Elmar 50mm f2.8

[michael_barnes5]

<p>How is this lens (the old one)? How is it at 50mm f2.8?</p>

<p>I'm looking for a decent compact/collapsible 50mm. I really love my 35mm f2.8 Summaron but I want something of comparable size (or smaller) at the 50mm focal length. My thinking is a 50mm f2.8 Elmar or 50mm f2.0 Summicron. I would be happy with the Elmar if it was a decent performer at f2.8, is it? The 50mm f2.8 Elmar -M is supposed to be wonderful and I believe it is comparable in design and since I only shoot bw film (ISO 400, mostly) I do not think I need the "benefit" of modern glass.<br>

I have no complaints on my 35mm f2.8 Summaron and it is my understanding that many of the slower Leica lenses are just slower and sometimes "better" than their non-aspherical faster siblings. </p>

[john_boyle3]

<p>The 50mm f2.8 Elmar came out in 1957. I bought one in 1967 with my M4 and have been very satisfied with it. If you can find one in good condition I don't think you will be disappointed.</p>

[dhbebb]

<p>It is very important to know this – the 50mm Elmar is a Tessar-type lens, with four elements, front group of 2 air-spaced, rear group of 2 cemented. Unlike all other makers of this type of lens, Leitz chose to place the iris diaphragm inside the front air-spaced lens group, very close to the rear of the front element. This means a very high risk that lubricant will evaporate from the diaphragm and deposit on the back of the front element, particularly if a lens has been stored on a camera with the camera lying on its back in a drawer. If not caught quickly, this deposit can eat into the glass surface and turn the lens into junk. I personally have scrapped two Elmars for just this reason. IF (very big IF) you can find a lens free of this fault, it will be great!</p>

[michael_barnes5]

<p>thanks David that was very helpful, I may reconsider this lens. leica lenses are notorious for these types of things. I'm not sure they are necessarily Leica-specific issues but buyers need to be more cautious becuse they are considerably more expensive than most other lenses. <br>

Would you consider the collapsible summicron to be a safer bet? I would like a collapsible and the only ones that are on my eye are the Elmar f2.8, Elmar-M f2.8, and coll. summicron. The Elmar-M is probably the sharpest but costliest.</p>

[frederick_muller]

<p>The 50mm Collapsible Summicron is an excellent lens. I don't think you'd regret getting one. The 50mm f2 VC Heliar is also very nice. </p>

[aplumpton]

<p>I used the earlier version Elmar f2.8 in the late 1980s and early 1990s and found it to be an excellent lens in my mainly black and white photography, since replaced by a type 4 Summicron 50. Having later sold both, I reinvested in recent years in the later re-designed 50mm Elmar-M Tessar type lens, which is still in use for both B&W and colour. I cannot critically compare the two, but the more recent lens in black finish is lighter than its companion silver model (which seems as heavy as the older version) and the recent version has been reported to be very close in quality to the best of the Summicrons at f stops from f4 to smaller, which is quite high praise. The older lens at f2.8 seemed to me at the time to be quite good, at least up to half way out to the frame edges, but I usually used it at its optimum apertures. The new one is suppose to be somewhat better at f2.8, but I have yet to test it critically. Few if any Leica optics are less than very good performers, so you would likely be happy with either model, or perhaps with an earlier Summicron at similar used prices.</p>

<p>Older optics can be a problem in some cases, as David mentions. Current used prices sometimes overlap between those of the early model and the newer one, although it seems that the 1950s to early 70s version sells for about 4 or 500 dollars, perhaps less if you are lucky, whereas the Elmar-M recent version goes for about 800 dollars, in equivalent excellent condition. I first thought that the lighter metals used in the black version would not be as robust as the heavier silver chrome version, but my experience with the black model is that it is extremely well built and durable. There is also the question of age and use history of the older version (and possibility of haze formation) and the slightly improved performance of the more recent version that convinced me to buy the latter lens (I was lucky to find a mint version at $600, but even at $800 today I would likely consider it a good long term purchase). You will no doubt be happy with either. I would probably look at the Photo.Net classified ads or place a want to buy ad.</p>

[soeren_engelbrecht1]

<p>I have the early one for some seven years now and like it very, very much on my M3. If you do a Google Image search on:<br>

<strong>soeren engelbrecht elmar 50</strong><br>

the first ten or so results were made using that lens. I have seen no significant performance problems wide open.<br>

I use the hood for the new version, BTW - it's a very compact screw-in type (Leica code 12549 in silver).<br>

Soeren</p><div></div>

[dhbebb]

<p>Mark I Summicron discussed here:<br>

http://www.photo.net/leica-rangefinders-forum/00b2yp?start=10<br>

Great if you can find one that's not scratched!</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Very nice photo and human interest, Soeren. I presume that what David refers to is the result of the soft coatings on some older optics as well as the cleaning habits of some owners. Another good reason I think to bite the bullet and pay a few hundred dollars more for a compact modern Elmar with tougher front and back glass coatings, unless you find the fairly rare top condition older lens.</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>I had one of the old 50 2.8s that was perfectly clean and I really did like it. It was stolen from my hotel room. It seemed the images were very sharp and the contrast was lower than my 4th version Summicron. </p>

[dhbebb]

<p><em>I presume that what David refers to is the result of the soft coatings on some older optics as well as the cleaning habits of some owners.</em><br>

And also the choice of lubricant for the iris diaphragm - I understand the one used was based on whale oil.</p>

[aplumpton]

<blockquote>

<p>I understand the one used was based on whale oil.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Probably, together with balsam glue, another offering of Dr. Mandler's Midland plant (I mean no disrespect, whale oil is quintessentially Canadian).</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>David, I may be getting off topic, but from Wikipedia, re sperm whale oil:</p>

<p>Sperm oil is not a fat, but a liquid wax and it has properties, that make it a most valuable lubricant. For example, it remains liquid even at sub-zero temperatures and after treatment with sulphur it produces lubricants that are resistant to extremely high pressures.<br>

In the 1800s watches and chronometers were the most precise instruments yet created and they needed the finest of lubricants. Sperm oil filled that role. In was also widely used to lubricate domestic sewing machines and in later years proved to be an excellent lubricant for airplane and submarine (what irony!) engines.</p>

[dhbebb]

<p><em>a most valuable lubricant</em><br>

I am sure it was in its time. Oil technology has advanced enormously in recent years – we only need recollect that soldiers in WWII used to light fires under the engines of trucks to get them started in cold weather. Even so, Leitz seems to have been a little behind the times in the 1950s in regard to lens coatings and lubricants – I have recently assembled a small collection of Contax/Kiev RF cameras – whether by luck or not, the first 2 Zeiss lens I bought, an f2 50mm Sonnar and an f1.5 ditto, were both fine. Even Russian lenses of the 60s and 70s don’t seem to have a tendency to haze or mold (they just may or may not be assembled correctly!). </p>

[Gus Lazzari]

<p>If a coll 50mm f2.8 Elmar is "frosted", not fog/haze like many try to describe in auctions, the only recourse to salvage the lens to good working order, is to <strong>replace the front element</strong>. Polish & re-coat isn't viable. This 'replacement' occurs with some loss of performance and quite a bit of loss to your wallet. (For the element alone, currently $280 <strong>plus</strong> the C L A labor charge)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"many of the slower Leica lenses are just slower and sometimes "better" than their non-aspherical <a id="itxthook0" href="../leica-rangefinders-forum/00b7SQ" rel="nofollow">faster<img id="itxthook0icon" src="http://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png" alt="" /></a> siblings" <em><strong>Michael B</strong></em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not quite. Most all of my resolution tests/inspections after service of a lens, <strong>clearly</strong> shows this to be false.</p>

<p>Wide open for the Summaron (or even a Zeiss Tessar) doesn't perform as well for resolution, in the edges, and in the achievement of smooth 'Bokeh' as the same "stopped down" aperture setting on a Summicron (or even a Zeiss Planar).</p>

<p>However,<strong> huge improvements</strong> in all performance and 'Bokeh', occur to these slower lenses with just one or two stop downs. I would then agree that performance is <strong>comparable</strong> to "their Non-Asph faster siblings"...</p>

[Frank Petronio]

While they aren't built as well, the modern Voightlander Leica mount lenses never fog and a new one won't

be worn out... big advantages over buying "bargain" older Leica glass. After blowing a lot of money on so-

called "user" Leica lenses, I realized that no such creature exists - either buy nearly mint or new ones, or

none at all.

 

In my experience, every older Leica lens that shows cosmetic signs of use also has been worn internally, along with the natural hazing that occurs with older glass. They are beautifully made but Brass and Aluminum do wear out and get sloppy, and no amount of grease makes them tight over the long haul (usually the regreasing is just enough to get them sold on eBay safely).

 

Also, the old coatings on desirable lenses like the 35/2.8 Summaron, 50/1.5 Summarit, and 50/2 Summicron collapsible is super soft and fragile, which is why they are nearly all flawed or soon will be once you start using them. It took me a few $$$ to realize this.

 

You're probably better with an uncoated 50/3.5 Elmar if you want a vintage lens with character, they are plenty sharp enough and have a distinctive look compared to modern glass. The 1950s stuff is just sort of in-between.