENTER>

</TD>

</TR>

</TABLE>

</CENTER>

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><B>Comments:</B>

 

<P>Our "last model" 50mm screw mount Elmar was a superb performer,

despite those "acceptable" resolution ratings at the corners of

the field and a "not acceptable" in the center at f:22. On the

optical bench it showed a very slight on-axis color fringe wide

open which was practically gone by f:5.6. Corner sharpness was

good even wide open, and while flare was rather large, astigmatism

and lateral color were extremely low. Astigmatism was visible, but

it disappeared by f:4.5, whil flare was eliminated by stopping

down to f:5.6. Optimum performance was achieved at f:8.0. As

usual, our field tests results corroborated our optical bench

findings quie closely. Our test transpanancies were

extraordinarily clean, sharp, and well-saturated to the corners of

the field. Astigmatism was absent and axial color was just barely

observable. Spherical flare was obviously very low, and no

decentering was present in the pictures. even lateral color was

not observable in shots made at any aperture. In a word: CRISP!

 

<HR>

 

</P></BLOCKQUOTE>

</BODY>

</HTML>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Leitz Elmar was one of the finest lens of its time. It was designed by

Leitz lens designer Max Berek patent in 1920, first productin 1925.

In some literature, Leitz Elmar lens is refered to as a derivative of Carl Zeiss Tessar lens. Even though Zeiss Tessar and Leitz Elmar are all four element three group design, with a rear cemented doublet, but there is major difference between the Tessar and Elmar.

It is in the postion of the stop. Tessar lens has two element two group in front of the stop and a cement doublet behind the diaphram; on the other hand, Leitz Elmar lens has one lens in frontof the diaphram, and one lens plus one doublet behind the diaphram. Structually different.

Elmar was once my favourite lens, because of its compact size; I also used the 50mm f3.5 Elmar lens as enlarging lens.

However, performance wise, the Elmar has being superseded by many other lens. PoP did a comparison test of modern lens vs classic lens,

and I recall, it concluded that moderm lenses are better.

Take for example, Carl Zeiss 50mm f1.4 Planar, it has resolution of 78 lpmm from 2.8 to f 5.6, 70 lpmm at f11. Nikkor 50mm f1.4 78 lpmm at f.5.6 to f8. The Elmar is slightly better than Minolta Rokkor 50mm f1.4 wiht 63 lpmm from f2.8 to f 11.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Martin. This is a good lens but the current crop of

Summicrons/Summiluxes and the current Elmar-M 50mm are better by a

long chalk. It takes great pictures at f8, but wide open the current

lenses are miles better - night and day difference. I am talking of

looking at slides blown up to 3 foot or so (K64). These differences

are not so detectable using prints, of course. In my experience also

as a comparison a 60s dual range Summicron is much superior. Mind you

it should be though - the designs are separated by 35 years or so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the 50s and before, Leitz lenses was no match for the abundant crops of super lenses from CarL Zeiss: Planar, Sonnar, Biogon, Hologon etc.

Contax made great lenses, Leitz made great bodies.

Things changed when great Leitz designer Walter Mandler of Leica Canada first introduced computer aided lens design and designed the 7/5 Leitz Elcan (stood for Ernst Leitz Canada )

and the 35mm/1.4 7/5 Summilux. Since then Leitz optik has being equal to Carl Zeiss.

Ernst Letiz Canada Ltd at the beutiful town of Mindland at Georgian Bay was sold to

Hugh Optics more than a decade ago; but this Hugh Elcan Optical Work still makes M/R lenes for Leica under contract.

"Canadian balsam" also played a vital part in the excellent quality of Leitz optics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...
  • 9 months later...

I got into Leica several years ago and have done dozens of

comparative lens tests vs Nikon, Canon Olympus, Contax ,Tamron SP,

Pentax.

 

<p>

 

The Leica screw mounts flare badly wide open , the 3.5 Elmar being

unusable backlit. That said, used at 5.6 -8 they have never given a

photo I was not pleased with. Old Leica is as good as new Nikon.

Newer M lenses ( my newest is a 1990 50mm) are so sharp that they

should not be used to photograph relatives concerned with the aging

process! They are just great for all else. Handheld Leica don't

shake like my SLR's . While the lens chart resolution is not much

better ( 108 l/mm best vs 102 l/mm for my 55/ 2.8 Micro nikkor) it is

much more noticeable in the final print -perhaps this is focus

accuracy but probably vibration is more important.

 

<p>

 

This does not condemn my SLR's - they are easier to use and have much

better flash abilities. My 100mm Zuiko yields outdoor images as sharp

as my 90 tele elmarit - but not at 1/30th second! This is my

quandary - the Leica stuff is better, but harder to use and lacks

real tele ability. My cure has been to carry an SLR with a long lens

to broaden my travel kit and use the Leica exclusively indoors. This

is a weighty solution which may no longer be valid given the

difficult nature of travel security post 9/11/01. My trusty OM2 with

pistol grip motor drive2 and long lens resembles a terrorist weapon

more than a gentle camera while my Leica is still innocuous and

quietly non-threatening - which is probably the original intent of

the Barnack design.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...