Elmar 2,8 and 3,5 and summicron unscientific test

[francois_gaboury]

I guess I had a bit of time...same speed, same aperture (close enough) First picture is from a collapsible

summicron from 1955, second from an Elmar 50 2,8 from 1960 and a screwmount Elmar 3,5 from 1945.

You can see the pics on www.photogab.blogspot.com

Also did the totally unscientfic test with a couple of Feds, a jupiter, and Elmarit and a summaron... very

little difference.

As they say, test less and go out more to shoot pictures.

[miroslav_vodehnal]

no pics?

[jim nichols]

I looked at all three images, though not side by side. In my mind, the Summicron image is the sharpest, followed by the 3.5 Elmar, with the 2.8 Elmar coming in last. This surprised me, because I had always heard that the 2.8 Elmar was a very sharp lens. I also have a 3.5 Elmar from 1946 and it has always been a very good lens, though a little slow.

[john_elder1]

I can't tell the diference.

[art_nichols]

Look the same to me too.

[ronald_moravec1]

I have done this my self with all the 50mm Leitz lenses including the Summarit. They all look similar if made during the same time period.

[francois_gaboury]

Strange how we often read about such and such lens and very technical analysis. I used Kodak 400NC, and ask the lab not to calibrate every picture. Just formated them and no additional work on photoshop.

Also did the test with a couple of Feds. If the Russian lens had been better build (except the Jupiter 35mm which is very nice)I would use them more often.

Conclusion: Keep your lens open at F8 or F11, adjust speed accordingly and use whatever lens you feel comfortable with. Bulk wise, an Elmar screwmount with an adapter on an M is almost impossible to beat.