Opinions on collapsible 50/2.8

[arild_reppen1]

Does anyone have any experience with the collapsible 50/2.8 for Leica M? I have read it's low contrast? Is it worth bying (for bringing my M6 everywhere)?

[andrew_schank]

The fact that you have to pull it in and out all the time is kind of

a pain. Plus the regular 50mm f2.0 Summicron is just such an

incredable lens. If you want a very compact lens to bring the M6

everywhere, how about the last series 35mm f2.0 Summicron. It is

very small and short and a great lens all arouind.

[wilhelm]

The 50mm Elmar f:2.8 is actually the same weight, and virtually the

same size as the collapsible Summicron, which is a much better lens.

The f:3.5 M is the same. The f:3.5 LST however, is much smaller and

lighter, even with the bayonet adapter, and the very late ones are

optically as good as the f:2.8 (near as I can tell). Also, a black M-

6 with a LST Elmar has to be the prettiest camera since the Leica

Standard with a black-rim Summar.

[Robin Smith]

The current Elmar-M is, I understand, considerably better than the

original Elmars. Modern glass and coatings. But I tend to agree with

Andrew - unless you absolutely must collapse the lens to fit in a case

then I would get the 50 Summicron. However, the original collapsible

Elmar is a classic old Leica lens and you might well like the look of

the photos taken with it.

[albert_smith]

This question came up last month. You can read those reponses at the

link below.

 

<p>

 

I believe the advantage of the physical size is only an advantage

during transporting of the camera in a "non-shooting ready"

condition. If you are actually in the process, or ready for the

process of shooting, the lens would be extended, and hood installed,

so this lens and a Summicron would be about the same size.

 

<p>

 

My personal choise for a minimum sized outfit would be the M6 and the

last pre-ASPH 35mm Summicron, which without the hood is only a tiny

bit bigger than the collapsible 50, and an excellant performer.

 

<p>

 

http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=004HpW

[jay_.]

The current Elmar is a nice lens, but not all that compact. With a

filter and hood on it, even collapsed it isn't much smaller than the

Summicron which is a stop faster and optically superior. To

transport your Leica in your pockets, just remove the Summicron to

another pocket, re-attach it before shooting. Takes not much more

time than un-collapsing the Elmar. I have enjoyed my Tri-Elmar, it

isn't too compact, but in comparison to 3 lenses (28, 35 and 50) it

takes up less space and is faster in shooting.

[john_chan2]

I'd stick with the 50 mm Summicron. Its faster, its optically

superior, and its cheaper. Paying more money for less speed and less

optical performance is beyond my comprehension. Unless you're buying

the lens for nostalgia.

 

<p>

 

BTW: I second the vote for the last pre-ASPH 35 mm Summicron as the

lens of choice for a standard. Its small, its light and the

performance is astounding and in some respects even better than its

ASPH successor. The Elmar is a museum lens IMHO.

[arild_reppen1]

Thanks all for your responses to my question. I think I'll stick to

my 35/2.0 Summicron, which is my preferred lens today.

[xav]

My main lens is a 35 Asph Summicron. I also have a latest 50 2.8

Elmar (it came with the camera). I use from time to time and got

several beautiful shots: The lens is very good, although probably

not as good as the 50 cron.

I carry my camera with the 35 cron everywhere. I also have often the

collapsed Elmar in one of my pocket... It helped me a few times when

I could not get close enough to my subject to eliminate unwanted

surroundings visible with the 35 mm.

 

<p>

 

To be honest, I could live without the Elmar, but its small size is

convenient...

 

<p>

 

Xavier

[victor_randin3]

Arild, compare Elmar 2.8/50 vs Summicron 2/50, data from PP, May 1976

 

<p>

 

ELMAR 50-MM SER. NO. 2473203

Aberrations 1/3 out 2/3 out Far edge Notes

Coma 4 4.5 5.6 {critical f-stops

Astigmatism 4.5 6.3 6.3 {critical f-stops

Lat. crom. None None None

Long. crom. Blue � Red = 0.12 mm {focus shift

Spherical f/2.8 � f/8 = 0.11 mm {focus shift

Distortion None

Vignetting None Beyond f/4.5

Centering Near Perfect

 

<p>

 

Focal Length: Marked 50 mm Measured: 52.0 mm

f-number: Marked f/2.8 Measured: 2.88

Transmittance: 93% T-number: t/2.99

 

<p>

 

PERCENT CONTRAST @ 50 LINE PAIRS PER MM:

 

<p>

 

F/STOP f/2.8 f/4.0 f/5.6 f/8

CENTER 55 68 73 75

 

<p>

 

1/3 OUT 50 66 75 77

2/3 OUT 55 63 78 78

FAR EDGE 40 52 68 75

 

<p>

 

PERCENT FLARE: 0.63

 

<p>

 

SUMMICRON 50-MM SER. NO. 2583855

Aberrations 1/3 out 2/3 out Far edge Notes

Coma 2.2 2/8 4 {critical f-stops

Astigmatism 3.5 4.5 4 {critical f-stops

Lat. crom. None None None

Long. crom. Blue � Red = 0.08 mm {focus shift

Spherical f/2.8 � f/8 = 0.05 mm {focus shift

Distortion Very slight barrel

Vignetting None Beyond f/3.5

Centering Near Perfect

 

<p>

 

Focal Length: Marked 50 mm Measured: 51.9 mm

f-number: Marked f/2 Measured: 1.99

Transmittance: 93.3% T-number: t/2.06

 

<p>

 

PERCENT CONTRAST @ 50 LINE PAIRS PER MM:

 

<p>

 

F/STOP f/2 f/2.8 f/4.0 f/5.6

CENTER 70 77 82 82

1/3 OUT 66 82 83 83

2/3 OUT 55 69 83 83

FAR EDGE 55 60 76 80

 

<p>

 

PERCENT FLARE: 1.0

[victor_randin3]

Sorry, my tables are errored when submitting.

[frank_horn]

I've shot with the 50 Elmar-M on my M4-P. Can't see any difference

in picture quality between it and 50mm Summicron. If you only carry

one lens, a 50 is handier than the 35. But the 35 Summicron is a

great lens. Makes M4-P pocketable. A collapsible lens, to my mind,

is not as user-friendly as the rigid, especially with built-in hood

of latter. For one lens only, I like the idea of a 75 Elmarit-M!

You can usually get farther away, but hard to get closer, in many

cases. Leica ought to make such a lens.

[raymond_tai]

The latest 50/2.8 Elmar is a very sharp and high contrast. The 50mm

Summicron probably makes more sense if you are going to have one 50mm

since the extra speed is more usable however there is little

performance difference between the two and the Elmar may be better if

you love contrast. I myself prefer the Summilux.

[victor_randin]

Well, I'll try again:

 

<p>

 

 

ELMAR 50-MM SER. NO. 2473203

 

<p>

 

Aberrations 1/3 out 2/3 out Far edge

 

<p>

 

Coma 4 4.5 5.6 {critical f-stops}

 

<p>

 

Astigmatism 4.5 6.3 6.3 {critical f-stops}

 

<p>

 

Lat. crom. None None None

 

<p>

 

Long. crom. Blue � Red = 0.12 mm {focus shift}

 

<p>

 

Spherical f/2.8 � f/8 = 0.11 mm {focus shift}

 

<p>

 

Distortion None

 

<p>

 

Vignetting None beyond f/4.5

 

<p>

 

Centering Near Perfect

 

<p>

 

 

Focal Length: Marked 50 mm Measured: 52.0 mm

 

<p>

 

f-number: Marked f/2.8 Measured: 2.88

 

<p>

 

Transmittance: 93% T-number: t/2.99

 

<p>

 

PERCENT CONTRAST @ 50 LINE PAIRS PER MM:

 

<p>

 

F/STOP f/2.8 f/4.0 f/5.6 f/8

 

 

<p>

 

CENTER 55 68 73 75

 

<p>

 

1/3 OUT 50 66 75 77

 

<p>

 

2/3 OUT 55 63 78 78

 

<p>

 

FAR EDGE 40 52 68 75

 

<p>

 

PERCENT FLARE: 0.63

 

<p>

 

 

 

<p>

 

SUMMICRON 50-MM SER. NO. 2583855

 

<p>

 

Aberrations 1/3 out 2/3 out Far edge

 

Coma 2.2 2.8 4 {critical f-stops}

 

<p>

 

Astigmatism 3.5 4.5 4 {critical f-stops}

 

<p>

 

Lat. crom. None None None

 

<p>

 

Long. crom. Blue � Red = 0.08 mm {focus shift}

 

<p>

 

Spherical f/2.8 � f/8 = 0.05 mm {focus shift}

 

<p>

 

Distortion Very slight barrel

 

<p>

 

Vignetting None beyond f/3.5

 

<p>

 

Centering Near Perfect

 

<p>

 

Focal Length: Marked 50 mm Measured: 51.9 mm

 

<p>

 

f-number: Marked f/2 Measured: 1.99

 

<p>

 

Transmittance: 93.3% T-number: t/2.06

 

<p>

 

PERCENT CONTRAST @ 50 LINE PAIRS PER MM:

 

<p>

 

F/STOP f/2 f/2.8 f/4.0 f/5.6

 

CENTER 70 77 82 82

 

1/3 OUT 66 82 83 83

 

<p>

 

2/3 OUT 55 69 83 83

 

<p>

 

FAR EDGE 55 60 76 80

 

<p>

 

PERCENT FLARE: 1.0