50 mm

[issamikel]

Can someone recommend a 50mm lens for the M? I'm debating between the Summicron

50mm 2.0 and the 50mm Elmar 2.8. Thoughts?

[Aoresteen]

Carl Zeiss Planar 2.0. Great lens!

[SCL]

Either one is great. Unless you're doing extreme professional blowups chances are you couldn't tell the difference between the two when viewing pictures taken at f2.8 or higher.

[kens]

Summicron. It's the starting point. From there you can decide if you want more speed or

more compactness later on. But start with the Summicron. You'll probably never outgrow it.

[brucecahn]

That summicron is a winner. Fast enough and focuses closer than most of the other 50mm lenses. Also weighs less.

[jose_angel]

Lately I`m using the Elmar-M 50. Although I have a Cron 35 asph and a Canon 50/1.2 LTM, I prefer the Elmar because I keep the camera in my coat pocket. If pocketable size is not your requirement, I would choose the `cron.

[svein_n1]

I have owned (and used) two Summicron's (latest version and DR), the Zeiss Planar ZM and a Konica M-Hexanon. Unless you can afford the latest version of the Summicron, I would advice you to go for the Zeiss or the M-Hexanon. On value, the M-Hexanon can not be beaten. And it's built like a brick as well.

[johnny massey]

I would add to Svein's comments that IME the Hexanon and Elmar are less flare prone that the Summicron (possibly a contentious statement!).

[stephen_w.]

I agree, Summicron.

[lensblur]

I just bought the Summilux for my M8. It's great. Very sharp. I also used to use the collapsible 50 f/2.8 with M6, which was also excellent and not expensive.

[peter_evans4]

Nokton 1.5. You get an extra stop and save a pile of money. And your first two choices lack that Cosina glow.

[35mmdelux]

The faster Summicron.

[paul_neuthaler]

Why do I love this lens -- LTM or M with adaptor<div></div>

[x-ray]

I agree with the Zeiss Planar. I've owned and shot professionally with all optical versions of the summicron. If I'm not incorrect the current wersion is the same optically as the tabbed version that I just sold. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I also had the older style 2.8 elmar and like the lens but it's not up with the summicron and particuarly not he Zeiss. I also have the asph summilux and favor the rich creamy tonality of the Zeiss over the asph. I also find the Zeiss to be equal to the asph summilux in sharpness and contrast but much mor classic looking.The Zeiss is an exceptional value. I purchased my black one new with USA warranty from Calumet for $461 with box and all paper work.

[frank_horn]

I've used both the latest Elmar-M and the early-'70s version of the Summicron. The difference between the images is negligible (except at f2 :-) ) But the 'cron is more user-friendly. Aperture can be set more accurately from f8 upwards-- it has 8 blades to the Elmar-M's 6. The Elmar-M can be collapsed, but I almost never do that, making this feature unimportant to me.

[Troll]

I don't see how you can go wrong with any of these 50's. My own choice is the collapsable Summicron for LTM, or the DR Summicron for M mount. Damn, they're all good!

[nzdavid]

I have the rigid Summicron and it's great. But I wonder if the latest 'cron is worth it. And of

course black is lighter than chrome.

[35mmdelux]

Black chrome may be lighter but I prefer the brass stock of silver chrome lenses instead of aluminum used in black chrome.

[stephen_w.]

"Black chrome may be lighter but I prefer the brass stock of silver chrome lenses instead of aluminum used in black chrome."

 

Why? Aluminum is a suitable material for the task.